It doesn't help that John Sweeney does not even seem to want to ask for adjustment assistance for workers laid off due to import competition. This strikes me as a very legitimate demand, and something that has been done quite successfully in such places as Sweden. Why don't they even try? They ask for other things they are not going to get. Barkley Rosser -----Original Message----- From: Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com> To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com> Date: Friday, May 26, 2000 11:38 AM Subject: Re: Subject: Re: China
>Barry Rene DeCicco wrote:
>
>>A few days I stated that 'free trade = eliminate
>>the social safety net, for practical political purposes'.
>
>When I interviewed Robert Reich for the Nation's WTO roundtable, he said:
>
>>But the political reality is that winners don't compensate losers.
>>The only way those who lose from free trade can hope to be
>>compensated is if they actively oppose it and hope to be paid off by
>>those who gain the most from it. In other words, the hope that their
>>opposition can be bought off. I'm not a protectionist. I think the
>>gains from trade are significant. I think a lot of very poor people
>>around the world would suffer a great deal were we all to put up
>>trade barriers. But I don't see any better way to get the winners to
>>compensate the losers than for the losers to threaten to block trade
>>as a bargaining chip.
>
>This strategy doesn't seem to be working, does it?
>
>Doug
>