Why Protectionism is bad

The Conscise Encyclopedia of Economics ^ ^ | Jagdish Bhagwati

[hobson]

You sound like a Federalist. Are you a Federalist?

[explodingspleen]

hedgetrimmer

So you think protectionism is bad. How about telling the truth: free-tradism is global socialism.

So... let me get this straight. The system of no government interference (free trade) is the socialist system, and the system of taxes and government subsidies (proectionism) is the capitalist system?

Actually no it isn't. You must read the WTO charter, NAFTA, GATT and the FTAA. They clearly posit socialist policies withing their trade agreements.

Well, since these treaties are ostensibly chalk-full of socialist policies, perhaps you wouldn't mind kindly citing such a passage for verification?

In order for Brazil to sign the FTAA, they are demanding that the US create a program to end global hunger, and also to give free US taxpayer dollars to that country for "infrastructure development". That is not "free trade".

In order for Venezuela to sign the FTAA they are demanding tht the US create a program of redistribution of US taxpayer dollars called "structural convergence". Than is not "free trade" but our salivating little trade minister will give any concession in order to make the FTAA happen.

In order for Mexico to sign the FTAA the US must allow open migration of Mexican nationals, social security for illegal immigrants and lower fees for sending remittances outside of the country. The president just met with Vicente Fox this weekend and agreed to all their "conditions" on "free trade".

Conditional trade is not free trade. In an environment of free trade all such trade deals as you've mentioned would be impossible. Another reason to adopt free trade.

The idea of "infrastructure development" evolved directly from the WTO who says "rich" countries must pay to bring teh standard of living of "poor" countries, or "least developed countries" like china, up. That is not "free trade".

Since when does the WTO say that? Source?

In fact, there is no "free trade" only managed trade by the global socialists who run the WTO and the UN.

Well, if there isn't any free trade then what are you criticizing it for? Let's get rid of the "managed global socialist" trade and establish free trade in its stead.

Willie Green

Marx was in agreement with Adam Smith on the consequences of free trade.

Well, if we look at the passages that you cited, I am having some trouble seeing where Smith said anything along the lines of "[free trade] breaks up old nationalities and pushes the antagonism of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie to the extreme point. In a word, the free trade system hastens the social revolution." Care to point that out to me?

As I just posted, Adam Smith agreed with it.

I doubt Adam Smith had any take at all on Marxism, seeing as he predated it.

Marx's proposed alternative may have been an abomination, But that doesn't discredit his analysis of the consequences of unrestricted free trade.

Ahh, just because Marx wasn't completely and utterly wrong in all the rest of his philosophy doesn't mean that we should question this part.

Even David Ricardo asserted that such policies would drive labor to the subsistance level.

No, David Ricardo said that population growth coupled with increasing rent costs would do that. He was, in fact, a free trade advocate. He even lobbied against the Corn Laws.

[Gunslingr3]

It is as long as there is a UN, a WTO, OAS and all the "free trade" areas like ASEAN, EU, FTAA etc etc etc

If those insitutions removed socialism, would you oppose free trade?

[hedgetrimmer]

If those insitutions removed socialism, would you oppose free trade?

I oppose any international institution having authority over the US and American citizens. Our Constitution is supposed to be our ultimate authority, remember?

[Luis Gonzalez]

You're something else Willie.

You spend your time in a conservative website quoting Marx (a known liar), and defending Lindbergh (a known Nazi).

Your heroes are Henry Ford and Pat Buchanan, both renown antisemites, with Pat being America's best known Hitler apologist. Rock on Willie!

[explodingspleen]

hedgetrimmer

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1094376/posts?page=15#15

Bush signed off on steel tariffs. He is hardly what I would call an exemplary free-trade advocate.

Politicians, especially on the international scene,will never allow "free trade" to exist because they are making out like bandits with all the tax dollar giveaways to coerce them into signing "free trade' agreements. So arguing for "free trade" is an exercise in futility.

Then, naturally, so is arguing against it.

Willie Green

I'm not sure why you're saying "horse puckey" when, based on the rest of your reply, I suspect we'd generally be in agreement on this issue. For instance, while you've neglected the economic impact of our bloated regulatory bureaucracy, I do agree that a shift in our tax policy is in order. The federal government should implement a relatively low, flat-rate "revenue tariff" on ALL imported goods while simultaneously reducing the corporate income tax to promote domestic industries and production.

Huh? Who are they producing for? Once you pass your tariff other countries are going to pass retaliatory tariffs and you can say bye-bye to your exports.

The personal income tax isn't a "barrier" to trade, but it is a shackle placed on our own domestic work force.

It's a barrier in as much as it increases the cost of goods.

[Libertarianize the GOP]

bump

[Cronos]

The WTO's charter states that WTO members recognise:

“that their relations in the field of trade and economic endeavour should be conducted with a view to raising standards of living, ensuring full employment and a large and steadily growing volume of real income and effective demand, and expanding the production of and trade in goods and services, while allowing for the optimal use of the world’s resources in accordance with the objective of sustainable development, seeking both to protect and preserve the environment and to enhance the means for doing so in a manner consistent with their respective needs and concerns at different levels of economic development.”

[Cronos]

They're not socialists no more than the Stock Exchange Board is socialist. In fact they do less than the Securities Exchange board and have less powers, faar less powers. All the WTO (derived from GATT) is, is a forum for countries and trading blocs to settle disputes. If the WTO rules against, say, the EU ( as it did in the bananas case when it ruled FOR THE USA), that bloc CAN ignore it, but they don't. It's NOT a world government, it's NOT a socialist conspiracy, all it is, is a place to settle disputes, not even a court.

[Cronos]

If you say the WTO is socialist or that the FTAA is socialists, then explain WHY ALL SOCIALISTS IN BRAZIL, ETC. CALL THE WTO AND NAFTA AND FTAA CAPITALIST PLOTS? Why do they decry them as tools of the US? Why do they consider them a threat to their socialist states? And why does the US still use them? Because they're good for capitalism and by extension, they're good for the USA

[Cronos]

Hedge: So you think protectionism is bad. How about telling the truth: free-tradism is global socialism.

Explodinspleen: So... let me get this straight. The system of no government interference (free trade) is the socialist system, and the system of taxes and government subsidies (proectionism) is the capitalist system?

good one.

[Cronos]

The idea of "infrastructure development" evolved directly from the WTO who says "rich" countries must pay to bring teh standard of living of "poor" countries, or "least developed countries" like china, up. That is not "free trade".

Nowhere in the WTO website does it say that.

[Cronos]

I oppose any international institution having authority over the US and American citizens.

They have no authority.....

[Cronos]

Huh? Who are they producing for? Once you pass your tariff other countries are going to pass retaliatory tariffs and you can say bye-bye to your exports.
If all of these tariffs and counter-tariffs are put in place then we go back to the 1700s, when nations must be self-sufficient. If they lack a good then they'll invade another country to get it. So, the US is big enough to get most of what it needs from it's own land mass, but I guess China and India and Russia will carve up Asia and Africa and Australia while Europe may fall under the Russian bear's shadow. South America will form a giant state and probably rope in central America on anti-gringo hysteria. Finally, we'd end up with only a half dozen empires in the world

[Wolfie]

Hmm...but protectionism is sure as hell working for our trading partners.

[Gunslingr3]

I oppose any international institution having authority over the US and American citizens. Our Constitution is supposed to be our ultimate authority, remember?

That is not an answer to the question I asked. Let me try again: "If those insitutions removed socialism, would you oppose free trade?" Free trade means the removal of government erected barriers to trade. For it or against it?

[TXBSAFH]

Putting you countrymen first in trade negotiations is not protectionism, it is Patriotism.

[ARCADIA]

The system of no government interference (free trade) is the socialist system, and the system of taxes and government subsidies (proectionism) is the capitalist system?

It is interesting that you feel that there is no government interference. Clearly, you may have heard something about a small problem that we have been having with the way China currently pegs its currency; or, you may have noticed that US exports are usually hit with a 70% tariff by many of our "free trade" partners. I would consider those and perhaps hundreds of other imposed structural impediments and subsidies to make mockery of your global free trade system. Can you explain where our US farm subsidies fit under your model for free trade?

There is no global free trade. What there is is a perversion of our system of government. We do not have a direct democracy; we have a system that is designed to strike a balanced between the voice of our citizens and our respect for property. This works so longs as "what is good for General Motors is good for America," but, it starts to collapse when control over that property is given to hostile foreign interests.

Why are so many willing to risk so much while setting a blind eye to the outright fraud of a global "free trade system?" Perhaps, too barren of ideas to come up with anything constructive, some have decided to sell our system for a few silver pieces. Look at our trading partners: they are taking control of our system and we are becoming them. Is that what we want? To become another nation like China, or India?

[hedgetrimmer]

The FTAA Deception--William Norman Grigg


But from the very beginning, the European Union was intended to become a socialist regional government, functioning as an administrative unit of a UN-based global government. This was laid out with commendable candor in the Resolutions on Political Union at the 1948 Congress of Europe: "The creation of a United Europe must be regarded as an essential step towards the creation of a United World."

The FTAA is designed to be nothing less than the Western Hemisphere counterpart to the European Union. The FTAA would enlarge upon the so-called North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA, under which the United States, Canada, and Mexico have begun the process of merging our economies and political systems.

In a 2002 address in Madrid, Spain, Mexican President Vicente Fox was remarkably blunt in his description of the purposes to be served by NAFTA and the FTAA: "Eventually our long-range objective is to establish with the United States, but also with Canada, our other regional partner, an ensemble of connections and institutions similar to those created by the European Union."

[hedgetrimmer]

The FTAA Deception--William Norman Grigg

To accomplish NAFTA's stated intention -- lowering government barriers to trade -- a very brief document would be necessary. Yet the text of the basic NAFTA accord devours hundreds of pages and is divided into two thick, heavy volumes. Much of the text is devoted to a blueprint for a large, cumbersome international regulatory bureaucracy. Furthermore, at several places the agreement anticipates the creation of additional "annexes" that would create even more layers of international bureaucracy.

The NAFTA pact called for creation of 30 new international government committees, subcommittees, councils, working groups, and subgroups. It also mandated the creation of a Free Trade Council that would function as a continental government-in-waiting with enormous discretionary powers. Provision was also made for numerous additional permanent committees, various "working groups," subcommittees, subgroups, and other bureaucratic bodies whose enactments would supposedly have the force of law.

Rather than relieving the burden of regulation that impedes genuine free trade, NAFTA internationalized the regulatory apparatus -- thereby making it less accountable to the U.S. citizens affected by those regulatory decisions.