Social Protectionism

[Max Sawicky]

Social clauses will strengthen the WTO by giving it the appearance of
legitimacy.  More concretely, Clinton has said he will allow social
protections only in the context of increased trade liberalization.  So
whatever gains are made for labor and the environment will be offset by a
renewed drive for liberalization.  It's like treating an illness by
aggravating the underlying condition.
Ted
>>>>>>>>>

Now you're confusing me.
Are you for trade liberalization or not?
If you oppose the social clause, you grease
the skids for more liberalization.  If you
throw up your hands at the WTO debate and
say a plague on both your houses, you ratify
the existing power imbalance in favor of
free trade (a.k.a. imperialism).  Then you
could go and organize squatters on the
Lower East Side against Capitalism and
console yourself that you have remained
pure.  Meanwhile the WTO keeps rollin'
along.

Presumably you would be against trade in a product
that, say, required the severed pinkies of 100 babies
to produce.  (If not, you may skip this part of the
questionnaire and go directly to Cntrl-D.)

So the question is what are reasonable restrictions
on trade.  What conditions are intolerable.  And who
decides and how.  If the decision is left to Patrick's
World Congress of the Unelected, that defaults to the
WTO's favor, as above.

You seem to be characterizing the problem as
that liberalization cancels out social protection,
so getting more of one always brings more of the
other, resulting in no net gain.  This sounds like
a Law of Political Futility.  It could be true.
Things could be hopeless.  One thing is certain:
if we all think that way, we will fulfill our own
prophecy.

cheers,
mbs