tectol,

Your thoughtful response opens up a wide range of issues which I'll try to address individually in separate posts to keep it as manageable as possible. First, let me preface this by saying that the irony comment was more in the line of what McLuhan called a cliche-probe - not an observation of fact so much as the familiar framed in an unfamiliar way with the intent of provoking discourse. It appears to have worked <g>.

To continue that line, let me throw out the suggestion that what we call "free-trade" isn't truly free because it addresses only one side of the equation: free movement of capital. In the absence of the other half of the equation, namely free movement of labour, free trade is just another name for financial arbitrage. Worse, even the free flow of capital is restricted under the present rubric as any Canadian who attempts to open a US brokerage account or purchase US mutual funds will attest. So, not only do we have one rule for capital and another for labour, but we have a further division into small vs. large capital.

Unfortunately, the argument for free movement of labour falls on deaf ears in the community that has the most to gain from promoting it: ie; the labour movement itself. Far from being a threat to local interests, free movement of labour broadens the opportunity to organize labour on an international scale in parallel with international capital. Having gained the experience of working in an environment where labour law and practice is already well advanced, the immigrant portion of the global labour pool can transfer this knowledge back to their home nation, in addition bringing international pressure to bear on those nations that abuse their labour force, in effect conducting its own form of arbitrage to counter the one-sided effect of capital migration.

This is not something that will happen overnight, but it would certainly speed up the process of normalizing wages and labour conditions on a global basis, as opposed to the present ad hoc system which relies almost entirely on national movements which are largely isolated from the broader labour movement.

You see something like this already in the European community, where free movement of labour is now a political fact, if not an absolute reality.

Here in Canada, I advocate the free movement of anyone who wants to come and work here in exchange for reciprocity (subject to obvious caveats such as health and criminal history). Clearly the flows will be in the direction of the wealthier nation at first, but over time a balance will be struck, offsetting the unfair advantage of capital under the present "free trade" system.

Personally speaking, I'd welcome the opportunity to move myself and my capital to say, Ecuador, and prove (or die trying) that it's possible to take Canadian standards of employment and apply them there, in effect giving heart to other small capitalists, not to mention the local labour force who for once wouldn't be cheated because the distance between owner and worker, manager and employee, would be narrowed in the process. Actually, I though we'd get that opportunity with Aurelian, but unfortunately the vision was lacking on both sides - their government and our directors.

ebear