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

Skip to comments.

QUESTION: Are free-trade agreements good or bad for U.S. manufacturing jobs?
Northwest Indiana News ^ | Monday, October 06, 2003 | Barbara Glepko-Toncheff (Letter to the Editor)

Posted on 10/07/2003 10:53:06 AM PDT by Willie Green

For education and discussion only. Not for commercial use.

The American consumers have hurt themselves by being awed by the "better deal" Trojan horse and consistently sending their hard-earned dollars overseas to the coffers of foreign-owned companies being subsidized by the American government. These companies then take the lion's share of the profits, pay taxes there to support their homeland, and come back and buy up more of the American pie, while greedy politicians and CEOs to massage our trade laws to their benefit.

Every American should read author Roger Simmermaker's hot new book: "How Americans Can Buy American" before our sovereignty is completely sold out and the living standard bar is lowered more. The first chapter can be read online, and the author can be contacted there.

Burdened with legacy costs, three times higher taxes and government-imposed regulations, domestic-owned companies have to compete with slave labor and are forced to look for the cheapest way to conduct business to please the consumer's demands for the cheapest, thus the job exodus.

In essence, the American consumers helped fuel the same vehicle that came back and ran over them. We will become a colony again by losing our manufacturing independence, only this time under Asian rule. Total capitalism will be the death of our middle class society. Do you think the wealthiest among us care? Only Wal-Mart workers and rich CEOs will be left.

The Internal Revenue Service was formed to make up for the deficit when the tariffs were dropped in 1913. That's why all four great men on Mount Rushmore were protectionists. Do you like April 15? Grandma was right when she told you, "Don't be penny wise and pound foolish!"

Barbara Glepko-Toncheff

Chagrin Falls, Ohio


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Editorial; Foreign Affairs; Government
KEYWORDS: cafta; ftaa; globalism; manufacturing; nafta; thebusheconomy
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-189 next last
Export Illusions: Most International Trade Agreements are about Investment, Not Exports
1 posted on 10/07/2003 10:53:07 AM PDT by Willie Green
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: All
Hi mom!
2 posted on 10/07/2003 10:54:53 AM PDT by Support Free Republic (Your support keeps Free Republic going strong!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
Regulation, Taxes and Restrictions make sending manufacturing overseas awfully tempting. If it is less expensive to manufacture overseas, why should we continue to manufacture for more money? Eventually workers end up paying the price anyway with higher prices on goods that cost more to manufacture.

It's best that the US exercise our technological superiority and migrate our workforce to defining the future of the marketplace rather than let it push us around. We already produce way too much agricultural products that the government has to subsidize them. Other nations can produce food for less money, why don't we just buy it from them and then we can sell them our GM products or technology?

Protectionism led to horrible economic times in our country. Do we really want to return to horrible times or build what could be an even more affluent future?
3 posted on 10/07/2003 11:03:10 AM PDT by axiom9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: axiom9
Protectionism led to horrible economic times in our country.

"The prohibiting duties we lay on all articles of foreign manufacture which prudence requires us to establish at home, with the patriotic determination of every good citizen to use no foreign article which can be made within ourselves without regard to difference of price, secures us against a relapse into foreign dependency."

--Thomas Jefferson to Jean Baptiste Say, 1815.


4 posted on 10/07/2003 11:05:18 AM PDT by Willie Green (Go Pat Go!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: axiom9
Do we really want to return to horrible times or build what could be an even more affluent future?

Want fries with that? Very little affluence working at Burger King. Blackbird.

5 posted on 10/07/2003 11:08:15 AM PDT by BlackbirdSST
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: axiom9
For the first 200 years America had various forms of protectionist policies. During that time we became the strongest nation on earth, with a middle-class the envy of the world. BTW, the Republican Party platforms included tariffs for a century.

Of course protectionism can be misapplied, but when applied correctly, it saves entire American industries.

Right now, from Wrigley gum to Cisco routers, American patents and copyrights are being stolen to the tune of $20 billion (according to the companies) in China alone.

And, we have not even begun to discuss national security; nor, the amount of taxpayer money going to subsidize corporate offshoring.
6 posted on 10/07/2003 11:14:12 AM PDT by LibertyAndJusticeForAll
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Willie Green
However,this was an exceedingly big cause of the AMERICAN CIVIL WAR
7 posted on 10/07/2003 11:22:10 AM PDT by y2k_free_radical (ESSE QUAM VIDERA-to be rather than to seem)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BlackbirdSST
Burger King isn't the be-all and end-all of the service sector - banking, insurance, telecommunications, and software are all service-sector industries. And they are industries where, not coincidentally, the US is the world leader. Really, proponents of manufacturing ought to wonder to themselves why, if manufacturing is so critical, we are still by far the richest country in the world, despite thirty years of declines in manufacturing.

The sky is not falling ;)

8 posted on 10/07/2003 11:22:34 AM PDT by general_re (SURGEON GENERAL'S WARNING: Quitting Sarcasm Now Greatly Reduces Serious Risks To Your Health.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Willie Green
with the patriotic determination of every good citizen to use no foreign article which can be made within ourselves without regard to difference of price

Therein lies the key. If the domestic good sells at the same or a cheaper price than the foreign one and no significant quality difference distinguishes the two, consumers will go with the domestic one anyway. They would be stupid not to as that would mean paying more for the same thing. So Jefferson was mistaken and the tariffs he supposedly espoused in that quote were useless.

9 posted on 10/07/2003 11:35:46 AM PDT by GOPcapitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: axiom9
Yea, "protectionism", or tariffs were just hell on Harley Davidson when R. Reagan, a real conservative, imposed them against the Japs.

If it weren't for tariffs, HD would be a thing of the past, just another American business down the tubes.
10 posted on 10/07/2003 11:48:59 AM PDT by taxed2death (A few billion here, a few trillion there...we're all friends right?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: axiom9


>>Other nations can produce food for less money, why don't we just buy it from them and then we can sell them our GM products or technology?
<<

Uhm, because if they have a bad year or there is a trade embargo or whatever, we are beholden to them. In that event WE STARVE!. The U.S. Gov't pays farmers to have EXCESS capacity, in good years, we feed ourselves and others, in bad years, we don't go hungry.

11 posted on 10/07/2003 11:50:08 AM PDT by Malsua
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: taxed2death
and we also have a tariff on imported light trucks.
12 posted on 10/07/2003 11:50:32 AM PDT by oceanview
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: GOPcapitalist
So Jefferson was mistaken and the tariffs he supposedly espoused in that quote were useless.

The tariffs weren't "useless" whatsoever".
They not only facilitated the development of domestic industries, they were also the primary source of federal revenue. Don't you think it would be nice to conduct business here in the United States without corporate income taxes, FICA, Social Security, etc. etc. etc.???

How do you think Jefferson was able to purchase the Louisiana Territory??
With federal revenue obtained by tariffs!!!
Sheeesh. With the way Dubya is racking up the Budget Deficit and National Debt, we'll probably have to sell those states back to the French!

13 posted on 10/07/2003 11:57:52 AM PDT by Willie Green (Go Pat Go!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Willie Green
The tariffs weren't "useless" whatsoever

They were when the domestic price was equal to or lesser than the foreign price on identical goods. If the domestic good is cheaper (and it would be so long as the prices were identical due to the shipping costs), little reason exists to buy the foreign good anyway...that is unless you like paying higher prices for the same stuff.

14 posted on 10/07/2003 12:19:02 PM PDT by GOPcapitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: y2k_free_radical
However,this was an exceedingly big cause of the AMERICAN CIVIL WAR

Don't forget the Great Depression. The US enacted a protective tariff in 1930 that sent the entire civilized world into retaliatory tariffs against each other. It slashed international trade in half and turned a recession into the worst economic disaster of this century.

15 posted on 10/07/2003 12:32:15 PM PDT by GOPcapitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: GOPcapitalist
Given that manufacturing is a whopping 14 percent of our economy, down from 50+ percent half a century ago, you'd think we're on our way to economic ruin by now.
16 posted on 10/07/2003 12:39:37 PM PDT by Filibuster_60
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: LibertyAndJusticeForAll
Not everyone would agree with your assessment. The US didn't become an economic superpower by shunning protectionism, but neither did it do so by embracing it. Maybe it's news to you that until 9/11, we were by far the largest recipient of foreign investment in the world - what China, Europe and Japan got was literally peanuts compared to us. In sheer dollars our government and economy are easily the most foreign-owned in the world. This is hardly without precedent in our history. It was largely foreign capital that put us on the map as an economic power in the first place, in the mid-to-late 1800s.
17 posted on 10/07/2003 12:51:22 PM PDT by Filibuster_60
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Filibuster_60
Manufacturing employment has declined for the same reason farming employment has declined. The productivity increases have been profound. For example, American steelmaking capacity increased by 16 million metric tons between 1995 and 2000, with nearly the entire rise coming from mini-mills. They are seven times more efficient than integrated producers in terms of labor productivity, and consistently more profitable than the older, larger, integrated mills.

Manufacturing jobs are down because of automation, robotics, and other technological advances.
18 posted on 10/07/2003 12:59:09 PM PDT by Recourse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Recourse
Manufacturing jobs are down because of automation, robotics, and other technological advances.

And that's precisely why all the products in the stores say "Made In USA" instead of "Made In China". </sarcasm>

Who do you think you're trying to fool with that phony hooey about automation?

19 posted on 10/07/2003 1:28:33 PM PDT by Willie Green (Go Pat Go!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Willie Green
Read later.
20 posted on 10/07/2003 1:31:40 PM PDT by EagleMamaMT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Willie Green
Free trade with countries that do not allow free trade is doing great harm to this country. The American worker can not only compete but most often beat any other country's worker in ROI on a level playing field. But when we allow good from a country in freely and they charge high tarrifs on our good being imported if they allow them at all. That is a recipe for destruction. We need to impose the same restrictions on a countries imports into the US as they impose on our exports into their country. We need a level playing field. If they have no tarrifs or restrictions then we don't, but if they do we mirror them on their goods. Same goes for government subsides, we should charge a tarrif equal to the subsidy on any good coming into the US tha has one.
21 posted on 10/07/2003 1:41:47 PM PDT by RiflemanSharpe (An American for a more socially and fiscally conservative America.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Filibuster_60
Here are some assessments of America's current condition:

The trade question
Paul Craig Roberts
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/paulcraigroberts/pcr20030828.shtml

Notes for free traders
Paul Craig Roberts
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/paulcraigroberts/pcr20030305.shtml

U.S. Officials Misread Economic Warfare
TradeAlert.org| Tuesday, September 02, 2003 | William R. Hawkins
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/975372/posts

US Manufacturing's Steep Decline Calls for New Trade Policies
William R. Hawkins
Thursday, September 11, 2003
http://www.tradealert.org/view_art.asp?Prod_ID=885

China Targets Another Energy Lab
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/973418/posts

U.S. Business, Labor May Launch Trade Case Vs China
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/973054/posts

Slow Boat to China: Current currency realties
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/972117/posts

WTO entry helps China pull it off
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/968859/posts

The rise of China Inc.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/967510/posts

China Trade: High Time for a Change in US Policy
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/966302/posts

FBI: China has 3000 espionage “front” companies in U.S.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/966227/posts

China blocks foreign software use in gov't
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/966184/posts

China plans to grab imported technology
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/964677/posts

Another Kind of War - China’s monetary manipulation
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/963368/posts

'Smart-bomb' technology moving to China
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/962493/posts

Red China Manipulates Currency for Trade Advantage
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/960636/posts
22 posted on 10/07/2003 2:06:23 PM PDT by LibertyAndJusticeForAll
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Willie Green
greedy politicians and CEOs to massage our trade laws to their benefit.

The usual: more anti-capitalist propaganda from Willie Green.

ENjoy.

23 posted on 10/07/2003 2:45:35 PM PDT by TopQuark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Willie Green
Obviously not you, because you're far too smart to be swayed by facts.
24 posted on 10/07/2003 3:42:58 PM PDT by Recourse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: taxed2death
Tariffs worked for crappy motorcycles, therefore tariffs will work for everything. [A protectionist V8 moment]
25 posted on 10/07/2003 3:48:13 PM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Willie Green
Did Thomas Jefferson write that before or after he sent the Marines against the Barbary pirates, in order to allow U.S. merchant ships freedon of navigation?
26 posted on 10/07/2003 3:52:11 PM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy
1815 was after Jefferson's presidency, and during James Madison's Administration.

BTW, the Barbary Pirates attacked ships on the open sea and demanded ransom or tribute.
They were NOT charging legitimate tariffs on goods delivered to their ports.

27 posted on 10/07/2003 4:00:16 PM PDT by Willie Green (Go Pat Go!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Willie Green
Yes, but for all the blather (not yours) about how free trade is not fair trade completely neglects the fact that the U.S. has relied on trade since its inception, trade that never was "fair" to begin with.

We can speak of protective tariffs all day, and there are a few good arguments in favor of them, but to suppose that imposing them inflicts no cost upon us (through higher prices, retaliation, etc.) is absurd.

My comment about the Barbary War was meant in that regard. It wasn't fought over merchant ships sailing between New York and Georgia.

28 posted on 10/07/2003 4:08:18 PM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Willie Green
Are free-trade agreements good or bad for U.S. manufacturing jobs?

Since only 23 percent of the US economy is accounted for by goods, it seems to me that this is too narrow a question. The more pertinent questions are whether free trade agreements are good for:

The US Economy
The US Standard of Living
US Employment Overall

Yes. Yes. And yes.

We are losing manufacturing jobs to foreign markets. Better get used to it and stop your whining. It's called competition, and American workers don't want to compete. They hide behind their unions and the government, and they gripe about every new productivity improvement that comes down the pike.

Personally, if I were a manufacturing laborer, I'd get out of industry and into something else. Who wants to be useless baggage that society has to carry on its back? It's a free country. You can work where you want. Find a growth industry such as medicine or technology or service industries.

Or go down to the pub and cry in your damned beer. Most of us are trying to be part of the solution instead of contributing to the problem. Free Republic is not a good forum for your socialist ideas.

29 posted on 10/07/2003 4:34:34 PM PDT by massadvj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy
completely neglects the fact that the U.S. has relied on trade since its inception, trade that never was "fair" to begin with.

I agree that we've always engaged in trade, but I think it is much less accurate to say that we relied on it. The history of our nation is more one of growth and increasing self-reliance on our own resources. The importance of trade diminished as a portion of our GDP.

But it certainly IS accurate to say that trade was never "fair" to begin with:

The most egregious and inexcusable violation of another nation's sovereignty by the United States occurred in 1854 when Commodore Matthew Perry sailed into Edo Harbor (now Tokyo) with 7 ships (4 sailing ships, 3 steamers, 1600 men) and demanded that the Japanese open their ports to trade or else he'd open fire with his cannon.  This was actually Perry's second visit to Japan. His demands had been diplomaticly rebuffed the previous year.

The consequence of Perry's actions was disruption of the Japanese currency, which eventually led to the collapse of the Tokugawa Shogunate in 1867, and the restoration of the Meiji emperor.

This blatant misuse of American military power for the benefit of private enterprise occurred during the administration of Franklin Pierce, a Democrat.  It is an embarrassing stain on our national reputation.

30 posted on 10/07/2003 5:34:15 PM PDT by Willie Green (Go Pat Go!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Willie Green
I would not call them protectionists. They are independents. They wanted America to be independent from foreign interests and therefore strong as a nation. No need to put our security aside in order to please the "free traders".

Remember July 4th? It is called Independence Day-- not reliance on foreign trade day. Free traders policies do not preserve or promote liberty and trying to slur our founders by calling them protectionist(like its bad to protect the interests of your own country) is ridiculous.
31 posted on 10/07/2003 10:41:25 PM PDT by hedgetrimmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Malsua
You are correct. In the global socialist view however, it is good to starve America and so trade policies are invoked by the global socialist WTO that harm us. No matter what the free traders say, when you have an organization that is populated mostly by socialists, and everyone gets 1 vote, guess what you get? Give a cigar to the guy who says socialism, he's right!
32 posted on 10/07/2003 10:44:18 PM PDT by hedgetrimmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: TopQuark
There are people who identify themselves as capitalists,and people who identify themselves as Americans. The marxist world view says there are only capitalists and socialists/communists. If you identify yourself as a capitalist, you are espousing a Marxian viewpoint. Call yourself an American and if its true, then you follow the American creed.

If you follow the American creed, then you know that you need to stand with your fellow Americans to help make America prosperous. Many people are telling you that a lot of Americans are out of work and suffering right now. But you have only your self interest in mind and the good of this country and the good of your fellow citizens are nothing to you. Americanism is not socialist. It was the reason that our founding fathers were willing to sacrifice everything, their self interest included a benign government and a people blessed with liberty. What is benign about trade policies that are wrenching America apart and redistributing our wealth by fiat of the WTO to other countries?

All the free traders are one dimensional characters. They talk of getting the cheapest price by using slave labor to produce it. There is nothing more to them.
33 posted on 10/07/2003 11:00:53 PM PDT by hedgetrimmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: hedgetrimmer
I agree with you, of course, that the world is multi-dimensional. But when you apply this thought -- that is where we part ways.

There are people who identify themselves as capitalists, and people who identify themselves as Americans. The marxist world view says there are only capitalists and socialists/communists. If you identify yourself as a capitalist, you are espousing a Marxian viewpoint. Call yourself an American and if its true, then you follow the American creed.

I identify myself as a male and as American. Two dimensions -- are they contradicting each other? Of course not.

I identify myself as a person that believes in free markets and an American. Are these contradictory? Not at all. Why? Because private property and the freedom of exchange there of are as American as apple pie.

If one asks a similar question of socialists, one comes up with an opposite answer: it is because socialists have an objective of dismantling the core American institutions and values, that they are un- and even anti-American .

We have parted with unbridled capitalism for a reason. Of the two types of goods, private and pubic, markets fail to provide the public ones. It is for that reason that we have government stepping in to supply them. The present danger is, of course, n0t the existence of the government, but that everything is declared a public good --- as in the case of fascism, where property remained in private hands but the exchange was controlled by the government. If you follow the American creed, then you know that you need to stand with your fellow Americans to help make America prosperous. I am not sure you notice, but you apply the logic of the modern liberals: as W. Buckley famously said a few decades ago, "The liberal will not argue with you --- he will suspect your motives."

That is what you essentially do: you suspect, and even accuse, me of being self-motivated as the exclusion of empathy with my fellow Americans; of not caring for their plight. That is not fair, nor valid.

Of course I care --- it's the methods of reaching the goal where I disagree with the protectionists.

Many people are telling you that a lot of Americans are out of work and suffering right now. But you have only your self interest in mind and the good of this country and the good of your fellow citizens are nothing to you. See, that's what I meant. Your assumption is false, and it is not nice to assume the worst without a foundation. That's not nice --- one of the Commandments, in fact.

But guess what? It makes more damage to you than to the ones you suspect of egotism: by assuming malice of egotism in others, you end up being more lonely than you actually are, and farther from the truth than you can be: it is clear that you can reason, but the results of reasoning depend not only on careful logic but also on the initial suppositions, and the initial suppositions you use are at variance with reality.

What is benign about trade policies that are wrenching America apart and redistributing our wealth by fiat of the WTO to other countries?

Very timely but still an ill-posed question. Nothing in this world is benign. It is often said of democracy that it's a terrible system of governance but yet as not bad as any other we know.

Nobody claims that private property and freedom of exchange (trade) are benign. What's so benign in having a misfortune of being born into a very poor family, for instance? It has worked better than any other system, however, and that is why we support it.

The question therefore is whether there is a better, more just system than free trade. You come to a correct conclusion, that free trade is terrible, because so many workers are displaced. This conclusion is correct given the model. But your model (i) views Americans as workers, and (ii) disregards job creation.

Regarding the first, you forget that Americans are not only workers but also consumers and business owners (you and your parents own businesses through the mutual funds and stock purchase programs at work, for example. The ownership of our companies has never been as broad-based as it is now. Check at the number of shareholders on record of companies such as GM and GE). Hence, if you want to argue what's good for your fellow Americans, you have to consider how EACH of the three roles ---- worker, consumer, owner --- is affected by this or that policy, including free trade. These effects are hard to quantify not only for you but for professional economists as well. As a consequence, your conclusions may differ from those reached by others; much here does lie in grey area, and we do not fully know what is right. But we know that any opinion that concentrates on one role (labor) played by Americans and disregards them as consumers and business owners is wrong.

Regarding the second point, you, as most protectionists disregard a well-documented fact that job creation is greatest precisely in those countries where job destruction is large as well, and the net effect is positive.

Finally, the net effect of what you propose is precisely what accuse others of promulgating ---- wealth distribution. Unemployment is low --- in fact, close to what until recently was considered minimal possible. There are problems in certain sectors, especially in IT (which was far from average: it had one long big party with huge salaries ever since 1960s. There is no tragedy, but the party is over). What you suggest is that all Americans should subsidize a particular group of Americans simply because that group is used to high salaries. There is nothing American about that. This is very different from my coming to your defense in the face of a foreign enemy, from standing up for your rights, etc. If you think you have a right to a certain standard of living that I must subsidize, you are socialist and disagree with CORE AMERICAN institutions.

No, I am not going to make the same mistake you committed and accuse you or suspect you of malice (there is nothing more futile than trying to guess motivations of people). You come to such awful conclusions due to the lack of knowledge. You should refrain from judgment of these matters for a long while and study the subject matter a bit more deeply --- including the facets of economic life that are entirely omitted in your picture of the world. All the free traders are one dimensional characters.

I am afraid I have turned tables on you by demonstrating that it is you who views Americans unidimensionally. You reach strong conclusions without knowledge of basic economics and should be the last one of suspecting, let alone accusing others of the lack of sophistication.

They talk of getting the cheapest price by using slave labor to produce it. There is nothing more to them.

What can I say? In view of the foregoing, this makes me only smile.

34 posted on 10/08/2003 5:04:02 AM PDT by TopQuark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy
Wow. Clever retort. I would have never thought of that.
35 posted on 10/08/2003 5:34:07 AM PDT by taxed2death (A few billion here, a few trillion there...we're all friends right?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Willie Green
Don't waste your breathe on the china shills. They know you are absolutely correct; they just love their dollars more than America and Americans.
36 posted on 10/08/2003 5:38:11 AM PDT by fortaydoos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: TopQuark
I identify myself as a person that believes in free markets and an American

On your previous posts you really do talk a lot about capitalism. You couch your arguments in the fact that you are a capitalist and everyone that opposes you is a socialist. That is a marxian viewpoint.

You say if anyone objects to your ideas of free markets the are socialists If one asks a similar question of socialists, one comes up with an opposite answer

You do not admit the current "free market" trading that you support is not motivated by a benign government whos purpose is to preserve liberty for Americans, but rather on a cabal of socialist finance ministers, who have stated over and over again that the purpose of global trade is to "share the wealth" of the rich nations with the poor. So in fact your argument is incorrect. Your belief in the "free market" as it is applied globally through the WTO is a belief in socialism. You cannot separate the fact that trade agreements are being made by socialist ministers for Americans, who really have no say in the matter at all. You must be able to understand that when you have a group of socialists making policy, then you get socialist policy.

I agree that socialists want to dismantle core American institutions and that is what is happening with "free trade" and the WTO. The core american instution for making trade agreements is congress. Yet the "free market" way of doing things is to have the WTO make our trade agreements through a minister appointed by the president. Also, the president has fast track authority, so trade agreements never have to come up through congress anymore, the trade minister and the president do everything. They go down and meet with the G8 in Mexico or Cancun or Doha. The meetings are secret, there is no light shining in so Americans can know what they are doing. They make the agreements like GATT, volumes in size and impossible for the average American to posess or understand.How is this supporting apple pie and private property? How does this support the idea of self determination?

It doesn't. It really means that the Constitution has been usurped and enormous power has been taken from the congress(who are elected by the American people and can be removed by them if they commit transgressions) and given it over to an unelected minister and a trade body made up of socialist finance ministers. Now tell me, is that American?

How can any thinking individual support free trade as it is being implemented? You keep advocating "free market" and when any American opens the kimono, we see the "free market" is a name for an effort to dismantle congressional authority and give our right as individuals to make decisions regarding trade over to the global socialist WTO. So you can talk about the unemployment rates and stocks or whatever. Our individual rights and Constitutional authority do not exist when the WTO is involved. America cannot act unilaterally to protect itself from hostile trade practices of other WTO members, because that would be against the policy of multilateralism. Anyone who supports "free trade" through the WTO is one of those people you talked about, the people who want to dismantle core American institutions.
37 posted on 10/08/2003 8:14:43 AM PDT by hedgetrimmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: TopQuark; 1rudeboy; harpseal
This Isn't Free Trade

Real free trade, consisting of unilateral lowering of trade barriers, is unheard of at the WTO. Economic freedom would leave its bureaucrats with essentially nothing to do. By politicizing trade, imposing sanctions, and enforcing bureaucratic regulations, WTO officials win praise from influential corporations and social activists. Only by extinguishing the WTO candle and restoring an unregulated, nineteenth-century-style trade regime, will the special interest moths disappear.
38 posted on 10/08/2003 8:59:58 AM PDT by hedgetrimmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: axiom9
Protectionism led to horrible economic times in our country. Do we really want to return to horrible times or build what could be an even more affluent future?

Can you please cite one example between 1789 and the present? Any one example?

39 posted on 10/08/2003 9:20:06 AM PDT by harpseal (stay well - Stay safe - Stay armed - Yorktown)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: hedgetrimmer
On your previous posts you really do talk a lot about capitalism. You couch your arguments in the fact that you are a capitalist and everyone that opposes you is a socialist. That is a marxian [sic] viewpoint.

There you again. At its most basic level, a "Marxist viewpoint" would involve promoting, or sustaining, a proletarian revolution. And speaking of viewpoints, you should ask yourself whose are those closest to the tradition of Marx, yours or your "free-trading" opponents? In other words, before accusing someone of having Marxist tendencies, you should first explain why the true Marxists stand on your side of the fence.

40 posted on 10/08/2003 9:20:20 AM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Willie Green; clamper1797; sarcasm; BrooklynGOP; A. Pole; Zorrito; GiovannaNicoletta; Caipirabob; ..
Ping

On or off let me know
41 posted on 10/08/2003 9:20:43 AM PDT by harpseal (stay well - Stay safe - Stay armed - Yorktown)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: harpseal
Is that a rhetorical question, or is your web browser down?
42 posted on 10/08/2003 9:21:11 AM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy
Tariffs worked for crappy motorcycles, therefore tariffs will work for everything. [A protectionist V8 moment]

Gee those supposedly crappy motorcycles have captured one fifth of the world market overall without being able to be sold legitimately in China. Hmm, I guess the world does not share your opinion on the value of a Harley.

Perhaps you can for a change deal with the world instead of your theoretical world which exists only in some theoreticians mind.

43 posted on 10/08/2003 9:25:43 AM PDT by harpseal (stay well - Stay safe - Stay armed - Yorktown)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy
The USA has had a protective tariff since 1789. It was the second act of the first Congress. Learn some history before you mistate it further.
44 posted on 10/08/2003 9:27:44 AM PDT by harpseal (stay well - Stay safe - Stay armed - Yorktown)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

Unionist plant, Willie Green, at his best:

demanded that the Japanese open their ports to trade or else...
This blatant misuse of American military power for the benefit of private enterprise

Where does it follow from that opening trade was for the benefit of "private enterprise?" (Never mind that at that time we did not have any other kind of enterprise).

Trade benefits the nation, but Willie tries to portray this action as if he was paid by the "owners," them rich folk, you know. Burn their estates, long live the revolution!

Willie Green is taking FR for a ride.

He posts only anti-corporate and anti-capitalist propaganda on this forum. Seldom participates in his threads, and when he does, he plugs in, carefully, falsehoods such as the one quoted above. Of such as these, under a guise of a joke: "With the way Dubya is racking up the Budget Deficit and National Debt, we'll probably have to sell those states back to the French!"

You'll never catch him saying anything positive about this country or its core institutions. The workers, however --- excuse me, Comrade Green, the proletariat --- is always unjustly suffering.

This socialist plant does what all of theme do: uses the freedom of expression on this forum to destabilize its very purpose.

45 posted on 10/08/2003 9:34:22 AM PDT by TopQuark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: harpseal
The fact remains that Harley Davidson was getting its teeth kicked in because of mismanagement, and crappy product. Ask yourself this question, has H-D captured so much of the world market now because of government handouts, or because it competes?
46 posted on 10/08/2003 9:35:44 AM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: harpseal
History? Smoot-Hawley. Enjoy.
47 posted on 10/08/2003 9:36:32 AM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: hedgetrimmer
Sorry, you simply repeat what you said before.

You have grievances that are based on illusion and attribution of motives --- anything but economics. I could not find anything new in your last post to comment on.

Thank you for the exchange.

48 posted on 10/08/2003 9:38:19 AM PDT by TopQuark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: TopQuark
You have grievances that are based on illusion and attribution of motives --- anything but economics.

If you cannot argue economics, what else do you have?

49 posted on 10/08/2003 9:54:22 AM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: LibertyAndJusticeForAll
For the first 200 years America had various forms of protectionist policies. During that time we became the strongest nation on earth, with a middle-class the envy of the world. BTW, the Republican Party platforms included tariffs for a century.

The implicit conclusion that protectionist policies were the sole reason for us becoming the strongest nation on earth is incorrect, wrong, false etc. One CANNOT forget the other factors viz. we had a huge immigrant boom, we expanded to the West, we quadrupled in size, we stuck out of silly European wars, WWI and II happened during which we did not interfere until crucial turning points and our war economy boomed, we stayed capitalistic when the countries we now compete with flirted with socialism.

Why do I bring this up? Because I don't think the reason why we're in this state is so simplistic, nor is the solution so simplistic as to involve purely protectionism. Don't forget that China and India and Russia were fiercely protectionist until the 80s and 90s but when they opened up, they've boomed. And they have opened up now. Whatever tariffs etc. they have NOW is nothing compared to what they had earlier. We can beat this downturn and we WILL beat it, but to give a simplistic solution to a complex problem is not the way.
50 posted on 10/08/2003 10:04:42 AM PDT by Cronos (W2004)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-189 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