Henry
Carl Remick wrote:
> > Somone said in this thread yesterday not to throw the baby
> > out with the bath
> > water. In free trade, as far as the Third World /South is
> > concerned, there is no
> > baby, only an unreal Barbie doll. It would be alright to
> > throw the whole thing out.
>
> Henry, it was I who made the baby/bath water remark, and it was intended
> to be *critical* of free trade. (Shows what happens when one reverts to
> cliches, I guess.) The "baby" in this instance refers to labor and
> environmental side agreements attached to free-trade pacts. The "bath
> water" is the misuse of such side agreements to advance purely
> capitalist interests in the First World.
>
> I think the only way to put any kind of check on the indisputable evils
> of free trade is to encumber such trade with requirements concerning
> labor rights and environmental safeguards. Nathan Newman (to whom I was
> replying) seemed to indicate that many Third World progressives are
> opposed to labor/environmental requirements linked to trade agreements,
> seeing these requirements as a merely tool to hurt workers "historically
> excluded from employment globally." I understand these progressives'
> point, but I just do not favor job generation that is fueled by the
> race-to-the-bottom dynamics of free trade, which clearly encourage
> exploitation of workers and despoliation of the environment.
>
> Carl Remick