Populistii vin sa sparga sistemul

Populistii vin sa sparga sistemul – 27 iunie 2016

Smaranda Dobrescu

Acum, "barbarii sunt la porti". Populistii vin sa sparga sistemul si in acest proces distrug o mare intelegere asupra bogatiei.Elitele cosmopolite liberale ale lumii sunt nevoite sa diagnostigheze rapid si eficient aceasta problema si sa inceapa sa reflecteze la noul echilibru dupa aceasta revolta impotriva elitelor. Cum sa construim un sistem incluziv economic in care antreprenoriatul, inovatiile si societatile private sa fie capabile sa mai produca crestere fara sa produca  insa nivele politice instabile de inechitate? Care trebuie sa fie viitorul rol al guvernelor si corporatiilor intr-un mediu inalt productiv dar cu grad de ocupare mai scazut?La aceste intrebari va trebui sa se raspunda in urmatoarele decade daca dorim sa ajungem la un aranjament sustenabil politic. Actualul model construit de elitele noastre nu este sustenabil. Si noi toti va trebui sa platim pentru asta. 
Autorul articolului de mai jos considera ca Brexit-ul ca si celelalte tendinte manifestate acut post Brexit sunt o reactie impotriva elitelor larg manifestata in lume . Este foarte posibil ca sa apara noi miscari anti-capitaliste si, poate, anti-democratice. Se stie ca, de exemplu, ca multe din partidele de extrema stanga au atacat in trecut capitalismul ca sistem sau ca partidele de extrema dreapta aduc cu ele tendinte puternice anti-democratice. Imigratia si multiculturalismul in general vor fi indelung chestionate; acestea sunt deja in vizor in Europa si America. Minoritatile vor fi victime ale miscarilor populiste intrucat sunt vazute ca purtatoare de probleme, cum ar fi preluarea preferentiala de slujbe sau ca amenintari ale securitatii. 
Iata deci ca Brexit-ul ridica mult mai multe probleme, mergand spre radacinile integrarii si globalizarii accentuate, atingand TTIP-ul.si ridicand la rang de lege neincrederea in elite sau in establishment cum am auzit ca spun americanii cand vorbesc despre Trump....

Brexit Exemplifies The Anti-Elite Era

There is growing dissatisfaction with the elites. The problem is that the elites being opposed are those who support Western liberal values.

SOCIALEUROPE.EU|BY MANUEL MUNIZ

Prospectiv A-z .
Uite d'aia social democratii nu sunt adecvati momentului, pentru ca gazduiesc asemenea opinii ale unui minion intelectual al elitelor neo-conservatoare/liberale! 

Manuel Muniz is Director of the Program on Transatlantic Relations at Harvard University's Weatherhead Center for International Affairs. 

Da, BREXITul e un vot contra elitelor de genul Mariei Antoinette despre care Rousseau scria: "Enfin je me rappelai le pis-aller d'une grande princesse à qui l'on disait que les paysans n'avaient pas de pain, et qui répondit: Qu'ils mangent de la brioche!" Si asa este si votul pentru Trump.

Smaranda Dobrescu Social democratii, ca si alte grupari, in situatii de criza gazduiesc toate opiniile. Mai ales cand parti din opinii sunt acceptate de acestia :-)

Prospectiv A-z .
Atunci sa traducem certificatul de deces si in romaneste! 

Poate ca au avut dreptate neprietenii social democratilor sa-i considere in termeni nu tocmai principiali apropos de relatia lor acomodanta cu capitalul la timp de CRIZA...

Smaranda Dobrescu Chiar social democratii, nu doar ne-prietenii acestora au criticat politica comuna cu a liberalilor facuta de acestia nu in putine cazuri. Si noi la grup am publicat pareri ale neoliberalilor, ale comunistilor, ale diversilor oameni care au avut ceva de spus. Pot sa-mi amintesc de reprrosurile facute lui Blair, Schroder, Ponta, Hollande, chiar de mine.. Iar in privinta articolului, ghimelele puse de mine la inceput pot devoala parerea mea.

Prospectiv A-z .
Nu era vorba de pareri personale ale celor de fata; este vorba despre faptul ca la socialeurope.eu in particular, si in social democratie in general, nu vom gasi idei de Stanga, ci trompete ale Dreptei...

De aici tristetea caci oamenii nu-s fraierii pe care-i crede elita si se vor reorienta ORICUM & CU ORICE PRET!

Smaranda Dobrescu NU! Daca am citi zilnic ce se scrie in SEJ, am vedea destule nuante asociate unor principii. Daca nu mai consideram social democratii sau socialistii ca fiind ideologi ai stangii, atunci fie stanga trebuie redefinita, fie lasam loc doar comunistilor sa-si asume titlul de stanga.

Prospectiv A-z .
Cand Reagan-Thatcher au nuantat social democratia occidentala, lucrurile s-au inrautatit pentru majoritate.

Cand locul socialistilor/comunistilor a fost luat in Romania/Estul Europei de *nuantati*, lucrurile au luat-o vertiginos la... vale.

Smaranda Dobrescu " Nuantatii" sunt cei care in 1950 s-au despartit aproape total de marxism. Au facut-o si tarile nordice, si nemtii lui Willy Brandt, si multi altii care s-au manifestat ca socialisti pana la amestecul financiar monetar. Cel putin in Europa. In America de Sud, nu s-au schimbat prea mult. Daca schimbarea a fost conjuncturala pentru a obtine gratiile popularlor majoritari sau de fond, se va vedea cat de curand. Pana atunci , spune-mi Prospectiv A-z , te rog, cu cine votam: cu neoliberalii, cu partidele anti-sistem/anti parlament sau cu comunistii?

Prospectiv A-z .
Votul fiecaruia trebuie sa-i reflecte constiinta, ar spune unii, respectiv interesul, ar spune altii.

Cert este ca social democratia a fost ultima la masa cu hapsanii, iar acestora nu le pasa mai mult decat Mariei Antoinette de majoritate. Caz in care majoritatea se va suci catre... abis.

Adica eu doar atrag atentia iresponsabilitatii cu care social democratia n-a corectat excesele Dreptei, nu umblu la ce a facut pe alese in anii pre-1990, ici si colo!

Smaranda Dobrescu Cred ca e cazul sa apelam la chestia cu constiinta. Daca e insa sa ne intrebam ce au facut social democratii pe ici pe colo pana in 1990, as spune ca cei din vest au pus in aplicare cum s-au priceput welfare state, iar cei din est au umplut puscariile comuniste.

Prospectiv A-z .
In discutie puneam ce s-a intamplat dupa 1989! Social democratia a creat iluzia opozitiei democratice cand de fapt s-a identificat cu Dreapta pana la sinucidere.

Mihai Ion Turcu Dilema pare fara solutie.In masura in care genereaza presiune intrasistemica si nu exista solutie urmeaza o explozie, modelul prototipic al haosului (exista legi ale haosului si organizqarii haosului, Teoria Big Bang).Solutia presupune o reconceptualizare a civilizatiei porenind de la nevoi reale si excluderea falselor nevoi.Civlizatia noastra (industriala si capitalista) ofera raspuns la nevoi reale si false,cu efortul de a inventa noi nevoi false care sa consume produse vandabile. Aceasta combinatie devalorizeaza insai produsele. Cata vreme produsele trebuiau sa fie manufacturate, generau locuri de munca. Erau si scumpe. Daca ele sunt produse de un robot industrial programat, include creativitatea programatorului urmand o productie de masa, ieftina, si exclude potentialul creativ a imensei mase de implicati in productii de gen diverse.Sansa originalitatii, inovatiei se diminueaza. Dar am deviat in particular. Franta absolutista s-a salvat finantele la un moment dat producand obiecte de lux, curtea fiind aceea care genera nevoia largita de imitare, de la palate inutile dar splendide la gradini, pana la dantele.In materie au rezultat artificiozitati ridicole.Spre exemplu un castel de vanatoare varf in arhitectura, fara bucatarii. Un palat imens care aduna intreaga mare nobilime a Frantei, fara instalatii pentru igiena. Tot palatul mirosea penetrant a urina statuta si superbul parc era plin de fecale.O rochie pentru imbracarea careia eta necesar un scripete si trei cameriste, avand corest cu lame de metal, care sustinea intr-o forma aplatizata nord-sud clopotul rochiei, o cucoana astfel costumata putand intra intr-o camera doar daca usa avea doua canaturi pe care doi valeti trebuiau sa le deschida simultan, sau pentru a putea totudi trece dintr-o camera in alta in lipsa a doua canaturi, instalatia includea o cheita care mobiliza clopotul cu rotire de 90%. Pana la inventarea periculor, frizurile doamenlor, opera de arta,date cu faina, presupuneau noaptea o cusca atasata pe cap, care sa impeidice soarecii sa le rontaie.Cu cat mai artificial, mai contra naturii, mai incomod, si mai costisitor cu atata mai nobil......

Smaranda Dobrescu Mi-ati invocat patul Mariei Antoinette :-) Acum sa vedem cum definim nevoile reale..

Mihai Ion Turcu Smaranda Dobrescu @sunt identificate si sistematizate. Stiti ca regle nu dormea vreodata in patul sau oficial, pe catafalcul acela din dormitorul cat o biserica,cu neputinta de a fi incalzit. Venea printr-un coridor privat si se plasa in pat pentru oficierea ceremoniei destaparii regelui la care participau cu sarcini de camerist marii nobili in ordinea rangurilor, servicii pentru care primeau si indemnizatii.Marea nobilime a fost obligata sa locuiasca la curte pentru a fi controlata si pentru a cheltui cat mai mult, in asa fel incit sa nu dispuna de bani pentru a -si putea asigura autonomii pe propriile domenii.Locuiau foarte stramtorat in palat.A existat un rege constipat.procesul dura foarte mult si cu mare efort, regele avand un program public de urmat. In consecinta tronul a fost adaptat si regele s-a lungit tunica. Toata curtea a trecut la tunici lungi. Cand efortul regal se dovedea cu chinuit succes, sonorizat, curtea aplauda mic victorie de etapa. Problema este ce sa se faca cu multimea oamenilor si redistribuirea beneficiului civilizatiei.Formula clasica dupa epuizarea posibilitatii de colonizare, au fost razboaiele, limitarea procreerii (China, incercata si in India, legare de conducte seminale la barbati),solutie liberala pare a fi promovarea acuplarilor infertile , se poate ajunge la selectie categoriala dupa valoarea ADN si alte inginerii .Nimic nou, le avem la Atena si Sparta.

Smaranda Dobrescu Adaptare sistemica

Dinica Roman Vladimir Bortun: 
http://www.criticatac.ro/.../despre-brexit-falimentul-ue.../
https://www.facebook.com/vladimir.bortun/posts/570207006520041

Despre Brexit: falimentul UE, pariul greșit al stângii și perspectivele ei post-referendum |...

Oricât de paradoxal ar părea, dat fiind că locuiesc în Anglia de aproape trei ani, am vrut să câștige Brexitul. Ca om de stânga în 2016, nu mai poți susține Uniunea Europeană, oricât ai beneficia tu personal de pe urma ei. Din păcate, stânga mainstream de-aici – Partidul Laburist, marile sindicate (...

CRITICATAC.RO

Dinica Roman Claudiu Gaiu: tare bun! mic bemol referitor la grevele franceze. mitologia mai 68 ascunde alte mari mişcări greviste din anii 80 şi mai ales 90. Grevele actuale nu sunt "cele mai mari de după 68". Marea grevă din 95 împotriva reformei în sănătate e deocamdată mai importantă ca mobilizare şi pierderei provocate decât actualele mişcări sociale

Vladimir Bortun: Mersi, Claudiu! De acord cu grevele în Franța, a fost o exagerare retorică. :)

Dinica Roman bogdan draganescu da un raspuns ecologic: 

"Imigrația în sine nu e nici bună, nici rea – e ceea ce faci din ea."
la fel e şi UE.
UE nu e, în esenţă, nici de dreapta nici de stânga, ci o reflectare a politicilor şi direcţiilor adoptate de statele membre. " Greva din 2009 de la rafinăria Lindsey din Lincolnshire reprezintă doar un exemplu de cum o stângă militantă poate schimba termenii dezbaterii în favoarea sa." : acesta e şi un exemplu că lucrurile se pot schimba în UE "din interior", în mod democratic şi nu doar în direcţii neo-liberale. cum ar fi fost posibilă o asemenea schimbare într-o UE "pur neoliberală" şi în esenţă "mafiotă"?
deasemenea, tratamentul "pur neoliberal" al Greciei e o idee umflată. Grecia şi-a creat datorii imense din cauza propriei politici şi economii (sau şi din cauza). faptul că e tratată cu austeritate arată problema UE, anume că nu cu adevărat unită, după un model federal/regional (precum SUA sau Rusia), în care banii comuni să rezolve crizele locale. iar această unitate economică-financiară e ceva spre care ar putea să tindă, independent şi dincolo de tendinţele sau ambiţiile de stânga sau dreapta.
dacă e să vorbim de faliment sau nefuncţionalitate la nivelul UE, cea mai falimentară e politica de stânga. nu înseamnă că dreapta stă mai bine. poate tocmai pentru că ambele au vedere o economie "pusă în slujba oamenilor și a comunităților". ideea antropocentrică cu care se încheie articolul, şi care nu face decât să creeze şi să susţină în continuare centralismul politic şi economic pe care îl respinge.
economia nu trebuie pusă în slujba oamenilor (pentru că aici părerile iar se împart, cum anume ar trebui pusă), ci în slujba vieţii şi a naturii, din care viaţa şi natura umană e doar o componentă, un membru. şi-a propus stânga să lase petrolul şi cărbunele în pământ, să conserve pădurile şi viaţa sălbatică, să mănânce mai puţină carne, să producă maşini electrice? pentru că dacă nu, nu e mai bună decât dreapta. falimentul la care asistăm nu e al UE, e unul global, al omenirii şi al naturii, al politicii umane antropocentriste dusă până acum.

Prospectiv A-z .
In termani similari vad si eu miza: 

"Să nu uităm că în anii '20-'30, partidele fasciste au ajuns la putere în timpul unei crize profunde a capitalismului tocmai pentru că stânga nu preluase puterea atunci când avusese șansa (mai mult de o dată în cazul Germaniei). Eșecul atât al social-democraților reformiști cât și al comuniștilor controlați de Stalin de-a oferi maselor deziluzionate o alternativă reală la capitalism a permis atunci fasciștilor italieni și germani să pară drept unica „alternativă radicală" la status quo (deși au devenit ei înșiși o unealtă în mâna status quo-ului). Știm cu toții ce-a urmat, și totuși atâția oameni de stânga azi par să nu fi înțeles lecția acelei tragedii istorice: faptul că stânga trebuie să se opună status quo-ului cu atât mai mult cu cât vrea să prevină succesul extremei drepte! În mijlocul unei crize prelungite a unei UE neoliberale față de care oamenii sunt tot mai deziluzionați, vrem să lăsăm iar dreapta reacționară să se prezinte drept unica „alternativă" disponibilă?…"

Merita discutata prescriptia insa:

"Desigur că alternativa la UE nu e retragerea în statul-națiune (la asta oricum se pricepe dreapta mult mai bine), așa cum cred unele voci de stânga, care cad în capcana acestei false dihotomii perfect convenabile status quo-ului neoliberal și dreptei naționaliste deopotrivă. Liniile generale ale unei alternative au fost deja schițate de o parte a stângii radicale europene: formarea unui front unit al guvernelor de stânga. Un front transnațional bazat pentru început în sudul Europei, unde stânga e deja la putere în Grecia și Portugalia; poate în curând și în Spania dacă Podemos & Stânga Unită cad de acord cu socialiștii, în vreme ce în Franța (unde la anul sunt alegeri prezidențiale) asistăm la cele mai mari greve și proteste din 1968 încoace. Pe măsură ce noi guverne de stânga ar ajunge la putere în alte țări (inclusiv posibila coaliție progresistă din UK pomenită mai sus), ele s-ar putea alătura unei astfel de Europe alternative – o Europă cu adevărat unită și internaționalistă, în care economia ar fi pusă în slujba oamenilor și a comunităților, iar o democrație autentică le-ar permite oamenilor să participe efectiv la procesul de decizie politică. Sună vag și utopic, știu, însă e cu siguranță mai realist decât iluzia de-a bloca revenirea fascismului prin apărarea status quo-ului care prin natura sa a făcut posibilă acea revenire."

Mai crede careva din Romania pacalita de internationalism in internationalism? Care ar fi conditiile? Vestul niciodata nu s-a uitat altfel decat cu superioritate, care i-a 'indreptatit' actiunile rapace, la rESTul.

Smaranda Dobrescu As porni tot de la concluziile preluate din articol si de Prospectiv A-z .
1. Frontul comun al guvernelor de stanga transnational inseamna la ora actuala Portugalia. Grecia joaca la impuse iar Syriza a uitat ca a fost de stanga cu impunerile impuse sau liber acceptate. IN Spania Partidul Popular al sefului guvernului conservator Mariano Rajoy a castigat duminica alegerile parlamentare in fata Partidului socialist si coalitiei stangii radicale Unidos Podemos, potrivit rezultatelor oficiale. Franta dupa comportamentul socialistilor lui Hollande si cresterea FN, indiferent de demonstratiile de strada nu va mai alege nicio stanga radicala sau moderata.Italianul Renzi deja a fost cooptat in conclavul secretos de conducere al UE post Brexit. Chiar daca alte guverne de stanga vor ajunge la putere in alte tari, (evident nu simultan) ce vor face? Vor organiza doua UE? Vor reusi sa depaseasca numeric popularii din institutiile europene sustinuti de Germania? Mie imi plac utopiile dar nu cele in care este ignorat trendul nationalist datorat refugiatilor si preluarii suveranitatii si nici glorificarea internationalismului doar pe motivul ca apartine stangii. Daca cu tarile Visegrad nu ne potrivim iar Bulgaria nu se incumeta sa imbratiseze politica noastra externa belicoasa, care ar mai fi posibilii aliati presupunand ca o stanga chiar ar accede la putere in Romania?
Ce ar fi ca macar alesii in PE sa-si respecte programul de stanga si sa se lupte in PE sau in Consiliul European (presedintele) sa si le impuna?Asta pana cand va sosi momentul castigarii unui teren adecvat al stangii. Tot nu am inteles de ce laburistii ar fi trebuit sa sustina Brexit-ul? oricum, votantii mai in varsta, nemultumiti de politica guvernamentala sunt laburisti in majoritate si s-au cerut afara indiferent de ce spunea Corbyn

Prospectiv A-z .
Foarte bune aceste accente de temperare ale entuziasmului cu experienta! Daca ne punem prospectiv mintile la contributie, scoatem ceva si mai bun decat entusiasm sau temperanta luate in izolare.

Prospectiv A-z .
Mai mult sau mai putin, asta spuneam. O concluzie emerge din BREXIT

Surprise, surprise. Workers in Britain, many of whom have seen a decline in their standard of living while the very rich in their country have become much richer, have turned their backs on the European Union and a globalized economy that is failing them and their children.

And it's not just the British who are suffering. That increasingly globalized economy, established and maintained by the world's economic elite, is failing people everywhere. Incredibly, the wealthiest 62 people on this planet own as much wealth as the bottom half of the world's population — around 3.6 billion people. The top 1 percent now owns more wealth than the whole of the bottom 99 percent. The very, very rich enjoy unimaginable luxury while billions of people endure abject poverty, unemployment, and inadequate health care, education, housing and drinking water.

Could this rejection of the current form of the global economy happen in the United States? You bet it could.

During my campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination, I've visited 46 states. What I saw and heard on too many occasions were painful realities that the political and media establishment fail even to recognize.

In the last 15 years, nearly 60,000 factories in this country have closed, and more than 4.8 million well-paid manufacturing jobs have disappeared. Much of this is related to disastrous trade agreements that encourage corporations to move to low-wage countries.

Despite major increases in productivity, the median male worker in America today is making $726 dollars less than he did in 1973, while the median female worker is making $1,154 less than she did in 2007, after adjusting for inflation.

Nearly 47 million Americans live in poverty. An estimated 28 million have no health insurance, while many others are underinsured. Millions of people are struggling with outrageous levels of student debt. For perhaps the first time in modern history, our younger generation will probably have a lower standard of living than their parents. Frighteningly, millions of poorly educated Americans will have a shorter life span than the previous generation as they succumb to despair, drugs and alcohol.

Meanwhile, in our country the top one-tenth of 1 percent now owns almost as much wealth as the bottom 90 percent. Fifty-eight percent of all new income is going to the top 1 percent. Wall Street and billionaires, through their "super PACs," are able to buy elections.

On my campaign, I've talked to workers unable to make it on $8 or $9 an hour; retirees struggling to purchase the medicine they need on $9,000 a year of Social Security; young people unable to afford college. I also visited the American citizens of Puerto Rico, where some 58 percent of the children live in poverty and only a little more than 40 percent of the adult population has a job or is seeking one.

Let's be clear. The global economy is not working for the majority of people in our country and the world. This is an economic model developed by the economic elite to benefit the economic elite. We need real change.

But we do not need change based on the demagogy, bigotry and anti-immigrant sentiment that punctuated so much of the Leave campaign's rhetoric — and is central to Donald J. Trump's message.

We need a president who will vigorously support international cooperation that brings the people of the world closer together, reduces hypernationalism and decreases the possibility of war. We also need a president who respects the democratic rights of the people, and who will fight for an economy that protects the interests of working people, not just Wall Street, the drug companies and other powerful special interests.

We need to fundamentally reject our "free trade" policies and move to fair trade. Americans should not have to compete against workers in low-wage countries who earn pennies an hour. We must defeat the Trans-Pacific Partnership. We must help poor countries develop sustainable economic models.

We need to end the international scandal in which large corporations and the wealthy avoid paying trillions of dollars in taxes to their national governments.

We need to create tens of millions of jobs worldwide by combating global climate change and by transforming the world's energy system away from fossil fuels.

We need international efforts to cut military spending around the globe and address the causes of war: poverty, hatred, hopelessness and ignorance.

The notion that Donald Trump could benefit from the same forces that gave the Leave proponents a majority in Britain should sound an alarm for the Democratic Party in the United States. Millions of American voters, like the Leave supporters, are understandably angry and frustrated by the economic forces that are destroying the middle class.

In this pivotal moment, the Democratic Party and a new Democratic president need to make clear that we stand with those who are struggling and who have been left behind. We must create national and global economies that work for all, and not a handful of billionaires.

Bernie Sanders

http://www.nytimes.com/.../bernie-sanders-democrats-need...?

Bernie Sanders: Democrats Need to Wake Up

NYTIMES.COM|BY BERNIE SANDERS

Prospectiv A-z .
Jack Portland 1 hour ago

Fine, noble, and laudable points - and not one mention of the only person remaining in the race who will actually be competing against, and therefore have a chance to defeat, Donald Trump. I lose respect for Bernie by the day. 

hen3ry is a trusted commenter New York 1 hour ago

The lowering of our standard of living relative to what our parents enjoyed started in the late 70s and 80s. The decrease in our life span started as we found ourselves unable to afford health care, under immense stress on the job, because we couldn't find jobs, because of a lack of support for families, or because we couldn't get the help we needed to be successful. The only people in America who get helped are those with a ton of money or corporations because they are heard. The middle and working classes are not heard any longer in America. The poor are looked at under a microscope and dismissed as worthless.

Many of us can't make it on decent salaries. Housing is too expensive for most of us unless we're willing to live 2 hours from our jobs. The cost of food has increased. If we have children the cost of daycare or a college education can eat up most of what we make. Trying to save is like baling water from a sinking ship unless we're lucky and have no debt at all. If we are unemployed we'd better have savings because unemployment covers next to nothing and the safety net has gaping chasms in it. The only thing that we keep on hearing from our politicians is that we need to work harder, save more, spend more, get healthier, get more education, be better consumers. How about our politicians being better leaders, listeners, and advocates for all of us, not just their campaign donors?

Joe NYC 1 hour ago

It's not Bernie and his followers that need to wake up. We have been awake for years. Its the tone deaf DNC and Hillary that need to wake up ad realize this can happen here if they keep to their losing neo-liberal policy positions. Having Elizabeth Warren stump for Hillary will change nothing unless Hillary changes her policies in real and concrete ways.

Kingfish52 Collbran, CO 1 hour ago

How can anyone read Mr. Sanders' "indictment" of the current economic system and not come to the conclusion that THIS is the #1 issue that needs to be solved? So many talk about inequality - race, gender, etc. - but this is the inequality that prevents all other forms to really be addressed. Solve the obscene wealth inequality, and you go a long ways towards gaining racial, gender, an all other forms of inequality.

And we CAN solve this problem. Not with handouts or giveaways, but by finally rolling back the policies that have created this "trickle down" system. Undo the tax and accounting rules and laws that reward short term profit taking over long term DOMESTIC investment. Roll back the trade deals and tariffs that make it more profitable for companies to move jobs and wages offshore. Reward companies that reward American workers with good jobs, pay, and benefits, and punish companies that don't. Level the playing field for American workers by implementing taxes/tariffs on goods and services from foreign countries. And just as importantly, revitalize the unions by installing oversight to ensure they serve their member's best interests and not the bosses and criminal elements, so that collective bargaining is once again effective.

And finally, Mrs. Clinton: Have you listened?

Prospectiv A-z .
Jason NYC 1 hour ago

This is a vital point. Liberals who didn't support Clinton didn't do so because they were in thrall to Benghazi or Whitewater - they did so because they are worried that the Tony Blair/Bill Clinton-style neoliberalism, which has gutted our middle-class, would continue.

Sanders lost. But keeping the pressure on Democratic politicians like Sec. Clinton or Debbie Wasserman Schultz isn't a betrayal of the party, nor is it particularly relevant that "Republicans are worse" (of course they are). The Democratic party is the only political force capable of pushing back against Wall Street and Corporate America and reversing the decline of the middle-class, much less starting to actually improve middle and working class prospects. And they've done a darn poor job for some time. If progressive voters don't hold Democrats' feet to the fire, not just during this election but after, things aren't going to get better.

And when a demagogue comes along with a crazy solution, people will take that instead of politicians who say we should keep doing what we're doing, which people know isn't working. Just ask Britain's Labour party.

Kenneth Stow Israel 1 hour ago

What is this? Another version of the Pied Piper? Of course Bernie is right about the direction of things. He has always been right. But he has never been realistic. And so he has misled the millions. He is also one-dimensional. There is a lot that is problematic about the trade agreements, but without them, others will come in and take advantage, China, in particular. Jobs are going to go, no matter what. The question is not whether to conserve them, which, in the long run, makes everybody supporting those jobs, that is, the US consumer, pay more, which is self-defeating. The US consumer is the same person whose job is being preserved. Circular arguments, therefore. What is needed is creating new kinds of jobs and providing the training.
Bernie also writes of the Democratic President. It is not going to be him. He has to come to grips with this. Hillary beat him fair and square, 16 to 12, an enormous margin. And no games about who voted for Hillary, who did not. One man, one vote. That is what this country's democracy is built on, not whose vote vs. whose vote. Each vote, simple and unadorned.
Here then is Bernie's challenge. Right now, he is rejecting democratic principles. Somebody wins, in this case, Hillary. Somebody loses, in this case, Bernie. The rules of the game are that Bernie concedes and throws his support behind the winner, Hillary. Bernie is not doing that.
In my book, this flouting of the rules disqualifies everything positive he has said. 

[E bine sa stim si cum vede situatia Ken din Israel]

ScottW is a trusted commenter Chapel Hill, NC 1 hour ago

Nicely stated and interesting how the Times gives Bernie space after feeling safe the election is in the bag for Hillary.

Sadly, neither Donald nor Hillary offer solutions addressing the significant problems outlined in this column. Hillary is the better alternative and that only means a perpetuation of the status quo. Endless war, more trade agreements, neoliberal economic policies.

So long as candidates are bought and paid for by special interests, they will cater solely to those special interests. It really isn't that complicated.

Prospectiv A-z .
spiaggia SJ, CA, USA 41 minutes ago

Hillary Clinton, presumptive Democratic Presidential nominee, it's up to YOU to LEAD. Stop with the political posturing. Stop campaigning against Trump. Make America believe in YOU. That you can lead us out of this political death spiral we can't seem to get ourselves out of. For the love of these United States, start leading. LEADING. Right now. Before you're elected. Because after November, it may be too late. Lead ALL of us - not some of us. Back up your words with action. Stop with the political preoccupation that it's taken a democratic socialist to open this nation's eyes to its vast inequities - and its potential to do so much good for these United States of America. I say this to you as an American first. I'm counting on you to do this. I will vote for you this November because I cannot in good conscience vote for Trump. I'm pleading with you. Bernie's pleading with you. Step up. Now.

Nick Metrowsky is a trusted commenter Longmont, Colorado 1 hour ago

Here it is in print, finally, what Mr. Sanders has said for over teh year. Issues mostly ignored by Ms. Clinton, until Mr. Sanders made it clear what these issues are. Also, notice one other thing, he did not throw his support behind Hillary Clinton. How can he? She is part of the problem he clearly describes here. She, and her husband is part of that 1%. They, like a number in their group, would be adversely affected if globalization, fairer taxation, unfair treaties were reversed.

Meanwhile, the Clinton troll machine is burning up this editorial like an uncontrolled blaze in the southwestern US. Why/ Because some of them are also part of the 1% slite.

Both political parties have been usurped by the same power elite. And both are on a mission to divide and conquer, so the 1% can gain even more at the expense of millions.

Mr. Sanders is not going any where, but to the floor of the DNC convention, in Philadelphia. And millions will be there with in him spirit. The way to stop Trump is " to make clear that we stand with those who are struggling and who have been left behind. We must create national and global economies that work for all, and not a handful of billionaires.' That person is certainly not Hillary Clinton.

Matt McLaughlin Burlington, VT 50 minutes ago

"The top 1 percent now owns more wealth than the whole of the bottom 99 percent."

"Americans should not have to compete against workers in low-wage counties who earn pennies an hour."

Is there any developing country in history that has lifted itself out of poverty without trade? How exactly do you expect the majority of the world's poor to lift themselves out of poverty if OECD countries enact protectionist policies?

And 'reject our "free trade" policies and move to fair trade.'... do you know what fair trade is? It's paying other countries MORE for their goods than the market demands. Which for the record, I'm totally for paying a living wage to Bangladeshi garment workers, but that's not going to bring jobs back to the US. All it's going to do is reduce the buying power of the American worker.

I totally agree with Bernie that much more needs to be done to improve the lives of workers impacted by globalisation. But the idea that protectionism is the answer is just utterly wrongheaded.

Let's have a better safety net. Let's have better job retraining programs. Let's have better health care and retirement systems. And yes, let's do all we can to lift those around the world less fortunate than us out of poverty. We can do all those things at the same time if we marshal the will and perseverance of this great nation. Protectionist policies that attempt to raise American workers by depriving developing nations of the trade they need to grow should be scorned by liberals.

Prospectiv A-z .
After Brexit, the People's Spring Is Inevitable...See More

Marine Le Pen: After Brexit, the People's Spring Is Inevitable

NYTIMES.COM|BY MARINE LE PEN

Prospectiv A-z .
BettyK Berlin, Germany 12 hours ago

" I made my decision a long time ago: I chose France. I chose sovereign nations. I chose freedom."
You chose racism. You chose xenophobia. You chose a vision of a Napoleonic France that disregards any of the responsibilities that came with the colonization of Africa. How free were these countries under France's rule, but now you want your freedom from the "others?"
You are what's the worst of Europe, not the European Union.

EBurgett Asia 12 hours ago

In the US, people of various ethnic and racial backgrounds make laws for each other, because, until recently, all of them were committed to the idea of liberal democracy. From this perspective, it is not absurd for a Polish MEP to make laws that will also be applicable in Spain. It's only absurd if one takes the perspective of the racist and anti-humanitarian nationalism that fascist parties like the Front National are peddling. This is not about freedom, it's about locking in people into racist stereotypes they cannot overcome, because they are just not born that way.

Also, I suggest to take a look at Europe from the outside. From here, Europe looks quite homogenous and actually no more culturally and linguistically diverse than India or China. One has to be a small-minded bigot to stress national differences in Europe, even though criticism of the EU is perfectly ok in a club of democracies. May I remind Mdm. Le Pen that her party rose through the European parliament before it managed to score nationally and that all committees and councils are set up by democratically elected heads of governments? Sovereignty is always relative except for a superpower like the US. After a Frexit, France will be weakened in the face of Putin's aggression (who is bankrolling Le Front National for obvious reasons) and a resurgent Germany.

Paulo Ferreira White Plains, NY 12 hours ago

Interesting article by Ms. Le Pen, and she certainly makes some good points. However, what is vexing about people in the mold of Ms. Le Pen is that for them, it's all or nothing. There is no compromise and there is no acknowledgment of the reasons why the European project came into existence to begin with.

Anything will burn with enough gasoline and dynamite, said Robert Heinlein, and Ms. Le Pen, along with others like her, are providing the matchstick. 

Sean NYC 12 hours ago

However much I may often disagree with Maine Le Pen, I can not deny the very simple truths she has stated in this OP-ED. Many commenters to follow will disparage her and liken her to the xenophobic racist demagogue that has always been her father. Oh, the sins of the father. Some will have valid points, she is often incendiary and divisive. But, what she says here is pretty much unassailable. 

Mytwocents New York 8 hours ago

Thank you New York Times for publishing this excellent op-ed. As someone who has lived in Europe for 27 years, I agree 100% with what Le Pen says. I do not find any part of it, right wing or xenophobic.

To all the commentators here who don't get this, I want to remind them that the definition of evil is good gone wrong. The EU has started with the best intentions but it has gone wrong.

Each European country wants to preserve their unique 1000+ years old culture and autonomy in taking their own laws. EU was supposed to be a free market and free travel zone, and also a space of intense cultural exchange. It has evolved into an Orwellian superstate, unaccountable to its citizens, and un-elected, good for a few multinationals that destroyed the local industries of individual countries and seized huge chunks of the markets.

By comparison with US politicians, Ms. Le Pen is probably at the left of Sanders. Vive la Liberte is not a right wing slogan in France, it is the chant of their Revolution.

Prospectiv A-z .
Carolyn Egeli is a trusted commenter Valley Lee, Md 12 hours ago...See More

Prospectiv A-z .
Jason GA 10 hours ago

Three cheers for Mme. Le Pen's call for political liberty! As an American, her words leave me feeling both inspired and despondent. Inspired, because Le Pen and others in Europe are rediscovering the sort of freedom that enables man to fulfill his nature and, in doing so, obtain true happiness. It is the sort of freedom on which America was founded and the reason for which the principle of federal-republicanism was adopted. Yet Le Pen's enthusiasm also leaves me feeling despondent because it is not shared by the one people who should sympathize with it most. With each passing year, Americans become more and more willing to shackle themselves to the grey sclerotic mass of the federal bureaucracy; to submit themselves, without so much as an inkling of reflection, to the tens of thousands of "regulations" undemocratically produced out of thin air by unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats; to passively sit by while the states are fused together into an undifferentiated slab of outposts that exist to do the federal government's bidding.

Many on the left, in particular, scratch their heads over the gradual disappearance of civic involvement in America. Where has the life and vibrancy in politics gone? they ask. Well, what is the point of political engagement at the ground level when every political question is increasingly settled by a one-size-fits-all solution imposed across the board by the federal government? 

zb bc 11 hours ago

The difference between the Right and the Left in place like France, England, and the US is pretty simple: on the Right they look for someone to blame and on the left they look for someone to help.

Amg Tampa 7 hours ago

while this is a great piece of fantasy, please remember all these european nations are really small when compared to the big asian giants that will dominate them economically if they each have to negotiate with the rest of the world.

JB Maryland 8 hours ago

As the institutions that hold us together come unglued -- House, Senate, Supreme Court, media, Wall St. etc. -- the vacuums they leave behind become oxygen for arsonists like Le Pen, Lafarge, Johnson and Trump. The antidote, if there is one, must surely include a commitment by people with public responsibilities to re-estabilsh their legitimacy by shifting the world's political and economic center of gravity back to working families and the middle class. 

minh z manhattan 10 hours ago

Marine Le Pen is 100% correct.

The EU was a good idea whose implementation has resulted in a monster. A monster run by a crazy woman in Germany who thinks that
1) destroying an economy for years to warn any other nations that want to leave the Euro cannot. And this was a fellow EU, NATO, European and Christian nation Greece.
2) destroying other economies by forcing implementation of economic policies not relevant to their economies - austerity - and still not get economic policy righ
thttp://www.businessinsider.com/german-economic-policy-is-hurting-europe-...
3) the unilateral and illegal acts leading to inviting the "migrants" to Germany, through any country. No EU nation agreed, and sovereignty was breached by the migrants. Did this matter to Merkel? NO. She is deranged and stupid. And the redistribution of the migrants is not happening, no matter the bullying.
4) The laws that micromanage people's lives - these laws don't make life easier, goods cheaper or help the free flow of ideas

The EU has been dying for a while. I predict by the end of one year there will be 2 more referendums. And probably more defections.

poslug cambridge, ma 11 hours ago

Ridiculous. Childish economic self destruction is not freedom. Nativism degenerates in squabbling at best and war at its worst. 

Jim Munich 11 hours ago

Ah Mlle. Le Pen. Your cry for Nationalism is stirring. It sounds like 1914 all over again. How wonderful all that turned out. And why limit it to just France? France is not just a nation, it is an idea, a culture united by a common language. What of the poor brothers and sisters in Wallonia under the thumb of the crude Flemish Boers? And Luxembourg, and Switzerland, and Algeria? (Disregard that last one.) What a wonderful image of a Peoples Spring, I just hope it blossoms more beautifully than the Arab one.

Prospectiv A-z .
Nathan an Expat China 10 hours ago

Readers may not like her politics but Le Pen demonstrates a far deeper understanding of the distinction between a European Common Market, the European Union and issues relating to political integration and democracy and their delicate history than 99 percent of the commentators on this site. There are serious issues with the European Union and the surrender of sovreignty to a supranatural state to suggest otherwise and confuse it with the narrower Common Market is pure ignorance. It's also a interesting that these criticisms of "Little England"'s sovereignty qualms are coming from a country pathologically averse to surrending the least sovereignty through any treaty. Here's a partial list of the do good international treaties the US has refused to sign and/or ratify due to "sovereignty" issues: UN Convention on Rights of the Child -- not ratified due to concerns could interfere with parent's discipline of children. Somalia is the only other country not to ratify, International Criminal Court -- signed but not ratified re concerns that US military would be brought up on war crimes, International Law of the Sea signed but not ratified fear if will interfere with US Navy activities and redistribute wealth, Kyoto Greenhouse Gas Emissions Protocol -- US Senate vote 95-0 not to ratify, Ban on Anti Personnel Landmines (160 other countries ratified), Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (abortion politics). No surrender of sovereignty there. 

Satyarth Kulshrestha Iowa City 7 hours ago

While I am uncomfortable with some of her prior stances, it is hard to disagree with what she is saying in this piece. Debt crises and migrant crises have exposed the fault lines in EU and demonstrated the vast heterogeneity in members of EU. 

Roger Hicks London, UK 11 hours ago

"Britain decided to cast off from the European Union and reclaim its independence among the world's nations, . . [to] regain control over [its] destiny"

What utter nonsense.

The "British people" have never had control over their destiny, which has always been in the hands of its ruling elites and favoured (especially wealthy and academic/formerly priestly) clients of the state.

Britain is not and never has been a genuine nation (although it possessed many of the prerequisites to become one), but a mercenary "patron state" deceitfully posing as a nation, in order to legitimise itself, its ruling elites and the immense power they wield and abuse, to their own personal advantage and that of favoured clients, at the expense (and ultimate self-destruction) of society at large.

Why has this not been recognised by the academics we look to as authorities in understanding society and the state?

Like their medieval predecessors and counterparts, as already pointed out, academics are privileged clients and employees of the state, with a massive personal self-interest (subconscious more than conscious) in rationalising and defending its role, self-image (as our "nation") and ideologies (social, political, economic and racial, formerly religious), on which the state bases its claim to moral and knowledgeable authority.

Marine Le Pen doesn't fundamentally question the state either, because she hopes to take control of it in France herself, along with the POWER that goes with it.

J Montgomery 4 hours ago

I voted leave. This is why.
Firstly.
The vast majority of my fellow citizens are incredibly tolerant but when entire communities are totally transformed without consultation or approval there will be a negative backlash. This is it. We remember fighting fascism during WW2. Do you know this? We do not accept the "Rascist" argument it is frankly weak,lazy and an insult. "I suggest to take a look at Europe from the outside. From here, Europe looks quite homogenous and actually no more culturally and linguistically diverse than India or China. One has to be a small-minded bigot to stress national differences in Europe" Really? This gem features prominently in your 'NYT' recommended comments section and is unbelievably ignorant of the extraordinarily diverse multi-cultural-multi-faith nature of the U.K. We are proud of this achievement.
However, imagine open borders to your own countries. Do you think that is sustainable or acceptable? Imagine that your elected government is complicit in this arrangement and there is only one democratic opportunity in your lifetime (BREXIT) to register your objection.
Secondly.
We know that the peoples of europe are our family, our neighbours and our friends BUT the E.U institution is deeply flawed. It is also percieved rightly or wrongly as an aggressive, threatening stranger. A bully.
Finally (IMO).
There are plenty of us who have voted simply to let the Multi-national tax avoiding corporations know that they are not in total control, yet.

Prospectiv A-z .
Ashutossh Mumbai 12 hours ago

What an inspiring essay. The longing for freedom is contagious.

michael kittle vaison la romaine, france 12 hours ago

At the very least, Brexit provides a priceless opportunity for all members of the European Union to re-examine the relationship they have with each other and the Brussels domination of this grand experiment.

As a 13 year American expatriate and permanent resident of France, I support Marine Le Pen's effort to acknowledge the failure of the EU, withdraw France from the Union, restore the security of the borders, and return France's currency to the French Franc.

I believe that these nation building steps, coming from within the country, will restore France to its rightful place in Europe and help restore confidence in the French government.

Vive Le France! 

Kazi KL 10 hours ago

I thought it was only the Muslim world going through a sort of modern civil war. But with Brexit and its after effects, it is apparent the Western world is also facing a new form of war, and it appears to be civil, though directed against a certain group of people.
The thing one must fear the most in this situation is the polarisation of these warring factions, into two distinct groups. One that will fight for Europe-Western culture and the other that will fight for the Middle Eastern culture. A terrible culture clash is in the making, and that is not what the world would want right now.

George S New York, NY 9 hours ago

Again from commenters we get the decrying of "nationalism" with points made about wars, the Holocaust and other wrongs and horrors throughout the centuries laid at the feet of that idea. Yes, nation states did indeed start, support and/or participate in many bad things. But the idea that a group like the EU is simple above it all is a fiction.

When did nationalism take to only mean those entirely negative things? It was nationalism that gave us languages, cuisine, art, culture, music, legal systems, jurisprudence, and myriad other things we relish and treasure today. Who says "let's go out for European food tonight" rather than wanting Italian or French? The Magna Carta or the Declaration of the Rights of Man came from specific historic cultural stirrings that inspire us today. People dream of going to Paris not because it is European but because it is French.

You can't just toss all of that away and replace it with an undemocratic bureacracy and expect the same. Trade and economic cooperation is essential, involves give and take among nations, etc., but ultimately those nations should be free to decide their own destiny for their own people, not what someone in Brussels thinks and wants to impose on them. One can have the benefits of both. The very idea of representative democracy goes out the window if a country is forced to just ignore and lose things it struggled for centuries for just to appease the appeasers who want bland uniformity.

Prospectiv A-z .
Donald Trump Vows to Rip Up Trade Deals and Confront China

Mr. Trump, as president, would have significant authority to raise trade barriers, and his speech Tuesday included his most detailed account to date of his plans to do so, saying that he would pull the United States from Nafta if Mexico and Canada did not agree to renegotiate it.

But it is far from clear that any president has the power to reverse globalization. Under existing law, Mr. Trump could impose tariffs only on specific imports. The most likely effect would be to shift production to other low-cost nations.

Mr. Trump's address opened his first swing-state tour of the general election race. After he muddled around the political map since his last Republican rivals withdrew, and veered away from the campaign last week for a trip to Scotland, Mr. Trump's tour this week through Pennsylvania and Ohio was the start of a concerted effort to carve a path to 270 electoral votes on daunting political terrain.

The language and location of Mr. Trump's speech encapsulated his aspirational strategy for the general election: His greatest source of support has been white working-class men, and his campaign hopes to compete in traditionally Democratic-leaning states, like Pennsylvania and Michigan, to offset his deep unpopularity with Hispanic voters and women, which may put swing states like Florida and Colorado out of reach.

Mr. Trump delivered his address at a steel plant in the heart of coal country, on a stage flanked by blocks of compressed steel wiring, aluminum cans and other metals. And for the second time in two weeks, he spoke carefully from a script. Aides to Mr. Trump, who has faced criticism throughout the race for factual exaggerations and outright falsehoods, circulated a copy of the speech with 128 footnotes documenting its claims.

Still, Mr. Trump could not resist the occasional ad-libbed line to skewer Mrs. Clinton or boast of his own achievements. He said, for example, that he had forced her to use the term "radical Islamic terrorism."

And he took credit for pressuring Mrs. Clinton to oppose the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal, though at the time she faced far greater pressure from a primary challenge on the left, from Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont.

Mr. Trump's speech drew rebukes from two sides: The Clinton campaign attacked his credibility as a critic of free trade, and deployed Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio, a populist Democrat who is viewed as a potential running mate for Mrs. Clinton, to accuse Mr. Trump of hypocrisy.

"With all of his personal experience profiting from making products overseas, Trump's the perfect expert to talk about outsourcing," Mr. Brown said, reciting a list of Trump products, from suits to picture frames, that he said were made in other countries. "We know just in my state alone where Donald Trump could have gone to make these things," he added.

Mr. Trump also drew a cold response from traditionally Republican-leaning interests as well for his heated attacks on international trade agreements. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which spends millions of dollars in federal elections, almost entirely in support of Republican candidates, criticized Mr. Trump's speech on Twitter and claimed that his policies would hurt the economy.

"Even under best-case scenario, Trump's tariffs would strip us of at least 3.5 million jobs," the group wrote in one Twitter message.

For Mr. Trump, who has shifted and doubled back on high-profile policy pronouncements, trade has been a rare area of consistency in the 2016 race.

At nearly every campaign rally, Mr. Trump has knocked trade deals with China as unfair to the American worker so frequently as to make his percussive pronunciation of China a hallmark of impersonators.

Mr. Trump appeared in his speech to pre-empt criticism from economists and business groups that have argued his policy proposals would lead to a damaging trade war with China and perhaps other countries.

"We already have a trade war," Mr. Trump told the crowd, departing from his prepared remarks. "And we're losing, badly."

Mr. Trump, who has struggled for months to win support from the conservative business community, also attended a fund-raiser in West Virginia on Tuesday hosted by a coal executive, Robert E. Murray.

It remains to be seen if Mr. Trump will stick closely to the trade-focused message he delivered in Pennsylvania. At in evening rally in eastern Ohio, he returned to a familiar set of red-meat themes, calling for a wall on the Mexican border and reiterating his vow to waterboard Islamic State terrorists.

But to win that state in November, Mr. Trump hopes to outflank Mrs. Clinton with economically distressed voters who may have voted Democratic in the past, and trade remains an issue that stirs up voters across party lines.

In a nod to potential crossover voters, Mr. Trump at one point on Tuesday quoted Mr. Sanders by name in criticizing Mrs. Clinton.

Though he dwelled at greatest length in Pennsylvania on what he described as the damaging economic consequences of globalization, Mr. Trump also laced his remarks with broader nationalist language, arguing that the United States would lose its sovereignty and national pride by negotiating too freely with the world.

"They get the expansion. We get the joblessness," Mr. Trump said of trade deals with foreign countries. "That's the way it works — not going to happen anymore."

Prospectiv A-z .
Stuart Wilder Doylestown, PA 5 hours ago

I wish the out of work coal miners of Kentucky and West Virginia and the out of work steel workers of Pennsylvania and Ohio who cheer on Trump's nonsense would read the statements from the Brexit champions Gove and Johnson who today have admitted that they overstated the case for Brexit by billions of dollars and thousands of jobs, and that perhaps they are not going to be able to withdraw form the EU after all. On the other hand, I hate to say, if these out or work voters actually read that kind of stuff, none of them would be supporting Trump.

WiltonTraveler Wilton Manors, FL 5 hours ago

Trump just doesn't get it (and that's not surprising). The TPP was designed to limit Chinese economic influence, not promote it. And like Sanders, Trump clearly believes (with an added dash of jingoism) that we can simply wall ourselves off from the outside world. He calls this "taking back our country"; I call it racist, isolationist, foolish and hypocritical demagoguery from a member of the .01 percent who doesn't truly give a hang what happens to US workers (few of whom he employs at his various properties).

JerLew Buffalo 4 hours ago

Trump is playing on people's fears and desperations. I'm old enough to remember the time before the Reagan era and the disaster of Reaganomics and the Laffer Curve. Lest we forget that in the early 1980's when our manufacturing base began leaving the country for Mexico we were told that it was okay because we were going to be a service based economy from now on. Well service jobs don't pay as well as a skilled labor job does. So now the largest employer is Wal Mart, it used to be GM. Which worker do you think brings home more money?

NAFTA wasn't even negotiated when GM began closing plants in Michigan in 1986 to take advantage of cheaper labor in Mexico. Remember, GM was not in financial turmoil when they did this. They did make a lot of money from savings on labor costs though.

They say that those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it, and it looks like a lot of people are on this path. When the McKinley Tariff was passed to combat cheap imports of items like wool and tin plates for example, a Scottish company could sell a wool scarf in America for say $8.00, while it cost $9.00 for an American scarf. After the tariff was in place, suddenly the Scottish made scarf was now $15.00 and the American scarf had gone up in price to $14.00. As a result, there were a lot less scarfs sold, and a lot of people lost jobs. So if that item that is made in China today and sells for $20.00, if Trump gets his way will cost $35.00 and we will see the same result 

Jim McGrath West Pittston, PA 5 hours ago

Message to the 1%: You think Brexit is bad? Wait until the reality TV star gets the Presidency.

Prospectiv Az .
Socrates is a trusted commenter Downtown Verona, NJ 5 hours ago

Brexit, meet Trumpet.

Donald Trump would like America to isolate itself into his corner of ineptitude.

Donald received a million dollar 'loan' as a young man from his father and has consistently underperformed the stock market ever since, carefully surfing real estate booms, stacked deck casino halls, gullible vendors and United States Bankruptcy Courts and the tabloid media to achieve commercial 'success'.

If you want the value of the dollar to fall, Trump is your best shot at devaluation, and ironically enough, a devalued Trump dollar would in fact increase exports in a counter-intuitive way.....assuming he wasn't impeached within the first month or two after forcing the Treasury Department to print all dollar bills with his bloviating face on it with the new national motto 'In Trump We Trust' engraved on it.

Get ready for the Trump dollar plunge !

Robert Stacy 1 hour ago

This notion that China or that other nations robbed us is ludicrous. We did it to ourselves over time, mainly in the form of voting with our dollars. We shopped at Walmart, instead of the mom and pop. The shareholders of public companies didn't protest off-shoring. And what products we have made, often lose because their quality is horrendous, comparatively to their foreign counterparts. (I will never buy an American car until the workmanship and reliability equal that of my foreign choices) And as far as immigration goes, well, it's the business owners who hire them that are the real problem, and rather than prosecuting them, people would rather work themselves into a lather about Latina housekeepers, opting instead for fabricated stories about crime, rapists etc.,

And everyone seems to think China has it easy, which only shows how little people know of the world. China is losing jobs to Vietnam, Bangladesh, and robots. Robotics is eliminating tens of thousands of jobs that can be performed more reliably and continuously. Your next iPhone will probably be made by one.

Our government policy and our personal actions have been in lock step complicity. Truth is, your dollars and how you use them, count more than your actual vote. However, voting for Trump will be a sure way to make sure the outcome is even worse, for he knows nothing but bluster, the shrill cry of empty ideas and pride. Don't fall for it.

rjs7777 NK 3 hours ago

Trump is completely correct on this issue, more so than his other marquee issues. China 2001 WTO accession was a travesty and a complete mockery. Its currency manipulation and blatant capital controls are clearly a counterexample to prevailing, outdated economic models of a fictional, non-Chinese free trade scenario. Our professors who advocated the present state never envisioned the opportunism of China. It takes one to know one, and it took Trump to recognize the gargantuan, and wholly unnecessary looting of the US by China. Unlike other politicians, Trump has some degree of empathy for the common family. Not a lot, but some.

Michael Wensink Cleveland, Ohio 3 hours ago

It is the Industrial Heartland or former Industrial Heartland not the Rustbelt. Rustbelt implies it is the peoples fault for letting it rust.

American workers did not cause the creation of the 'Former Industrial Heartland' establishment politicians did. NAFTA

Canada and Mexico do not have a Former Industrial Heartland because they have smarter establishment politicians.

Oswald Sobrino USA 3 hours ago

To be clear, I'm writing in Bernie Sanders for President in November. I will not vote for either Trump or Clinton. But, as a political observer, this speech is Trump's best path to victory because Clinton has zero credibility on trade.

Jonathan Baker NYC 3 hours ago

Someone needs to tell Trump that we built modern China, and we did.

Everything China has, from the light bulbs over their heads, to the contact lenses in their eyes, to cars, planes, computers, televisions, you name it - every last bit of it has come from western technology during the past 50 years and most of that from the U.S. Either that technology was handed to them on a golden platter by western industrialists, or it was simply stolen in defiance of international patent laws.

Want to stick-it to China, Mr. Trump? Really? OK, then tell voters of both parties to never again hand their money over the counter at Walmart, or Bed Bath & Beyond, or any other retail chain store whose stock on the shelf is 90% from China. It is American corporations that sold-out the American middle class.

Eliminate off-shore banking and tax evasion rackets, and financially punish corporations relocating headquarters abroad - also to avoid paying U.S. taxes. But an outright confrontation with China is beside the point since it is not the source of our problems - American corporate pirates are.

Trump's business history of garish hucksterism and what I consider to be fraud demonstrates he does not belong in international trade negotiations, he belongs next to P.T. Barnum in the circus.

Prospectiv A-z .
ScottW is a trusted commenter Chapel Hill, NC 5 hours ago

Waiting for Hillary supporters to tell us how the TPP is really a great trade deal. The DNC platform refused to state it opposed this deal and Obama has been pushing for it. NAFTA was not good for American workers and the TPP is no good.

Hillary states opposition, however, the State Dept. refuses to release emails she wrote while Sec. of State supporting it. If elected, she will push for the TPP and her supporters will be forced to rationalize the deal.

And NO, NO, NO, by writing this it does not mean I support Trump. It means I oppose trade agreements that hurt American workers. Don't let Trump's crazy talk force you to rationalize away policies that are bad for America.

Jacqueline Colorado 2 hours ago

Anything that both parties don't like, I definitely want to take a look at. Free trade has turned our country into one in which you have to have access and influence to gain financial stability.

Immigration, wages, jobs, this is what the American people care about. Trump may be a nut, but his actual speech (which I'm sure no liberal will read) had some great points. Particularly about NAFTA. NAFTA has led to millions of jobs being moved across the border, and has benefitted large companies with the resources to relocate so they can pay Mexicans low wages. Since these wages can't even provide for life in Mexico, people still immigrate to our country to try to take any job that remains. The stock market is up over 100% since 2008, but wages are not. Unless they also go up 100%, I will never support Free Trade Agreements.

Keynesian Golden, CO 1 hour ago

Trump is absolutely correct! The true purpose of a trade agreement is to encourage and economic growth path of bilateral trade between countries of the goods and services for which they each has a technological advantage. In this manner, each nation specializes in their GDP/GNP, eliminating inefficiencies, and proliferating economic.

However, corporations (especially U.S.) have used abused these trade policies as a means to outsources their production logistics, leaving the Middle Class and Poor in economically abyss.

In short, what needs to be done is perhaps not a total abolishment of both NAFTA and TPP but extreme tax sanctions and penalties against all companies that outsourced their production logistics. These funds can then be used to rebuild, replenish, and innovate us Middle Class and Poor into new careers for which U.S. does have or will have substantive advantage now and in the future. Got lots more but suffice it to stop here.

Again, Trump is absolutely correct! Spot on, mate! And I'm a hardcore Progressive that will vote for him.

ALL HAIL TRUMP 2016!

Prospectiv A-z .
Jeff New Jersey 1 hour ago

As much as I oppose Trump, he does have some valid points in regards to trade with China. It would be nice if the Democrats would open their eyes up to some of this!

I lived and worked in China for three years. If I wanted to buy a Western brand, be in a car or computer server, I can get it at a normal price if the western company has set up a Chinese factory, employing Chinese workers producing the goods. This allows China to keep its workers employed and steel what technology they can right out the factory gates.

If those goods are imported then there is a high tariff put on them. Almost all construction contracts state that Chinese supplied materials are strongly preferred. Using imported materials is considered unpatriotic and made very difficult.

There was such a demand for foreign manufactured baby that China imposed strong restrictions on how much people could bring into the country. If we had the same restrictions on China that they have on us, they would be throwing stones at our embassy and causing us all sorts of problems.

It's time to make China play by the same rules in the US that they make us play by in China!!

ed honolulu 5 hours ago

Hillary is already sending out her operatives to attack Trump, but one thing she will never do is to be as clear as Trump in denouncing the impact of free trade agreements and cheating by China on the American economy. She is, of course, totally sympathetic with Americans who have lost their jobs. She has numerous government counseling and training programs for them and
the good old "safety net," but little else. One has to wonder why Elizabeth Warren is appearing on the same stage with her unless she, too, has been coopted by Wall Street. 

Daylight NY 5 hours ago

Trump's antagonistic lets-get-a-better-deal economic plan is ridiculous, but there are unfortunately a few kernels of truth in his message.

Economists love simplified graphs with two shifting curves and a flurry of dotted lines illuminating the obvious benefits of efficient allocation of labor.

Though visit a typical garment factory in Bangladesh - and realize that this is the engine of the modern supply chain - and it does seem that something, somewhere, went horribly wrong.

Trump would be an absolute disaster. But we all heard that giant sucking sound, and maybe it's time to rethink our approach.

JerLew Buffalo 5 hours ago

If Reagan had done the same thing to Japan we might still have a steel industry in the United States, but he had to get rid of the USW, even it it had cost a million lost jobs. Though the Japanese were happy enough with his performance that they brought him over and paid him $2,000.0000.00 for a speech. That's the price to put tens of thousands of Americans out of work, Two million dollars.

Aaron Ladera Ranch, CA 1 hour ago

If Trump is so crazy and out of touch with reality then why does Hillary need to raise a billion dollars to beat him?

If Trump can keep his mouth shut and continue to read the teleprompter with this very real and resonating message - He's going to win the Presidential election. There are too many big cities in this country which have been leveled by Globalization. Need I remind the Hillary band wagon that she supported NAFTA-TPP- even called it "the Gold Standard" and now she's "against it." Of course she is- how can she travel and campaign in these cities who have been gutted by NAFTA and tell them the system is working!

The reset button between Hillary and Trump will be hit during the first Presidential debate- and whomever can articulate the clearer message is going to become the next Commander in Chief. And as painful as it may be for some to admit- Trump is on the right side of this issue and has never once pivoted on his feelings about trade. 

Jon Dama Charleston, SC 5 hours ago

All the Asian nations are guilty of protectionism on a vast scale. Trump's speech was right on; and he should stick to this appealing message. In fact he should expand it to include Japan, South Korea, and India. This is the issue of greatest importance to middle income Americans; and where Hillary Clinton is most vulnerable.

Monsieur USA 5 hours ago

I'm no fan of Trump but he's right about China. The entire world has suffered as they absorb all the middle class jobs.

Chloe New England 5 hours ago

Democrats and the NYT better be careful or they may face the same fate as the British Labour Party: open-border globalists abandoned by their own constituents.

scientella Palo Alto 3 hours ago

My ideas are not being represented by either Hilary or Trump.
Trump is right about China but he is wrong about free trade. We never had free trade with China. They fixed their currency which means the the trade was all to their benefit.
And then we have Hilary who will do whatever Wall St wants her to, and pander to the left at the same time by failing to call an illegal immigrant a criminal - for breaking the law no more or less.

I want someone, not a socialist. to simply enforce the immigration laws, keep free trade but ensure it is really free, encourage jobs by protectionism, that is put tariffs on Chinese goods, reregulate Wall St. keep abortion legal, legalize gay marriage, and have neither of these people in power.

Why isnt there someone to represent me?

Prospectiv A-z .
Ray Johansson NYC 5 hours ago

Trump and Sanders are right - we need free trade but only if it is fair. We let China sell EVERYTHING to us, killing our workers, but when we go to do business in China, they make it impossible.

Just ask Google, which the Chinese government effectively bars by requiring it to comply with censorship efforts. That allowed Chinese home-grown search engines to win, when Google should have dominated the Chinese market. Same thing with Facebook, which China out-right bars.

Trump is also right about immigration. We wouldn't need an artificial $15 minimum wage if we didn't have millions upon millions upon millions of unskilled workers competing with Americans. It's simple supply and demand, except in this case, it's an illegal oversupply.

Rlanni Princeton NJ 2 hours ago

Everyone can point to successes and failures because of free trade. But the overwhelming fact is that most Americans are worse off since 1992 (Clinton, Bush, Perot remember Perot and his wishing sound?)

Good jobs like assembling iPhones, Camrys, VWs, and Chevies, building furniture, making clothing, and call centers have gone overseas were workers live in company dorms, available 24/7, with air you can't breath, rivers you can't swim in let alone drink from, where people die 1000 at a time in fire traps, and child labor is rampant.

That's why people are angry. That's why Trump and Bernie (whose economic views are similar) have done so well. Having been ignored all these years, to blue collar workers, anything is better than the status quo.

Aaron Ladera Ranch, CA 3 hours ago

"It is a critique that has been leveled for years, mainly by a small group of liberal economists who have gained little traction even on the Democratic side"

"Little traction" is EXACTLY RIGHT! And the reason being: Corporate lobbies and Wall Street financial powerhouses, buy BOTH the Republican and Democratic Parties- Hillary included!

Good for Trump! Tear this rigged system down and start from scratch!

Marco Polo St. Louis 3 hours ago

Obama and Clinton, in the 2008 primaries, both fought to outdo the other on criticizing NAFTA, so don't laugh too hard at the crazy combed-over fox.

Eight years later, globalization is less popular than ever.

Prospectiv A-z .
Tibby Elgato West County, Ca 44 minutes ago

Actually Trump is close to being right about this. These trade deals have been a disaster for anyone in the US outside the 1%. We are being sued for $15B for stopping the Keystone Pipeline under the terms of NAFTA. The TPP and the similar pact with Europe will be even more disasterous. Low tariffs are one thing, giving away our sovereignty to make our own laws and protect the American people is something else.

Connie NY 2 hours ago

Looking at my family and others that I know something different has to happen. Things are worse than 10 years ago for us and most people. A few people have profited, but most have not. I am looking at Hillary but don't see any new ideas. She says the economy is good but that's certainly not true for most people. Her ideas seem tired and not likely to do much. How can I vote for...more of the same when that is the last thing this country needs.

Chloe New England 5 hours ago

It's better to have real jobs and real sovereignty over your borders than saving 99 cents at Walmart. Truth.

AMann York, Pa 41 minutes ago

This is the same stance as Bernie Sanders. How is a 300+ billion dollar trade deficit with China benefit Americans. And by the way it is growing, and China just devalued its currency this week another 1%. Trump and Sanders and even Elizabeth Warren are concerned with our trade deals. Only the establishment likes the deals that are in place.

econ major Northern Calif. 4 hours ago

The issue of sovereignty is not to be dissed just because Trump brings it up. From what apears to have been leaked from The TPP it seems as though there are unclear passages that look like a foreign corporation can sue a state or county government here in the US if local environmental rules would clash with the corps profit margins. There is a lot to distrust about it and anyone pushing it. See what is happening in Peru as the country tries to get warnings placed on tobacco products.

Dinica Roman Stephanie Gallop 
In a column for Foreign Policy Magazine, Council on Foreign Relations member James Traub argues that the elite need to "rise up" against the "mindlessly angry" ignorant masses in order to prevent globalization from being derailed by the populist revolt that led to Brexit and the rise of Donald Trump.
Concerned that, "Today's citizen revolt — in the United States, Britain, and Europe — may upend politics as nothing else has in my lifetime," Traub notes that Brexit was an "utter repudiation of….bankers and economists" and an example of how "extremism has gone mainstream".
Citing the potential for Trump to split the Republican Party even if he loses and the increasing unpopularity of France's socialist government, Traub argues that establishment political parties in major western countries must "combine forces to keep out the nationalists".
"With prospects of flat growth in Europe and minimal income growth in the United States, voters are rebelling against their dismal long-term prospects," writes Traub. "And globalization means culture as well as economics: Older people whose familiar world is vanishing beneath a welter of foreign tongues and multicultural celebrations are waving their fists at cosmopolitan elites."
Traub's tone is so contemptuous, he even describes the pro-Trump Republican base as "know nothing" voters and sneers at voters in Poland for being concerned about "values and tradition," while stressing that the push for further globalization will pit "poor and non-white and marginal citizens" against "working-class and middle-class whites," whom he describes as angry "fist-shakers".
Traub admits that his outlook is "elitist" but that, "It is necessary to say that people are deluded and that the task of leadership is to un-delude them."
Reaction to the article was piercingly vitriolic, with one respondent commenting, "If you've ever wondered what the conversations between aristocrats were like as the peasants were storming the Bastille, I suspect some of them were a lot like this Foreign Policy article."
The piece is yet another stunning example of how disconnected elites are to the people whom they insult and wish to rule over.
Traub, a Harvard graduate from a super-wealthy family that owns the Bloomingdale's chain of luxury department stores, has no idea whatsoever how things like mass uncontrolled immigration, deindustrialization and globalization impact ordinary working westerners.
His sneering pomposity is precisely why many Brits voted for Brexit and why many Americans will vote for Donald Trump.
In refusing to listen to or understand the concerns of hundreds of millions of people who have been disenfranchised by globalism, and instead arrogantly doubling down on his chutzpah, Traub is only ensuring that more people will join the populist revolt that led to Brexit in the first place.

Smaranda Dobrescu Macar Manuel Muniz recunoaste ca sistemul construit de actualele elite si-a dovedit esecul.Traub incepe prin a se arata o victima a populismului si a lipsei de intelegere fata de viabilitatea globalizarii si sfarseste prin a gasi solutia prin chemarea la lupta impotriva nationalismelor/nationalistilor. Un asa aparator neinspirat al globalizarii, daca e prea tarziu sa se mai adreseze englezilor, atunci in fata sustinatorilor lui Trump nu va avea sorti de izbanda nici atat.

Prospectiv A-z .
Totul e o functie de context: Muniz lucreaza sub acoperire social democrata, Traub e legit.

Draghi Puterity Apropo de populisiti - vad ca am ajuns de la Brexit la Borixit :D

Alexandru Botu Solutia este in mod clar evidenta. Statul nemaiocupandu-se de cei mai multi ii va determina pe acestia sa se ocupe singuri de nevoile lor. Atunci, cei putini si favorizati (chiar protejati de stat) nu vor mai fi in siguranta. Dupa ce se va alege praful de toate, un nou stat salvator va cere sa intervina. Si se reia ciclul, ciclurile. Asta daca cei potenti nu stiu cumva ca se apropie un sfarsit al tuturora.

Mihai Ion Turcu Cred ca stiu dar gandesc in termenii "Dupa noi potopul" pentru ca exact acesta este in facere si tocmai ei au aruncat barajele in aer fara a le mai putea reconstrui pana la inceperea ploilor.Epoca marilor ideologii este apusa, ce propun acuma nu este ideologie ci o vasta manareala pervers susinuta universal manipulatoriu de catre ":ucenicul vrajitor" care a furat cheile stapinului si se joaca de-a Dumnezeu pe invers, fara a avea macar grandoare luciferica.