Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Trade Bill Puts Jobs On Agenda
IBD Editorial ^ | October 3, 2011 | Editor

Posted on 10/03/2011 5:48:12 PM PDT by Kaslin

Economy: After years of dithering and bowing to protectionists, President Obama finally submitted three pending free-trade pacts with South Korea, Panama and Colombia to Congress for a vote. Let the U.S. economy recover.

The president's decision marks the first bright economic move he has made to boost the nation's ailing economy. Dropping tariffs, opening markets and equalizing investment terms are a proven way to boost economic growth.

Contrary to all the nonsense about outsourcing and giant sucking sounds, the real impact of free trade is new freedom and opportunity.

The pacts are now on their way to a vote in Congress after a long delay, marking Obama's first real shift from campaign demagogue captive to special interests to President of the entire U.S.

"These agreements will support tens of thousands of jobs across the country for workers making products stamped with three proud words: Made in America," the White House said in a statement.

The White House knows this is a winner: "Growing American exports to South Korea, Colombia and Panama will support tens of thousands of jobs here at home," said U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk, who encouraged the bill's passage "without delay."

The legislative process will begin next week, and both the White House and congressional leaders say the votes are there to pass it. But they always have been — the big change is the end of the president's hesitancy to submit them and Big Labor's campaign to block it.

(Excerpt) Read more at investors.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Editorial; Government
KEYWORDS: collaborators; communists; foreign; traitors
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-64 next last

1 posted on 10/03/2011 5:48:14 PM PDT by Kaslin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

First demand of the Wall Street mob:

Demand one: Restoration of the living wage. This demand can only be met by ending “Freetrade” by re-imposing trade tariffs on all imported goods entering the American market to level the playing field for domestic family farming and domestic manufacturing as most nations that are dumping cheap products onto the American market have radical wage and environmental regulation advantages. Another policy that must be instituted is raise the minimum wage to twenty dollars an hr.


2 posted on 10/03/2011 5:58:26 PM PDT by ltc8k6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ltc8k6
Another policy that must be instituted is raise the minimum wage to twenty dollars an hr.

Why only $20/hr? How about $100/hr?

The Wall Street mob is just a bunch of lazy, leftist vermin.

3 posted on 10/03/2011 6:05:49 PM PDT by Longbow1969
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ltc8k6

Only the government can decide what is good for us! Right on.


4 posted on 10/03/2011 6:08:00 PM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

5 posted on 10/03/2011 6:14:57 PM PDT by ari-freedom (I'm a heartless conservative because I love this country.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

More pathetic free trade BS. As if we don’t run enough of a trade deficit


6 posted on 10/03/2011 6:15:35 PM PDT by dennisw (nzt - works better if you're already smart)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

More pathetic free trade BS. As if we don’t run enough of a trade deficit


7 posted on 10/03/2011 6:15:45 PM PDT by dennisw (nzt - works better if you're already smart)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dennisw

The U.S. government is running a $1.4 trillion dollar deficit, and protectionists are telling us that the trade deficit is the problem. LOL


8 posted on 10/03/2011 6:24:18 PM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy

What happened to toddster to echo your inanities?


9 posted on 10/03/2011 6:36:13 PM PDT by dennisw (nzt - works better if you're already smart)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: dennisw
1. I'd like to see you explain the inanity in my comment.
2. Why don't you ask him?
3. Instead of trying to change the subject.
10 posted on 10/03/2011 6:39:07 PM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Free trade? NAFTA was an absolute disaster!


11 posted on 10/03/2011 6:45:16 PM PDT by ransacked
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dennisw

Figure out the difference between a trade deficit and a budget deficit yet? LOL!

Explain again how a trade deficit causes a budget deficit. I’ll start you out.

Todd buys a 6 pack of German beer. This causes a budget deficit because.......


12 posted on 10/03/2011 6:50:30 PM PDT by Toddsterpatriot (Math is hard. Harder if you're stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: ransacked

Damn Ronald Reagan and the horse he rode in on!


13 posted on 10/03/2011 6:51:33 PM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Toddsterpatriot

Don’t you dare “echo my inanities.”


14 posted on 10/03/2011 6:58:39 PM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy

Sorry. My bad.


15 posted on 10/03/2011 6:59:46 PM PDT by Toddsterpatriot (Math is hard. Harder if you're stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Yep, this will turn around our persistent unemployment problems any day now.

It has been working so well for the last 10 years at increasing household wages, we should all be in tall cotton right after they pass these “free trade” agreements, right?


16 posted on 10/03/2011 7:00:28 PM PDT by NVDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy

It’s always been more like a duet.


17 posted on 10/03/2011 7:03:16 PM PDT by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: ltc8k6

I’d like to see more done in the way of promotion for American produce. I might go more for those US peaches or apples if grocers would put it on the signs on their bins. I rarely see it, even in groceries that take pains to post on their doors that they are union shops. Why? Because those might be non union fruits?

But as stated you’ve given us a fine bit of irony. US farmers don’t care one way or the other about importing non-produce from places like South Korea, and would very much appreciate South Korea importing their own products.


18 posted on 10/03/2011 7:06:36 PM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (There's gonna be a Redneck Revolution! (See my freep page) [rednecks come in many colors])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Toddsterpatriot

It needn’t necessarily in any one instance any more than drinking must cause a car accident. But giving out more gold than you are getting is going to cause trouble in the long run. Buying that German beer, you should hope you’re selling at least as much to Germany if you want the relationship to be sustainable.


19 posted on 10/03/2011 7:09:14 PM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (There's gonna be a Redneck Revolution! (See my freep page) [rednecks come in many colors])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck

Granted, I live near a big city, but my produce is labeled with the country-of-origin. I suppose that if you don’t have that luxury, you should stop by your store when the shelves are being stocked and look at the boxes.


20 posted on 10/03/2011 7:09:14 PM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck

I pay a heck of a lot more to my landlord than I get in return. Is our relationship sustainable? Or should I buy some land that I cannot afford?


21 posted on 10/03/2011 7:12:38 PM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck
But giving out more gold than you are getting is going to cause trouble in the long run.

I'm not "giving out my gold", I'm exchanging it for beer. My beer purchases are much less than my annual income. Have been for many years.

Buying that German beer, you should hope you’re selling at least as much to Germany if you want the relationship to be sustainable.

No, don't sell a thing to Germany. Don't sell anything to my phone company or Commonwealth Edison either.

22 posted on 10/03/2011 7:15:13 PM PDT by Toddsterpatriot (Math is hard. Harder if you're stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy; Toddsterpatriot

One can allow for indirect economic circulation, such as you buy from A who buys from B who buys from C who buys from you, but an ironclad rule is that giving out more gold than you get will eventually leave you un-rich. Especially if you are immortal, like a country.


23 posted on 10/03/2011 7:20:19 PM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (There's gonna be a Redneck Revolution! (See my freep page) [rednecks come in many colors])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck
What you are failing to realize is that, when I buy imported beer, or pay my landlord rent, it is not my country that is becoming "un-rich," immortal or not.

Countries become "un-rich" by running budget deficits, not trade deficits. My country does not pay my rent, or buy my beer.

24 posted on 10/03/2011 7:24:16 PM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy

If the US runs a trade deficit of $1 jillion this year that means it has net doled out $1 jillion of cash (or IOUs) to the rest of the world. What happens if the US keeps that up every year? It has to print out $1 jillion (in IOUs if you must) for each such year to make up for it, doesn’t it?


25 posted on 10/03/2011 7:32:54 PM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (There's gonna be a Redneck Revolution! (See my freep page) [rednecks come in many colors])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck
I am not spending the U.S. Treasury's money, nor am I issuing IOU's. I am spending my money that I have earned on the products that I wish to buy.

I'm not spending your money, either.

26 posted on 10/03/2011 7:36:20 PM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck
an ironclad rule is that giving out more gold than you get will eventually leave you un-rich.

I purchase less than I earn. I'm not getting un-rich. I could repeat it a few more times if that will make it clearer for you.

27 posted on 10/03/2011 7:36:43 PM PDT by Toddsterpatriot (Math is hard. Harder if you're stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck
What happens if the US keeps that up every year? It has to print out $1 jillion (in IOUs if you must) for each such year to make up for it, doesn’t it?

Yes, if the US government buys more than they take in, they must issue bonds. That still has nothing to do with my purchase of foreign beer.

28 posted on 10/03/2011 7:39:09 PM PDT by Toddsterpatriot (Math is hard. Harder if you're stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Toddsterpatriot

If you refrained from the purchase of the beer and bought a domestic make (which doesn’t have to be a horse pi$$ mainstream brand) and if all else stayed the same (i.e. nobody else buys the beer you wouldn’t) then the US will have to issue that less in bonds.


29 posted on 10/03/2011 7:41:16 PM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (There's gonna be a Redneck Revolution! (See my freep page) [rednecks come in many colors])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck

Uh, no. That’s not the way it works.


30 posted on 10/03/2011 7:42:37 PM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck

Please walk through the steps and prove that.


31 posted on 10/03/2011 7:44:16 PM PDT by Toddsterpatriot (Math is hard. Harder if you're stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Toddsterpatriot

How about making it easy, and presume nobody in the US buys anything German at all. (Tourism, etc. counts.) Now why they would choose to do so is another matter and I’m not saying they ought to. But it’s an oversimplified presumption to your oversimplified mind.

Then it would be impossible for the US as a whole to be spending anything in Germany.

Then whatever bonds the US must issue to make up for its net loss of cash, will not be due to having spent any cash in Germany.

Expand that to trade with the rest of the world.

What’s difficult to see?

Of course you’re going to be spritzenpoppen that this is impossible or at least highly undesirable.


32 posted on 10/03/2011 7:49:33 PM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (There's gonna be a Redneck Revolution! (See my freep page) [rednecks come in many colors])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck
Then it would be impossible for the US as a whole to be spending anything in Germany.

Why are we talking about the US? I'm buying the beer, not the government or the country.

Then whatever bonds the US must issue to make up for its net loss of cash, will not be due to having spent any cash in Germany.

The cash belongs to me, not the US.

What’s difficult to see?

How my purchase leads to a government budget deficit. Try again?

33 posted on 10/03/2011 7:58:18 PM PDT by Toddsterpatriot (Math is hard. Harder if you're stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: ransacked
NAFTA was an absolute disaster!

I dunno, my company sells an awful lot of manufactured goods to Canada.

We need these agreements. We need to reward countries who will trade with us freely and punish those who do not (ie China, Japan) by denying market access.

34 posted on 10/03/2011 8:01:33 PM PDT by Last Dakotan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: dennisw

Funny thing. Economics tells us again and again that free trade is the best trade policy due to comparative advantage and us “producing” by exporting (otherwise called the Roundabout way to wealth coined by an economist David Ricardo). Think about it... We give countries worthless pieces of paper. They give us cars, steel, etc. Sounds good to me!

Trade Deficits are also a good thing IF AND ONLY IF the excess imports that we bring in are used to INVEST in our future rather than fund current consumption (as it is now). Funding current consumption is unsustainable and will lead to a collapse.


35 posted on 10/03/2011 8:23:25 PM PDT by Black_Shark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck

It all depends on whether the deficit has been invested or has been used for current consumption. If invested, the proceeds from the investment will allow us to pay back the deficit amount AND our country will be better off. If used for current consumption, we spent the money, have nothing to show for it and still owe a big darn bill. Therefore, we must issue more debt in order to raise the funds to pay the current bills. Unsustainable.


36 posted on 10/03/2011 8:26:25 PM PDT by Black_Shark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Some folks run global corporations that deprive their own elite relatives in government of sustainable revenues—big revenues that would normally come from big, domestic manufacturing.


37 posted on 10/03/2011 9:00:09 PM PDT by familyop ("Don't worry, they'll row for a month before they figure out I'm fakin' it." --Deacon, "Waterworld")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Black_Shark
. We give countries worthless pieces of paper. They give us cars, steel, etc. Sounds good to me!

Those are worthless pieces of paper (our US dollar) only if the USA plans on defaulting on all the US Treasuries those nations have also bought. China has piled up a lot of worthless pieces of papers so is now able to exert more control over us. Obama bowed down to Hu Jun Tao last time they met

If you owe $400,000 worthless pieces of paper to your creditors do you plan on screwing them via a default?

38 posted on 10/04/2011 5:30:48 AM PDT by dennisw (nzt - works better if you're already smart)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy
The U.S. government is running a $1.4 trillion dollar deficit, and protectionists are telling us that the trade deficit is the problem. LOL

Our typical 600 billion dollar annual trade deficit is very comparable to the Federal budget deficit. They are both huge and disgraceful numbers. In years like 2003-2007 we running trade deficits larger than the Federal budget deficit. We were running (roughly) 600 billion dollar trade deficits and 300 billion dollar Federal budget deficits

39 posted on 10/04/2011 5:47:22 AM PDT by dennisw (nzt - works better if you're already smart)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Toddsterpatriot

You’re back...you were gone for four months or so I figure your investments crapped out


40 posted on 10/04/2011 5:48:50 AM PDT by dennisw (nzt - works better if you're already smart)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: dennisw
Our typical 600 billion dollar annual trade deficit is very comparable to the Federal budget deficit. They are both huge and disgraceful numbers.

And you still haven't shown how one causes the other.

41 posted on 10/04/2011 5:59:14 AM PDT by Toddsterpatriot (Math is hard. Harder if you're stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: dennisw

You figured wrong. Again. Go figure.


42 posted on 10/04/2011 6:00:09 AM PDT by Toddsterpatriot (Math is hard. Harder if you're stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: dennisw

And the trade deficit dropped by what, half, after 2007? You sure know how to choose your data points. So what happened after 2007 that caused the trade deficit to drop, while the budget deficit exploded? Wherein lies the greatest danger?


43 posted on 10/04/2011 6:00:51 AM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy; Toddsterpatriot
And the trade deficit dropped by what, half, after 2007? You sure know how to choose your data points. So what happened after 2007 that caused the trade deficit to drop, while the budget deficit exploded? Wherein lies the greatest danger?

Idiot chile.... of course our trade deficit dropped during and after the 2007-2008 crash
These days our trade deficit is about >>> 600 billion per year so it way up there again not that you care. At its highest it was 750 billion in 2006 or so. Go check out the numbers

"Sep 8, 2011 – For the three months ending in June, the average trade deficit was $48.3"         So that is about a 600 billion per year rate

44 posted on 10/04/2011 6:23:36 AM PDT by dennisw (nzt - works better if you're already smart)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: dennisw
Right. So unless your plan is to wait for a deeper recession to start fixing the trade deficit again, why not focus on the budget deficit, which is the greatest problem.
45 posted on 10/04/2011 6:34:52 AM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Black_Shark; Kaslin; dennisw; ransacked; NVDave; HiTech RedNeck; familyop; All
... Economics tells us again and again that free trade is the best trade policy due to comparative advantage and us “producing” by exporting (otherwise called the Roundabout way to wealth coined by an economist David Ricardo). ...

Ahh .. good ole Ricard and 'comparative advantage'.

For Ricardo's theory of comparative advantage to work, a country's labor, capital, and technology must not move offshore. offshore. Ricardo himself admits this. International immobility is necessary to prevent a business from seeking an absolute advantage by going abroad. His theory only works for such factors as geography and climates. Ricardo assumes that patriotism will check investment abroad even under absolute advantage.

From: The Works and Correspondence of David Ricardo, Vol. 1 Principles of Political Economy and Taxation [1817], Chapter Vii, On Foreign Trade:
"The same rule which regulates the relative value of commodities in one country, does not regulate the relative value of the commodities exchanged between two or more countries"
...
From Ricardo's discussion of the famous example of Portugal producing wine and England producing wool:
"The difference in this respect, between a single country and many, is easily accounted for, by considering the difficulty with which capital moves from one country to another, to seek a more profitable employment, and the activity with which it invariably passes from one province to another in the same country.

It would undoubtedly be advantageous to the capitalists of England, and to the consumers in both countries, that under such circumstances, the wine and the cloth should both be made in Portugal, and therefore that the capital and labour of England employed in making cloth, should be removed to Portugal for that purpose.

Experience, however, shews, that the fancied or real insecurity of capital, when not under the immediate control of its owner, together with the natural disinclination which every man has to quit the country of his birth and connexions, and intrust himself with all his habits fixed, to a strange government and new laws, check the emigration of capital. These feelings, which I should be sorry to see weakened, induce most men of property to be satisfied with a low rate of profits in their own country, rather than seek a more advantageous employment for their wealth in foreign nations."

Ricardo's theory of comparative advantage does not apply to today's world. Just look at our current economic situation.
46 posted on 10/04/2011 6:42:32 AM PDT by algernonpj (He who pays the piper . . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy

Do both idiot chile


47 posted on 10/04/2011 7:01:20 AM PDT by dennisw (nzt - works better if you're already smart)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: algernonpj; Toddsterpatriot; 1rudeboy

Good summary. If the Unites States of America dies and gets a tombstone this is part of what what will be inscribed—

“He believed in the great lofty principle of free trade even as it killed him and made his people jobless and impoverished”


48 posted on 10/04/2011 7:07:45 AM PDT by dennisw (nzt - works better if you're already smart)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: dennisw

Thanks.


49 posted on 10/04/2011 7:10:58 AM PDT by algernonpj (He who pays the piper . . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: dennisw

Thanks. Feel free to borrow.


50 posted on 10/04/2011 7:12:07 AM PDT by algernonpj (He who pays the piper . . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-64 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson