Quantcast
 
 
 
Top Story
Sit Back, Relax, Get Ready to Rumble
My Journey to the Top
 
 
Latest News
Families will make case for vaccine link to autism
 
 
expand

What the World Is Hearing

A senior Latin American diplomat says, 'We might find ourselves nostalgic for Bush, who is brave on trade.'

By Fareed Zakaria | NEWSWEEK
Mar 10, 2008 Issue

« Return to Article

 
Discuss
 
Member Comments
  • Posted By: eddiewhere @ 03/25/2008 3:50:41 AM

    Comment: THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT INDIA HAS BENEFITED TREMENDOUSLy FROM THE STATUS QUO. IT IS NOT IN THEIR BEST INTEREST TO RE NEGOTIATE. CHEAp WAGES ARE HIGH WAGEs IN INDIA. A NEW AND powerful MIDDLE CLASS IS EMERGING IN INDIA. THEy LOVE BUSH. REMEMBER THE STUDy OF ECONOMICS IS NOT AN EXACT SCIENCE. WHAT IS A SERIOUS ECONOMIST?
    A SERIOUS ECONOMISTS is one that believes that our jobs should be OUTSOURCED TO INDIA..
    IT IS NOT LOW WAGES IN THOSE COUNTRIES that is the problem, it is the willingness of AMERICAN CORpORATIONS TO SELL OUT and outsource our jobs to INDIA. TECHNOLOGy HAS ALLOWED THEM TO DO THIS. CORpORATIONS find these countries profitabe because THEy AVOID ENVIORNMENTAL LAWS AND TAXES. LABOR is always the largest COST> the net loss of jobs is a sign that these trade agreements are leading us into depression.
    INDIAN MULTINATIONAL interests have been a success because of low wages. FOR EXAMple CALL CENTERs. INDIANS LOVE CALL CENTERS.

    THE STUDy OF ECONOMICS IS STILL EVOLVING> AND IS STILL IN THE STONE AGES IN TERMS OF BEING AN ACCEpTED SCIENCE.


    CApITALISM WITH SOCIAL JUSTICE. NAFTA'S LABOR AND ENVIORNMENTAL STANDARDS MUST BE REFORMED. NOTHING REMAINS CONSTANT OR permanent, THIS IS A UNIVERSAL LAW AND HAS NO EXCEpTIONS. CHANGE IS INEVITABLE. THIS IS NOT THE CASTE S SySTEM. THE BASIC STRUCTURE OF THE AGREEMENT WILL REMAIN IN TACT. HOWEVER, there are issues INVOLVING NAFATA THAT ARE AFFECTING OUR ENVIORNMENT AND OUR FUTURE INTERESTS AS A NATION.
    After trade agreements become effective, government lawyers continue to play an important role in assessing whether our foreign trading partners are complying with their obligations. When it seems they are not, we assist in consultations with the foreign governments to encourage compliance. If our consultations are unsuccessful, we advise on the application of domestic trade laws as well as assist USTR with the dispute settlement cases that may be brought under NAFTA and WTO. THE Federal government takes seriously the legal requirement and public policy goal that women, minorities and other disadvantaged persons be given an equal opportunity to succeed

  • Posted By: jp_california @ 03/15/2008 8:30:50 AM

    Comment: .

  • Posted By: hillaryforpresident!!! @ 03/14/2008 11:04:15 AM

    Comment: You reporters make me sick!!! In Ohio, you rubbed it in the publics' face and made Mrs. Clinton out to be a big-business snob because of her support of NAFTA, now you demonize her for saying that she wants to re-negotiate and make NAFTA better, but (and I heard her say it in the last debate) she wants to keep it and our neighbor Mexico desperately needs help building up their economy (hey and whoa that could really help with our immigration problem). We've exploited other countries for so long, it's about time we threw them a bone.

    The irony is that money-hungry business owners are soooo consumed with profit at-all-costs that as soon as Mexico starts to build up their minimum wage, we outsource their jobs to Asia!!! Gotta love the American dream!!!

    Anyway, back to Mrs. Clinton, I wouldn't comment about this or any other controversial topic either, because the media (especially Newsweek) has made her and her family into demons and no matter what she says you will find a way to make her look bad!!! I really hope that after you guys cost her the nomination she sues the sh*t out of you for biased political reporting!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • Posted By: Robert Thorne Sr. @ 03/13/2008 8:26:07 AM

    Comment: I have always admired and agreed on most of Mr. Fareed Zakaria opinions and observations on global politics. His current article(March 13,2008) on the Democratic candidates views on globalization are correct as far as my understanding goes. Nafta is working, trade in Africa and Latin America is being encourged; it is an exciting time to be living in America today. As we research historically and spiritually, we see the American values of freedom. justice, and equality coming together! I agree that we can not let the mantle touch the ground of what America stands for! Certainly there are those who disagree with these values and always seem to be in positions of power and influence, but isn't that the challenge that America and other free nations face? Every Nation has its period of pain and adversity, oppression and leadership. Read Allah's words in the Quran and deeply reflect on them as true, because he is Al-Haqqa, The Truth!
    Robert@Ret10@Verizon.net

  • Posted By: Chapalody @ 03/12/2008 10:01:36 PM

    Comment: Now the rhetoric is harmful to this country as well as trade with other countries. I remember a time when the Democrats said their rhetoric wasn't harmful to our troops who were in Iraq. It's just rhetoric, it's causing no harm. Whatever our politicians say the world listens. This has been repeated time and time again to the politicians who speak without thinking. Of course other countries are concerned with who wins the Presidency. Their economy depends on who the next President is as well as ours. Hillary and Obama can't be that foolish to think their rhetoric isn't being taken seriously. I want Hillary and Obama to tell other countries how to renegotiate their economy after they renegotiate NAFTA.

  • Posted By: devue @ 03/12/2008 12:40:46 PM

    Comment: I was working for a software company that made me train an Indian in India to do my job, and then they laid me off. Don't tell me they aren't stealing our jobs. I was doing fine as a software engineer there, and they hired somebody who will work in india for ten thousand per year. My government has failed me in allowing the company to do this.

  • Posted By: Nins @ 03/11/2008 7:20:54 PM

    Comment: The guy who wrote this article needs to become better informed not only on the issues, but on the candidates' positions. Obama is not in favor of protectionism. Read his book The Audacity of Hope, especially the chapters on economy and foreign policy and you will see that he has very well articulated plans for helping us to regain our edge in the world economy, and it it not about protectionism. Do your homework!

  • Posted By: rojo7449 @ 03/11/2008 2:37:08 AM

    Comment: I think what is helping Mexico's economy is the tens of millions of their citizens working at well-paid jobs inside the U.S. and sending half of their earnings back to their families at home....And the jobs that were moved from here to there, of course. With new home construction down from a couple of years ago, they are probably already experiencing a decline in the wealth they were beginning to collect, though.

  • Posted By: JohnGaltlaketahoe @ 03/10/2008 4:19:54 PM

    Comment: The United States Congress and Senate are traitor to the Constitution of the United States.

    Bipartisan Senate and Congressional allegiance to obstruction of justice in the Executive Branch has destabilized society from New Orleans to Iraq and back again.

    While the US military is an occupying force in the Middle East, in support of an incredible Iraqi parliament, the current presidential candidates are not addressing the issues facing the American electorate challenge and mandate of 2006 to deescalate US military presence in Iraq. George W. Bush and his entire Cabinet of Advisors are wanted for treason.

    Your offices have been petitioned time and again to respond correctly to the abuse of power in the Executive Branch.

    Your offices are part and parcel to treason and insurrection waged against the American electorate. Failed US Foreign Policy is the result of illegal international aggression as disguised by this Bush Administration. The failure to serve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States is all too apparent in the United States Senate and Congress.

  • Posted By: eddiewhere @ 03/10/2008 4:11:18 AM

    Comment: THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT INDIA HAS BENEFITED TREMENDOUSLy FROM THE STATUS QUO. IT IS NOT IN THEIR BEST INTEREST TO RE NEGOTIATE. CHEAp WAGES ARE HIGH WAGEs IN INDIA. A NEW AND powerful MIDDLE CLASS IS EMERGING IN INDIA. THEy LOVE BUSH. REMEMBER THE STUDy OF ECONOMICS IS NOT AN EXACT SCIENCE. WHAT IS A SERIOUS ECONOMIST?
    A SERIOUS ECONOMISTS is one that believes that our jobs should be OUTSOURCED TO INDIA..
    IT IS NOT LOW WAGES IN THOSE COUNTRIES that is the problem, it is the willingness of AMERICAN CORpORATIONS TO SELL OUT and outsource our jobs to INDIA. TECHNOLOGy HAS ALLOWED THEM TO DO THIS. CORpORATIONS find these countries profitabe because THEy AVOID ENVIORNMENTAL LAWS AND TAXES. LABOR is always the largest COST> the net loss of jobs is a sign that these trade agreements are leading us into depression.
    INDIAN MULTINATIONAL interests have been a success because of low wages. FOR EXAMple CALL CENTERs. INDIANS LOVE CALL CENTERS.

    THE STUDy OF ECONOMICS IS STILL EVOLVING> AND IS STILL IN THE STONE AGES IN TERMS OF BEING AN ACCEpTED SCIENCE.


    CApITALISM WITH SOCIAL JUSTICE. NAFTA'S LABOR AND ENVIORNMENTAL STANDARDS MUST BE REFORMED. NOTHING REMAINS CONSTANT OR permanent, THIS IS A UNIVERSAL LAW AND HAS NO EXCEpTIONS. CHANGE IS INEVITABLE. THIS IS NOT THE CASTE S SySTEM. THE BASIC STRUCTURE OF THE AGREEMENT WILL REMAIN IN TACT. HOWEVER, there are issues INVOLVING NAFATA THAT ARE AFFECTING OUR ENVIORNMENT AND OUR FUTURE INTERESTS AS A NATION.
    After trade agreements become effective, government lawyers continue to play an important role in assessing whether our foreign trading partners are complying with their obligations. When it seems they are not, we assist in consultations with the foreign governments to encourage compliance. If our consultations are unsuccessful, we advise on the application of domestic trade laws as well as assist USTR with the dispute settlement cases that may be brought under NAFTA and WTO. THE Federal government takes seriously the legal requirement and public policy goal that women, minorities and other disadvantaged persons be given an equal opportunity to succeed

  • Posted By: jsu4193k @ 03/09/2008 11:17:05 AM

    Comment: How did Hillary tame the Press? can some one please explain

    Hillary Clinton is the Most Divisive Politician ever, Very Polarizing and Manipulative. This game should be over based on the Math, but no that won't happen because its all about the Clintons.

    My oh My....How can you loss 12 straight contest and still be in the race

    She can't win farely, so she wants to burn the whole ship. Democrats are so dumb, they'll loss again in November

    Why isn't the Goal Post North Carolina? Why most the goal post be Clinton Country? It Baffles me!!!!!!!!! Hillary has tamed all of you in the press, you guys are scared of her

  • Posted By: tc125231 @ 03/08/2008 5:42:50 PM

    Comment: "There are no serious economists or experts who believe that low wages in Mexico or China or India is the fundamental reason that American factories close down."

    Wrong. Check out the draft of Krugman's most recent paper.

    http://www.princeton.edu/~pkrugman/pk-bpea-draft.pdf

    There is no basis that Krugman could be called anything but a serious economist.

  • Posted By: milljamm @ 03/08/2008 11:27:53 AM

    Comment: Several of Mr. Zakaria's coments are simply not true. The most blatant is that "NAFTA has been pivotal in transforming Mexico into a stable democracy with a growing economy." Mexico has been tragically divided into the rich northern states which have benefited from NAFTA and the poor indigenous south which was betrayed. The last election could not have pointed this out more poiniently, and was much closer to civil war than any north American pundits admitted. NAFTA has also hugely affected immigration to the United States because it has destroyed the local agricultural economy, although it has improved the wealthy northern Mexican factory owners production enough to make the GDP show a very small growth. The truth is that the poor rural people are much poorer and they will be driven to the US in droves. Which is the great irony. The free trade Republicans are the first to denounce immigration and to build billion dollar walls to keep them out after destroying their source of lively hood. I think that Free and Fair trade will help some of these countries, but what the US government pushed through with CAFTA - DR was completely unfair and one sided. It has protections for US strengths such as the banning generic Medicine, promoting intellectual property rights to secure our technological strength. The central American strengths are cheap labor and natural resources, which the Agreements have no protection of, but actually make the local governments sell them to the lowest bidder without regard to nationality. This week many were very angered by the US contract for refueling airplanes given to a French company, but the US forced Nicaragua in a special amendment that is only included its bilateral free trade agreement to sell all water rights to the lowest bidder. Ofcourse water happens to be one of Nicaragua's greatest natural resources so they were forced to guarantee it to US companies. Nicaragua also has 70 percent of its jobs provided by rural agriculture. Well for all of you worried about immigration I will guarantee you a large influx of illegal Nicaraguans in 5 -10 years once the new "fair trade" agreement has destroyed their livelihood. If these really were fair they could be helpful but anyone who has studied these knows they are completely unfair and biased in order to help large US transnational corporations. This will cause great anger towards the US in the future and is what helps fuel Chavez strength. He is making tons of money off of all these central American countries and securing great markets for the sale of his oil, because he is just giving them a fairer shake and not trying to take advantage of them. Honduras, which is a staunch US ally stopped buying US oil because a US company did an evaluation of their national market and informed them that the US oil companies were charging almost 40 percent more that the real market value. They are now building a national refinery and did a public l

  • Posted By: milljamm @ 03/08/2008 11:23:26 AM

    Comment: Several of Mr. Zakaria's coments are simply not true. The most blatant is that "NAFTA has been pivotal in transforming Mexico into a stable democracy with a growing economy." Mexico has been tragically divided into the rich northern states which have benefited from NAFTA and the poor indigenous south which was betrayed. The last election could not have pointed this out more poiniently, and was much closer to civil war than any north American pundits admitted. NAFTA has also hugely affected immigration to the United States because it has destroyed the local agricultural economy, although it has improved the wealthy northern Mexican factory owners production enough to make the GDP show a very small growth. The truth is that the poor rural people are much poorer and they will be driven to the US in droves. Which is the great irony. The free trade Republicans are the first to denounce immigration and to build billion dollar walls to keep them out after destroying their source of lively hood. I think that Free and Fair trade will help some of these countries, but what the US government pushed through with CAFTA - DR was completely unfair and one sided. It has protections for US strengths such as the banning generic Medicine, promoting intellectual property rights to secure our technological strength. The central American strengths are cheap labor and natural resources, which the Agreements have no protection of, but actually make the local governments sell them to the lowest bidder without regard to nationality. This week many were very angered by the US contract for refueling airplanes given to a French company, but the US forced Nicaragua in a special amendment that is only included its bilateral free trade agreement to sell all water rights to the lowest bidder. Ofcourse water happens to be one of Nicaragua's greatest natural resources so they were forced to guarantee it to US companies. Nicaragua also has 70 percent of its jobs provided by rural agriculture. Well for all of you worried about immigration I will guarantee you a large influx of illegal Nicaraguans in 5 -10 years once the new "fair trade" agreement has destroyed their livelihood. If these really were fair they could be helpful but anyone who has studied these knows they are completely unfair and biased in order to help large US transnational corporations. This will cause great anger towards the US in the future and is what helps fuel Chavez strength. He is making tons of money off of all these central American countries and securing great markets for the sale of his oil, because he is just giving them a fairer shake and not trying to take advantage of them. Honduras, which is a staunch US ally stopped buying US oil because a US company did an evaluation of their national market and informed them that the US oil companies were charging almost 40 percent more that the real market value. They are now building a national refinery and did a public l

  • Posted By: abla2000 @ 03/08/2008 9:14:37 AM

    Comment: when did you change your skin Fareed. I thought u were against everything that Bush stood for.

  • Posted By: eddiewhere @ 03/08/2008 8:20:59 AM

    Comment: THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT INDIA HAS BENEFITED TREMENDOUSLy FROM THE STATUS QUO. IT IS NOT IN THEIR BEST INTEREST TO RE NEGOTIATE. CHEAp WAGES ARE HIGH WAGEs IN INDIA. A NEW AND powerful MIDDLE CLASS IS EMERGING IN INDIA. THEy LOVE BUSH. REMEMBER THE STUDy OF ECONOMICS IS NOT AN EXACT SCIENCE. WHAT IS A SERIOUS ECONOMIST?
    A SERIOUS ECONOMISTS is one that believes that our jobs should be OUTSOURCED TO INDIA..
    IT IS NOT LOW WAGES IN THOSE COUNTRIES that is the problem, it is the willingness of AMERICAN CORpORATIONS TO SELL OUT and outsource our jobs to INDIA. TECHNOLOGy HAS ALLOWED THEM TO DO THIS. CORpORATIONS find these countries profitabe because THEy AVOID ENVIORNMENTAL LAWS AND TAXES. LABOR is always the largest COST> the net loss of jobs is a sign that these trade agreements are leading us into depression.
    INDIAN MULTINATIONAL interests have been a success because of low wages. FOR EXAMple CALL CENTERs. INDIANS LOVE CALL CENTERS.

    THE STUDy OF ECONOMICS IS STILL EVOLVING> AND IS STILL IN THE STONE AGES IN TERMS OF BEING AN ACCEpTED SCIENCE.

  • Posted By: eddiewhere @ 03/08/2008 8:16:05 AM

    Comment: CApITALISM WITH SOCIAL JUSTICE. NAFTA'S LABOR AND ENVIORNMENTAL STANDARDS MUST BE REFORMED. NOTHING REMAINS CONSTANT OR permanent, THIS IS A UNIVERSAL LAW AND HAS NO EXCEpTIONS. CHANGE IS INEVITABLE. THIS IS NOT THE CASTE S SySTEM. THE BASIC STRUCTURE OF THE AGREEMENT WILL REMAIN IN TACT. HOWEVER, there are issues INVOLVING NAFATA THAT ARE AFFECTING OUR ENVIORNMENT AND OUR FUTURE INTERESTS AS A NATION.
    After trade agreements become effective, government lawyers continue to play an important role in assessing whether our foreign trading partners are complying with their obligations. When it seems they are not, we assist in consultations with the foreign governments to encourage compliance. If our consultations are unsuccessful, we advise on the application of domestic trade laws as well as assist USTR with the dispute settlement cases that may be brought under NAFTA and WTO. THE Federal government takes seriously the legal requirement and public policy goal that women, minorities and other disadvantaged persons be given an equal opportunity to succeed

    CANADA AND MEXICO HAVE NO SAy THEy WILL COMpLy WITH U.S.
    CITy T.V NEEDS TO ApOLOGIZE TO ALL AMERICANS FOR THEIR FALSE AND INACCURATE REpORTING.
    THE HARpER CORRUpTION IS SpREADING TROUGHOUT THE WORLD. HIS CONSERVATIVE MACHINE IS BEHIND CITy TV'S DISGRACEFUL STORy . THEy CAN'T EVEN SOLVE CRIMES IN CANADA. THEIR LEGAL SyTEM IS A JOKE. THEIR pENALTIES ARE WEAK.

    THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT INDIA HAS BENEFITED TREMENDOUSL FROM THE STATUS QUO. IT IS NOT IN THEIR BEST INTEREST TO RE NEGOTIATE. CHEA WAGES ARE HIGH WAGE IN INDIA. A NEW AND owerful MIDDLE CLASS IS EMERGING IN INDIA. THE LOVE BUSH. REMEMBER THE STUD OF ECONOMICS IS NOT AN EXACT SCIENCE. WHAT IS A SERIOUS ECONOMISTS?
    A SERIOUS ECONOMISTS is one that believes that our jobs should be continued to be outsourced.
    IT IS NOT LOW WAGES IN THOSE COUNTRIES that is the problem, it is the willingness of AMERICAN CORpORATIONS TO SELL OUT and outsource our jobs to INDIA. TECHNOLOGy HAS ALLOWED THEM TO DO THIS. CORpORATIONS find these countries profitabe because THEy AVOID ENVIORNMENTAL LAWS AND TAXES. LABOR is always the largest COST> the net loss of jobs is a sign that these trade agreements are leading us into depression.
    INDIAN MULTINATIONAL interests have been a success because of low wages. FOR EXAMple CALL CENTERs. INDIANS LOVE CALL CENTERS.

    THE STUDy OF ECONOMICS IS STILL EVOLVING> AND IS STILL IN THE STONE AGES IN TERMS OF BEING AN ACCEpTED SCIENCE.

  • Posted By: aznavcat @ 03/08/2008 4:07:15 AM

    Comment: "There are no serious economists or experts who believe that low wages in Mexico or China or India is the fundamental reason that American factories close down." This is a nutty statement. Of course wages matter and we(the West) cannot compete paying someone exceptional wages with medicial care compared with the equivalent of sweatshop labor. That's why a cheap product can be made in China then shipped half-way around the world and still be cheaper than if made locally. It's a business decision. What's not factored in by CEOs is creating a society we value--responsibilites to the workers (fair wages, medical benefits, etc.) and minimizing environmental damages....that's why politicians need to push for both FREE AND FAIR TRADE, not just free trade....otherwise it's a race to the bottom.

  • Posted By: aznavcat @ 03/08/2008 4:04:40 AM

    Comment: "There are no serious economists or experts who believe that low wages in Mexico or China or India is the fundamental reason that American factories close down." This is a nutty statement. Of course wages matter and we(the West) cannot compete paying someone exceptional wages with medicial care compared with the equivalent of sweatshop labor. That's why a cheap product can be made in China then shipped half-way around the world and still be cheaper than if made locally. It's a business decision. What's not factored in by CEOs is creating a society we value--responsibilites to the workers (fair wages, medical benefits, etc.) and minimizing environmental damages....that's why politicians need to push for both FREE AND FAIR TRADE, not just free trade....otherwise it's a race to the bottom.

  • Posted By: mangetrak @ 03/07/2008 9:23:34 PM

    Comment: I'm trying to congratulate those who remain journalistic in this Democratic primary. Zakarias has always done an incredibly good job and continues to do so.

  • Posted By: melnais_kakjis @ 03/07/2008 6:06:59 PM

    Comment: For a struggling farmer in Kenya international trade can easily mean losing her/his farm to the same multi-national plantation s/he is told to be grateful to for giving her/him a job miles away from home and for the opportunity to acquire debt from an international bank. If the Democrats reform trade laws well, rather than imosing bully politics "you must by gm corn" than Mexican's as well as US citizens will benefit.

  • Posted By: melnais_kakjis @ 03/07/2008 5:59:30 PM

    Comment: For a struggling farmer in Kenya international trade laws often mean the farmer ends up losing his farm, working on a foreign bought multi-national plantation miles away from his family and in debt to the foreign bank that moves in to help finance the so-called development of third-world countries. Realise that the democrats speak of changing the trade laws. Compare Nafta's effects on Mexico and Canada

  • Posted By: Penny Little @ 03/06/2008 11:29:58 PM

    Comment: If a US factory closed down and DIDN'T open in another country offering lower wages, I could reason that several factors might be in play. But the argument that low wages don't prompt companies to re-locate doesen't seem to hold water when that new factory is built outside the US.

  • Posted By: connoquenessing @ 03/06/2008 8:58:52 PM

    Comment: Comment: Mr. Zakaria, I read your Newsweek column regularly and appreciate its insights. However, as so many others have commented this week, I too question your statement "There are no serious economists or experts who believe that low wages in Mexico or China or India is the fundamental reason that American factories close down." Who are the "serious economists and experts" to whom you refer? Such a broad statement as this deserves some substantiation.
    Another statement in your current article troubles me as well. It is one I so often hear breezily made by pundits and columnists with no connection to the real world of human beings. You state that "There is a way to speak about the pain of globalization--and about the need for investments in retraining, education, health care, and infrastructure--so that we can both compete but also absorb the shocks of a changing global economy." In other words, all the workers who have lost their jobs through globalization just need to go get retrained, as if this can happen overnight and then magically they will become productive workers once again. In the recent television coverage of the Ohio primary, I observed interviews with people in their 40's and 50's who had lost their jobs in manufacturing plants there. Most did not have college degrees and couldn't just jump into the "knowledge based economy." What exactly do the "serious economists or experts" have to say about retraining these individuals? How? For what kinds of jobs? Who would pay for this training? How would they support their families while undergoing the training? These are not just questions that should be laid at the door of Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton, but should be answered by you, Mr. Zakaria, as well as John McCain and the economists you cite. In the faces of those workers in Ohio, I saw a deep sadness and despair that comes with lower wages, the loss of a job, and lack of hope. Please don't just breezily tell them to "go get retrained." Let's hear some real-world specifics on how to help people deal with "the pain of globalization."

  • Posted By: sumithar @ 03/06/2008 5:51:31 PM

    Comment: "There are no serious economists or experts who believe that low wages in Mexico or China or India is the fundamental reason that American factories close down."
    Can't speak to factories but personally know enough software people whose job has been outsourced to disbelieve that statement. Economists who refuse to acknowledge this are delusional, to say the least. I see Indian s/w workers insidiously worming their way into the IS dept of the company that I am working at- initially it is to meet an FTE shortage here, another there, but once in, the objective is, can we get this entire department outsourced. More often than not the bean counters compare the 18 bucks an hour for a programmer in India to the 35+ dollars you pay someone here and presto the decision is made.

  • Posted By: Dr. D. @ 03/06/2008 3:33:11 PM

    Comment: You're right about the Kenyan farmer. Global trade of food is killing the developing countries because the Nebarskan farmer taking dubya's handout and selling corn for $5 a bushel, plus the high cost of fuel bring on fuel shortages in Africa, and there is no contingency because they have lost local production due to civil unrest and climate change. I don't agere that NAFTA is so bad. Right now corporate America has sold us--almost litterally--to the Chinese. They will hurt us more than Can-Mex; or, I should say that we will hurt ourselves as we transition from an empire to scrapping for bones. For decades we lived orders of magnitude better than the colonies in Central America and Asia who made our goods and sent peasants to pick our crops. The adjustment will be excruciating as the corporations mine us for every healthcare and energy dime they can get and tossing the consequences to the wind.

  • Posted By: tspring0204 @ 03/06/2008 3:14:53 PM

    Comment: Zakaria is wrong on so many counts (and so often) where do we start. How about the poor struggling farmer in Kenya wanting access to world markets? What he really wants is to feed his family and a few neighbors with his crops. He knows that with no trade barriers the multinational agribusinesses will put him out of business, take away his land, and send him and his family to the city where they can live in a cardboard or tin roof slum.

    And, NAFTA didn't cost us a thing and helped stabilze Mexico's shaky democracy? The US balance of trade with Mexico has shifted from a $2 billion dollar surplus before NAFTA to a $40 billion dollar deficit after NAFTA. That $40 billion dollars represents products that used to be made in the US and purchased by US consumers, but now are manufactured in Mexico and purchased by US consumers. If you are one of the millions of Americans who have lost good paying manufacturing jobs in the last 10 years or so, NAFTA doesn't look like such a good deal. And, if NAFTA has been so good for Mexico, why is the US flooded with Mexican citizens illegally coming to the US to work at low paying jobs? Because the fruits of NAFTA aren't going to improve working conditions or materially raise wages in Mexico. They are going into the pockets of (you guessed it) multinational corporations. When Zakaria sings the praises of free trade he never quite gets to this verse.

  • Posted By: tspring0204 @ 03/06/2008 3:04:13 PM

    Comment: Zakaria is wrong on so many counts, where do we start. Let's just refute two of them. What the poor truggling farmer in Kenya wants is to feed his family, not access to free markets, because he knows that free markets will allow multinational agribusiness to put him out of business, take away his land, and displace him and his family to the city. It happens to poor farmers all over the world when trade barriers drop.

    So free trade with Mexico didn't cost us a thing and served to stabilize their democracy. Well, our balance of trade with Mexico has gone from a $2 billion surplus before NAFTA, to a $40 billion deficit since. That is a cost to Americans engaged in manufacturing jobs. That giant sucking sound is (as Ross Perot predicted) American jobs and money going south (and east and west with WTO and GATT help). And we are helping stabilize a struggling democracy in Mexico? If conditions are so great in Mexico why are we flooded with Mexican citizens illegally coming across our border to work at US minimum wage jobs?

  • Posted By: ericrsiny @ 03/06/2008 2:44:03 PM

    Comment: Senator Obama today attacked John McCain over his stance on dealing with Cuba and stated that the way we have dealt with Cuba for 50 years was wrong. I wonder if anyone will ask Teddy Kennedy if the actions put into effect in regard to Cuba by his brother JFK are so wrong as the Obama team claims them to be.

  • Posted By: eddiewhere @ 03/06/2008 12:35:17 AM

    Comment: CApITALISM WITH SOCIAL JUSTICE. NAFTA'S LABOR AND ENVIORNMENTAL STANDARDS MUST BE REFORMED. NOTHING REMAINS CONSTANT OR permanent, THIS IS A UNIVERSAL LAW AND HAS NO EXCEpTIONS. CHANGE IS INEVITABLE. THIS IS NOT THE CASTE S SySTEM. THE BASIC STRUCTURE OF THE AGREEMENT WILL REMAIN IN TACT. HOWEVER, there are issues INVOLVING NAFATA THAT ARE AFFECTING OUR ENVIORNMENT AND OUR FUTURE INTERESTS AS A NATION.
    After trade agreements become effective, government lawyers continue to play an important role in assessing whether our foreign trading partners are complying with their obligations. When it seems they are not, we assist in consultations with the foreign governments to encourage compliance. If our consultations are unsuccessful, we advise on the application of domestic trade laws as well as assist USTR with the dispute settlement cases that may be brought under NAFTA and WTO. THE Federal government takes seriously the legal requirement and public policy goal that women, minorities and other disadvantaged persons be given an equal opportunity to succeed

    CANADA AND MEXICO HAVE NO SAy THEy WILL COMpLy WITH U.S.
    CITy T.V NEEDS TO ApOLOGIZE TO ALL AMERICANS FOR THEIR FALSE AND INACCURATE REpORTING.
    THE HARpER CORRUpTION IS SpREADING TROUGHOUT THE WORLD. HIS CONSERVATIVE MACHINE IS BEHIND CITy TV'S DISGRACEFUL STORy . THEy CAN'T EVEN SOLVE CRIMES IN CANADA. THEIR LEGAL SyTEM IS A JOKE. THEIR pENALTIES ARE WEAK.

  • Posted By: Scott MacArthur @ 03/05/2008 9:43:51 PM

    Comment: No rational national government would pursue a policy similar to what North American governments have unless it were being driven by corporate interests. Zakaria's assertion about the irrelevance of comparitive labout costs between China and the West is truly startling to read in a magazine like Newsweek.
    We kow-tow to the Chinese and buy their poison pet food, their toxic toys and their ethylene glycol ridden toothpaste. We pretend that they didn't invade and permanently occupy Tibet, that they don't murder thier own citizens for political dissent, that they don't undercut Western unionized labour with prison labour, that they aren't the world's most profligate polluters and that they don't gladly do business with the Sudanese and Iranians despite whatever antics those countries do.
    Every damn thing we buy now is made in China. We have totally surrendered our industrial base and undermined our working class solely upon the justification that the market demands it.
    The Chinese must laugh when Canadians and Americans, the world's largest trading relationship, start thinking in terms of trade war when the real problem is so self-evident. The workers in Ohio and Michigan haven't lost their jobs to Canadians, or visa versa.
    Why would two developed industrial nations with two of the highest standards of living in the world want to open their doors to countries where people make a tenth or less and whose governments have absolutely no responsibility to their own people?
    Canada and the U.S. can argue over wheat, softwood, dairy farming and what's left of the auto industry for as long as we want and then we'll realize some joker in a Mao jacket with a red star on his cap has his boot on both our throats and he wants his money.

  • Posted By: rwk333 @ 03/05/2008 7:27:50 PM

    Comment: "There are no serious economists or experts who believe that low wages in Mexico or China or India is the fundamental reason that American factories close down". Are you kidding me? What is it then? Are we not as productive? Do we pay more for raw materials? We are becoming a nation that makes nothing. How long can this be sustained? It IS the low wages that these countries offer that American factories close and we are in a race to the bottom.

    • Posted By: Dr. D. @ 03/06/2008 15:40:25

      Comment: it's the cost of employer provided healthcare, but a candidate is not going touch that one. they'll just suggest ways to keep feeding the beast.

  • Posted By: JohnGaltlaketahoe @ 03/05/2008 1:24:29 PM

    Comment: THE CANDIDATES AND THE PARTIES THEY REPRESENT HAVE FAILED TO SERVE, PROTECT, AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES...FOR YEARS! THEY WILL NOT "CHANGE" US FOREIGN POLICY IN THE MIDDLE EAST. THEY WILL NOT ADDRESS A CORPORATE CONTROLLED US CONGRESS.

    INDICT AND IMPEACH GEORGE W. BUSH, RICHARD B. CHENEY AND THEIR CABINET OF ADVISORS BEFORE NOVEMBER 2088.

    WHILE THE US MILITARY IS AN OCCUPYING FORCE IN SUPPORT OF AN INCREDIBLE IRAQI PARLIAMENT THE AMERICAN ELECTION PROCESS IS BEING SUBVERTED, GAMED and RIGGED.

    SOS TO ALL SHIPS AT SEA AND ALL AMERICAN MILITIA...TAKE BACK OUR COUNTRY

    THE REPUBLICAN AND DEMOCRAT CONVENTIONS WILL BE CHAOS.

    ONE CAT ONE VOTE ONE BEER!

    UNITE AMERICA AND TAKE THE WAR TO THE ELECTION BEGINNING WITH THE REMOVAL OF GEORGE W. BUSH FROM OFFICE BEFORE NOVEMBER 2008!!!!!!!

  • Posted By: American Muslim @ 03/05/2008 1:08:15 PM

    Comment: Shanacat, I agree. However, this is not the case in all of America. There are many MANY parts of America where people generally just get along and see eachother as human beings first. In fact, I would say that the majority of the country is this way. Those stories that make headlines outline those areas/individuals that are an exception to the rule.

    One thing to note is that one of the key differences between the U.S. and Europe is that the diversity isn't watered down as in Europe. I think that Europe tends to take a diverse population and overly-homogenize it. Here in America, a persons ethnicity can add to the richness of the experience. I like the fact that there is a African-American subculture, a white subculture, a latino subculture, etc etc etc.

    Unfortunately, your freind had to struggle with biggotry, but it think its a good thing for someone to have their ethnicity, political views, and religious views factor in to their identity.

    To each his own.

  • Posted By: jamLA @ 03/05/2008 9:50:49 AM

    Comment: It is very refreshing to see a writer in newsweek paying to attention to the detail and substance of these debates. In this case the candidates were inconsistent and trying to play both sides of the fence. I'm glad someone is commenting on these issues in depth.

  • Posted By: usherlucky @ 03/05/2008 1:51:06 AM

    Comment: I pasted this news to my blog on a dating site, it called http://www.bigblackconnect.com/, Most friends of me read it and said they supported Obama's idea.

  • Posted By: adityamukherjee @ 03/04/2008 10:07:58 PM

    Comment: stockpix - the problem with your argument is that twofold - firstly, protecting 300 million farmers in africa or india who barely earn subsistence till their country grows so that they have more alternatives, is very different from protecting american producers maintain profits..the difference is in the time frame..for poor, developing countries, protectionism in certain sectors makes sense till alternative sectors become viable...in developed countries however they become a slippery slope, because whats the goal? whats the plan? will you protect them forever? your economy is already functioning at its maximum potential..what is the diverting channel..that's why in developed countries the only way to deal with competition is by raising competetiveness...and its far from impossible..look at german manufacturing..

  • Posted By: wdlivingston44 @ 03/04/2008 9:11:25 PM

    Comment: This essay in a hard Left magazine that usually is in the forefront of the cheering section for Dimocratic politicans & their policies is quite refreshing.

  • Posted By: stockpix @ 03/04/2008 8:11:23 PM

    Comment: I seem to remember problems with African and Mexican family farmers being deep sixed by subsidized US Corn and Cotton exports. Evening the playing fields is not a bad thing and I don't think environmental and labor agreements or a little targeted protectionism is either. The American economy is getting hollowed out six ways to Sunday and now Mexico and even China are being underbid by Vietnam and others. Fareed blithely dismisses very real concerns about American job losses out of hand with attribution but not with conclusive evidence.

  • Posted By: stockpix @ 03/04/2008 8:04:45 PM

    Comment: I seem to remember problems with African and Mexican family farmers being deep sixed by subsidized US Corn and Cotton exports. Evening the playing fields is not a bad thing and I don't think environmental and labor agreements or a little targeted protectionism is either. The American economy is getting hollowed out six ways to Sunday and now Mexico and even China are being underbid by Vietnam and others. Fareed blithely dismisses very real concerns about American job losses out of hand with attribution but not with conclusive evidence.

  • Posted By: happy gardener @ 03/04/2008 6:43:35 PM

    Comment: I'm confused. "..NAFTA has been pivotal in transforming Mexico into a stable democracy with a growing economy." Does this mean that NAFTA in its present form, is better for countries, other than our own?
    One more question. If NAFTA has "transformed" Mexico's economy (and that's a good thing) Why are Mexican citizens continuing to cross into the U.S.A. illegally..by the thousands?

    • Posted By: bmacnaughton @ 03/04/2008 18:57:13

      Comment: Simply, Mexicans come here because they can earn a living wage (in Mexico) taking jobs that no one in Ohio wants. My observations are the Mexicans in the U.S. are some of the hardest workers I've ever seen. They take jobs that Americans who just want "a fair wage for a hard days work" don't want, either because they don't think the wage is fair, or the work is too hard. How many U.S. citizens pick produce, landscape, work in slaughterhouses, run Mom & Pop grocery stores, and the like?

      And do you know why they come here illegally, by the thousands? Because American businesses hire them to do work that they can't hire others to do. Oh, and because the Mexican unions are so strong that it is almost impossible to create new jobs in Mexico.

  • Posted By: happy gardener @ 03/04/2008 6:36:37 PM

    Comment: I'm confused. ".......NAFTA has been pivotal in transforming Mexico into a stable democracy with a growing economy." Does this mean that NAFTA in its present form ,is better for countries other than our own?
    One more question. If NAFTA has 'transformed" Mexico's economy ( and that's a good thing) Why are Mexican citizens continuing to illegally cross into U.S.A. in the thousands?

  • Posted By: Bay Area Gal @ 03/04/2008 6:32:38 PM

    Comment:
    To all protectionists: even if the US cuts itself off from all trade do not expect a retun to the 60's job scene. That was based in a scenario where vast swaths of Asia had no manufacturing capability of their own and depended on US and Europe for all types of goods. If the US shuts itself out the rest of the world will continue to trade amongst themselves. If we back out of trade agreements they are also under no obligation to open thier markets for those goods we will be manufacturing. People seem to forget trade is a 2 way deal-you've got to give something to the other guy -else why would they come to the party at all.
    For those who want global environmental and labor standards-remember per capita ebergy consumption in India/China is a fraction of the US. They could turn corners on us by asking the US to cut down energy use to their level-a global standard you see.
    Fareed tells the trugh because he is not seeking votes.

  • Posted By: kreedy1973 @ 03/04/2008 6:26:00 PM

    Comment: The loss of manufacturing jobs in Ohio and Michigan is not primarily caused by NAFTA. Why does BMW make cars in Tennessee instead of Ohio? Why will Northrop/EADS be building the new US Air Force tankers in Alabama? Two big reasons are no unions and lower taxes.

  • Posted By: realpages @ 03/04/2008 6:20:47 PM

    Comment: I have never read a word written in print or uttered on the air by this commentator that is not consistently and transparently an attempt to subvert the interests of this country and its citizen to the interests of the rest of the world. According to him, when citizen of this country encourage our leaders to act in our own interest we are in his opinion culturally feebled carriers of 'xenophobia and chauvinism'. What an insult to this country and its people! This man of the world commentator surely must don a blind fold during his travels abroad as there is not a country in the world that is as diverse and accepting of diversity in all its forms than the United States. Do not be swayed by his petty insurgent characterizations of the citizens of our country, a country that allows him the rights to publish such left-handed logic with the intent to tear apart the core tissue and strengths of this nation and distribute the remaining parts of our industrial carcass to nations where his true loyalties rest.

    • Posted By: ShanaCat @ 03/05/2008 10:22:35

      Comment: I feel that you have never been outside of the U.S., or at least have been to very few countries outside the US if you think the United States is the most accepting of diversity. Your country's political/religious/racial tensions are deplorable!! I have a friend who said the reason he moved (to the Netherlands) from America is because in America he is "black" he is "liberal" he is "a Christian," but in the Netherlands he is "just a man." The interracial/inter religious marriage rates of most other civilized countries far far far exceed those in America. Now I grant you America is definately the most diverse country in the world, but you are definately NOT the most accepting of diversity. For goodness sakes, in America a cop can shoot a black man for no reason and not get in trouble for it!! Do you think that can happen in most of the developed world?

      • Posted By: realpages @ 03/06/2008 13:54:11

        Comment: ShanaCat. Yes, our political tensions are deplorable. We've only managed to rule ourselves under the same constitution for over 200 years without a king, or a coup, or a revolution, or a dictator take over. Yes, our religious tensions are deplorable too. We've are not nearly as diverse as the UK where some of their Muslim citizen can freely express their religious beliefs about the holiness of murdering non-muslims with bombs. Perhaps we should stop muslims from wearing tradition clothing in out school and we could be as progressive as Europe. And you are right, we do have racial tensions. A black man being on the verge of becoming the presidential nominee of one of our two major politcal parties is evidence of how backward we are. Oh yes, and don't forget how deplorable it was of us to elect that Indian man as Govenor of Lousiana, and thus practically enslaving the poor fellow. Perhaps things would improve if we had race riots like they have had of late in France, you know, like the ones we had ... over 50 years ago. And maybe if we knew just one black man, like you do, we could comment on the true nature of our country with some clarity.

  • Posted By: kreedy1973 @ 03/04/2008 6:18:14 PM

    Comment: Obama says he is different because he will tell us what we have to hear instead of what we want to hear. But on trade he is doing a classical old-style pander. Our better angels tell us Bono is right and that we need a major focus on ending global poverty. The best way to do that is to increase trade with the third world. They are energetic entrepreneurial people that only need access to good markets to thrive. According to Geldoff, a 1% increase in trade with Africa will surpass ALL of the charitable programs put together. We don't need to restrict trade, we need to open it up even more.

  • Posted By: wilsan @ 03/04/2008 6:07:28 PM

    Comment: I am flabbergasted that Newsweek is actually printing something seriously critical of the Democrats. It would take someone of the stature of Mr. Zakaria for this to happen. Beyond that observation, I would simply say, "there are a lot of things that Hillery and Barack are suggesting that will hurt America." And that they are lying to their base is to be expected. Look at what the Democrats did after capturing the House & Senate - Nothing.

  • Posted By: wilsan @ 03/04/2008 6:07:01 PM

    Comment: I am flabbergasted that Newsweek is actually printing something seriously critical of the Democrats. It would take someone of the stature of Mr. Zakaria for this to happen. Beyond that observation, I would simply say, "there are a lot of things that Hillery and Barack are suggesting that will hurt America." And that they are lying to their base is to be expected. Look at what the Democrats did after capturing the House & Senate - Nothing.

  • Posted By: LHP46 @ 03/04/2008 5:21:10 PM

    Comment: Fareed hit the nail on the head with his comments about Hillary and Barack in Ohio. They both parndered instead of lead. As Alan Greenspan wrote, "Protectionism, whatever its guise, whether political or economic, whether it affects trade or finance, is a prescription for economic stagnation and political authoritarianism."
    Fareed's intelligent commentary is the primary reason I subscribe to Newsweek and do not rely on The Economist for all my news.

  • Posted By: steve02001 @ 03/04/2008 5:19:35 PM

    Comment: Gee what a shocker, politicians pandering to their political base during an election year! Like the french captain in Casablanca "I am shocked, just shocked!" People, what politicians say during their election campaigns and what they do once elected are two big differents things, always has been and always will be; that's why they are called politicians (and no, U.S. politicans' don't have a monopoly on that phenomenon).

  • Posted By: LHP46 @ 03/04/2008 5:18:02 PM

    Comment: When Fareed states, " . . .and isn't the point of leadership to educate and elevate people, not to pander and drag them into the swamp of ignorance and fear?' he hit the nail on the head. Here in Ohio, what we hear from both Hillary and Barack is pandering, nothing less. I have heard no attempt to lead. Protectionism, to quote alan Greenspan, "whatever its guise, whether political or economic, whether it affects trade or finance, is a prescription for economic stagnation and political authoritarianism."

  • Posted By: peace101 @ 03/04/2008 4:07:44 PM

    Comment: While I have frequently agreed with Zakaria on other topics, on NAFTA and other trade agreements in his 'World View' I wholeheartedly disagree. For him to claim that 'there are no serious economists or experts who believe that low wages in Mexico or China or India are the fundamental reason that American factories close down,' is ridiculous. Multi-nationals built factories in those countries because the low wages would increase profits. And any competitor would soon have to follow suit as their higher wage expenses would price their product as much more expensive. Isn't that why we have wage standards in our country? Without a minimum wage, the issue of wages becomes an advantage to the lower-paying company, to the detriment of the worker and ultimately the local and then larger economy. And his statement that 'labor and environmental standards would do very little to change the reality of huge wage differentials between poor and rich countries' workers' seems to argue against his point that wages don't matter. And about those labor and environmental standards, shouldn't the insistence on better ones be a priority for us in making these trade agreements? Or is buying a product at the cheapest price more important than the human right to a 'living' wage or the safety of workers or of the environment? Keeping a strong manufacturing base is vitally important for national security, the opportunity for living wage jobs for those unable to go to college, and to keep a balanced trade deficit. We can't very well ever balance our trade deficit if we aren't making much product to sell. These agreements weren't negotiated with fairness for workers here or there in mind, but solely to benefit the profits of multi-nationals. And as for Zakaria's stance that farmers abroad need open markets, again he is speaking of farm corporations benefitting, not family farms. As in Mexico, after NAFTA, cheap corn from the U.S. put many family farms in Mexico out of business, as they couldn't compete with our mechanized farming. Obama's stance on the need for re-writing these unbalanced trade agreements is just common sense and will benefit workers and family farms in all the countries concerned.

  • Posted By: DJM123 @ 03/04/2008 2:51:31 PM

    Comment: As a Canadian watching this topic with some amusement - it is clear that this is pure politicial posturing. The US has a good deal in the Canada-US Free Trade Agreement and its cousin NAFTA. History proves protectionism fails as a susatained trade policy. Consumers will pay more - plain and simple. Protectist policies will not save jobs. All that happens is that for every job that is "saved" by the imposition of a protectionist tax to bar imports, another job is lost when US trade partners retaliate with their own measures to hurt US exports. Do you expect your trade partners not to react to policies that hurt them? All that happens is consumers pay more. It is simply the imposition of a new tax. Last time I checked - this is a bad word in the US,
    When you hear that they don't want some trade panel to interfere with US domestic policies - that is simple code for saying that the US keeps losing these cases and doesn't want to live up to its contractual obligations. Canada watched for years as manufacturing moved from here to the US south, where the wages were lower and environmental standards lower (and we're hardly perfect). Now that the US is losing those jobs into Mexico (and China and India), now its time to renegotiate?
    Sure lets open these agreements - we'd love to impose labour and environmental clauses. As long as it is to the highest standards - which means some US laws will have to be improved - which in the long term will hurt domestic US business. We'd also love to insert some clauses that protect the Canadian food management systems, penalize hugh US agricultural subsidies, protect Canadian oil & gas supplies, protect fresh water supplies etc etc.
    Remember protectionism is a two way street.

  • Posted By: rileysmiley @ 03/04/2008 2:06:57 PM

    Comment: "There are no serious economists or experts who believe that low wages in Mexico or China or India is the fundamental reason that American factories close down"

    You've GOT to be kidding right? Seriously, if not for low wages, why in the world would any company move their factories to Mexico, China or India?

  • Posted By: HelenWiells @ 03/04/2008 1:56:14 PM

    Comment: Gosh, Fareed...you make it sound so simple...that we only have the choice of an angry, xenophobic campaign or a protectionist campaign? Not so fast, buddy. What the American people need and want is fairness. We have companies incorporating in some baloney, offshore island somewhere so they can avoid paying taxes. And, do you REALLY think corporations are eager to pay workers a dollar a day rather than $100.00 a day to help needy countries? Yeah, sure.

  • Posted By: kenner116 @ 03/04/2008 1:16:30 PM

    Comment: I completely agree with Mr. Zakaria. I'm an Obama supporter, but his crazy anti-trade talk is worrisome. We need to stop blaming foreigners for our problems. Bush has already hurt our reputation around much of the world, but going protectionist would be much worse. Honestly, I'd rather have free trade and McCain's frightening foreign policy agenda than protectionism and sane foreign policy. I'll most likely be voting for Obama in November, since I think after today's Ohio primary his anti-trade babbling will go away. He's got some smart economists on his team that are probably wincing every time he talks about NAFTA. Anyway, once in office, I think he'll realize that renegotiating NAFTA and other trade deals would be a disaster. I just wish he hadn't gone so protectionist for the sake of one state's primary, since it could hurt his chances in November.

  • Posted By: old scout @ 03/04/2008 12:46:44 PM

    Comment: I have not heard either Obama or Clinton "railing" against the Canadians, the Mexicans, the South American nations, or the Asians. Nor have I heard them say that we must scrap NAFTA. What they have said is that there must be some renegotiation over workers' rights, the environment, and more fair access to each other's markets. I have heard them both complaign about China manipulating its currency to devalue ours. I have heard them complain that no foreign companies should be able to go to some trade court to interfere with our internal environmental or labor laws. I also heard them say that they would use tax policy to punish companies who throw American workers to the wolves so they can send their jobs overseas at a small fraction of the cost of American wages. I agree with all of these positions. Free trade should not mean that we have to sacrifice our jobs and our standard of living. Pulling others up economically and socially should not mean that we have to be pulled down to some unhappy medium that will take decades to find. Free trade so far is little more than a mask for international corporate facism. If we don't get it under control we may soon have to buy the air we breathe as we already have to buy the water we drink.

    The Republicans and the conservatives preach individual responsibility and they claim to be devoted to the principles of our founding fathers. But they are actually in it for themselves. Whenever they face a financial crisis the old government bailout is just fine for them. and whenever someone threatens their safety or privilege, you can forget about the Constitution. They support "free trade" because they see the money in it for them, not for you and me.

    Frankly I don't care if the rest of the world finds it insulting that we want to protect our libelihoods. How can we fulfill our commitment to protect "life, liberty, and the pursuti of happiness" if we are willing as a nation to allow our workers, our middle class and our poor to twist in the winds of economic insecurity?.

    • Posted By: bmacnaughton @ 03/04/2008 16:47:34

      Comment: Interestingly, Free Trade will happen whether the U.S. plays in it or not. All we will accomplish by preventing cheaper "foreign" labor from producing our products is to tax the U.S. consumer for the benefit of trade unions. The rest of the world is not longing to buy U.S. product at a premium price to support wage inequities we feel entitled to. So we don't play Free Trade, U.S. consumers (all of us) pay too much, the rest of the world buys competitively priced products from other countries, we lose those markets and our competitive positioning.

      It makes sense for us to stress safety, environmental improvements, and the like. But we can't act like we're the only consumer nation in the world that matters. We don't play, we'll get left out.

      • Posted By: Thomas_Pain @ 03/07/2008 00:03:17

        Comment: We are playing, and we *are* getting crushed! And as present trends continue, we *will* suffer a huge decline in our standard of living in any case. We see now the results of our disasterous twin deficits (trade and budget): the collapsing dollar, which makes US commodities look cheap to the rest of the world, which buys them, which drives up prices domestically due to supply/demand. It is fallacy to think that a country can survive by borrowing money from foreigeners in the form of trade and budget deficits indefinitely.

  • Posted By: txtruman @ 03/04/2008 12:30:40 PM

    Comment: Mr. Zakaria writes, "There are no serious economists or experts who believe that low wages in Mexico or China or India is the fundamental reason that American factories close down."

    But why then do they close down? Free trade allows capital to flow from high-wage areas to low-wage ones. Doesn't that necessarily mean that some factories will close down in the western industrialized world and re-open in the third world? It may be that free trade is a net gain for the US, but isn't the loss of manufacturing jobs one of its less fortunate effects?

    • Posted By: bmacnaughton @ 03/04/2008 16:49:27

      Comment: Yes, that loss of jobs is a localized effect (no less painful if that is one of yours or my jobs) but it is offset by the lower cost of products and increased competitiveness our businesses (ability to produce lower cost products).

      • Posted By: Thomas_Pain @ 03/07/2008 00:08:18

        Comment: Which is financed by our borrowing billion$ from the Chinese in the form of huge trade deficits, which in turn has led to a collapse of the dollar, which in turn has led both to the flight of investment capital from our shores and inflation levels not seen since the 70's. There is no free lunch, friend, and we are living on borrowed time--and borrowed Chinese money.

  • Posted By: Shrug @ 03/04/2008 12:22:56 PM

    Comment: The genius behind the Dems anti-Nafta position is that preventing jobs in Mexico and being for amnesty on illigal immigration will insure a Democratic majority for years to come! Don't delude yourself, its not about helping with well thought out positions, its about winning!

  • Posted By: Shrug @ 03/04/2008 12:18:47 PM

    Comment: Before we can have the audacity of hope we need the audacity of character. Stop blaming others for our problems. At less than 5% unemployement, how can we complain about lost jobs? How can a country with among the best infrastructure, education, legal system, and technology not compete? How can we be for the ink blot test of change when we hate the change that has already occurred. Democrats are expousing an isolationsit view of the world, not just on wars but trade also. It is consistent, oh yeah except maybe on immigration where we believe in open borders so we can build constituents. Wait, maybe thats the game plan, shut down jobs in Mexico and offer amnesty in the US so the Dems will be in power for a long time. This is genius!

  • Posted By: newdee @ 03/04/2008 11:52:09 AM

    Comment: This talk on TRADE has put Obama in a whole new light. What surprised me the most was how Hillary reacted to it. She should have corrected him right at the start by saying we will only tackle the unfairness in it, and not challenge free trade itself. The global village is a reallity. There's no going back on it. I am hoping that Hillary is going to win in both Texas and Ohio today, and then promptly reassure the world that America is all for free trade.

  • Posted By: MichaelWSmith @ 03/04/2008 11:46:44 AM

    Comment: What are all you anti-trade Democrats complaining about? Democrats have been on a 70 year campaign to destroy American capitalism -- and to punish the men of ability -- by regulating businesses to death. Well, you???ve largely succeeded, and now that American businesses are dying, you may begin to reap the rewards of your war against business.

    To accomplish the destruction of American capitalism, a vast array of federal and state regulations and welfare programs have been forced down the throats of American businesses. Anti-trust laws, the Consumer Protection Act, the Food and Drug Act, the Interstate Commerce Commission regulations, the Occupational Safety and Health Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Equal Employment Opportunity Act, the Family Medical Leave Act, the Environmental Protection Act, Workman???s Compensation Law, Unemployment Compensation law, Medicare taxes, Medicaid taxes, Securities laws, Sarbanes-Oxley Act -- these and many other laws have created an enormous regulatory burden on American businesses and have drastically increased the costs of production. It is a miracle that any American business continues to function at all.

    Well, your war against American businesses is succeeding -- just as is your war against the men of competence and ability. Obama and Hillary are determined to drive the final stake through the hearts of both. I hope you enjoy the consequences when both are gone.

  • Posted By: Nathan @ 03/04/2008 11:16:38 AM

    Comment: How surprising that Fareed, with a B.A. from Yale and a Master's from Harvard doesn't understand why middle class Americans who didn't have the same educational opportunities are upset about unfair trade deals that have destroyed our manufacturing sector.

    If only white collar liberals on the east and west coasts like Fareed were the majority, we wouldn't have to worry about pesky middle america and their disdain for unfair trade deals that cost them their livelihood.

    Sorry Fareed, but both Democrats in the race understand that a country has to offer quality jobs for all of its citizens, not just those who go to Yale and then Harvard.

    • Posted By: bmacnaughton @ 03/04/2008 17:11:14

      Comment: And how is it that we will offer "good jobs for all" when our businesses can only produce products that cost more than those produced in other countries? China and India value education far more than we do (and not just Yale or Harvard, which don't produce enough graduates to matter). That might be one of the reasons that the quality of life is improving in the rest of world, relative to the U.S.

      I cannot imagine why anyone thinks that people in the U.S. are entitled to a comfy job allowing us all to own a home and buy a boat, other than the fact that we've been in the privileged position since WW II of being the only significant country whose economy wasn't destroyed. In what other country is one entitled to a job? Is the reason that they are not entitled to the job unfair trade deals? Or just the fact that the world is a competitive place where no one gives anything away?

  • Posted By: Nathan @ 03/04/2008 11:11:10 AM

    Comment: Fareed doesn't understand why the U.S workforce can't just get a great education like he did and work in the knowledge based economy like he does.

    Not everyone has the opportunity to go to Yale and then Harvard, Fareed. Sitting in your comfy desk in New York, you may not have noticed but America's education system is failing its students. Nearly every metropolitan school district in the country is having trouble educating its poor students. When these students didn't receive a good education in the past, they were still able to find a good job and support their family as long as they were willing to work hard. These jobs were manufacturing jobs.

    Now, these jobs are disappearing, Fareed, and they are taking with them hope for those Americans who never had a chance to participate in the knowledge based economy that you claim is the solution to displaced manufacturing jobs.

    But you wouldn't know about these people, Fareed, because you don't pass them by when you take the subway from your upper eastside condo to your downtown office suite.

    Just keep living in your fantasy world if you wish, where Americans are being trained to participate in the knowledge based economy and free trade is a boon for all. I will continue to live in the real world, where the loss of manufacturing jobs is taking with it the chance of the undereducated poor from participating in the American Dream

  • Posted By: gommy goomy @ 03/04/2008 11:01:08 AM

    Comment: How does someone get to be so stupid? And how does somebody, this stupid, make so much money? The Democrats language on "TRADE" is dangerous? What about their "TALK" on TERRORISM? Mr. Stupid doesn't think that their,"Get out now" rhetoric on the WAR, is dangerous? He doesn't think that telling our enemies that we'll be out before you know it, is, maybe, NOT the best tact to take? How about their constant attacks on the Commander in Cheif, for "Waging an ILLEGAL War"? You know, the one THEY VOTED FOR? Oh, that's right, they only voted for the "THREAT" of war. They never really considered actually GOING THROUGH WITH IT. Now THAT'S scarey. Unless you're Mr. Stupid.

  • Posted By: walkerthom @ 03/04/2008 10:00:13 AM

    Comment: Wow. This article certainly garnered a lot of emotion in comments :) Funny thing is, it's dead right. A: The Dems are 100% pandering. And Obama's staff has been caught lying - story A to Canada, story B to the US. IF HRC or BHO end up 'renegotiating' NAFTA, they will indeed need to compromise; i.e. Canada and Mexico will both want concessions too. There absolutely will be nostalgia for GWB if this occurs. In sum, the author is absolutely correct, but I guess the monkeys in the fun house keep dreaming they're in for free bananas. This is why politics is such a fun subject (and oftentimes, scary!).

    • Posted By: eyeswideoopen @ 03/04/2008 10:16:08

      Comment: I can't speak for these other people, but I don't want the NAFTA agreement renegotiated. I want it to be ripped up and burned.

      And you can add to that: the La Paz Agreement, CAFTA, Helsinki Final Act, the GATS Agreement, GATT agreements, the UN Charter, the Millennium Declaration, and any other document that entangles us in the international system.

  • Posted By: customer @ 03/04/2008 9:19:05 AM

    Comment: i am so glad that there is freedom of speech in this great country of ours and that this gentleman can express his views. But is this guy serious? I am glad that he is not running for office and hope that the Democrats are not just pandering for the most votes. (again)

  • Posted By: zeke227 @ 03/04/2008 8:30:41 AM

    Comment: The only ones who will be "nostalgic" for GW will be large corporations who have been making zillions overseas while the US infrastructure and industrial capability crumbles. Mr. Zakaria must be sharing a cubicle with the the other world class criminal, Karl Rove.

  • Posted By: eddiewhere @ 03/04/2008 3:12:02 AM

    Comment: CApITALISM WITH SOCIAL JUSTICE. NAFTA'S LABOR AND ENVIORNMENTAL STANDARDS MUST BE REFORMED. NOTHING REMAINS CONSTANT OR permanent, THIS IS A UNIVERSAL LAW AND HAS NO EXCEpTIONS. CHANGE IS INEVITABLE. THIS IS NOT THE CASTE S SySTEM. THE BASIC STRUCTURE OF THE AGREEMENT WILL REMAIN IN TACT. HOWEVER, there are issues INVOLVING NAFATA THAT ARE AFFECTING OUR ENVIORNMENT AND OUR FUTURE INTERESTS AS A NATION.
    After trade agreements become effective, government lawyers continue to play an important role in assessing whether our foreign trading partners are complying with their obligations. When it seems they are not, we assist in consultations with the foreign governments to encourage compliance. If our consultations are unsuccessful, we advise on the application of domestic trade laws as well as assist USTR with the dispute settlement cases that may be brought under NAFTA and WTO. THE Federal government takes seriously the legal requirement and public policy goal that women, minorities and other disadvantaged persons be given an equal opportunity to succeed

    CANADA AND MEXICO HAVE NO SAy THEy WILL COMpLy WITH U.S.
    CITy T.V NEEDS TO ApOLOGIZE TO ALL AMERICANS FOR THEIR FALSE AND INACCURATE REpORTING.
    THE HARpER CORRUpTION IS SpREADING TROUGHOUT THE WORLD. HIS CONSERVATIVE MACHINE IS BEHIND CITy TV'S DISGRACEFUL STORy . THEy CAN'T EVEN SOLVE CRIMES IN CANADA. THEIR LEGAL SyTEM IS A JOKE. THEIR pENALTIES ARE WEAK.

  • Posted By: Mwalimu @ 03/04/2008 12:14:12 AM

    Comment: NAFTA has had a devastating effect on Mexico. Millions of Mexican farmers and small businessmen have lost their livelihoods because of American agribusiness imports and corporation, both subsidized by the American government. The Mexican Middle Class has been decimated. The rate of poverty has increased drastically. American corporations are ripping off Mexican natural resources. As a result millions of Mexicans are coming up here, either as undocumented workers or as participants in "guest worker" programs. Either way, these workers are abused, cheated, and exploited. As a Christian, I find this unconscionable. As a supposedly Christian country, we cannot conscion a global economy where 3 billion people subsist on less than $ 2 a day. (The global economy, as it is now, is the cause of this economic disparity.)

    In addition to being anti-Christian, the global economy is messing up my nickel-and-dime portfolio. I cannot hope to make gains on my investments if most of the people in America or the world are too poor or too indebted to buy the goods and services the companies in my portfolio offer.

    Finally the global economy is unsustainable. Look at the price of gasoline. Also look at the devastating effect of global warming - particularly in the Third World. Zakaria needs to consider what will happen to India and China if the Himalayan glaciers disappear.

    We need to renegotiate NAFTA. We need to renegotiate ALL our trade treaties. We need to demand decent wages and living standards. We need to demand workers' rights to form unions (It was labor unions, not Ronald Reagan, which caused the downfall of the Evil Empire.) We need to demand environmental protections.

    Thank God for the Democratic party for taking a stand against our unfair free trade.(a misnomer - When you consider the social and environmental costs, free trade is anything but free.)

  • Posted By: Mwalimu @ 03/04/2008 12:03:40 AM

    Comment: Lala land.
    NAFTA has had a devastating effect on Mexico. It has decimated Mexico's agriculture. It has ruined millions of small farmers and small businessmen. It has wiped out Mexico's Middle Class. It has increased the rate of poverty. As a result millions of desperate Mexicans are coming here either as undocumented immigrants or as "guest wokers." Either way these migrants are treated like 21st century slaves.

    As a Christian, I cannot accept a world were 3 billion people must subsist on less than $ 2 a day. In addition to being virulently anti-Christian, the so-called global economy is wrecking my nickel and dime portfolio. I cannot make money on my stocks if people either in this country or around the world are too poor or too indebted to by the goods and services that the companies in my portfolio offer.

    In addition, the current global economy is unsustainable. It is contributing to global warming. And the costs of fossil fuels are going up. Zakaria needs to consider what will happen to India if the Himalayan glaciers disappear.

    We need to renggotiate NAFTA. We need to renegotiate ALL our trade treaties. We need to insist on decent wages and living standards. We need to insist on the right to form unions. (Remember, it was labor unions, not Ronald Reagan, that caused the fall of the Evil Empire.) We must insist on environmental protection.

    Thank God for the Democratic party and for leaders with the courage to speak up against the injustices of the current global economy

  • <