Is Free Trade Immoral?

The Wall Street Journal ^ | Thursday, February 26, 2004

[presidio9]

Trade is a "moral issue," declares Senator John Edwards. The Democratic Presidential candidate is in high dudgeon that "bad trade agreements," by which he means those signed by Bill Clinton, are stealing jobs away from American workers.

It should be no surprise by now that his main competitor, Senator John Kerry, has responded by saying, "Me too." Just as Mr. Kerry parroted the rhetoric of Howard Dean on Iraq, the man who voted for Nafta now claims there is no difference between him and Mr. Edwards on trade. This scion of a Boston Brahmin family that made its fortune from the China trade is now accusing "Benedict Arnold companies and CEOs" of exporting American jobs.

[freebacon]

How could freedom be immoral, the Democrats are now proposing that anything that isn't government regulated is immoral?

[freebacon]

How could freedom be immoral, the Democrats are now proposing that anything that isn't government regulated is immoral?

[A. Pole]

So the Democrats' main economic message for 2004 is that free trade is immoral and unpatriotic.

One issue they are right about. "Free" trade is not free - it means absence of constitutional tariffs combined with taxpayer subsidized deindustrialization of America to benefit particular private interests.

[Redcloak]

Starting a chapter of "FReepers for Kerry"?

[Steve_Seattle]

In the 1990's, Dems I talked to in chat rooms were bragging that "Clinton's" NAFTA was responsible for the economic boom. (Of course, NAFTA was in the works before Clinton, he just happened to be prez when it was finalized.) Now, all of a sudden, the Dems are demagoging the issue, pretending they are against what they were previously for. (As with Iraq, as with Patriot Act, etc.)

[A. Pole]

Starting a chapter of "FReepers for Kerry"?

Personally I like Buchanan, I might write him in. If Clark is on the ticket with Kerry, Bush will have my vote :)

[Steve_Seattle]

"One issue they are right about."

Kerry voted FOR NAFTA and GATT and trade with China, and it's extremely unlikely any Dem president would try to undo those decisions, no matter what their campaign rhetoric suggests.

[hedgetrimmer]

One issue they are right about. "Free" trade is not free - it means absence of constitutional tariffs combined with taxpayer subsidized deindustrialization of America to benefit particular private interests.

You've said a mouthful. And its true.

[Steve_Seattle]

Buchanan - now, he probably WOULD repeal all those trade agreements (if he could). But no Dem will . . .

[Redcloak]

Well... You have a point there. Buchanan is a more ardent socialist than Kerry ever was.

[hedgetrimmer]

What are Kerry's and Edward's stances on the FTAA?

The FTAA is the next great threat to our Republic.

[Alberta's Child]

Who is "they" -- the Democratic Party?

You've got to be kidding me. The only Democratic candidate in the primaries this year with any credibility on this issue (Gephardt) was polling at around 2% of Democratic voters -- and he was one of the first candidates to drop out of the race, too.

[A. Pole]

Kerry voted FOR NAFTA and GATT and trade with China, and it's extremely unlikely any Dem president would try to undo those decisions, no matter what their campaign rhetoric suggests.

I know. "Free" trade is a bipartisan agenda, but maybe now the political leaders will be forced to make some concessions to the electorate.

[A. Pole]

taxpayer subsidized

How, exactly?

I many ways - from OPIC and trade "agreements" to the government assistance for the underpaid or replaced workers. Too many to list them.

[Shermy]

"Free trade" for WSJ means uninhibited, even promoted exportation of jobs and capital to countries that don't reciprocate.

There is no "free trade" treaty with India or China, which is probably better for WSJ since an actual free trade treaty might require some reciprocity.

[AreaMan]

Mixing morality and economics is a tricky business. As Adam Smith wrote, rather than relying on the benevolence of the baker to provide us our bread, we trust to his self-interest; the transaction benefits both parties. So it also is with trade, but the mistaken idea that selling is more virtuous than buying when the exchange is with foreigners continues to have mass appeal.

I may be wrong here but I think you cannot separate morality from economics.

This does not mean accepting the lies from the Democrats but also you cannot disconnect morality from economics.

True, the Baker's self interest is what would motivate his desire to sell. This (motivation) should not be replaced by some kind of moral demand imposed on him by the government. We are in agreement there. But the next statement can be problematic.
So it also is with trade,...

Again, the decision to sell should be motivated by self interest but, this is where the article doesn't think deep enough, HOW the trade is conducted or regulated is where morality has to be applied.

Without morality (and/or the force of law based on morality) the baker who ,deciding to sell out of self interest, would then be free to do anything else he pleased from using rigged scales to kneading the dough with his private parts.

The perception by some that "free trade" is not fair is why many people oppose it.

The perception that our manufacturing industries could be competitive if only the Gov. removed the choke chain of taxation and over-regulation is one example.

We see countries like Germany and Japan that have moved their production plants to our midwest and south and we wonder why American governments can't do the same.
True enough, those countries have taxed and regulated themselves to the point where the U.S. now considered a cheap labor country. This goes back to the Gov. taxing and regulating U.S. industry to the point where American companies have to flee to be competitive.

[Shermy]

Freer trade would give some countries openings to export lower-level services to the U.S., reducing costs for consumers.

Crumbs for the masses. BTW, where's his "study" supporting this anyway?

But American workers would also benefit from new, higher-paying jobs as local service companies expand to serve a global market.

This guy is killing me!

If the Democrats really want to call free-traders immoral,

Strawman argument.

"perhaps we should look at the rights and wrongs of employment in America.

Deflection argument. Isn't this what the "leftists" do as so many here say. "Two wrongs don't make a right."

A National Association of Manufacturers study two months ago found that the primary competitive challenge facing manufacturers was not competition from cheaper foreign workers, but the extra cost of doing business in the U.S.

This is so funny! The extra "cost" is labor! Which he hides by using different terms "workers" and "cost"