Posted on 06/21/2005 9:14:37 AM PDT by Tolik
Edited on 06/21/2005 1:10:54 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
Yes, we agree they are ignorant.
Using that as a premise, there is no possible way whatsoever that you could argue that a bilateral agreement like CAFTA would make up for it, because the increase in U.S. exports would be minimal (as these countries have next to no purchasing power).
What do you think they will do with the dollars we send them for the goods we buy?
Hence, you get no political leverage whatsoever - none, zip, nada - from making it bilateral as opposed to unilateral. The same anxieties get provoked in both instances.
Sure you do. You hear them say they are tired of these one-sided trade deals? So they think it is possible to get enough from the other side to make lowering our own prices worthwhile. They just don't think we've done it. Imagine the screaming if we did it unilaterally. They'd sound like the all eunuch choir (well more like that).
The only possible hope is convincing people that the reduction in prices that comes from lower tariffs would outweigh the damage that results from loss of jobs.
I think the majority understands this. Most recent Senate races with a free trader vs a protectionist were won by the free trader.
So either way, there's no political advantage to bilateral vs unilateral.
There is. It reduces, somewhat, the whining.
The free market! Isn't it wonderful? ;)
Not to mention the importance of taxpayer funding of uneconomical choo-choo trains.
must save -- didn't know about this thread -- thanks!
Thanks for posting the whole thing. It was long, but worthwhile.
How long will it be before that money filters its way down to the masses in those countries? I'm not saying it won't happen at all, but how long? We've had NAFTA for 12 years now, and yet Mexicans are still flooding across the border in search of work just like they've always been, so obviously these things take time, especially when you're dealing with kleptocratic banana republics.
You hear them say they are tired of these one-sided trade deals? So they think it is possible to get enough from the other side to make lowering our own prices worthwhile.
When dealing with dirt-poor countries with little to no purchasing power (either now or in the near future), it'll still be almost completely as "one-sided" as a unilateral lowering of tariffs.
Regardless, when those dollars are spent, we will benefit.
We've had NAFTA for 12 years now, and yet Mexicans are still flooding across the border in search of work just like they've always been, so obviously these things take time, especially when you're dealing with kleptocratic banana republics.
That's our fault for not building a wall and forcing Mexico to deal with their own poor, instead of foisting them on us.
In the meantime...what? People are just supposed to be waiting around to be employed?
That's our fault for not building a wall and forcing Mexico to deal with their own poor, instead of foisting them on us.
You're talking dealing with the effects of the problem. I'm talking about the source. After over a decade of NAFTA, the fact that even now there are still all those people who desperately want to come here shows how slowly the wheels of economic progress turn in these countries, even under optimal trading conditions with us.
Huh? I'm saying that when these other countries get dollars for their goods that America will benefit when these dollars are spent. Who's waiting around to be employed?
You're talking dealing with the effects of the problem. I'm talking about the source. After over a decade of NAFTA, the fact that even now there are still all those people who desperately want to come here shows how slowly the wheels of economic progress turn in these countries, even under optimal trading conditions with us.
No argument here that Mexico is screwed up. Your think more trade might make things better? It should. You think less trade will make things worse? No doubt.
Oh! What a treasure this is! Thanks for the post!
nice little economics education...
My point is that it will take plenty of time for that to happen, if Mexico's example is any indication. In the meantime, the U.S. jobs that have been lost due to new imports will not be replaced by new jobs for making exports. So politically, there's not going to be any broader appeal for it than for unilateral reduction of tariffs.
Walter Williams ping
bttt
It'll take plenty of time for them to spend the money? Why? Don't they need to buy stuff now? You know, to help feed and clothe their people?
In the meantime, the U.S. jobs that have been lost due to new imports will not be replaced by new jobs for making exports.
Imports cause job loss? Do you have a formula? You know, every billion dollar of imports causes x number of American jobs to be lost.
It'll take plenty of time for them to get the money - them, the ordinary people, that is. Mexico provides empirical proof of this.
Imports cause job loss?
According to the mentality that's opposed to all free trade, which is what we were just talking about, if you remember - what you said we have to "work around". If the people won't be convinced otherwise, then they'll be no more in favor of CAFTA than of unilateral reductions in trade barriers.
If CAFTA passes and imports from these nations increase, who in those nations gets the US dollars? And why wouldn't those dollars be spent quickly, benefiting the US?
According to the mentality that's opposed to all free trade, which is what we were just talking about, if you remember - what you said we have to "work around".
But do you believe that imports cause job losses?
I don't know, why isn't it happening with Mexico?
But do you believe that imports cause job losses?
As far as I can see it's not too likely that they do. But of course, what I believe isn't the issue here. If it was, then we wouldn't need to be talking about bilateral agreements at all.
It is. We exported just under $51 billion to Mexico in 1994. Almost $111 billion in 2004. That's my point. Even if the money doesn't "trickle down", it will still be spent. And the US will benefit.
As far as I can see it's not too likely that they do.
Thank you.
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.