Posted on 05/23/2003 8:40:08 AM PDT by Cacophonous
We were told that GATT and NAFTA were going to be the salvation of the world. Trade barriers were to be removed and farm prices would improve, not only in the United States but around the world. Our exports would increase, higher income would prevail and the entire world would be a much better place in which to live. I was listening to talk radio when a caller tried to explain to Rush Limbaugh how disastrous the "giant sucking sound" would be. Rush cut the caller short by saying that his advisers who were economists told him that NAFTA was a good thing for our country. Since that time jobs have left America and incomes have fallen. Farm prices have not improved and farmers continue to be forced off the land. Were our leaders really that stupid to believe globalization was going to be an asset to Americans?
I believe many of the farm publications and commodity organizations did think global markets were the coming thing and would benefit our nation's economy. They bought into the lies that had been lavished upon them by the oneworlders in charge of destroying our national sovereignty. Editorials were printed explaining how farmers and ranchers would profit from these global markets and many unsuspecting farmers, businessmen and even bankers fell for these diabolical plans.
At first it was only the menial jobs that moved to Mexico and China. Jobs, that our hard working, red-blooded Americans didn't want to perform in the first place. Then the auto manufacturers began moving their automotive plants out of the country. The United Auto Workers (UAW) were without jobs. The textile business was transferred to China and our food products (fruit, vegetables and meat) began flowing in from other countries. While millions of people were being put out of work here in the US, wages in other countries were not improving. Only highly trained individuals with computer skills in the field of high technology would be capable of maintaining a high standard of living. Now those Information Technology positions are being "out-sourced." The February 3 edition of Business Week explains how US companies such as Bank of America, Texas Instruments, Intel, Lehman Brothers, Bear Stearns, Hewlett Packard, American Express, Dell Computer, Eastman Kodak, IBM, GE, Microsoft, Procter & Gamble and even Massachusetts General Hospital are hiring high tech workers in the Philippines, India, China, Russia, Eastern Europe, Costa Rica and South Africa. India seems to be one of the big winners in this "new economy." Indian radiologists interpret CT scans for Massachusetts General Hospital. Indian engineers design mobile-phones chips for Texas Instruments, while other Indians process claims for US insurance companies and home loans for US mortgage companies and design software for Microsoft.
Our US (multinational) corporations can hire these foreigners for an annual salary of $5,000; about 10 to 20 percent what it was costing them here in America. According to Business Week some four million jobs have already been moved to India. Proctor & Gamble's tax returns are prepared by accountants in the Philippines and Microsoft is spending $1.15 billion for out-sourcing in India and China over the next three years. Many of these high tech employees have PhD's from US universities and our taxes paid for their education.
According to an e-mail I received from someone named Wayne, a few people are just starting to get a little common sense about what globalization, NAFTA and GATT economics really mean. Wayne then quoted a man from Mexico saying, "I do not see why the USA wants to do this, because in order for a world economy to work, all economies must be at the same level. I don't think the USA can bring everyone up to your level, so you are going to have to come down to our level. We will all race to the bottom... . Like there is some great reward for having the lowest standard of living." The race is on and the one-worlders are standing on the sidelines cheering us on.
Isn't Global Trade Great?
1. Agriculture was on a downhill trend for many years well before NAFTA.
2. The USDA (which has 1 employee for every 3 farmers) and their policies, in combination with Federal laws, have put the hurt on agriculture; in my opinion, causing more harm than NAFTA.
3. Again due to stupid laws, we are getting hit with costs which the other countries are not paying. For instance, health care for Mexican illegals here in the USA; Social Security and Medicaid for the elderly parents of both legal and illegal immigrants, even if they have never worked in the USA. And education of the illegals' children in our schools.
4. I think you can have relatively open borders, or free trade, but not both at the same time.
Looks like the American people were snookered by the globalists once again. Now that we're losing white collar as well as blue collar jobs, maybe these suckers will finally wake up.
And as for textiles, autos, and numerous other "outsourced" industries, Big Labor can give itself a standing ovation for that. Just because an auto worker wants $25/hour to tighten a bolt doesn't mean he's worth it. They handcuffed the people signing their checks, and now their industries are tanking. The only "giant sucking sound" I hear is the gasp after the long-winded whining about a world that's just not fair.
The edition I am using was published in 1961 by the Bobb-Merrill Co., Inc. They are found in Book Four, Chapter II.
He precedes the following with a discussion of why import tariffs are a bad idea in general, and that they tend to limit the goods available to the people. All familiar arguments near and dear to capitalists.
Then he gives four cases for tariffs: 1) to protect an industry vital to national security; 2) to offset domestic taxes on a product; 3) “revenge” (his word) for tariffs imposed on exports by the other countries (he singles out France in the text); and 4) to recover a foreign market. Quite mercenary, and quite different from the “free trade uber alles” that defines the modern “free trade” movement. Also, in my mind, more logical, and more patriotic in that they put the interests of Britain (the US in our case) first.
He goes on to caution against removing tariffs in an industry that might get the market flooded by foreign goods, thereby hurting domestic employment. Think of the current to-do over tariffs on steel imports.
Anyway, here are the relevant sections:
“There seem, however, to be two cases in which it will generally be advantageous to lay some burden upon foreign, for the encouragement of domestic, industry.
“The first is, when some particular sort of industry is necessary for the defense of the country…”. pp. 174
“The second case, in which it will generally be advantageous to lay some burdon upon foreign for the encouragement of domestic industry, is when some tax is imposed at home upon the produce of the latter.” pp.176
“As there are two cases in which will generally be advantageous to lay some burdon upon foreign, for the encouragement of domestic, industry; so there are two others in which it will sometimes be a matter of deliberation: in the one, how it is proper to continue the free importation of certain foreign goods, and in the other how , or in what manner, it may be proper to restore that free importation, after it has been for some time interrupted.
“…..when some foreign nation restrains by high duties or prohibitions the importation of some of our manufactures into their country. Revenge in this case naturally dictates retaliation…”. pp. 179
“…The recovery of a great foreign market will generally more than compensate the transitory inconvenience of paying dearer during a short time for some sorts of goods.” pp. 180
“The case in which it may sometimes be a matter of deliberation, how far, or in what manner, it is proper to restore the free importation of foreign goods after it has been for some time interrupted, is, when particular manufactures, by means of high duties or prohibitions upon all foreign goods which can come into competition with them, have been so far extended as to employ a great multitude of hands…Were these high duties and prohibitions taken away all at once, cheaper foreign goods of the same kind might be poured so fast into the home market as to deprive all at once many thousands of people of their ordinary employment and means of subsistence.” pp 181.
Smith would, I wager, oppose global trade deals that destroy the domestic ability to produce.
We have out-sourced our successful industrial-driven engine and replaced it with a mouse-driven engine. "Do you want some information with that layoff notice?"
When it comes to lost jobs I am sympathetic but lets get real. If someone can do the job for half the price that you want to do the same work then what is the justification for making an employer pay it? And remember, there is an unlimited supply of work. That is not the problem. The problem is what work are we trained (and predisposed) to do? People don't like change. I don't. You don't. But change is part of life and some, not all but some, will have to change there occupation, do some retraining and retrenching and move on. That's life.
America is the wealthiest and most innovative nation the earth has ever seen. It is logical for us to shed the menial tasks and industries to our poorer competitors. In exchange, we get more time to innovate. At least that's what we're supposed to be doing, not sitting around crying because our individual skill set matches some Guatemalan basket weaver. Don't be like them and hope for a crappy job. Be an American and create your dream job.
It's a matter of national security and sovereignty.
Consider. Much of the electronics components for our guided missiles and aircraft are made in South Korea and Japan, as well as a good chunk of our steel. If we were to get into a war with North Korea or China, and either or both of those countries decided to stay neutral (not an impossible scenario), and as a result decided to quit furnishing those components and steel in order to remain neutral...well, we'd have to scramble to replace them. We would, of course, but at what cost?
It's a matter of national security and sovereignty.
Consider. Much of the electronics components for our guided missiles and aircraft are made in South Korea and Japan, as well as a good chunk of our steel. If we were to get into a war with North Korea or China, and either or both of those countries decided to stay neutral (not an impossible scenario), and as a result decided to quit furnishing those components and steel in order to remain neutral...well, we'd have to scramble to replace them. We would, of course, but at what cost?
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.