The Left Debates Globalization

Brad LeLong (Economist, UC Berkley) and Jeff Faux (President, Economic Policy Institute) recently had a fairly violent debate on the merits of the economic aspects of globalization. In the end, they're both advocating trade (Faux is much less confident), but Faux believes that labor standards are necessary in not just trade with China, but with all countries. This is relevant because when the Doha Round fails in the coming months (Doha is the latest round of multilateral trade negotiations), the U.S. will continue negotiating bilaterals with smaller, poorer countries because they are much easier to negotiate (see below for why) and bring benefits more immediately than multilateral deals which tend to phase out subsidies and tariffs over several years if not decades. DeLong thinks that tying trade with labor standards is a form of economic protectionism designed to increase the cost of labor in low skilled countries and minimize the chance that U.S. companies will transfer production out of the U.S., among other things. I am staying out of this specific question because 1) I don't have a strong enough preference for either view at the moment, and 2) Because there is a middle ground between the two views. For example, allowing a company (especially a U.S. subsidiary) to do what it wants to workers abroad can't be in the U.S.'s long term interests and could undermine support for globalization among proponents of human rights in the U.S. (and from U.S. residents that have morals). But, presumably, labor standards should not be a one size fits all approach either (think trade deal with Canada versus trade deal with Saudi Arabia). Finally, I found the comments made at the end of the debate troublesome, with some of TPM Cafe's readers arguing, in some form or another, that economic globalization is bad on balance. I agree that some of the U.S.'s bilateral agreements are somewhat predatory. If the U.S. negotiates an agreement with a country like Oman, Oman has MUCH more to gain from preferential treatment to the U.S. market than does the U.S., and this gives the U.S. leverage to bargain for whatever it wants in the agreement (namely for protection for industries that could be hurt by the deal). But on the whole, trade usually has to bring net benefits, or else countries wouldn't do it. I understand that this is too simplistic an argument for bilateral deals and trade in general, but enough from me, check the debate.