Posted on 04/08/2016 5:51:08 AM PDT by Kaslin
For years, supporters of free trade have been trying to reach a bipartisan consensus on the issue. They've finally succeeded. Free trade is now unpopular in both parties.
Perhaps because I am a conservative, I can at least understand where most conservatives are coming from in their opposition to free trade. Overt displays of nationalism and patriotism (which are not the same thing, by the way) are not merely tolerated on the right, they're often celebrated. Conservative intellectuals openly extol American exceptionalism while liberal intellectuals tend to deride the notion. Virtually no Republican politician agonizes over wearing a U.S. flag pin.
Meanwhile, the left adores cosmopolitanism, the United Nations and what some people call "transnational progressivism," or "one-worldism." Conservatives tend to scoff at all of the above, preferring national sovereignty and the American Way.
Of course, this stuff can go too far. That "freedom fries" business was silly.
Beyond a sincere misunderstanding about how trade works, the emotional case against free trade on the right boils down to "America first."
That phrase -- a favorite of pointedly nationalistic Donald Trump -- has complicated historical connotations, but let's leave all that aside. According to the protectionists, free trade is bad for American workers and some American businesses. America should come first. So we should do whatever is necessary to prevent bad things from happening to Americans. If doing so is bad for non-Americans, that's not our problem.
I think the math on all this is wrong. Free trade is good for most American workers and all American consumers, not just the "one percent." Indeed, it is largely thanks to trade that the average American worker is in the top 1 percent of earners in the world.
The protectionists are also wrong philosophically. Countries don't trade with others countries; businesses and consumers transact with other businesses and consumers. Protectionism is corporate welfare by other means.
But the point is, I get where conservatives are coming from.
I'm more perplexed about where liberals -- and in Bernie Sanders' case, socialists -- are coming from. Last I checked, liberals considered themselves "citizens of the world." Barack Obama's famous campaign speech in Berlin (which was better in the original Esperanto) was all about the need to tear down the walls between nations. For the last decade, liberals in the Democratic Party and the media have invested enormous amounts of time and energy arguing that American citizenship is almost a technicality. The very term "illegal immigrant" is forbidden by most newspaper style guides.
Sanders says that he believes in "fair trade." What he means is that we can't be expected to do business with countries that pay their workers a lot less than we pay our workers. He suggested to the New York Daily News this week that we should have free trade only with countries that have the same wages and environmental policies as us, which is another way of saying we shouldn't trade with poor countries.
In practical terms, Sanders wants to keep billions of (non-white) people poor -- very poor. If America were a flea market, his policy would be akin to saying, "Poor people of color cannot sell their wares here, even if customers want to buy them."
International trade, led by the United States, has resulted in the largest, fastest decrease in extreme poverty in human history. Roughly 700 million Chinese people alone have escaped extreme poverty since 1980, and most of that is attributable to China's decision to embrace the market economy and international trade. Want to keep Africa as poor as possible? Throw up as many trade barriers as you can
And Donald Trump is whining about high-paying jobs going to Mexico! Strange world.
Say, when your credit card company sends you its bill, is it one page? If not, it should be. See where I’m going with this?
Malaysia is part of the TPP.
Ok, so we don’t have a free trade agreement with Malaysia.
What was Von Mises position on Malaysian slave labor making computer circuit boards?
Inquiring minds want to know.
False analogy.
A bill needs to show all the line items that have been charged.
A 5,000 page trade agreement is 5,000 pages of specials deals for special people.
The free trade people want us to ratify TPP in 2016. Then we WILL.
BS. A 5,000 page trade agreement is 90% legal boilerplate.
Free trade should be fair trade. It is not.
Legal boilerplate is special deals for special people.
There are plenty of "free trade people" who are looking askance at the TPP.
If money manipulation creates wealth, then let’s add or subtract a zero to the u.s. dollar.
That will manipulate the currency directly, and we will win.
Now, you tell me whether we have to add or subtract a zero to manipulate the dollar into massive wealth.
Alternatively, it is something that you yourself can’t bother to read, yet have an opinion about . . . .
Kill all the lawyers.
I still want to know how “free trade” supports freedom when it encourages slavery.
Want to know what kind of actions support freedom? John Brown seizing Harper Ferry in 1859, Sherman burning down Atlanta in 1864.
That’s what that character in that Shakespeare play said, hoping for his dictatorship.
I’ll consider supporting free trade the day I actually see the US force foreign countries to adhere to it.
Until then, it is just imaginary, like catching a leprechaun riding a unicorn that is crapping rainbows into a pot of gold.
You see, words mean things, apart from what you believe.
I knew that would get a rise out of you.
All the environmental scams are run by law firms. The big-government/big-legal criminal-complex funnels taxpayer money to them like it was going out of style.
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.