While neither side convinced the other in the two-hour back and forth, the exchange clearly articulated the intellectual rationale behind the larger debate surrounding the WTO meeting. Rather than being a global tide that lifts all boats, free trade has only spurred greater income inequality worldwide, he argued. Nader noted that the U.S. has run a trade deficit for 22 of the past 29 years, creating a net negative impact from trade that cost workers their jobs in industries especially sensitive to imports. The free traders were undeterred. Commerce's Aaron responded that while the Clinton Administration agrees with many of the complaints of labor and environmental groups, the economic benefits of trade go far beyond exports.
Trade often allows large corporations to create monopolies around the globe.
Just look what Cargill Corp. has done in cornering the market on farm seed, she argued. She claimed that Cargill had a virtual monopoly that has destroyed small Indian farmers, and, she added, their displacement isn't counted in the statistics on expanded trade. While such pain may be undeniable, Bhagwati argued that Shiva missed the longer-term economic benefits from trade. Since the Korea, Seoul has embraced trade, and the country has gone from underdeveloped poverty to a moderately developed industrial nation. India, however, remained protectionist and stagnated, he said.