Hey, don't let the facts get in your way.
Posted on 06/15/2004 9:55:41 PM PDT by Remember_Salamis
Don't forget the employees, whose paychecks are necessarily smaller, and the pensioners whose retirement is less secure when the government bleeds their employers white.
You'd think those great friends of the working man in the Democratic Party would have figured this out, but . . .
-ccm
So does truly "free" trade exist anywhere in the world? Sure, on a very micro level. My daughter exchanges her labor--putting away dishes, folding clothes--for my capital, that is, her allowance. No taxes. No governmental dictums. Both parties benefit. Once you get too far beyond this micro level, "free" trade starts to get very blurry.
Here is UNESCO’s definition (and caveats):
In very simple terms, free trade can be defined as the absence of tariffs and import quotas on goods. This definition is based on the notion that the market is the best device to ensure consumers can access good products at the best price, and increase global wealth. The final goal of eliminating tariff barriers and national protection mechanisms is to allow the market to operate with no constraints. However, this approach to free trade takes no account of the fact that not all-trading partners are equal, and neither all products and services. Therefore, in an integrated global economy the conventional definition of free trade will no longer do, as trade in services is surging dramatically and new barriers are replacing conventional barriers such as tariff and import quotas.
There are three categories of obstacles to international trade:
* Tariff barriers (e.g. fiscal measures such as the imposition of custom duties)
* Non-tariff measures (e.g. legal and practice barriers such as screen quotas)
* Investment barriers (e.g. restriction or limitation of foreign capital or equity participation, control of the nationality of company directors, or restriction on the repatriation of capital).
All i know is every democrat that i hate(that's all of them) include clinton's 2 biggest advisors (krugman and stigliz) are in favor of "fair" trade.
I will go with uncle miltie along with 98% of economics that recommend free trade
Why should the government tell us what who or how to trade?
seems like something the bad guys would want to do.
I haven't gotten through that whole post yet but I will come back in the morning.
As for that part, I do not actually believe in that statement. I do not agree with that definition of Free Trade. It is NOT an absence of rules or government interaction.
What a Free Trade Agreement actually is to have an equal set of rules, not a trade anarchy. In that case both governments are needed to uphold the law. Which is one law, which is an equal law for all parties. Free Trade is not the absence of rules and laws.
We relax this, and so do you...Thus reducing government barriers...by law.
Whether you agree with it or not, the traditional definition of "Free Trade" is just that: trade without governmental intervention. Free Markets are markets that are free from government involvement. In this day and age, the reality is that free trade does not exist. Except for micro micro transactions and some black market dealings, almost all trade involves some form of government intervention--whether that be a sales tax, income tax, minimum-wage law, import duty, excise tax, capital gains tax, trade agreement, etc. Not that all of these things are bad; in fact, some can be quite helpful, when applied in the right way.
I know this is just semantics, but either the phrase "Free Trade" is meaningless and should be thrown out, because it truly does not exist, or ALL of us--conservatives, moderates and liberals--somehow have to come up with a new definition, which will probably be closer to your definition. Right now, pending a revision of our cultural dictionary, I believe what you are referring to still has to be called "Fair Trade." And I agree. That's what we should have and practice: Fair Trade.
The reason that the industries are failing is because of free trade. For example textiles...you don't wear clothes any more? Obviously, slave labor can product clothes at a cheaper price; have you noticed that they are much worse quality??
This can be seen by using the steel tariffs that Bush put on imported steel. Sure he helped the steel industry but anything that was made with metal (cars, appliances, buildings, and so on) just got more expensive.
Oh sure...heard of the steel shortage here in this country? It has bankrupted some huge fabricators. Why? Because China is consuming huge amounts of steel to build factories, skyscrapers, etc. You don't think we need a steel industry? Pick up a history book, and see what happened after Pearl Harbor was bombed. Steel prices spiked recently because WE DON'T PRODUCE IT HERE ANYMORE in any great amount! Just like oil! Great to rely on your enemies for something so vital to national defense, is it not?
While those individuals may not be able to get a job in the same industry at the same pay there are other non-skilled (and non-retail) jobs being created.
No there aren't. There are service jobs, including things like Nurse's Aid. The less-skilled health care field workers are going to be in huge demand with the aging baby boomers. The question for you is: Do you really want someone who used to make "widgets" (a job he/she chose because they probably aren't of the highest intelligence level or social skills) caring for Grandma in the home? I don't. I want people who CHOSE that job, not had to take it.
I think they are defending all the things that are in the summit of the americas under the FTAA agreement. They are defending Kyoto Protocol, Human rights for the child, and every other thing that has been put in with the FTAA. Including UNESCO! I guess some people look forward to becoming a state in the new hemisphere of the americas.
MCD
Another tenured government employee touting the virtues of global competition, something he never had to face even at the local level.
No further dispute is necessary; his lack of credibility speaks for itself.
Case in point: I remember when going to the dentist meant a rather relaxed uncrowded hour or so. Today it has become a socialist clinic with mostly foreign born workers who don't necessarily understand much English. Everyone is rushed and slap dash as my Dad used to say. BTW my dad was a GP who made house calls back in the 50's. He had poor patients and millionaires. The ones who could pay made up for the ones who couldn't. That's how he put it.
Sure this is anecdotal but that's what real life is like. The truth is that we are being encouraged to accept a lower standard of living, and I'm not talking about buying power alone. Little things like popular music have slipped out of the realm of decency. Back in the 20's,30's,40's, 50's and 60's popular tunes were part of the glue of American Culture. They were evident everywhere. Now they are only evidence of the decline of our culture into self absorbed indecency.
I don't have fancy charts and theories to throw around, just the experience of more than half a century and some of the wisdom that came to me from my father who was born in the Victorian Era. I grew up in a time when women knew they might have to work but that it would be better if they didn't. But don't get me started about that!
When all is said and done we will realize that we have sold out our freedom to the Chinese and the Russians for a new pair of sneakers.
Your education being one of them.
Amen, the service "industry" is not the kind of thing that can be the foundation of a strong nation. But the folks who've been making policy for the last 50-60 years dont believe that we need nations, just economic regions. But with the mediocre form of educations that we Americans generally receive these days, when the nation eventually disappears noone will notice or care.
Willie, what other aspects of economics do you think Karl Marx was correct about?
Correction: largest foreign holder of U.S. Federal debt.
When people trade free from government interference. Did you honestly not know or understand this?
Free Trade is the condition of trade between Georgia and Florida, or Florida and Alaska. There are no quotas, duties, tariffs, etc.
It should read like follows:
As for that part, I do not actually believe in that statement. I do not agree with that definition of Free Trade Agreements. It is NOT an absence of rules or government interaction.
FTAs do not take out all government interference. They seek to remove barriers and employ positive government assistance, thus creating a positive business environment. What they do do, is limit barriers and help promote trade. If we sign a deal, lets say with Singapore, that gives us distribution rights there. Lets say it gives us equal protection of property rights. Lets say it also gives us equal protection under the law. If someone doesn't pay, we have protection.
The previous barriers to entry were a lack of protection for our product and company and the legal framework to do business. That was a whole set of non tarriff barriers removed by employing government to help erase them.
They made the rules as minimal as possible with that particular partner. In many ways they have proverbally 'made their MAC compatible with our PC'.
FTAs often eliminate direct tarriffs too. Why go about encouraging trade then leave a big tarriff in place? The notion behond a FTA is to show favoritism because one has shown reciprocity.
Again, an FTA is government(s) issuing a and abiding by a fair set of rules, and where possible, getting out of the way. While its a drastic reduction in government intervention, it does not eliminate all government intervention.
Much of the government intervention is positive intervention.
Whether you agree with it or not, the traditional definition of "Free Trade" is just that: trade without governmental intervention.
Thats just the point. That is not the definition of it. It might be in some philosophical circles, but beyond that...
Hey, don't let the facts get in your way.
Even there, from state to state, its not an absence of government interference.
True there are no tarriffs, but what really defines it is equal protection under the law thus creating and maintaining a true market driven economy.
If there were no government intervention Microsoft would have never been sued, Standard Oil wouldn't have been broken up, and the telephone company wouldn't have been chopped into pieces.
The game doesn't start and stop with a discussion on tarriffs. Free Trade in its true form is a combination of many things. In fact, there are many things that we import right now from various countries that have zero tarriffs on them at our ports. Yet its not at all a Free Trade Agreement.
Note that those states operate under a common national government. That is why it works, and also why international free trade requires you to give up sovereignty to governing bodies like the WTO.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.