Readers write for Sunday, Dec. 12, 2010

Reading the Opinion Exchange commentary by Mike Meyers on free trade ("Trade monster," Dec. 5) was like being transported back to 1985, when Ronald Reagan, Alan Greenspan and most economists preached the gospel of the free market and deregulation. Meyers suggests that the vast majority of economists continue to favor free trade (which is no surprise, since economists live in a cloud cuckooland of eternal growth), and that the 69 percent of Americans who favor some protection from the ravages of free trade are wrongheaded.

This narrative of free trade and deregulation is completely bankrupt. Free market, cowboy, winner-take-all capitalism has turned us into a huge debtor nation which no longer makes anything. The jobs went overseas and they will not come back until and unless we adopt the policy that served us well for more than 150 years: tariffs. As Thom Hartmann notes in his new book, "Rebooting the American Dream," the three periods when we dropped tariffs, in 1857, 1913, and 1987, were soon followed by economic disasters. Enough free market nonsense. What worked well for so long can work again to rebuild the American dream.

BERNIE MOLITOR, ST. PAUL

• • •

After reading Meyers' impassioned plea for more free trade agreements, I can't help but wonder if he can tell the difference between nutty nationalistic protectionists and concerned citizens who don't want greedy corporations to control a world market. Let's be honest: The aim of globalization is not to help poor countries develop their economies, it's to exploit their lax labor and environmental laws. Meanwhile, the United States has lost millions of manufacturing jobs because of bad trade deals with Mexico, Central America and China. The Economic Policy Institute is already estimating that the proposed trade agreement with South Korea would cause America to lose 159,000 jobs within the next five years. It's time we wake up and cancel these unfair trade agreements that only benefit multinational corporations. Meyers may not like it, but not to worry: There will always be an open market for him to peddle snake oil.

ANDERS LEE, ST. PAUL

In her column "How liberals reinvented 'freedom'" (Dec. 5) Katherine Kersten discusses the importance of the virtuous citizen. I agree this is important in a democracy. But so is Kersten's statement that the American Founders believed "in a political regime of ordered liberty, with the rule of law, checks and balances on power, and a widely shared vision of the common good." Large corporations and banks get special treatment in the law. It seems to me that for Kersten the common good needs to include only the few and the powerful.

Columnist Lori Sturdevant's criticism of Gov. Tim Pawlenty's reluctance to raise taxes to balance Minnesota's budget conveniently ignores the other half of our budget problem ("Let's consider the Pawlenty legacy: A $6.2 billion deficit," Dec. 5). The DFL has controlled the Legislature, and it is the Legislature that proposes expenditures. If Pawlenty was not governor, our budget imbalance would be worse. If the Legislature would control its propensity to propose more spending programs, the available tax revenues might be sufficient to balance the budget and Pawlenty would not be forced to prevent tax increases. Minnesota taxes are notoriously high, giving certain businesses incentives to go elsewhere. State government should be less generous with public employee pensions, state aid to local governments, health care, education, etc.

SEYMOUR HANDLER, EDINA

Regarding your Dec. 5 editorial on the risks to the housing market created by fraudulent activities of the banking industry ("A metastasizing mortgage mess"), the banks sold investments based on mortgages that were approved by loan officers to buyers who were unable to pay the loans. Then the banks compounded the problem by failing to keep records of the transfer of these mortgages. It seems clear that the banks and the individuals who were in charge of the mortgage lending and securitization of these mortgages have committed fraud and must be held accountable.

Just as bankruptcy trustees "claw back" ill-gotten gains from so-called Ponzi schemes, the benefactors and perpetrators of this scam must be forced to return any money made, including salaries, bonuses and investment returns. These same individuals should then be hauled into criminal court and prosecuted for racketeering, fraud and conspiracy.

Any proceeds would go to help the people made homeless by the actions of these perpetrators. Anything less simply ensures that the same behavior will happen again.