A completely truthful protest against the WTO would go something like this:

"I want my job and my whole industry to depend on the whims of protection legislation passed by Congress. It's much easier to whine about unfair competition than to innovate and lower costs."

"I have the benefit of 12 years of education at $6000/yr (average US primary education spending.) But I want to do the same job as a third world villager for ten times the money. It's unfair to make me compete with them! I shouldn't have to give up a high salary just so they can feed their families making things for me!"

"Poor people should not be allowed to work in dirty industries. They shouldn't let their children work either. They should just go back to the good exercise and clean living you get by subsistence farming. Occaisional drought, hunger and disease are just part of living a natural, wholesome life. And kids don't work on farms, right?"

"I'd rather have a low-paying job (or a high-paying one with high prices) than have to learn new skills. Unequal pay for equal work, that's my motto!"

-- What I Hear (one@two.three), November 30, 1999

Answers

My Dear What I Hear

What don't you have mommie wipe the spittle off your little mouth, change your diaper (it's nite nite time). As for the rest of your drivel....Go tell it to some one who gives a D***N.

In the real world, that high paying job that went over seas to the poor little dirt farmer (who gets may be 10.00 a day for his work). Produces the goods, (which we are buying in the first place). Then those goods are being shipped back to us and sold at the same price to us, as they where when the goods where produced here.

The two differences? The company has more bottom line profit, and the people put out of work have to hold down two, sometimes three low paying burger flipping jobs to raise their kids!

So off with your holy than thou BULLS**T Buddy! That song does not play with the working man/woman now.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Shakey~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

-- Shakey (in_a_bunker@forty.feet), November 30, 1999.

right-on shakey!!

-- Porky (Porky@in.cellblockD), November 30, 1999.

Even in the poor countries, they give these jobs to women and children because they don't have to pay them as much as the men. You don't have to pay non-male workers enough to support a family. Incredibly disgusting. And the people who benefit are the corporate executives and the stock holders. It's all a pretty disgusting deal.

-- nothing (better@to.do), November 30, 1999.

and just when you may have thought americans had no solidarity...along comes the WTO protests

comforting in a way

that at least 50,000 of us in one city can still get together and do something ;)

-- thekid (frorider76@hotmail.com), November 30, 1999.

Apparently your an advocate of global socialism.A person of your intelligence is either unemployed or employed by .gov.Considering the former,your compensation is still in excess of many third world companies.In either case your statements are highly hypocrytical.Your posture is the reason for the protests.

-- Now Hear This (Just say NO@to.WTO), November 30, 1999.

---I think that these wto protests are the most amazing coalition of disparate politcal philosophies as I have ever seen, but they are all united in their utter contempt for the profit at any cost crowd. Truly phenomenal. At least that's my take on it. The global internationalists might be slick at making a buck for a few select filthy rich elite, but at what price? Slave labor, trashing the environment, destroying our domestic manufacturing base, undermining any sort of national soveirgnty. I say, get the wto out, get the un out! out they go!

zog

-- zog (zzoggy@yahoo.com), November 30, 1999.

nowhearthis:

Normally I'd remain taciturn, BUT, I've spent most of my adult life working for either Federal .gov (national defence) or Provincial .gov (Forest Service).

There's alot of idiotsticks out there, but some of us consider it a calling to be a public servant, be it in the forest or in Kosovo.

Be kind.

-- (Kurt.Borzel@gems8.gov.bc.ca), November 30, 1999.

Well said SHAKEY.

"In the real world, that high paying job that went over seas to the poor little dirt farmer (who gets may be 10.00 a day for his work). Produces the goods, (which we are buying in the first place). Then those goods are being shipped back to us and sold at the same price to us, as they where when the goods where produced here.

The two differences? The company has more bottom line profit, and the people put out of work have to hold down two, sometimes three low paying burger flipping jobs to raise their kids! "

Couldn't have said it better myself.

-- GoldReal (GoldReal@aol.com), November 30, 1999.

Kurt, My apologies.Thousands of good and loyal people are employed by .gov.My rant was with political government and not with the many public servants who respect and serve our country.We do appreciate your service.

-- Now Hear This (Just say NO@to.WTO), November 30, 1999.

Re: Socialism. It takes a Communist to imply that anyone siding against the WTO is a socialist. You overlook the fulcrum this year which has spawned many groups into discontent, which is the admission into the WTO of communist China, despite their human rights violations, stealing gov secrets and technology, funding Clington's campaign, whining for and receiving handouts of MY personal income tax dollars.... My question is, what would our forefathers have intended? If I support the constitution, with its' emphasis on national sovereignty, and federal revenue from Congress' issuance of tariffs (not income tax, which is unconstitutional), so if I support the Constitution of the United States of America then you suggest I must be a Socialist? WTF!

-- Hokie (nn@va.com), December 01, 1999.

WIH, you ain't nothing but a slimy wall street shill. Who you foolin' fool! If a dude like Hilter took over America you'd be the first one lickin' his boots and talkin' his talk.

It is better to serve the devil, than it is to stand in his path-- The Mummy.

-- What BS I Hear (three@two. one), December 01, 1999.

As I monitor the WTO happenings, I feel like we're getting a y2k "answer" here...and I hope my hunch isn't true.

It seems like the desire for profits over morals may have affected the so-called truth that has dribbled out of many of our national and corporate leaders' mouths. They dribble to the people through the media and advertising. They dribble to us that everything will be fine, just a BITR. This dribble keeps their profits up...for the time being, but eventually all towers will fall.

After the coming crisis, whether it happens in 30 days or 10 years, we must remember to be stewards of our environment, community, country, world and most importantly of our families and ourselves.

-- tired... (springwillcome@home.net), December 01, 1999.

Just remember -- go out and spend those dollars during the holidays -- just released report shows consumer confidence is up once again. Borrow -- borrow -- borrow so you can make profits for the big guys.

-- claurann (claurann@aol.com), December 01, 1999.

Saw a good cartoon recently:

Black kid in the inner city vs. Oriental kid in Far East sweat shop

Black kid has Nike Shoes but no job. Oriental kid has job but no shoes.

Our level of technology is such that it only takes 10 people to do the real work that keeps 100 people alive. Killing that used to take 3000 men in B-17's during WW II now can be done with 10 men and a salvo of cruise missiles. Trains that used to have 5 man crews now have 2 man crews. Planes are flown with 2 men instead of 7.

Our poor in America have Cars, TV's, VCR's and microwaves. What happens to the world if America stops buying. What happens to the environment if we bring everyone in the Third World up to our life style

-- woody (woody11420@aol.com), December 01, 1999.

Anybody from Seattle (KING 5 -NBC) catch the WTO protestor who was tearing down the NIKE sign off the Nike store downtown today? You know - the one very clearly wearing NIKE shoes?

-- Valkyrie (anon@please.xnet), December 01, 1999.

I can understand the WTO concerns as they relate to national sovereignty. But would you be willing to pay $300 for a pair of Nikes made in the USA, assuming that your wages stayed the same as they are today?

And why are the longshoremen, whose jobs depend to a large degree on foreign trade, protesting against the WTO?

A final thought. Do you think foreign countries would allow the import of Boeing, Coca-Cola or Microsoft products if they could avoid it?

Just wondering...

-- Midas (midas_mulligan_2000@yahoo.com), December 01, 1999.

"Oh baby, Oh Baby, Oh Baby Oh...Well they laid me off and sent my job down to Mexico." by David Plumb

-- Mark Hillyard (foster@inreach.com), December 01, 1999.

Midas,

1) I can understand the WTO concerns as they relate to national sovereignty. But would you be willing to pay $300 for a pair of Nikes made in the USA, assuming that your wages stayed the same as they are today?

Answer: Nikes wouldn't be $300 here or anywhere else in the world if ALL WORKERS, world wide, made a living wage with benefits.

Competition would control prices and those hand full of Nike (and other multi-national corporate) executives wouldn't be making $600 million dollar "bonuses" as they currently are. Instead, they would have to suffer by on maybe $6 million dollar bonuses. I know, it'd be tough on them for a while, but they'd get use to it.

2) And why are the longshoremen, whose jobs depend to a large degree on foreign trade, protesting against the WTO?

Answer: I'm unfamiliar with exactly why longshoremen are protesting against the WTO. Could it be they are concerned about importing more than we export? These people see first hand how much "stuff" comes into the U.S. and how much goes out. Maybe they'd rather be loading ships with products manufactured by working men and women here who make a living wage, instead of unloading products manufactured by child labor overseas.

3) A final thought. Do you think foreign countries would allow the import of Boeing, Coca-Cola or Microsoft products if they could avoid it?

Answer: Yes, I do think foreign countries will eventually stop importing products made by Boeing, Coca-Cola and Microsoft. The U.S. is being used by foreign countries. They gladly take our high tech products and use them to become self-sufficient. Eventually, they won't need to purchase ANY products from the U.S. They'll be able to manufacture their own, at pennies what it costs the U.S. to manufacture these same high tech products.

Twenty years from now, what will we (the U.S.) have left to sell on the world markets if low wages and advances in technology continue oversees? Nothing. We will be in the unenvious position of being totally reliant upon foreign companies to supply our basic products, which we won't be able to afford anyway because those countries standard of living will be rising while ours will be free-falling.

-- GoldReal (GoldReal@aol.com), December 01, 1999.

Woody, More like three men to take out an entire grid square!!! You ever heard of a MLRS?

-- Billy Boy (Rakkasan101st@aol.com), December 01, 1999.

GoldReal ,

1) Nikes wouldn't be $300 here or anywhere else in the world if ALL WORKERS, world wide, made a living wage with benefits.

Competition would control prices and those hand full of Nike (and other multi-national corporate) executives wouldn't be making $600 million dollar "bonuses" as they currently are. Instead, they would have to suffer by on maybe $6 million dollar bonuses. I know, it'd be tough on them for a while, but they'd get use to it.

Answer: Who determines what a "living wage" is? The government? Me? You? Or should we split the difference, between your average American factory worker and his or her counterpart in Vietnam or Indonesia? I'm sure that foreign workers would be delighted with that arrangement, but I can't see it playing in Peoria.

And, is the market for running shoes regulated, or did someone pass a law that no one could compete with Nike?

Bottom line: I don't believe that businessmen and women are 'angels,' but I have far more faith in the free market than I do in any government or bureaucrat.

2) I'm unfamiliar with exactly why longshoremen are protesting against the WTO. Could it be they are concerned about importing more than we export? These people see first hand how much "stuff" comes into the U.S. and how much goes out. Maybe they'd rather be loading ships with products manufactured by working men and women here who make a living wage, instead of unloading products manufactured by child labor overseas.

Answer: Sorry, but I don't see the longshoremen striking out of solidarity for their counterparts in the developing world. It would not be too difficult, on the other hand, to make a case for their wanting to protect high-paying, unionized jobs that effectively lock- out all forms of competition, especially those that save consumers money by reducing freight rates.

3) Yes, I do think foreign countries will eventually stop importing products made by Boeing, Coca-Cola and Microsoft. The U.S. is being used by foreign countries. They gladly take our high tech products and use them to become self-sufficient. Eventually, they won't need to purchase ANY products from the U.S. They'll be able to manufacture their own, at pennies what it costs the U.S. to manufacture these same high tech products.

Twenty years from now, what will we (the U.S.) have left to sell on the world markets if low wages and advances in technology continue oversees? Nothing. We will be in the unenvious position of being totally reliant upon foreign companies to supply our basic products, which we won't be able to afford anyway because those countries standard of living will be rising while ours will be free-falling.

Answer: Foreign consumers and companies will stop importing American products only when better quality items are available elsewhere; when U.S. goods are uncompetitively priced; or when foreign goverments erect trade barriers that make it impossible or uneconomical to do so. The irony of the Seattle protests is that the U.S. stands to benefit more from the WTO's actions than any other country on earth.

Midas

-- midas (midas_mulligan_2000@yahoo.com), December 01, 1999.

Midas Mulligan, I suggest that you apply pressure to your shoulders, Push down vigerously with short ,rapid movements and with repeated attempts you may be successful at extracting your head from it's confinment deep in your anal orifice. In laymans terms get your yuppie head out of your A**

-- Ben Dover (nochildslavelabor@WTOsucks.com), December 01, 1999.

Anybody read the Work of Nations by Robert Reich? Interesting Read.

I don't believe the protesters are so much against "free-trade". The concern here is being "heard", having a voice in the negotiations, including human and environmental issues in the discussions. Trade was the catalyst for the merchant/middle class; trade was the catalyst that dispelled the Dark Ages and herald in the Renaissance.

-- (karlacalif@aol.com), December 01, 1999.

I'm wondering about "bringing 3rd world countries up to our standards". I'm not a financial whiz kid by any means, but I do wonder about the long-term effects on our global society.

That isn't in the companies best interests. Keeping the manufacturing costs low and selling to a high-end market is the only way to maximize profits.

Also consider this, bringing up 3rd world countries to a level playing field could also lead to:

1. More isolation. If all the playing fields are the same it could make more sense for some companies to only compete within regional sectors instead of worldwide. Why ship overseas, when the market's just as good at home. (Save on shipping costs, overhead on creating new plants and training employees to production standards, changing materials to foreign languages, etc...) OR, CONVERSELY

2. It could lead to mega-mergers. Only giant conglomerates could compete on a world-wide basis successfully. Consider the start-up costs, training, etc... to be able to compete globally. Only the largest and most capital-intensive corporations could deal with such staggering logistics.

With so few companies competing, and therefore, lack of entreprenurial atmosphere, wouldn't it seem rational that prices would NOT decrease? We would be living in a global MONOPOLIZATION. Think "Ma Bell", but on a global scale.

The only thing WTO is for is to use as a "hammer" against governments that have policies that companies don't like. Perhaps they see lobbying as no longer as "expedient" to enhanced profit-making as they'd like. Corporations don't like having to be responsible to others, except their board members. It sounds like WTO is trying to re-define who creates the laws and take the control out of the Legislative, Executive and Judical Branches.

WTO is nothing short of a coup attempt against all governments.

-- Deb M. (vmcclell@columbus.rr.com), December 01, 1999.

Nike pays Michael Jordan in the neighborhood of 60 million to advertise for them.

Tiger Woods gets 40 million.

Hell, even Nick Price gets 15-20 million.

Nike has to sell a lot of pricey shoes to get that $$$ back.

Deano

-- Deano (deano@luvthebeach.com), December 01, 1999.

Ben Dover

I'd like to take this opportunity to thank you for your rational, well-researched response.

Clearly, name-calling is the answer to child labor, global warming and perhaps cancer.

-- Midas (midas_mulligan_2000@yahoo.com), December 01, 1999.