Free Trade vs. America

[goru426]

The Free Trade scam is one thing we all agree.

It doesn't matter if you are a hippie or a right wing religious nut, we are all effected by the so called Free Trade. It only benefited the super rich.

[gohikenh]

Tariffs protected our manufacturing industry. Now we lost it and its jobs. For a time the unemployed found work in the consumer or service market. But with a collapse of the housing bubble we have come to terms with reality. We spent our savings, took out loans, and sold off our assets to keep consuming when we should have been producing. Now they own much of our industry and take the profits. We are left with debt we have to pay off with interest to them. Removing tariffs caused this.

[rightdemocrat]

Free trade has been a disaster for this country. Millions of middle class jobs have been destroyed by one-way trade agreeements. We need to impose tariffs and start to rebuild America's industrial capacity if we are to ever have widespread prosperity again.

[grendel1013]

All f the U.S problems began when we started giving the super rich tax breaks, and exporting the manufacturing jobs over seas. We should go back to how things used to be, the rich got taxed at 90%. They still were rich, and they pulled their fair share. 

[MrBuyUSA]

@FlamingTide

It's not a political debate for intellectuals.. It's common sense, and I'm afraid, that's not so common anymore. If I make chairs, and you buy my chairs, I make more chairs.. If you buy enough chairs, I'll hire folks to help build more chairs..If you buy Chinese chairs, I stop making chairs.. Yes it IS that simple.

I didn't see the date, was just surfing around. Have a good one man..

[MrBuyUSA]

Manufacturing built this country. The working class built this country. Common sense built this country. My grandpa with a 6th grade education built this country. I don't understand why the higher ups don't see it, maybe they just can't see it. Maybe you have to live it, to get it. We need our middle class jobs back, so we can raise our families in peace. A hard working factory man, is no less a man, than a collage grad. Elitists really need a reality check.

[ateamga]

I feel your pain, but free trade isn't hurting American workers. A poor economic setup is. The inflation of the dollar. But yeah the ship is sinking. Someone help us.

[AznSensation90]

Im sorry to say, but America isnt a manufactruing, exporting nation. Most of America's wealth is generated through the financial sector of our economy. All though protectionism sounds like a good thing, in all honesty, theres really nothing to protect in America.

[ronII1974]

free trade forces companies to pursue the lowest common denominator of behavior, Increases reliance on fossil fuels and generally suppresses wages of rich and poor nations. Support FAIR TRADE Try to buy Local and buy used. Try to Reject predatory capitalism.

[Camel76]

What happened to our jobs? Bush had them exported and rewarded the companies.

watch?v=prtR-h8oKqU Ron Paul on free trade.

watch?v=w07Dh9W0bEI Ron Paul is still running.

watch?v=0Y5nQWnllHY inspiring candidate

[Userduder]

Ron Paul is worse then NAFTA, he would eliminate ALL tariffs REGARDLESS OF WHAT OTHER NATIONS DO (dump, manipulate currency, closed markets, etc.)

[Camel76]

I know, hey are all liars.

Ron Paul has ties to Freemasonry.

I'm not voting for anyone.

[Userduder]

Constitution Party.

[benjamaiLL]

Freemasons ARE THE SPAWN OF SATAN!!!!

[mujaku]

"Free trade results in giving our money, our manufactures, and our markets to other nations." — President McKinley [R]

[benjamaiLL]

"High trade barriers, what is often called protectionism, undermines economic growth and destroys jobs."--Ronald Reagan [R]

[Userduder]

"Thank God i'm not a free trader" Teddy Roosevelt.

[Userduder]

"Atlantic Slave Trade abolished" Thomas Jefferson.

"Embargo act of 1807" Thomas Jefferson.

[benjamaiLL]

And what happened to the economy after the embargo act of 1807? People just loved Jefferson for what he did, didn't they? Lol.

[Userduder]

I guess you have no problem with American sailors being kidnapped by either the French or English, and being forced into service into their navies as slaves. Oh no, you free traders have no problems with American citizens being killed, your priority is PROFIT PROFIT PROFIT.

[benjamaiLL]

Haha, no. What I have a problem with is American sailors not being able to choose to go out to France and England to trade and face their own personal risk of impressment. What I have a problem with is people that believe in safety over personal freedom. What I have a problem with is people like you that are incapable of making their own decisions so they ask the government to do it for them.

[benjamaiLL]

This may be news to you, but PROFIT PROFIT PROFIT is what creates JOBS JOBS JOBS.

Nobody understands...

[Userduder]

This may be news to you, but if the rich are employing cheap foreign labor, then taxing the rich will not effect American jobs. Expect resistance to "tax the rich" from the Republican voting base to dissipate.

[benjamaiLL]

Protectionism is not taxing the rich. Its taxing the consumer and taxing the businesses that create jobs. A tariff, like sales tax, is really more of a tax burden on the lower and middle class than the rich.

Go read a book on economics then come back and tell me free trade is bad for jobs.

[Userduder]

I guess you would prefer to tax American labor and let Foreign labor sell products here tax free. That's the ticket, your not even an American.

[benjamaiLL]

I guess you don't care about American jobs. You don't know what makes the economy work. The revolutionary was fought for free trade. You really don't know much about history or economics, or what even creates wealth. Go read a book on economics and then tell me free trade is bad. Only an idiot would support tariffs.

[sccoast1700]

You're right, free trade is good for jobs; in China, Mexico, and India.

[benjamaiLL]

No, no, no. I am wrong. Protectionism is right. Look at the Smoot-Hawley tariff. Protectionism is GREAT for US jobs. And no, I am not being sarcastic.

[FlamingTide]

Smoot-Hawly single handedly turned a recession into a depression. I just did a paper on this- the evidence is overwealming

People are often quick to point the finger at the Wall Street crash, but that only decreased the US GDP by 20%. Smoot-Hawley contracted it by 50% in 2 small years till WW2 came along and saved the US economy.

A late reply but it needed to be said

[MrBuyUSA]

You just did a paper on it.. My grandpa was there.. He would beg to differ with your paper..

[FlamingTide]

@MrBuyUSA No1- I posted that comment a year ago. No I did not JUST do a paper on it.

No2- I trust the overwealming statistical evidence over one mans single subjective view on the great depression.

Keep with your campaign. If you want America to turn into North Korea and fall behind with the rest of the world, please continue. America was built on freedom to trade as was every other developed nation you see today. You have to deal that Made In America looks nice but is never a practical answer

[mujaku]

"I do not know much about the tariff, but I know this much, when we buy manufactured goods abroad, we get the goods and the foreigner gets the money. When we buy the manufactured goods at home, we get both the goods and the money." -- Abraham Lincoln

[mujaku]

BenjamaiLL: You have no historical evidence for your statements. Yet great economic historians like Paul Bairoch and many others will tell you the U.S. became a great nation by implementing the protective and revenue tariff. What you are marketing is just codswallop. Why don't you look at the growth of the second reich under Bismarck. Germany was totally protective as was the US. Both kicked Britain's sorry ass who followed the path of free-trade.

[benjamaiLL]

NO HISTORICAL EVIDENCE?! Look at what happened to Japan in 90s! Protection ended up being just swell for them didn't it! Look at Germany right now! Largest exporter on earth and has a very sluggish growth rate. All Nobel Prize winning economists (every single one of them) have discussed the importance of expanding free trade. Paul Baroich studied 19th century and early 20th century economics. Welcome to the age globalization. Welcome to the 21st century.

[mujaku]

One of the great ironies of "free-trade" is this: What does shipping American manufacturing and good jobs overseas have to do with trade? This is not even close to what Adam Smith had in mind. What it really is about is corporations making a huge profit off of cheap labor at the expense of American workers who will have to live off of credit. Historically, free-trade has, without exception, led to depressions (Paul Bairoch, Economics & World History: Myths and Paradoxes).

[benjamaiLL]

Ha ha ha ha ha!!!!"Historically, free-trade has, without exception, led to depressions "

Let me completely obliterate that statement in three words: The Smoot-Hawley Tariff. Protectionism is proven to retard economic growth. Compare the post WW2 growth rates of WTO nations to the growth rates of non-WTO. nations.

[benjamaiLL]

Adam Smith wrote that tariffs are always detrimental to consumers and benefit special interest groups. In this case the special interest groups are labor unions. The case is exactly the same.

[seneca67]

Ben, I would ask you and all interested, to consider both sides of the equation regarding economy. We know we get a shrinking consumer market if slave wages are the standard, and we know that $100/per hour will end employment. Therefore rather than racing to the lowest possible labor overhead we should consider the solution for max circulation of currency. Which means there must exist an optimum value for labor.

[benjamaiLL]

Should we stop using this resource even though it raises our standard of living because it leaves a minority of the population unemployed?

What about technological advances that leave people unemployed? Many of the job losses in auto manufacturing are a result of robotic machinery doing what a normal person could with greater productivity and lower cost. Should the USA ban technology that threatens jobs even though they help the majority of Americans? I think not.

[seneca67]

what about 2,166,000 U.S. jobs?

[benjamaiLL]

One of these resources have been unskilled labor. While this has hurt people (and helped) to certain degree that are employed in this job type, it has helped everyone that is not.

[seneca67]

Wealth begins with Labor. The board of director's are not sweating in the shop floor making cabinets, or flipping burgers. Labor does that. Revenue depends upon labor to produce, and a customer base to purchase. Yes, the customers are workers too.

[benjamaiLL]

Yes, but the majority of the customer base is benefited by lower prices. And when I say majority, I mean 98%.

[benjamaiLL]

The consensus among the overwhelming majority of economists is that free trade is good for us. I have yet to read any textbook on macroeconomics opposing free trade. In fact, every book I have read two that take arguments against free trade, break it down, and explain how protectionism in nearly all forms doesn't make any sense. Free trade opens the US consumer to resources that will raise their level of consumption and therefore their standard of living.

[seneca67]

The consensus of the 2,166,000 Americans who could be working decent paying jobs might differ. I wonder what would happen to the opinions of economists if they were replaced by people in Bangladesh. You know what happens in a mass layoff? Businesses which those employees supported fail. Communities disappear. Main streets get boarded up with plywood. Years later we get flea markets and strip bars where there used to be restaurants and culture.

[benjamaiLL]

So what you are saying is that we should protect the jobs of 2,166,000 americans considering the other 300 million americans will have to pay high prices so less than 2% of the population can have their jobs? A tariff is a tax on imports that raises their prices. Why should you tax me so you can have your job? Why should you tax 298,000,000 americans so 2,166,000 can have their jobs?

[benjamaiLL]

Look, I agree with you on the problem of the trade deficit but I disagree with you on the means of balancing the deficit. There is a video on this site called "Greenspan slammed on us trade policies" (or something like that) where Greenspan explains my same position.

[seneca67]

Greenspan made the same mistake many economists make. He considered aggregate numbers but not how they broke down to the level of individuals. He and a lot of other brainiacs have finally started to notice that this "most favored consumer market" in the world consisted of people who worked for a living and earned living wages. You see, cutting out an entire section of society hurts everyone eventually.

[benjamaiLL]

Greenspan was the Chairman of the Fed. It is his job to be concerned about aggregate numbers because they represent data on what will be most beneficial to most americans. He understood that free trade was good for america. He understood that protectionism is historically proven to retard economic growth.

[seneca67]

Pardon me but Bullshit. Here, try reviewing this again: From EPI: "The rise in the U.S. trade deficit with China between 1997 and 2006 has displaced production that could have supported 2,166,000 U.S. jobs. Most of these jobs (1.8 million) have been lost since China entered the WTO in 2001. I think it during that time Greenspan expressed concern that the unemployment rate might get too low! Too low??!! Greenspan is a traitor to the American people! Supply side economic was a lie and a scam.

[benjamaiLL]

Greenspan was concerned that the economy was 'overheating', if you will. The situation was much more complex than to just use the poor logic of association and causation and labeling Greenspan a traitor. I guess seeing over the longest expansionary business cycle in US history is treason!

[benjamaiLL]

It really wasn't FTA that brought us to the trade deficit. It was Americans spending too much.

[seneca67]

YOU have got to be out of your cotton picking mind, Ben, "Americans spend too much"? Have you ever stepped outside of the hermetically sealed vault and taken a breath of fresh air? Please do so.

[benjamaiLL]

The problem of the trade deficit can best be corrected by the government enacting legislation that promotes savings behavior (hard money, high interest rates, ending social security and medicare, not taxing income on savings and others.) The reason we are a debtor nation is because we spend more than we produce. W/ or W/O FTAs that is possible as long as capital can flow into this nation from other nations. The trade debt of today is a product of the housing boom.

[paleocrat]

I am fully for those things you mention. I also believe that the issue is far more complex than many anti-FTA apologists may admit. But don't make an either-or out of a both-and. And the trade debt has gone back for some time. Lou Dobbs testified before Congress. I believe I have it on my Lou Dobbs playlist. I am confident you are no fan of Mr. Dobbs, but his testimony is startling. To ignore these facts and factors is economically suicidal.

[benjamaiLL]

When I say fastest growing, I mean they are employing more and more people and they are gaining more and more profits. When I am saying the fastest growing sector, I am simply saying the fastest growing sector. I hope thats not too tricky for you.

The USA is the 3rd largest exporter on earth. So saying our export sector is small is a complete lie. We are currently importing less w/FTA and exporting more w/FTA(the deficit is shrinking w/FTAs.) Do some research then post.

[paleocrat]

haha No, see, you aren't getting it. Let's make this easy. If I have 10 apples, and I gain 1 more apple, I had a rate of 10% growth. If someone has 40 oranges, and then gains 2 more oranges, he had a growth rate of 5%. This being as it is, one could say that the apple business is the fastest growing of the two, while in reality the oranges had two times the gain numerically. Wording here can be very tricky.

Small in relation to imports. If we were as you say, then why over 30 yrs trade deficit?

[benjamaiLL]

Ok, ok, you got me. But the current growth of the export sector is paramount. I don't have any actual numbers off the top of my head but give me a sec and I will go find them.

We have had 30 years of deficit because we spend too much. Artificially low interest rates and ease of credit among other things has led to this problem. Trade does play a role in the deficit, but not nearly as strong of a role as consumption v. savings.

[benjamaiLL]

And look, the fastest growing sector of the economy is the export sector. If you want to end this current recession (if we are in one) then you have to be in favor of expanding FTAs. This will help our export sector tremendously and will do a lot to help economic growth of this nation.

[benjamaiLL]

Seneca67, you don't understand economics. Two things.

1. China is not our major trading partner. Canada is. We import more from China but we trade more w/canada.

2. It is debatable whether a trade deficit is a problem or not. But it is directly related capital flow (savings v. consumption) and indirectly related to trade. If the USA supported policy that encouraged domestic savings, we would not have a trade deficit.

[paleocrat]

Trade deficits are crippling our country. We have had how many consecutive years of record breaking trade deficits? We have essentially become a debtor nation.

The "fastest growing sector of our economy" is a tricky phrase. Fastest how? It's growth may be minimal, but due to its being small to begin with, any gain looks big. Until we begin exporting as much or more than we are importing, we will continue to have problems.

FTA's got us here, and you want more? What kind of logic is that?

[seneca67]

Benjamin, "The rise in the U.S. trade deficit with China between 1997 and 2006 has displaced production that could have supported 2,166,000 U.S. jobs.". I am glad we trade with Canada, do we have a huge trade imbalance with them? no.

[benjamaiLL]

Seneca67- In order to keep those "2,166,000" jobs all americans would have to pay more for a less efficiently produced goods. We would spend more on those goods and have less of our income to save/consume. The result would be less produced, less consumed, and fewer jobs in other areas of the economy. There would be no net gain or loss in jobs but a net loss in consumption.

[seneca67]

Well, Gee Ben, according to you Americans were spending too much anyways. Ben, I remember before Nafta, and before the whole fretrade thing. Do you? Why tell me your "opinon" about what you "think" might happen, when we need only recall what did happen. In 1989 we had a 1.47% unemployment rate, and the jobs were paying people enough to live and prosper. Since Nafta I have watched whole towns become ghost towns. Don't you think its time to put down the slideruler and look out the window Ben?

[benjamaiLL]

In 1989 we had an unemployment of 1.47%? Where did you hear or find that? The U.S. Department of Labor: Bureau of Labor Statistics shows no unemployment rates lower than 5.0% in 1989. Source:US Department of Labor. NAFTA took effect in 1994. If you were to look at the post NAFTA Unemployment rate you'd find that it slowly decreases until 2001. So arguing strictly in terms of employment, NAFTA has been nothing but beneficial.

[benjamaiLL]

Yep, all those jobs lost to outsourcing.. No one ever takes the time to look at the USA's greater number of created jobs and greater economic growth compared to those industrial nations with protectionist policies..

[seneca67]

Please tell us all about those "created jobs". Tell us about the pay, and the stability of those created jobs.

[benjamaiLL]

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the United States had 91 million private sector jobs in December of 1993, the month before NAFTA went into effect. Employment rose continuously in the next seven years to peak at 112 million jobs in February 2001, and has fallen back over the past two years to 109 million. (Bonus fact-last four-year Presidential term in which total employment fell-1929-1933.) At the same time, real hourly wages are up from $13.66 to $15.08, in constant 2003 dollars.

[seneca67]

From EPI: "The rise in the U.S. trade deficit with China between 1997 and 2006 has displaced production that could have supported 2,166,000 U.S. jobs. Most of these jobs (1.8 million) have been lost since China entered the WTO in 2001. Between 1997 and 2001, growing trade deficits displaced an average of 101,000 jobs per year, or slightly more than the total employment in Manchester, New Hampshire."

[seneca67]

From the Economic Policy Institute: "Since the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was signed in 1993, the rise in the U.S. trade deficit with Canada and Mexico through 2002 caused the displacement of production that supported 879,280 U.S. jobs."

[seneca67]

From EPI: "As a matter of policy, China tightly pegs its currency's value to that of the dollar at a rate that encourages a large bilateral surplus with the United States. Maintaining this peg required the purchase of about $200 billion in U.S. Treasury Bills and other securities in 2006 alone.1 This intervention makes the yuan artificially cheap and provides an effective subsidy on Chinese exports"

[seneca67]

Since the late eighties I have seen our country change from a society of producers to mere retailers. I have found myself searching for new jobs on average every 2 years. The companies I worked for all had major re-orgs, and of course lay-offs about every 18 months. This situation is not sustainable! The B of L labor stats are highly inaccurate.

[seneca67]

Ben you invite comparisons to 3rd world nations with protectionist policies, but even our largest trading partner, China uses protectionism. We are trading free, they are not! This economic rape needs to end!

[benjamaiLL]

Ever heard of US farm subsidies? We are not trading free.

And China's inflationary policy on the Yuan is giving Americans cheaper goods so they can consume more. You populists don't see that the benefits go both ways. Americans will spend less on imports so they can spend more on domestic goods (thus spurring growth in the USA) and ultimately consume more. To protect the jobs on a minority, a majority has a high price to pay.

[benjamaiLL]

And just because this happened to you means that it has happened to everyone?

Here's a simple a case w/simple facts against your arguement.

1. Job growth has gone up since free trade agreements.

2. Average payroll wage has gone up since ftas.

3. Consumption has gone up since ftas.

4. In real dollars many goods and services are less expensive after fta.

5. FTAs are good for America.

[seneca67]

"The rise in the U.S. trade deficit with China between 1997 and 2006 has displaced production that could have supported 2,166,000 U.S. jobs."

The trade imbalance means that we do not have equal access to the Chinese markets. OK? Does that make sense? Not just a problem for workers, but businesses too. I have read many letters form CEO's and analysts who have noted the negative impact of are trade relationships.

[johnnyzhivago123]

Great!! You religious types must be excited by the pauperization of the West.  After all, doesn't Jesus command a life of poverty and teach that it is easier for a camel to fit through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to get into heaven? You should applaud the rich and powerful for giving us a level of poverty we haven't seen in a few hundred years, and just in time for Armageddon, too!!

[paleocrat]

Jesus doesn't command poverty. The epistles warn of the dangers of affluence, but they also warn the poor of the temptation to envy. And Catholics (of which I am numbered) do not believe in the kind of Armageddon theology advocated by the Left Behind series or dispensationalist theology.

[johnnyzhivago123]

Well, I'm glad you don't believe in such nonsense. I am sorry for making such a snarky comment; but hearing people's dismissal of these issues on religious ground is quite upsetting, and only prevents addressing these problems.

[Ajntb2Sli]

I totally agree, and I once debated Paleocrat about this very same thing. Im glad to see that he has had a change of heart.

[Ajntb2Sli]

Why Paleo, was that a cheap shot directed at me? I thought you were all for a Borderless America, and letting illegals in this country. Did you have a change of heart? America will be a third world country in no time now. This Dispensationalist believes that this problem, along with free trade is what will bring down america. By the way, Jesus does not command a life of poverty, but that of Humility. Not the same thing. I have been against NAFTA, SPP, CAFTA and illegal immigration.

[paleocrat]

I've had a change of heart, but certainly not on the heresy of dispensationalism. It wasn't a shot at you, but the heresy in general.

[Ajntb2Sli]

I figured since I brought it up, you were thinking of me. At least you came to your senses on this whole border thing. However, I do believe the process is so into full effect, and no candidate against it, that it will be impossible to get rid of. Therefore, the great depression of '09. Like the other person said, I don't believe in your religion, but at least you got this straight.

[johnnyzhivago123]

I can't say I agree with your religion, but I'm with you on this one. Naomi Klein's "No Logo" does an great job of tying a lot of this together, and tells the stories of those trying to stop it.

[pairunoyd]

Then, once this wall is fully erected and tight and other industries complain about unfair 'lap time' and get their own special status, where will be the incentive to lower govt regulations/taxes? Everyone is locked in, w/ no economic alternative. Anytime you have to build a wall to keep your citizens in you have to ask yourself a question, Whats wrong w/ America? You dont ask, Whats wrong w/ those trying to escape. America is here for us. It's here to help us remain free.

[pairunoyd]

production capacity. Theyre over here producing goods for gubmint largesse, leaving the free markets w/ a dearth in production capactiy. So you have gubmint and biz highjacking the market, w/ biz following gubmint around like a lap dog. And of course youre going to tax exports, either voluntarily or non-Americans will do it for you i.e. other countries

[pairunoyd]

If you have gubmint raise prices on non-American goods so that American companies can compete, all that will happen is the American biz will raise its price. Why? Because now whenever their prices are higher than the non-Americans its assumed its due to unfairness. So when the american price rises, gubmint steps in and raises tariffs to keep it fair. Eventually, there will be other American businesses that see this distorted pricing and they step in to profit. But whats this do? Is misallocates

[paleoroundtable]

Google for 'The Paleo Conservatist' and there's quite a few good articles on this subject.

[labulldog5]

Corporatism is a result of competition and consumer judgement in the market. Who are you to say whether they should trade or not? In order to be considered "free trade," transactions must be free of tariffs and duties, and be mutually agreed upon by both parties. It is the unanimous nature of all market transactions that make trade, whether internationally or domestically, both free and fair.

[bobbaz2401]

CORPORATISM IS NOT FREE TRADE

[labulldog5]

I also chuckle at the part about "greed." Take a look at a 2 minute video "milton friedman - greed" on youtube and see how he brilliantly destroys this argument against Phil Donahue when old Phil brings up the same concern.

[labulldog5]

>The competition of foreign products is not causing domestic prices to go down.

>Domestic producers are set at a comparative disadvantage here.

If you can prove these two statements, especially the 2nd, then you will have converted me into a fair trader.

The bad news: you're not the first person to theorize this, numberous people have come out with theories trying to debunk comparative advantage for 200 years (and since refuted.) It is a textbook example of a failed old argument.

[paleocrat]

Well, so long as play revisionism with old words and concepts, nobody can satisfy you.

A. We can ONLY go down so far due to various factors that our products MUST include, not by the choice of the producer, but of the government. Our foreign competitors aren't burdened anywhere near us in these areas. The result: They can go much lower than we can. Simple as 2 + 2.

B. Read number one. Again, do you not deny that taxes, regulations, and inflation play a part in price? If so, you answered it.

[pairunoyd]

I want to know how my goal of saving more souls is less important than your goal of a richer America if both are done by law.

[pairunoyd]

Isn't salvation most important? Then I say all money should go to the churches. What's it matter if you get a bunch of money. If you end up dying and going to hell it's all in vain? Salvation is top priority. I hereby decree that all monies are to be given to the Catholic church, because the soul is the most valuable thing there is. The US of A aint worth squat. Heaven is where it's at!

[pairunoyd]

OK, let's assume you're trying to do good by infringing on my freedom. Why stop at earthly goodness?

[paleocrat]

While I think your analogy is based on a false notion of my position, I do think it worthy to make some points. I do think that the State should protect and advance the role of the Church in society. I believe that there should be a division of powers, but I think it would be wrong for the state to ever act in a way that is dangerous for the church, and vise versa.

[pairunoyd]

This whole issue can get as convoluted as we wish, but I still dont see how YOU telling ME where and how to spend MY money is supposed to benefit ME! Are you so arrogant that you think you know better how to let me spend my own freakin money??????

[paleocrat]

No, but our country has the constitutional right and moral obligation to look out for the interest of the nation.

The issue isn't with my ability to tell you how to spend your money. The issue is with the government not knowingly placing American producers and workers at an unfair disadvantage while allowing foreign countries to play us like fools, taking advantage of our economic idiocy.

[johnnyzhivago123]

I believe that the right to hinder your activities arises from the harm they have on others. And when there are conflicting priorities; the priorities need to take precedence. How would you like it if I went to your companies shareholder meetings demanding they cut your pay by 95%, so my stock will appreciate? Why should my right to profit supersede your right to a living wage?

[pairunoyd]

Your efforts will result in more squashing going on because it allows the industry to continue and the squashing gets smeared all around, making it easier for the boot heeling statist to cover their sins. If they wish to regulate the hell out of something then let them see the results. Why hide it by throwing the misery on me and everyone esle?

[pairunoyd]

If regulation causes higher costs for US manufacturers and that causes their prices to go up, what will happen when you also keep foreign competitors out of the market? It's a double-whammy. Higher prices via regulation PLUS higher prices due to lack of competition. See USSR, North Korea and China for real world examples.

[pairunoyd]

If domestic industry HAS to be squashed by the boot heel of regulation, at least allow that squashing to be overcome by the consumer having other choices. Leave the squashed entrepreneur open to competition. You propose to unsquash him by squashing others. Why not simply let it remain squashed?

[paleocrat]

MISTAKE: The competition of foreign products is not causing domestic prices to go down. It is causing companies to downsize, offshore, and outsource. Domestic producers are set at a comparative disadvantage here. They cannot, no matter how hard they try, go below certain price levels. This is due to taxes, regulations, minimum wage requirements, tampering with our currency, etc. etc. You act like we can float with foreign goods. We can't. It's rigged, and American workers are getting hit bad.

[johnnyzhivago123]

The reason prices stay the same in our out-sourced economy is because the savings in production are be shifted into marketing/branding, executive compensation, and profit. Advocating for the us to become a Export Processing Zone will not help make our lives any better.

[pairunoyd]

You say its better to do business in the U.S. Is it better to do business in my State? Is it better to do business in my City? Is it better to do business in my Neighborhood? Is it better to do business with my family? Is t better to do business with myself? (hunter/gatherer/subsistence farming)? Is it better to do business w/ 5 billion people, 1 billion, 300 million, 5 million, 100 or 1?

[paleocrat]

The closer to home, the better. But our founding fathers created a free market that enabled Americans to be the most self-sufficient country on the planet. Geographical determinism worked to our favor. We are a very educated people with a lot of money and resources.

I think it is good for a nation to do business with nations, but we shouldn't be so belligerent as to open our markets without considering the ramifications on our domestic producers and national sovereignty.

[pairunoyd]

Manufacturing businesses are also consumers. I guess you want them to pay more for the products they buy? Why are the expenditures and the net wealth of manufacturer X more important than mine? Why does manufacturer X get special prices? Why not raise my wages too? I'm an American. I've broke no laws.

[HEYBUDD]

There should be no reason to raise anyone's wages outside of merit increases. Inflation is created by design.

That caracture in the movies that wants to take over the world is not just fictional. The plan is at work and the hidden tax of inflation, that wich is destroying the middle class, is also destroying America.

This is not "just happening". It is not "out of controll".

Inflation and the export of our countries wealth is just part of a much bigger picture.

[pairunoyd]

I agree w/ most all youve said, so I dont know what the insult is for. But are you saying free trade means we're exporting 'our countries' weatlh? If so, I guess you should export MY wealth to John Doe, the revered maker of stuff. You assume I don't benefit. You can throw up trade barriers wherever you like, just do it in some alternate universe. Assuming thats your wish...

[HEYBUDD]

Sorry bout the insult, it wasn't really intended as such, wasn't thinking I guess...I just thought I was being cute, sorry.

Trade barriers ain't the answer either. But balanced trading would benefit all. We now have trade deficits which is the export of wealth that I speak of. This type of trading benefits the wealthy elete here, and the other country, transfering wealth at the peril of the American middle class.

[pairunoyd]

Why should John Doe get my money instead of Juan Doe? What'd John do for me? What'd Juan do for me? John made me a car for $25,000. Juan made me a car for $15,000. Why should I give John and extra $10,000? It'd be the same as me buying Juan's $15,000 car and then you telling me, "Hey, go give John $10,000." Why are you telling me to give John $10,000???

[HEYBUDD]

You would give John the extra $10,000 because when John want to buy a stupid response he will be able to give pairunoyd some extra as well.

But thats all because of false inflation created by our fiat currency and the "Fed" that controls interest rates. Inflation is not a naturally occuring phenomenon. It did not exsist before the private banks took control of our money. The $10,000 John now NEEDS is not due to free trade, it is because of our lack of controll over our own currency.

[paleocrat]

Comments like this prove my point. Free trades have no concept of national allegiance. They have no pride in the countrymen. They depersonalize human workers to economic units. They see communities as mere irrelevancies. Free traders have no problem being a slave society, so long as they can but stuff on the cheap.

The whole thing is rather unfortunate....

[pairunoyd]

We should not be forced to bear the burden of inefficiency, whether that inefficiency comes about by government regulation or some other factor.

Why would anyone want me to pay more for something???

[paleocrat]

Simple. Because you aren't paying more. When the government imposes these taxes and regulations on American producers, these producers downsize, outsource, or offshore. This results in unemployment, or re-employment in a field likely to pay less than manufacturing. This results in increased welfare, smaller property taxes resulting in higher millages, no income tax, and foreiners making vital parts to American national interest. Free trade costs a fortune...

[labulldog5]

There's no "death" in manufacturing, because we are more productive per capita than most of the entire world. How many years has India or Mexico wished they could have achieved this? You think higher profits due to higher productivity is somehow a bad thing? This is economically backward. There's no reason to impose huge costs the many to give special favors to a few (2%) due to foreign competition, any more than there's no reason to give special privilege to jobs lost for other reasons (98%).

[paleocrat]

Amazing how you folks don't see the irony here.

Manufactures are making more profit! Hmm... yet people are being fired at alarming rates?

Manufactures are more productive? Hmm... yet they are being outsources, downsized, and offshored like at no other time in recent history?

I'm still interested to know where you get the 2% and 98% numbers. Do you really want to have a pissing contest with numbers?

[redheadfo847]

Say it like it is PALEO!

[Tony63efc]

What will be important for any country competing in the global economy is educational achievement. I looked into this earlier today and America (like my country the UK) are distinctly average.

[paleocrat]

Education. That would normally fly, but not here. In the US, out of the top 10 pojected jobs over the next 10 years we have only 3 that encourage anything more than a high school diploma. Fields such as technology, law, and medicine are outsourcing at alarming rates. Many of the jobs once considered safe from the dangers of free trade are not topping the list.

[Tony63efc]

Accepting the projections is too defeatist, what's required is to identify the skills needed for the low carbon economy and go from there. Sure, America has lost time from this dreadful oil-corrupted President but I doubt it's too late.

[paleocrat]

I wish we could brush off projections, but we can't. Certain sectors are leaving. These were once restricted to old blue-collared jobs that made America a producing nation. That's not so anymore. Law, medical, technology, and various services are not easily outsourced. Then we have the low-skilled jobs taken by illegal immigrants.

We have to stop being like a frog in the hot water of free trade, not realizing we are being boiled to death.

Defeatist? No. Realist? Unfortunately, yes.

[Tony63efc]

I don't see protectionism as a solution; what manufacturing is left in America often relies on exports. If all countries take on board the issue of sustainable development outsourcing might not look as attractive. If as many experts believe oil reserves will be exhausted in 50 years then transport costs will be more important than they are now.

[seneca67]

Protectionism? That is what we are up against my friend. Free trade becomes a free for all when its one sided. We could at the very least evaluate the balance of these trade relationships, particularly with China. Currently China violates its end of the free trade agreement. Intellectual property rights, market access, currency are all major issues which cost us dearly. Until we have a symmetrical relationship with China there is no free trade for us, just them.

[Tony63efc]

I cannot deny that there are issues with China.

[stuart20017]

Do you have numbers to back your ideas?