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

Skip to comments.

Riding the free trade raft over the falls
WorldNetDaily ^ | April 18, 2005 | Patrick J. Buchanan

Posted on 04/18/2005 6:37:40 AM PDT by A. Pole

These are not the halcyon days of the Republicans' champion of open borders and free trade, Jack Kemp.

The "Minutemen," who appeared in Cochise County, Ariz., April 1 to highlight the invasion President Bush will not halt, are being hailed by conservative media and congressmen as patriots, as they are dismissed by the president as "irrational vigilantes."

Comes now the trade shocker for February. The deficit hit an all-time monthly record: $61 billion. The annual U.S. trade deficit is now running at $717 billion, $100 billion above the 2004 record.

Smelling political capital, Hillary Clinton and Chuck Schumer are co-sponsoring a 27 percent tariff on goods from China. Beijing ran a $162 billion trade surplus with us in 2004 in what trade expert Charles McMillion calls "The World's Most Unequal Trading Relationship."

The waters are rising around the Kemp Republicans. For these gargantuan deficits are sinking the dollar, denuding us of industry and increasing our dependence on imports for the components of our weapons, the necessities of our national life and the $2 billion in borrowed money we need daily now – to continue consuming beyond our capacity to pay.

Brother Kemp is correct in his Washington Times column in saying Beijing has not been manipulating its currency. China fixed the value of the renminbi at eight to the dollar in 1994, just as we once tied the dollar to gold. Beijing rightly objects, "It is not our fault your dollar is sinking."

But here, the free-traders enter a cul de sac. They recoil at tariffs like Lucifer from holy water, but have no idea how to stop the hemorrhaging of jobs, technology, factories and dollars, except exhortation and prayer. For as 19th-century liberals, they believe free trade is "God's Diplomacy." Whoever rejects it sins in the heart. True believers all, they will ride this raft right over the falls and take us with them. This unyielding belief in the salvific power of free trade is, like socialism, one of modernity's secular religions.

As Kemp's column testifies, these folks are as light on history as they are long on ideology. Kemp claims "there is no demonstrable instance in economic history where nations were made worse off by free and open trade. There are only the doomsday scenarios spun out of the imagination of half-baked economists ..."

But between 1860 and 1914, Great Britain, which began the era with an economy twice the size of ours, ended it with an economy not half the size of ours. Britain worshipped at the altar of free trade, while America practiced protectionism from Lincoln to McKinley to Teddy Roosevelt to Taft. Tariffs averaged 40 percent and U.S. growth 4 percent a year for 50 years.

Bismarckian Germany did not exist in 1860. But by 1914, by imitating protectionist America, she had an economy larger than Great Britain's. Were it not for protectionist America shipping free-trade Britain the necessities of national survival from 1914 to 1917, Britain would have lost the war to Germany, so great was her dependence on imports. A real-life "doomsday scenario," thanks to a few dozen German U-boats.

Jack Kemp notwithstanding, protectionism has been behind the rise of every great power in modern history: Great Britain under the Acts of Navigation up to 1850, the America of 1860 to 1914, Germany from 1870 to 1914, Japan from 1950 to 1990 and China, which has grown at 9 percent a year for a decade. As China demonstrates, it is a mistake to assume free trade, or even democracy, is indispensable to growth.

Kemp trots out Smoot-Hawley, the 1930 tariff law, for a ritual scourging, suggesting it caused the Depression. But this, too, is hoary myth. In the 1940s and 1950s, schoolchildren and college students were indoctrinated in such nonsense by FDR-worshipping teachers whose life's vocation was to discredit the tariff hikes and tax cuts of Harding and Coolidge that led to the most spectacular growth in U.S. history – 7 percent a year in the Roaring Twenties. Under high-tariff Harding-Coolidge, the feds' tax take shrank to 3 percent of GNP.

As high tariffs and low or no income taxes made the GOP America's Party from 1860 to 1932, the Wilsonianism of Bush I and Bush II – open borders, free trade, wars for global democracy – has destroyed the Nixon-Reagan New Majority that used to give the GOP 49-state landslides. Bush carried 31 states in his re-election bid. He would have lost had Democrats capitalized on the free-trade folly that put in play, until the final hours, the indispensable Republican state of Ohio.

Kemp calls China our trade partner – surely a polite way to describe a regime that persecutes Catholics, brutalizes dissidents, targets 600 rockets on Taiwan, lets North Korea use its bases to ship missile and nuclear technology to anti-American regimes, and refuses to denounce racist riots designed to intimidate our Japanese allies.

As some on the Old Right have said since Bush I succeeded Reagan, open borders, free-trade globalism and wars for democracy are not conservatism, but its antithesis. And they will drown the GOP.

The Republicans jumping off the raft into the river and swimming desperately for shore testify to it more eloquently than words.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Constitution/Conservatism; Foreign Affairs; Germany; United Kingdom
KEYWORDS: cluelesspat; deficit; economy; eeyore; joebtfsplk; learnchinesenow; notickeenowashee; repent; sackclothandashes; tariffs; trade; wearedoomed
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 301-350 next last

1 posted on 04/18/2005 6:37:41 AM PDT by A. Pole
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Willie Green; Wolfie; ex-snook; Jhoffa_; FITZ; arete; FreedomPoster; Red Jones; Pyro7480; ...

Pitchfork Brigade bump!


2 posted on 04/18/2005 6:38:30 AM PDT by A. Pole (George Orwell: "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
But here, the free-traders enter a cul de sac. They recoil at tariffs like Lucifer from holy water, but have no idea how to stop the hemorrhaging of jobs, technology, factories and dollars, except exhortation and prayer. For as 19th-century liberals, they believe free trade is "God's Diplomacy." Whoever rejects it sins in the heart. True believers all, they will ride this raft right over the falls and take us with them. This unyielding belief in the salvific power of free trade is, like socialism, one of modernity's secular religions.

Pat has a good pen!

3 posted on 04/18/2005 6:41:51 AM PDT by A. Pole (George Orwell: "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: A. Pole
What place do facts have here at freetraderrepublic.com?

It amazes me how freepers have rejected globalist liberal tax theory, but completely embrace, unquestioningly, global trade theory.

4 posted on 04/18/2005 6:45:43 AM PDT by Nephi ("I am in favor of free trade." - Karl Marx)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: A. Pole; ancient_geezer

It is truly amazing that Buchanon rails against anyone who opposes tariffs, but doesn't seem to comprehend that that would only mask a tax system which, at its core and its foundation, confers a tax advantage on foreign producers above and beyond our own.

Trying to compensate for that with tariffs is like trying to put lipstick on a pig. We should enact the FairTax sooner, rather than later, so that US producers will no longer be handicapped by their own government's tax system. This would tremendously improve our balance of trade and, unlike discriminatory tariffs, would not invoke the wrath of the WTO and our trading partners.


5 posted on 04/18/2005 6:47:11 AM PDT by phil_will1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: A. Pole

Wow. Great article. I don't support everything Buchanan preaches, but his views on free trade are spot-on. Free trade = subsidizng Nazi China.

And before anyone asks: yes, I am more than willing to pay more for the things I buy in order to keep manufacturing jobs here. I think of it as the price of national security. A nation with no ability to make anything is a colony of those that can.

Karl Marx loved the idea of Free trade. Anything Marx was for, I'm against.


6 posted on 04/18/2005 6:56:46 AM PDT by B-Chan (Catholic. Monarchist. Texan. Any questions?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nephi

If all the countries were approximately equal in social and economic status, then free trade would be great, much as it is among the 50 states. But as we know, many (most?) third world countries are dictatorships or corrupt democracies that exploit the people.


7 posted on 04/18/2005 6:57:14 AM PDT by Blood of Tyrants (G-d is not a Republican. But Satan is definitely a Democrat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: A. Pole
Pat has a good pen!

I disagree with him more than I agree with him.  But, when he's on target, well . . .

House Republicans who enjoy sporting Adam Smith ties should read a little more Adam Smith. In at least four cases, the father of free trade wrote, it must be "advantageous to lay some burden upon foreign (imports)," i.e., impose tariffs. Among Smith's reasons were "the defense of the country," "for the encouragement of domestic industry," for "revenge" and "retaliation" on nations that impose tariffs on one's own exports -- and to break open foreign markets.

Today, tariffs and taxes on U.S. exports entering China average around 30 percent. If the GOP were true to Smith, it would strip China of MFN and impose on Beijing the same tariff levels Beijing imposes on us -- both as retaliation, and to crack open the Chinese market to U.S. farmers and manufacturers. In 1997, we sold China a pathetic $13 billion worth of goods -- less than we sold to Singapore -- while we bought some 7 percent of China's entire GDP.

How Adam Smith Would Handle China July 24, 1998


8 posted on 04/18/2005 6:57:26 AM PDT by Racehorse (Where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: A. Pole

The thing is, they might be sending the raft over the falls, but they sure as heck ain't on it. Kemp and his cronies are well taken care of, no matter what the future holds.


9 posted on 04/18/2005 6:58:57 AM PDT by Wolfie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: phil_will1
It is truly amazing that Buchanon rails against anyone who opposes tariffs, but doesn't seem to comprehend that that would only mask a tax system which, at its core and its foundation, confers a tax advantage on foreign producers above and beyond our own.

Free trade dogma.
Buchanan cites facts, phil_will1 falls back on failed intentions and free trade theory.

We should enact the FairTax sooner, rather than later, so that US producers will no longer be handicapped by their own government's tax system.

Free trade subsidizes socialist economies. Tariffs and protectionism leaves them to twist in the wind, or rely on their own struggling economies for sustanance.

The US market is the market to be in for American producers or foreign producers. A NRST taxes American made goods at the same rate as socialist imports. The globalists still get their way.

10 posted on 04/18/2005 7:01:40 AM PDT by Nephi ("I am in favor of free trade." - Karl Marx)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: phil_will1
It is truly amazing that Buchanon rails against anyone who opposes tariffs, but doesn't seem to comprehend that that would only mask a tax system which, at its core and its foundation, confers a tax advantage on foreign producers above and beyond our own.

I think one important point left out is not free trade but fair trade. Free trade works well when the living standard and business costs are of the same magnitude. Canada-U.S. free trade would fit in this example. Both are industrialized nations with not too dissimilar business and living environments. The playing field is level. Introduce Mexico and problems erupt. Mexican policies on salaries (very low and a maximum wage for foreign owned companies), banning foriegn real estate ownership, lower standards, etc., leads to an imbalance. Same with China. Free trade, with a level playing field, works by expanding the size of the market. Unlevel free trade, like with China or Mexico causes problems with employment, trade imbalances, etc. For example, how many U.S. companies are shipping goods to Mexico for Mexican consumers? If Mexico could grow their economy, then their citizens could be consumers of U.S. goods rather than cheap producers of U.S. goods for export since the producers can't afford the very goods they produce.

11 posted on 04/18/2005 7:03:31 AM PDT by doc30 (Democrats are to morals what and Etch-A-Sketch is to Art.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: doc30
I think one important point left out is not free trade but fair trade

Precisely right!  Good post, IMHO.

12 posted on 04/18/2005 7:09:43 AM PDT by Racehorse (Where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: doc30
Free trade works well when the living standard and business costs are of the same magnitude. Canada-U.S. free trade would fit in this example. Both are industrialized nations with not too dissimilar business and living environments. The playing field is level.

More free trade dogma.
While FDR did a lot of damage to the US, do you really think the US is as socialized as Canada? Free trade with Canada subsidizes their socialist economy just like free trade with the rest of the world's socialist economies subsidizes them.

Unlevel free trade, like with China or Mexico causes problems with employment, trade imbalances, etc. For example, how many U.S. companies are shipping goods to Mexico for Mexican consumers?

This is a point most free traders like to ignore and illustrates that the US market is the market to be in for the dreaded American producers, too, not just enlightened foreign socialist countries.

13 posted on 04/18/2005 7:19:56 AM PDT by Nephi ("I am in favor of free trade." - Karl Marx)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: B-Chan
Karl Marx loved the idea of Free trade. Anything Marx was for, I'm against.

Communists view economics as a zero-sum game (nobody gets wealthy except at the expense of others) which is precisely the same view that protectionists have.

14 posted on 04/18/2005 7:24:35 AM PDT by Strategerist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: B-Chan

"Karl Marx loved the idea of Free trade. Anything Marx was for, I'm against."

Karl Marx was also a strong believer in a graduated (or progressive) income tax.


15 posted on 04/18/2005 7:26:34 AM PDT by phil_will1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: A. Pole

Kemp and his ilk are utopian radicals like many before them and to our bane with many more to follow. Their rhetoric always begins with utopian premises, and only if you press them do they attempt to answer specifics as it relates to real people other than their conspirators (think tank whores and their financial pimps). FTR I do think we need a better tax system that does not punish American based industry for investments here.


16 posted on 04/18/2005 7:33:39 AM PDT by junta ("Racism" a word invented so as to allow morons access to the political debate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

Just plain old BS from Pat..


17 posted on 04/18/2005 7:36:01 AM PDT by KevinDavis (Let the meek inherit the Earth, the rest of us will explore the stars!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: B-Chan

So if we stop trading with China, they will become more politically free? Its worked great in Cuba, that's for sure.


18 posted on 04/18/2005 7:39:27 AM PDT by babble-on
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: A. Pole
But between 1860 and 1914, Great Britain, which began the era with an economy twice the size of ours, ended it with an economy not half the size of ours. Britain worshipped at the altar of free trade, while America practiced protectionism from Lincoln to McKinley to Teddy Roosevelt to Taft. Tariffs averaged 40 percent and U.S. growth 4 percent a year for 50 years.

Conveniently forgetting that during that same period, America expanded Westwards, got millions of Immigrants and millions of £££££s in investment in her infrastructure. America was expanding and growing, the UK was a solidified nation. It's like comparing an industry where demand is now static to a sunrise industry.

Ditto for Germany from 1860 onwards.
19 posted on 04/18/2005 7:40:47 AM PDT by Cronos (Never forget 9/11)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Strategerist
Communists view economics as a zero-sum game (nobody gets wealthy except at the expense of others) which is precisely the same view that protectionists have.

Alexander Hamilton rose up from his grave, read your post, scratched his head, and scowled, "what's wrong with you, son?"  :-)

The founding pops were mercantilists, remember?  Nor were the early American economists to follow believers in tariff-free trade.

20 posted on 04/18/2005 7:46:24 AM PDT by Racehorse (Where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Cronos
Conveniently forgetting that during that same period, America expanded Westwards, got millions of Immigrants and millions of £££££s in investment in her infrastructure. America was expanding and growing, the UK was a solidified nation. It's like comparing an industry where demand is now static to a sunrise industry.

So, how might remembering a little thing like the British Empire fit into your analysis?  :-)

21 posted on 04/18/2005 7:54:37 AM PDT by Racehorse (Where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: A. Pole

BTTT


22 posted on 04/18/2005 7:57:02 AM PDT by kellynla (U.S.M.C. 1st Battalion,5th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Div. Viet Nam 69&70 Semper Fi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: A. Pole

Go Pat Go!


23 posted on 04/18/2005 7:57:19 AM PDT by Nowhere Man (Lutheran, Conservative, Neo-Victorian/Edwardian, Michael Savage Listener - Any Questions?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: A. Pole
But between 1860 and 1914, Great Britain, which began the era with an economy twice the size of ours, ended it with an economy not half the size of ours. Britain worshipped at the altar of free trade, while America practiced protectionism from Lincoln to McKinley to Teddy Roosevelt to Taft. Tariffs averaged 40 percent and U.S. growth 4 percent a year for 50 years.

This comparison is utterly ludicrous. On January 1st of 1860 the U.S. was comprised of 33 states -- by 1914, we were up to 48. Great Britain didn't change very much in that time period. The reason the U.S. economy grew so rapidly in those years compared to Great Britain was that we still had a frontier, while they did not.

24 posted on 04/18/2005 7:58:02 AM PDT by Alberta's Child (I ain't got a dime, but what I got is mine. I ain't rich, but lord I'm free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: A. Pole
Social Security is another overlooked result of trading jobs, first for cheap underwear, now for technology.

Social security ratio was designed for current workers [read jobs] to support retired workers and the ratio was somewhat better than 20 - 1. Now it is heading for 3 - 1.

But the jobs still exist, now in China, et al but those jobs do not pay into the SS system. A start is to put an equalization SS tax on imports to restore the job ratio.

BTW Pat, the prophet who tells us what we don't want to hear, is right again.

25 posted on 04/18/2005 8:01:53 AM PDT by ex-snook (Exporting jobs and the money to buy America is lose-lose..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: B-Chan
Anyone who advocates tariffs on foreign products should first go back and do some extensive research on the softwood lumber tariff issue between the U.S. and Canada.

In a turn of events that seems to fly against all logic, during the four years that have passed since the U.S. first imposed the tariff on Canadian lumber we have seen a dramatic acceleration in the decline of U.S. lumber producers by all measures (number of mills, production levels, employment, etc.).

A case study like this offers a great example of unintended consequences.

26 posted on 04/18/2005 8:02:18 AM PDT by Alberta's Child (I ain't got a dime, but what I got is mine. I ain't rich, but lord I'm free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Nephi
While FDR did a lot of damage to the US, do you really think the US is as socialized as Canada? Free trade with Canada subsidizes their socialist economy just like free trade with the rest of the world's socialist economies subsidizes them.How does free trade with Canada subsidize their economy? When free trade was first introduced, Canadians hated the idea and felt Mulroney was forcing it down their throats. It casues a loss of jobs and increased U.S. imports into Canada. American companies benefitted more than those in Canada. It actually made the Canadian economy more competitive because it opened up Canada to U.S. producers who didn't have the same level of regulation and taxation Canadian companies experienced. As a result, Canadian entrepeneurs have to be that much more savvy in order to survive the highly regulated (i.e. more restictive) business environment. The experience Canada has with respect to free trade with the U.S. under NAFTA is similar to the U.S. experience with free trade with Mexico. The big difference is that Canadians and Americans have about the same magnitude of living standards, wages and productivity per person. Mexico is very, very different from Canada and the U.S. economically. For example, how many average Mexicans can afford a vacation in the U.S. compared to average Canadians?
27 posted on 04/18/2005 8:02:54 AM PDT by doc30 (Democrats are to morals what and Etch-A-Sketch is to Art.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: A. Pole

Learn about Capitalism at my blog-
http://truthaboutcapitalism.blogspot.com


28 posted on 04/18/2005 8:03:36 AM PDT by mojojockey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Strategerist
Kudos to the honest Marxist who offered the following lament: "The misery of being exploited by wealthy capitalists is nothing compared to the misery of not being exploited at all."
29 posted on 04/18/2005 8:03:57 AM PDT by Alberta's Child (I ain't got a dime, but what I got is mine. I ain't rich, but lord I'm free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Nephi

Global trade is global tax. The trade deals brokered via "free trade" force "rich countries" to pay for infrastructure development, computers for foreign government workers and all kinds of other stuff so those countries can "trade" with us. It is a scam of gigantic proportions to redistribute the wealth of America to the rest of the world.


30 posted on 04/18/2005 8:06:37 AM PDT by hedgetrimmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Racehorse

The British Empire was more or less static at that point. The only acquisitions the Brits made after that was durign the Boer Wars in SA. I'm talking abotu the diff between a growing nation and a mature one.


31 posted on 04/18/2005 8:07:00 AM PDT by Cronos (Never forget 9/11)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: doc30

The impact of NAFTA on trade between the U.S. and Canada cannot be accurately measured even now -- more than a decade after NAFTA was first ratified. The problem is that NAFTA is often mistakenly cited as a cause of some trend or another in trade between the two countries, when the reality is that NAFTA's impact has been very small compared to the bigger impact of varying exchange rates between the two currencies.


32 posted on 04/18/2005 8:07:24 AM PDT by Alberta's Child (I ain't got a dime, but what I got is mine. I ain't rich, but lord I'm free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Nephi
Free trade subsidizes socialist economies. Tariffs and protectionism leaves them to twist in the wind, or rely on their own struggling economies for sustanance

Good point!
33 posted on 04/18/2005 8:08:07 AM PDT by hedgetrimmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: A. Pole; Taxman; Principled; EternalVigilance; rwrcpa1; phil_will1; kevkrom; n-tres-ted; Zon; ...

But here, the free-traders enter a cul de sac. They recoil at tariffs like Lucifer from holy water, but have no idea how to stop the hemorrhaging of jobs, technology, factories and dollars, except exhortation and prayer.

Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee,
Rep. Bill Archer (R-TX)
August 12, 1996


 

A Taxreform bump for you all.

If you would like to be added to this ping list let me know.

John Linder in the House(HR25) & Saxby Chambliss Senate(S25), offer a comprehensive bill to kill all income and SS/Medicare payroll taxes outright, and provide a IRS free replacement in the form of a retail sales tax:

H.R.25,S.25
A bill to promote freedom, fairness, and economic opportunity by repealing the income tax and other taxes, abolishing the Internal Revenue Service, and enacting a national retail sales tax to be administered primarily by the States.

Refer for additional information:


34 posted on 04/18/2005 8:10:08 AM PDT by ancient_geezer (Don't reform it, Replace it!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: B-Chan

There are three ways of creating real wealth, manufacturing, mining, and agriculture. When we ship our manufacturing plants overseas the corporations do well but the country starts to regress.


35 posted on 04/18/2005 8:10:17 AM PDT by tom paine 2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: doc30
The big difference is that Canadians and Americans have about the same magnitude of living standards, wages and productivity per person. Mexico is very, very different from Canada and the U.S. economically. For example, how many average Mexicans can afford a vacation in the U.S. compared to average Canadians?

To put it more bluntly and more starkly, I paraphrase a businessman testifying last Thursday before a congressional committee holding hearings on our trade problems with China:  "How can you compete with a country that pays its workers 30 cents an hour, provides no benefits, and puts you in jail for trying to organize a union?"

36 posted on 04/18/2005 8:10:27 AM PDT by Racehorse (Where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: hedgetrimmer; Nephi

Sure is an interesting argument: in order to punish struggling socialist economies, we must practise socialism.


37 posted on 04/18/2005 8:11:17 AM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child

Lumber is declining in America because the environazis have imposed sustainable development on us. It has nothing to do with tariffs and everything to do with environmental regulation and destruction of property rights.

In Santa Cruz county CA, it costs thousands of dollars to produce a report that is at least a thousand pages long, outlining your INTENT to harvest timber. Not a harvesting plan, an INTENT to harvest. This kind of crap destroys the property owners right to get economic value from his property, and gives the state ownership of the property-- the only privilege many timber owners have in CA is the right to pay TAXES.


38 posted on 04/18/2005 8:12:29 AM PDT by hedgetrimmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
In a turn of events that seems to fly against all logic, during the four years that have passed since the U.S. first imposed the tariff on Canadian lumber we have seen a dramatic acceleration in the decline of U.S. lumber producers by all measures (number of mills, production levels, employment, etc.).

I haven't followed the case closely, but I have two points about this. Firts, isn't the closure of U.S. lumber producers related to the fact they no longer have a large enough supply of raw timber. Didn't protecting U.S. loggers from importing Canadian timber mean a glut of timber processing capacity in the U.S. that caused this decline in producers? Secondly, Hasn't the WTO ruled against the U.S. consistently in the lumber-trade disputes?

My point is that the U.S. consumer and lumber processors are hurt, just to help the loggers in the U.S. At the same time, the Canadian loggers are hurt. It sounds like free trade would be good overall to both the U.S. and Canada, even though U.S. loggers may suffer.

It sounds similar to the Mad Cow issue. Canada produces cattle for the U.S. beef industry, but Canada doesn't process the meat. Now that Canadian beef are banned in the U.S., the U.S. meat packers are suffering, even though cattle producers i the U.S benefit. Now Canada is trying to get meat processing facilities opend in Canada becasue there isn't enough processing capacity to handle the level of cattle production. Again, closing the border hurts both sides.

39 posted on 04/18/2005 8:12:33 AM PDT by doc30 (Democrats are to morals what and Etch-A-Sketch is to Art.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy

You calling the founding fathers socialist? Besides, explain how tariffs are socialist?


40 posted on 04/18/2005 8:13:00 AM PDT by Nephi ("I am in favor of free trade." - Karl Marx)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Nephi

What needs explaining? Apparently, you have no trouble with our government picking winners and losers as a matter of policy.


41 posted on 04/18/2005 8:14:36 AM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: ancient_geezer
We know that you are proficient in posting free trade html dogma, but can you refute the points that Buchanan made in his article?

Can you explain why globalist tax theory fails, but globalist trade theory holds?

42 posted on 04/18/2005 8:15:39 AM PDT by Nephi ("I am in favor of free trade." - Karl Marx)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: babble-on
So if we stop trading with China, they will become more politically free? Its worked great in Cuba, that's for sure.

We opened up trade with China, which had been dirt-poor before, and it is becoming wealthy. We haven't traded with Cuba, and it remains dirt-poor.

I would just as soon see all totalitarian states remain poor and relatively weak. In fact, although I don't think that it would have much impact now, I would still like us to stop "free" trade with China, whose government I think is a repugnant one.

It is not a government that we should be supporting in any way, and we certainly should not be making a bellicose, totalitarian state wealthy.

43 posted on 04/18/2005 8:18:22 AM PDT by snowsislander
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy
You can't explain your asinine assertion that tariffs are socialism, can you?

No, I don't have a problem with a trade policy that picks American producers to be the winners over foreign socialist producers. You do?

44 posted on 04/18/2005 8:19:18 AM PDT by Nephi ("I am in favor of free trade." - Karl Marx)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Nephi

Can you refute the teachings of Thomas Sowell?


45 posted on 04/18/2005 8:19:37 AM PDT by mojojockey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Nephi

"The US market is the market to be in for American producers or foreign producers."

That is true today, but China is growing at more than double our rate, has been doing so for more than a decade now and that is expected to continue for the foreseeable future. One of the big carmakers, GM I think, expects the Chinese auto market to be larger than ours by 2020.


46 posted on 04/18/2005 8:20:49 AM PDT by phil_will1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: mojojockey

Let's stick to this article, dissembler.


47 posted on 04/18/2005 8:21:19 AM PDT by Nephi ("I am in favor of free trade." - Karl Marx)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: hedgetrimmer
Lumber production is declining in the U.S. because the Canadian producers were smart enough to play the U.S. tariff game, and they've been kicking our @sses ever since. To make up for the increased cost brought on by the tariff, Canadian mills have spent the last few years improving their efficiency and extracting concessions from their labor unions. As a result, they've been able to make up for the cost differential and hold their own against U.S. producers.

(The predictable response by the U.S., of course, was to raise the tariff even higher -- but that only made things worse!)

More importantly, the improvements in productivity at Canadian mills made U.S. producers utterly uncompetitive in cases where the tariff doesn't apply -- like in export markets in Asia.

Your point about Santa Cruz County may be a valid one, but let me ask you this . . . your comment could just as easily apply to a manufacturing facility as to a forest, so what makes you think anything would be different in the manufacturing sector if the U.S. were to impose a tariff on Chinese imports?

48 posted on 04/18/2005 8:21:29 AM PDT by Alberta's Child (I ain't got a dime, but what I got is mine. I ain't rich, but lord I'm free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Nephi
Under the Byrd Act, companies/industries that successfully petition our government to impose tariffs receive the monies collected in the form of a check. What's your definition of socialism?
49 posted on 04/18/2005 8:23:16 AM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: phil_will1
One of the big carmakers, GM I think, expects the Chinese auto market to be larger than ours by 2020.

That should come as no surprise, considering that China's population is about four times larger than ours.

Here's a bizarre statistic for you . . . there are more people in China who speak English as a second language than there are native English speakers in the United States!

50 posted on 04/18/2005 8:24:04 AM PDT by Alberta's Child (I ain't got a dime, but what I got is mine. I ain't rich, but lord I'm free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 301-350 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