Re: Re: textiles

[Rakesh Bhandari <rakeshb@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> Aside from that, don't U.S. textile and apparel workers deserve some
> sort of attention? My soundbite is protect the worker, not the job,
> but I'd like to hear what you think should happen to disemployed
> workers in this sector, who are disproportionally nonwhite and
> female and generally rather ill-paid.
>
> Doug

Doug, I have put a lot of thought in my previous attempts to answer
this question that you put to me over and over; and i must say that i
think you have put very little thought in your replies as is obvious
from the above.  Which disparity is interesting sociologically.

first, how do we know whether protection is what we should do unless
we can determine whether it is imports or defensive innovation in the
face of imports that is responsible for job loss? raffer and singer
argue that trade is quite exaggerated. maybe the real problem is a
slow down in the global growth machine and the lack of global
keynesianism? "Well of course," one may say. "There are losses to be
had; they may as well fall on others?  why should we not go ahead and
win a zero sum game on behalf of fellow Americans with whom we have
some pre rational fellow feeling?"

It's very hard to argue rationally against such an inherently
irrational position, which seems deep down to be yours and Max's and
the unions' and perhaps the Labor Party's as well.

But we should recognize it for what it is--irrational nationalist
sentiment backed by imperial power.

Why don't you recognize the sentiment driving your question? "Our
workers are oppressed; theirs are oppressed. We might as well make
sure that our workers get as much of global direct investment and
global capital flows as there is to be had in this globally depressed
economy. Our capitalist state won't spend for public works and pump
up effective demand in general; but alas maybe it'll give us a
hypocritical trade regime--no so-called restrictive business
practices for them, MFA and susidies for us; may as well go for it;
let's make a bunch of noise in seattle and through such ritual
reinforce our in group identity; next target China."

This is not about keeping jobs for  union workers against
unorganized as Max fantasizes; it's about at times keeping our union
jobs away from their union jobs; it's about keeping our open shop
jobs from their open shop jobs.   Us and them seem like obvious
categories to the sociologically naive; they are not to me for
intellectual and personal reasons.  At any rate,  do you want me to
make a rational argument against this sentiment? What kind of
argument would be convincing to a good American boy (as opposed to
the bad subject that I thought you were)?

well as i said we should begin by getting the facts straight; how
much of the loss of employment in this sector should be attributed to
imports in the first instance? how much employment is there to be
lost in heavily automated factories, anwyay (correlatively, how much
employment is there to be gained in the exporting countries)? how
much do imports really only compete with each other? if textile or
steel imports were curtailed, would the decrease in the supply of the
dollars abroad raise the dollar and thus cost jobs in other export
sectors (e.g., aircraft, speciality machine tools, etc)? how many of
the net jobs which americans lost result from imports or an open
global economy anyway?

maybe the drive to think in terms of us and them at an international
level has led to a misdiagnosis of the problem?

second, i don't see how the above justifies the Nation's (double
meaning meant) lack of consideration of the consequences of actions
taken to protect the American worker. I think we should start with
recognition that there are no good immediate solutions to the
problems at hand.  At least one can be honest and report the truth.

third, perhaps we should be asking why there aren't some monies
available for something other than huge tax cuts for the rich. You
know, transition programs, public employment, etc.

Rakesh