Posted on 09/13/2010 10:42:54 AM PDT by rmlew
Contemporary American politics is conducted in the shadow of historical myths that inform our present-day choices. Unfortunately, these myths sometimes lead us terribly astray. Case in point is the popular idea that America’s economic tradition has been economic liberty, laissez faire, and wide-open cowboy capitalism. This notion sounds obvious, and it fits the image of this country held by both the Right, which celebrates this tradition, and the Left, which bemoans it. And it seems to imply, among other things, that free trade is the American Way. Don’t Tread On Me or my right to import.
It is, in fact, very easy to construct an impressive-sounding defense of free trade as a form of economic liberty on the basis of this myth. Unfortunately, this myth is just that: a myth, not real history. The reality is that all four of the presidents on Mount Rushmore were protectionists. (Even the pseudo-libertarian Jefferson came around after the War of 1812.) Historically, protectionism has been, in fact, the real American Way.
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2010/09/13/america-was-founded-as-a-protectionist-nation/#ixzz0zQpQypXn
(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...
Smoot-Hawley was apparently a failure.
Um...yeah... and John Brown broke into the arsenal at Harper's Ferry to fight Walmart. Uh huh, yeah that's it.
But yes, the industrial and manufacturing North generally supported free trade. In fact even earlier than the Civil War, many New Englander's contemplated secession (see the Hartford Convention) because they hated Thomas Jefferson's anti-foreign trade policies, particularly the Embargo Act of 1807 and James Madison's Non-Intercourse Act of 1809.
Koran burning videos?
Yes, we should buy cheap oil on the international market for as long as it is selling cheap, while developing our own capacity to produce and refine. Drill baby Drill! But so long as oil is cheap, why not buy it from them on the cheap, and save our own for when it is expensive?
Letting companies come to America and hire US workers (the best and most productive in the world), why not? If it is cheaper for Toyota to build Toyota's that will be driven in America in America with American workers, more power to them, and the US workers they hire.
So no defense for sugar protectionism then? Just irrational accusations that unless I agree with you I am “not an American”?
As someone who lived and worked abroad, I can tell you that Americans get the short end of the stick on free trade.
Most countries have tariff and non-tariff barriers on US goods and services.
Plus, there is the barrier of corruption. Americans are prevented by law to engage in foreign corruption, but other countries don’t care. They will buy off politicians and bureaucrats. Ask yourself why US companies don’t do high end construction projects abroad. But you got Chinese and Japanese companies bidding for projects everywhere.
Americans are sorely at a disadvantage for any kind of foreign contract ANYWHERE in the world.
Some will say, but what about McDonalds, Starbucks, Coke and Pepsi and all those products of US imperialism.
Those brands are licensed by local distributors. The parent company gets residuals, but everything is sourced locally.
If you are in high tech, the foreign country will steal the technology, then copy it and produce it at a fraction of the cost. This is how Japan got rich. Go to any international trade show and all the high tech that we produce is knocked off. And the US doesn’t enforce intellectual property rights in foreign courts.
For an American to enter a foreign market, he has to go through a regulatory and tax hell that surpasses anything a foreigner has to go through in the US.
And on top of that, try enforcing international contracts through foreign legal systems.
Most foreign countries don’t have liberal traitorous judges that will rule in favor of the foreigner every time.
In fact, foreigners will steal from Americans in business all the time, and if the American dares to go to court, he can end up dead or broke.
That kind of business model simply doesn't work, especially in this day and age. It's not as if these companies were suddenly able to raise the prices of their products to exorbitant levels once they "wiped out" their competition, right?
In my opinion, the biggest factor in the shift of manufacturing from the U.S. to Asia in recent decades (first Japan and Taiwan, then Korea, then China, and now Malaysia, Indonesia and Vietnam) has been the development and growth of containerized shipping. The shipping container -- which was invented in the mid-1950s right around the time the U.S. was building the Interstate Highway System -- completely revolutionized global commerce by streamlining the freight transportation process and reducing costs tremendously.
LOL.
“Um...yeah... and John Brown broke into the arsenal at Harper’s Ferry to fight Walmart. Uh huh, yeah that’s it.
But yes, the industrial and manufacturing North generally supported free trade. ... “
I don’t present myself as an expert. But what I have read, and been taught, supports that the real tensions of the Civil War revolved around the North’s desire for the South’s cotton crop. The South wanted the better price that England was paying. The North needed cotton to fuel their textile mills, but couldn’t match England’s price.
So, apparently the North was pro free trade, until it was their ox that was being gored. (Not unlike most free traders).
As for slavery, there were abolishonists, and some of them were violent. But the North was ready to make a deal and would have “grandfathered” slave states, with no slavery in any new state.
That’s what I was taught.
If the USA produced no sugar at all, the sugar manufacturing nations would still be selling at the world price, in competition with each other. They haven't formed a sugar OPEC yet, have they?
Strange to see “conservatives” arguing that government intervention in the market is a good thing that leads to the most positive outcomes for the most people.
But the US does face dumping and government collusion with industries to target American industries.
2. The power has been understood and used by all commercial & manufacturing Nations as embracing the object of encouraging manufactures. It is believed that not a single exception can be named.
3. This has been particularly the case with G. B., whose commercial vocabulary is the parent of ours. A primary object of her commercial regulations is well known to have been the protection and encouragement of her manufactures
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_3_commerces18.html
But you don't kill all free trade because of anomalies...you fix the anomalies.
What you wrote makes sense but then it would seem that the protectionists won the war then - not the free traders.
Next we'll hear the case for unions. ;-)
“What you wrote makes sense but then it would seem that the protectionists won the war then - not the free traders.”
That’s what I said at the end of my first post... The protectionists won the Civil War.
Agreed. Do you think it was a positive outcome or would free trade have worked better for the country as a whole (in this one case)?
Protectionism allows the government to determine winners and losers and gives them a huge power to influence/ strong-arm/ bribe, etc.
Keep that ethanol corn money coming, or we might have a look at all those government subsidies for ethanol!
Keep that US sugar lobby money coming, or we might have a look at our sugar tariffs!
Maybe your industry doesn't NEED protection anymore!
Don't badmouth Government policy, or you may not be allowed to play our reindeer games! (newest 0bamacare tactic)
Yes indeed, strange to see “conservatives” arguing that government intervention in the market is a good thing that leads to the most positive outcomes for the most people!
Free trade is a misnomer. We have a system of managed or regulated trade between countries. Trade agreements are very complex documents with some enforcement by international agencies. These agreements have been negotiated at high government levels. Governments (including our own) routinely disregard and stretch the limits of the agreements. The posters on this site are naive (or perhaps blind) to think that trade disputes are one-sided (the rest of the world taking advantage of the U.S.). Most or even every country has legitimate complaints about U.S. adherence to trade agreements.
Individuals who want to erect more trade barriers play into the hands of labor cartels and select businesses. Labor cartels want to squezze the American consumer by forcing them to buy inferior labor cartel products at artificially high prices. If you think that labor cartels are a problem now, just wait until more trade barriers are erected.
Our main problems are government imposed employment and production costs along with a growing entitlement mentality. For example, a major reason that many foreign companies setup production and employment here was because of our flexible labor force. The rats are attempting to destroy labor flexibility through labor cartel mandates and subsidies along with major changes in employment law. Together, these burdens weaken our competitive position. We need to unleash American ingenuity and hard work by reducing government burdens. For example, one way to unleashe opportunity for IT work here, is to relax tax laws about employment relations. Tax laws make it very difficult to be an independent contractor. In the 1980s before tax law changes, it was easy to be an IT contractor.
Fly by night libertarian “free trade” hallucinations such as yours are what bankrupts nations. Running 400-700 billion dollar trade deficits obviously do not bother you. Are you and family deep in debt personally? If not then then you should be concerned about an America in hock to the Chinese and other foreigners
“Agreed. Do you think it was a positive outcome or would free trade have worked better for the country as a whole (in this one case)?”
A lot of factors involved in that opinion. As I said, I am a long way from being an expert on the subject. Slavery had to go, so while it was a throw in, ending it was a hugely good thing.
While I feel more of an affinity with southerners, since they tend to be conservatives, the red state thing. If the south had won, it would have been messy, two countries, one with an economy built on an evil practice (the south), and one with a crumbling economy due to lack of raw material (the north).
I guess it was best for America, as it turned out. Only the most dogmatic free traders will tell you that protectionism is never good, and never has a purpose.
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.