Heritage publishes a yearly Index of Economic Freedom, it's worth a look.
Posted on 10/14/2007 10:22:06 AM PDT by 1rudeboy
By a razor-thin margin last week, Costa Ricans approved their country's entry into the Central American Free Trade Agreement, which they've been told will bring all kinds of benefits to their economy. But nearly half of voters in that U.S.-friendly country viewed CAFTA as a bad idea.
We've long supported free trade and hope that, with Costa Rica's approval, the pact will make commerce easier among the United States, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua and the Dominican Republic. But the growing skepticism about free trade across the Americas, including in the U.S., suggests the results have fallen short of expectations.
Recent polls in the U.S. show widespread doubts about the benefits of free trade, even among a once-reliable cheerleading group: Republicans. A Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll this month showed that Republicans, by a 2-to-1 ratio, believe free trade has been bad for our economy. Most Republican respondents favor tightening U.S. rules on imports.
Other polls have shown strong concerns among Americans that free trade hurts workers but benefits companies, yet there also is much confusion. In a March poll, respondents simultaneously opposed globalization but favored expanding U.S. commercial competition in the world.
It's clear from these results that promoters of free trade have some marketing – and myth busting – to do.
Various studies have demonstrated that the lower a country's import tariffs, the higher per capita income tends to be. Nations with open trade policies typically register far higher gross domestic products and economic growth rates than those with restrictive policies. Free trade also helps tamp down inflation.
A greater per capita gross domestic product typically means people have more money to spend. Consumers in open-trade countries also tend to have more purchasing options and pay lower prices.
Average U.S. unemployment rates have dropped . . . .
(Excerpt) Read more at dallasnews.com ...
Hey the best way to ‘sell free trade’ it would be to identify who is now holding all the good jobs ‘fleece trade’ has created. [those in China don’t count)
And what, shoot them? Da, comrade.
BUMP
Europe is pretty much protectionish and has pretty much the higher per capita incomes. Only the free trading USA is in the top ten (8th).
Until these companies (multi-national or not) start making life better for their employees, (wages, benies, job security and no more of these foreign rent-a-contact workers + illegals) this trend of distrust will continue.
Heritage publishes a yearly Index of Economic Freedom, it's worth a look.
Actually, I agree that would be a good way if it were possible.
It would be very beneficial for the proponents of free trade with, say, Red China, to show exactly all of the job gains and job losses in various areas here in the U.S. due to that trade, and to show that indeed there is a strong economic benefit to such trade with a totalitarian state.
That would indeed be a first-rate way to argue their case, but as far as I know, it has not been attempted.
The “razor thin margin?”
If it was so thin, the article would mention it.
In fact, inspite of organized Leftist protests, plus a gaggle of U.S. Congressmen visiting Costa Rica to oppose it, Costa Ricans themselves were able to see through the smokescreen.
Bernie Sanders, I.(for “idiot”)-Vt, famously made the incredible statement that free trade “hurts both sides.”
What goes around comes around. It's a two way street. If Americans want access to global markets, then expect other countries to want the same in return. If American companies can't compete, and there is no reason they can't, too bad. But don't expect the taxpayer to subsidize a bad business plan.
Of course wording in any free trade agreement is important, and there are good reasons to place tariffs on imports from countries who try cheat by dumping product below cost and other violations such as subsidizing textile companies and ag products. And don't think we don't do the same thing.
It's an ongoing battle with Europe over subsidies, especially in the ag business, which is what is keeping commodity prices artificially low. Ironically that is what creates the demand for farm subsidies in the first place.
Free trade agreements help by putting these issues on the table, and hopefully bring an end to subsidies, which are taxpayers dollars that should go to what they were origionaly for.
But try and do a story about some factory being opened, and you'll likely lose your job for failing to consider the "human interest" angle.
The proof is in the numbers. Do you expect every individual case where companies have benefit from free trade to be listed somewhere for you to scrutinize? They are actually, you just have to look. It's called profit margins.
There is much to criticize and praise in these agreements. The agreements are complex documents because of the political constraints. On balance, trade agreements are not the villains.
The villains are our lack of competitiveness imposed on us by the dims and rinos. It is natural that we have more labor and environmental protections. However, the dims and rinos are trying to impose a risk averse, nanny state that imposes extra high external costs for litigation, environment, labor, and taxes. Americans are naturally hard working, God fearing, and enterprising. We can compete in the global marketplace if we are not strangled by stifling regulations, taxes, entitlements, and litigation.
Nations with open trade policies typically register far higher gross domestic products and economic growth rates than those with restrictive policies.
is more false than true.
ping
And I showed you why you are incorrect. Countries with higher barriers to trade tend to be authoritarian in other economic matters, and it shows in those countries’ lower per capita incomes.
Looks to me like protectionist Europe and Japan are doing just fine.
Which of the European models do you propose for our economy, Luxembourg, Norway, Switzerland, Denmark, or Iceland’s? And admit it, you don’t even know how “protectionist” their economies actually are.
I would like us to model our trade policy on the USA circa 1776-1960.
Interesting, but I suspect not true. I am almost certain that EU countries have high traiffs on chicom goods. I have no problen with free trade with Europe or the Asian tigers. It is opening our market to chicom products without gaining free and open access to thier market that I object to. Dido India, Mexico, etc. And to a lesser extent Japan.
Now who's being simplistic?
What yall so called free traders push is not free trade it is off shoring or out sourcing of American Jobs to low wage nations and then importing the goods back into the USA. That is not free trade, that is an obvious trick to avoid usa wage and enviromental rules. Up till now the EU has not allow it and it shows in the EU per capatia income numbers. Japan has not allowed it either and once again it shows. Meanwhile here real middle/working class wages are dropping.
This is not rocket science and as the article points out, more and more folks are catching on to the fact that so called free trade as practiced by neocon globalists is just selling the USA to the chicoms for a quick buck.
But making money is what it's all about.
Screw America and American workers.
As long as there's a profit to be made on the backs of third world workers, what's the big deal?(sarcasm, and yet...)
Well, that’s the Marxist perspective. Thanks for sharing.
That’s your opinion.
Anyone who disagrees with you is a commie.
At least you’re consistent.
If only it was that easy, but I hold myself to a higher standard. I just think it's laughable that an ostensible conservative can appear on a conservative website, start spouting "worker exploitation" BS, and expect to be taken seriously.
So we need to make one thing perfectly clear: you are not a communist because you disagree with me (incidentally, did you notice I called your perspective Marxist?), but rather you sound like a communist because you don't understand that what you typed is Marxist. Frankly, that simply makes you unschooled. I pinged some people who understand economics to ask whether my assessment of the point you were trying to make is correct.
Well, you pinged your comrades to back you up.
I know the routine. Now you all take turns insulting me. I've seen your work before.
I’m insulting you point, because it’s stupid. And Marxist.
Incidentally, even Duncan Hunter doesn’t use that sort of rhetoric when discussing economics . . . and he likely would be appalled that one of his supporters does.
Can't argue with that. As it has been for a long, long time, innovation is driven by the search for profits and the competitive economy. Whether a business makes a profit depends on whether they are producing goods that consumers value and are willing to pay for and whether they're using the scare resources of society in the most efficient manner to produce those goods.
Screw America and American workers.
Without profits workers will get screwed. Fortunately for all of us, labor's share of the national income, as a percent, has remained about the same for more than 50 years. So, as our national income has grown over the years so has worker incomes. American workers are the most productive in the world which is why they earn more.
As long as there's a profit to be made on the backs of third world workers
Are these the same third world workers who were facing starvation in the past but now, thanks to the increases in trade, have the ability to provide for their families and possess hope for the future? The reason they aren't facing starvation any longer is because of that evil profit motive. If you asked them you'd find that they're pretty happy that someone with money, and a desire for profit, chose to pursue that profit on their backs. Or, maybe, you believe they just don't know what's best for them? Workers of the world unite?
One thing that I think has hurt the selling of free trade has been the Wall Street Journal’s linking of its support for it to its support for decriminalizing illegal immigration. This gives many the mistaken but understandable idea that the two are in fact inextricably linked. In actuality, of course, when trade barriers to export OR import are lowered, nations benefit; without NAFTA Mexico, for example, would be a far bigger basketcase and illegal immigration from it would therefore likely be even higher from it to the United States than it is. The fact that the Mexican socialist Obrador opposes free trade with the United States is quite telling in this respect; his popularity hinges on the poverty of his nation, much as that of the Democrats hinges on the need of Americans for government to take care of them.
You have any links to back up this claim?
“American workers are the most productive and innovative labor force in the world. Unfortunately, they are asked to compete in an unfair environment against other workers who make only a fraction of a living wage and are employed by companies that face few, if any, responsibilities to the environment or the long-term prospects of their employees. Our domestic manufacturers are forced to compete against foreign companies that benefit from their country’s currency and regulatory regimes. Ominously, China is cheating on trade and using billions of American trade dollars to build ships, planes and missiles at an alarming rate while, at the same time, taking millions of American jobs. I will reverse this “one-way street” with a new policy of fair trade for the American worker."
Mostly. And I’ve never seen him seen him railing against “profit makers” screwing the proletariat.
Don’t forget we own the Diebold machines.
“But making money is what it’s all about.
Screw America and American workers.”
Exactly, it’s a race to the bottom with American Blue Collar labor and homeowners subsidizing it all.
Funny, Fleece Traders like to point to “jobs created” numbers, but never delve into the quality of jobs created vs those lost in the Fleece Trade process.
Sad fact is, “if” the dollar wasn’t in the toilet, the effects of fleece trade would be even more pronounced.
And then there are the national security breakdowns like the ChiComs getting the designs for the Next GEn NVD goggles through outsourcing..
But hey, Greed Is Good, ask Gordon Gecko....
“If only it was that easy, but I hold myself to a higher standard. I just think it’s laughable that an ostensible conservative can appear on a conservative website, start spouting “worker exploitation” BS, and expect to be taken seriously.”
Truth hurts doesn’t it?
Perhaps you should reflect on the fact that you just mentioned, even on a Conservative Website, Fleece Trade doesn’t sell well to everyone, I suppose there are reasons why that is, but I doubt you would ponder them.
Fleece Trade is quite dead.
You are never away from a computer, are you?
There are limits of course. We shouldn’t be selling anything to a potential adversary of national security concerns and anything imported into the country should comply with our safety and health standards.
Rarely. I have two plugged in at the moment . . . too lazy to boot-up the third.
I’m not suggesting that we should create tariffs to subsidize all of our industries, but there are some things that we need to make certain are made ‘in country’.
He has consistently said that what is currently described as ‘free trade’ is typically written to give an unfair advantage to the nations we are trading with.
I agree with Hunter that there are several "free trade agreements" that need to be renegotiated.
Perhaps you can get with that other guy and start a Marxists for Hunter chapter. He'll find it funny also.
Some of his supporters have a tendency to project themselves upon him (just a little, and just my opinion). He's not the populist hero they think he is.
Actually, they do all the time, because it makes the paleo-bolsheviks run from the thread in tears.
The idea of transfering wealth to third world countries so that one day they will buy our products is laughable.
It also speaks to the idea that Fleece Traders have more loyalty to the market then to their own country. When China can acquire the latest in Military Tech from ITT through outsourcing, and yet this gets applauded, that says more then I could ever type.
Nary a peep on that, good thing to, it is hard to defend the undefensable but I’m sure you might try....yeah right..LOL
The market is an ass, it doesn’t care who rides it or which country benefits from it’s usage, right now, we are engaging in one sided trade deals, the US employee sees their benefits and wages decline, and corporations make more profit, and the new jobs that are created are shadows of the ones shipped overseas.
Actually, they do all the time, because it makes the paleo-bolsheviks run from the thread in tears.
Ahh, kick the dog and listen to the barking you’re the one cheerleading to give away military technology to the ChiComs, and yet you sling the charge that anyone who opposes you is a bolshevek?
How Saul Alansky of you comrade, good job they will be pleased over at Commintern...won’t they comrade?
“The market is an ass..........”: padre35
Bud, you just completely gave yourself away. Anti-Market is Anti-Capitalist and that puts you in the same group as the statists. Now the question is which brand of statist are 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.