False Consciousness isn't False

    This is the 2nd in a series. Part 1 is here. Historian Corey Robin and his critics reject “false consciousness” as an explanation for working class support of anti-labor legislators.  Nevertheless, it seems clear that it is a thing.  False consciousness theory posits that voters may support a politician even after he pursues policies that objectively harm them. A Pew Research poll released this past January on the Trans Pacific Partnership (“TPP”) exemplifies this phenomenon.

    If the TPP is anything at all, it is a “free trade” deal. If enacted, it will eliminate as nearly as possible the transaction costs of trade among its various nation partners. According to Pew, a small minority of Americans - 20% - believe that international trade leads to more jobs here. An even smaller minority - 17% - see international trade as positively impacting on wages. Democratic voters are slightly more pessimistic about the ramifications of free trade than Republicans.

    Nevertheless, 71% of Democrats say trade is good for America and 59% say the TPP specifically is a good thing. For all Americans the numbers are 68% and 55% respectively. The vast majority of Americans recognize that the TPP will neither create jobs nor lead to higher wages and yet we support it. Somehow, we have been deluded into backing a policy and the politicians who champion it that we know full well is likely to undermine our own economic security. We are victims of a false consciousness.

    Topics: 

    Comments

    My reaction to this is that life is complicated.

    I'm sitting here, drinking a French pinot and blogging, using a computer designed in the U.S. and manufactured oversees, resting on a table made of Canadian wood and purchased via Overstock.com in what amounted to a cross border transaction.

    Is free trade a good thing?  Yes.  When I want olive oil from Greece, Spain or Italy, it is a very good thing.

    On the other hand... you make a great point.  Trade doesn't have an obvious a effect on my earnings because I'm not an exporter and I'm not in an easily exported job.  But that second part can change very quickly.  The world is full of people who thought their jobs could not be outsourced.

    But I don't know that people are necessarily prey to false consciousness if they support trade agreements that might hurt them when they also get benefits.  This is a complex topic that. on a personal level, could inspire conflicting analysis.  You could support a trade agreement for the access it provides you to products and services while still fearing what it might cost you in terms fo earnings and employment.

    In a very general sense, though, we all want trade.  The details become quickly complex and hard to render judgment over. 


    Michael - relatively unfettered international trade among high-wage representative democracies, like Canada, EU members, and the US, can truly be mutually beneficial.  My focus is on the paradox that most Americans see free trade with low wage autocratic countries as benefiting America even though we recognize that it does not lead to more jobs or a higher income.  Yes, we do get cheap iPhones from China but the total number of Americans in poverty has never been higher and the percentage is creeping back to pre-LBJ levels.


    I trust the wine was not Gerard Bertrand Domaine de L’Aigle Pinot Noir 2009 Pays d’Oc,? 

    Absolute bilge water, enough to make one crave a tankard of Gallo.


    I'm betting that it was an AOC/ AOP from Burgundy


    Sancerre rouge from the mid to higher elevations of the Loire Valley in years of copious spring rains followed by cool dry weather are fine choices, 1998 was a very good year.


    I was actually guessing what Michael was tasting, betting it was a Burgundy Pinot Noir

    If you tasted a Sancerre rouge, you have my sympathy.

    However, I will admit to tasting a Greek Retsina. the later wine is stored in pine resin as a preservative,  practice dating back to ancient Roman times. Your pinot could not have been worse.


    We can agree on the Gerard Bertrand Domaine de L’Aigle Pinot Noir 2009 Pays d’Oc,? 


    Yes, we agree on your Sancerre Pinot


    The trouble with the TPP is ISDS (investor state dispute settlements.) The corporations are on a international power grab.  They want to over ride sovereign nations' laws by using arbitration board of lawyers.  This is why it is so secret because they know countries will pull this out before they will approve of the treaty.  This is worse then the Trusts that formed in the late 19th century because they are bigger and more dangerous. They don't want any restrictions to produce and sell for profit.  There is ISDS written in earlier trade treaties. It used to be rare when there was cases of ISDS but not anymore.

    I am unable to copy from this letter to congress by Joseph Stiglitz explaining all of this. This letter is very readable and easy to understand the mechanics of how ISDS works and how it harms countries.
     

    I will pick one example he has in the letter. A Quebec Providence is being sued over it's banning of fracturing for gas under the St. Lawrence River using the ISDS in a treaty.  I check regularly with the USGS for earthquakes and volcano eruptions. There is a whole lot of shaking going on from fracking operations.  Oklahoma had around 300 hundred quakes last month.  Just think if the rock slips under the river and effects the motion of the water.  This is a bigger head ache then window rattling and dishes shaking. 

    I also listened to a speech this month from the Director of the IMF.  There is a worry that the mega banks will use ISDS to over ride laws.  She made a point that banks can and do harm to economies when left up to their own governance.  The same thing Sen. Warren has been railing about.  

    The media is really useless because this can be explained in easy terms so the population understands this isn't about jobs but about corporate power. People find concepts like this confusing and tend to ignore what they are confused about. UN black helicopters are much more in their paradigm to be afraid of .


    I am going to add this video here of a interview with Paul Krugman. I think it is from a couple of years ago. Everything he says rings true today.  Towards the end he will give his opinion on why people have been clinging to this far right ideology so it does tie into this discussion. He covers lots of history as to why we are were we are now. It is a hour long but worth the time to listen too. 


    Hal, one of the definitions of true intelligence is to be able to hold two seemingly countervailing views in mind at the same time. For example, I might think both things at once--- overall the trade deal is good, along with it won't necessarily create jobs or raise wages.

    As we were discussing on another thread, pardon me, the direct labor jobs may not be where the operatives are in terms of the broader positive economic effects of the trade deal.

    Part of the reason I keep taking you up on these trade blogs is that if one combined the possible positive effects of the deal with worthwhile associated reforms, like higher minimum wages, it would be better than just harping on how bad this deal is.    


    Oxy Mora - a "free trade" deal coupled with higher minimum wages might lead to higher unemployment since the mandated higher wages here would make production in low-wage countries that much more attractive.  It is true that some service industries like fast food can't be off-shored but retail can certainly be - think of all the items we can buy online these days that are shipped to us from China.  I just don't see how we can benefit from a deal that puts more American workers in direct competition with laborers who are paid sub $1/hour.  In Krugman's latest column, , dated today, he is about as critical of the TPP as he has ever been of a trade deal. Honestly though his criticisms are somewhat different than mine although there is overlap.

    Regarding the two conflicting ideas at once, I agree with you that it is quite possible to view your country's interests as somewhat different than your own.  Some wealthy individuals, like Warren Buffett, have argued for higher taxes on themselves.  But the Pew Poll says that most Americans don't think trade deals lead to higher salaries or more jobs in the aggregate.  Yet, we still believe they're in our best interests.  I maintain my original position that it is paradoxical to conclude a trade deal that does not lead to higher wages or more jobs for Americans as in America's best interest.


    Latest Comments