This is why I like trade agreements. More wealth leads to stronger military. Economics is war by other means.
It is also noteworthy that having a trade agreement makes nations far less likely to go to war.
Norman Angell made precisely that point in 1909 in his work The Great Illusion that the interconnectedness of the economies of Europe made it highly unlikely there would ever again be a great war in Europe.
Say rather that you like trade, not trade-agreements.
Case in point: the EU trade-agreement has turned into a bloated customs union: larded with protectionism, special interest and unaccountable executive power.
Those countries still trapped in it may yet turn to bloody revolution to get out.
How exactly does sending all of our cash out of our own economy strengthen us as a military power. If we have 90% unemployment what even remotely thinks the nation as a whole is stronger? Even better all that cash is being spent on a military that wants us destroyed. Dude you are confused, care only for your portfolio or a troll. I looked to see about 4 posts in didn’t pick up troll but did see your thoughts on weapon quality over number of soldiers with old stuff. I’m sure South Koreans will feel better after they hear that. I’d also remind you how Russia pushed the Germans out, the Chinese and North Korea, and how cheap life is in China.
I still like NAFTA .... having a trade agreement makes nations far less likely to go to war.
NAFTA is a hodge-podge of items. Whether a trade agreement makes war less likely depends on the trade agreement.
The point is well taken that it all depends on the definition of free trade, and on the devil in the details of any agreement.
But let us look at some recent historical events.
Perot famously spoke of NAFTA sending jobs to Mexico.
But immediately after Clinton signed NAFTA Treasury Sec Goldman-Sachs Rubin forced Mexico into a monetary crisis that drove the Maquiladoras from Mexico to Asia. Rubin totally destroyed jobs in Mexico and the Mexican economy.
The massive increase in immigration to the US that started in the later Clinton years was a direct result of Goldman Sachs mercantilist/corporatist/rent seeker policies being imposed on Mexico.
*****
I’ve been in the business world since leaving Vietnam in ‘67; in IT since ‘83. I have repeatedly seen situations where a company had multiple projects funded and unable to staff up those projects. I saw this in manufacturing pre-1983 and in IT since ‘83.
The company always has 3 choices:
1. Kill one of the projects and consolidate the partial staff of the killed project into the surviving projects.
2. Seek immigrants (green card, h1b, illegal, student).
3. Offshore one or more of those projects.
This is true in manufacturing as well as IT (which is just the manufacturing of code). In the 1950s Rockford and Chicago IL were the machine tool capital of the world. They hired eastern europeans (legal and illegal) who spoke poor or no English but had great 3D geometry math skills.
As the 60s and 70s progressed it became near impossible to find competent people for machine shop and tool&die jobs. The Rockford area school systems had been taken over by the GOP moderate John Anderson/Lynn Martin types.
Tool&Die and machine shop jobs went to Asia first. The rust belt factories followed to be close to the critical part of the manufacturing process.
******
Another example. Starting in 2000, unions and politicians (and FReepers?) lobbied Bush to stop the import of sheet metal. The intent was to save the steel plants and steel making jobs in the US.
But what happened was the factories that used sheet metal (washing machine type factories) did not use US steel. Instead they ship the entire manufacturing process to Asia.
There are no examples where restrictions on trade have led to increased employment. There are numerous examples where restrictions on trade led to decreased employment. And there are examples where it had no impact one way or the other.
Static or Dynamic USA economy and world economy is the key paradigm we bring to the discussion. Is there a static, fixed need for labor and fixed amount of investment and fixed amount of economic activity?
Or can the total amount of economic measures increase and decrease based on various factors.
Bill Gates/Steve Jobs are the best example. Back in the days of the Commodore computer, Trash-80 and Radio Shack manufactured and sold the most computers. But they had no vision where to go. Bill Gates made his first million dollars off Tandy-Radio Shack. But Radio Shack would not listen to Bill’s advice. So he conned IBM into letting him use the IBM brand name for IBM compatible computers.
Bill Gates never had the best operating system. He never had the best word processor or spreadsheet. What Bill Gates invented was the best capitalist marketing system. Bill Gates capitalist marketing system brought entire 3rd world enconomies into the 1st world.
At the same time, Steve Jobs had no clue where to take Apple. So Steve Jobs left Apple and re-educated himself. He came back with Apple 2.0 inventing new capitalist products that nobody even knew they wanted until after Jobs labeled them cool.
Steve Jobs inventing coolness in products people didn’t want built on what Bill Gates had done and further expanded the world economy.
As the world economy expanded, the need for all products produced by Americans expanded. The need for all products produced by China expanded. We all benefitted from economic growth.
One lesson learned. What the next Bill Gates/Steve Jobs invents will have far more benefit to both the American and world economy than anything any government individually or collectively can do to foster growth.
The sole role of government is to regulate, restrict and prevent growth.