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

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 181-189 next last
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]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 181-189 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