War means work for all

[MalignD at aol.com]

Since Millison cut-and pasted, without comment, the lengthy article:

ZNet Commentary Trading on Tragedy October 12, 2001 By Mark Weisbrot,

I assume he understands and endorses Mr. Weisbrot's analysis.  I'm hoping, 
then, that he can clarify and expand upon it to better my own understanding 
and elaborate on some points that I find unclear.
  
Mr. Weisbrot writes:

<<"Will the Congress strongly support free trade as a cornerstone of 
international leadership?" asks US Trade Representative Robert Zoellick, the 
Bush Administration's point man. Well, that depends on what he means by "free 
trade." Skepticism among the public abounds: in a recent poll by the 
University of Maryland, 72 percent said that US officials who make trade 
policy give too little consideration to the concerns of working Americans.">>

What does the opinion of the public have to do with the likelihood of what 
Congress will or will not "strongly support"? 
 
<<They have good reason to be wary.  What Zoellick doesn't tell us is that 
the vast majority of Americans have actually lost income as a result of our 
increased opening to trade over the last 20 years, and the ways in which this 
has been done.>>

This seems overly broad.  Might you fill in the gaps some as to the specifics 
of lost income as it relates to trade openings over the previous two decades? 

<<Most economists are reluctant to admit this in public, because free trade 
is something of a religion among the profession.>>

Source?  I typically find "most" economists' opinions  spread across a broad 
spectrum when speaking of such long-term trends.  Is it Mr. Weisbrot's 
opinion that Friedman and Keynes (e.g.) worshipped at the same altar?

<< But it is a solid conclusion from their own research.>>  

Whose research?  Economic research draws a single conclusion in this regard?

<<Economists have estimated ...   They have also tried to measure ... how 
much our national economy gains, in terms of increased income, from removing 
tariffs and other barriers to trade.  It turns out that for the vast majority 
of Americans, trade's effect on redistribution -- from the lower and 
middle-income groups to the wealthier -- outweighs the gains from cheaper 
imports.>>

"Vast majority" seems vague; what is the actual percentage?  And how are 
these firm conclusions arrived at from estimates and efforts to measure?

 <<This is true even if we use the more inflated estimates of the gains from 
trade ...>>  

Whose estimates?

<<... and even if we use the lower estimates by economists of how much trade 
has increased inequality.>>  

All economists?  Which?  Source?

<<Virtually all economists agree ...>>  

Source?   

<<... that trade has contributed to the widening gap between those who have a 
college degree, and the three-quarters of the US labor force that does not 
have one. The question is, how much? If we take the lower estimates of how 
much trade has increased inequality ...>> 

It is becoming for me increasingly unclear what the author means by "trade."  
All commerce?  Foreign trade?  Specific free trade policies?  NAFTA?  What 
does it mean to say "trade" has increased inequality?  And inequality of 
what?  Between or among whom?

<<... then three- quarters of the labor force has lost between 1.6 and 2.4 
percent of their income over the past two decades, as a result of trade 
opening.>> 
 
If three-quarters of the labor force [source?], a "vast majority,"  has 
suffered this income loss, where lies the inequality?  Inequality of what to 
whom?
 
<<If we take a higher estimate of the effect of trade on income distribution, 
then three-fourths of the American labor force has lost between 12.2 and 12.9 
percent of their income.>> 
 
What higher estimate? Whose?  Source?

<<And all of this ignores, as standard economic models do, the economic 
losses due to the closing of factories and long spells of unemployment that 
result from trade.>> 
 
Again, what does "trade" mean in this context?  This seems unnecessarily 
vague.
  
<<The polls reflect these economic trends.>>  

What polls?  Polls of what?

 <<It is a striking case of the "less educated" having a much more accurate 
view of economic reality than the pundits and intellectuals who dominate the 
print and broadcast media.>>
  
What is?  The single poll cited by Mr. Weisbrot offered that "72 percent [of 
those polled] said that US officials who make trade policy give too little 
consideration to the concerns of working Americans."  On what basis can one 
say that this opinion about the concerns of "officials" demonstrates a "more 
accurate view of economic reality?"  What are the [uncited] views of "the 
pundits and intellectuals who dominate the print and broadcast media"?  Who 
are they?  In what way do they "dominate"?  Are they in singular accord?  
 
<< Of course the label "free trade" is a misrepresentation of these 
agreements. Both NAFTA and the WTO have expanded the most costly form of 
protectionism on Earth, in terms of both economic costs and human life. That 
is the international extension of patent protection for pharmaceuticals, 
against generic competition.  And NAFTA gave corporations a powerful new 
right to sue governments directly, which they have already used to overturn 
environmental regulations.>>

This may or may not be, but Mr. Weisbrot was talking about the Bush 
administration's requesting for "Trade Promotion Authority" in light of the 
conflict in Afghanistan.  Where do these purported effects of NAFTA vis-a-vis 
pharmaceutical patents fit in his argument?     

<<All of which explains ...>>  ????

<<... why we need the full participation of our elected Congressional 
representatives in the formulation of international commercial policy. And 
why Administration officials, now wrapping themselves in the flag, are so 
eager to restrict their involvement.>>

"Wrapping themselves in the flag" is an unfortunate choice of words in an 
article that purports to offer serious analysis.  What arguments are actually 
offered by the Administration?  Do they cite any national security issues and 
concerns that a reasonable person might find at least worthy of consideration?

Thanks in advance.