I am
G. Stolyarov II,
Editor-in-Chief,
For some reason, the title of the article was not fully reproduced. Can you please change it to “An Analysis of the Ideas of Duncan Hunter”? I appreciate it.
Hunter ping.
An interesting article; read the whole thing.
Hunter has a good record opposing pseudo-free-trade agreements such as NAFTA and the World Trade Organization, but this is mixed with a thorough opposition toward genuine, non-state-regulated free trade. Hunter argues that the United States trade deficit is detrimental, ignoring the economic fact that a trade deficit is also equal to a net inflow of capital into the country that experiences it. That is, foreigners are purchasing American dollars in exchange for assets that they either invest into the U. S. economy or into U. S. treasury bonds, thus preventing a complete collapse of the debt-ridden American federal government.
Furthermore, Hunter has voiced strong opposition to China’s subsidization of its manufacturers and its protective tariffs against American imports. Yet while these policies in restraint of trade can justifiably be opposed, economics shows that they do not hurt American consumers or manufacturers. Indeed, they hurt the Chinese consumers who are taxed to subsidize Chinese manufacturers while having to pay higher prices for American imports. By shielding Chinese manufacturers against competition, such policies actually render them less effective in meeting challenges posed by other non-subsidized firms.
If anything, the Chinese government subsidizes American consumers at the expense of its own citizens, by encouraging Chinese exports to the United States. But Hunter wishes to “put the same charges on foreign goods that [foreigners] put on ours.” This policy of implementing retaliatory tariffs has historically been nothing but the cause of trade wars, which intensify over time to suffocate commerce among nations. This was the effect of the notorious 1930 Smoot-Hawley tariff, which significantly worsened the Great Depression and virtually eliminated international trade; Hunter cannot reasonably expect his suggested policies to produce a different result. Furthermore, placing tariffs on imports will hurt the American consumer in the same way that the Chinese government currently hurts Chinese consumers.
Indeed, what Hunter supports is not true multilateral free trade, but rather the misnamed “fair trade.” He laments in his official platform statement that “unfortunately, foreign workers as well, in the interests of “fair trade.”
Yet the only results such a policy will obtain are diminished prospects for American companies with overseas investments and massive unemployment in Third World countries, many of whose workers do not have the skills or training to earn an American minimum wage.
Economics holds that the marginal productivity of labor, not the regulatory climate, is responsible for the wage rate. Hence, an American worker earns more because he is more productive, not because he is “protected” by government regulations. The regulations only impose a price floor on labor and result in unemployment for all those whose labor is not worth the minimum wage rate.
xxxx
Although the writer ignores that Hunter has voted for free trade deals before (see Austrailia free trade agreement), I thought I’d see what you all would think of this particular segment.
He has the tenacity and the will and his record is proof. I might add that he has been on the front lines battling illegal immigration since the Reagan Amnesty of 1986, which he opposed. Your article might well have offered some truth about online gambling and the marriages and lives it has destroyed, instead of the laser-like focus and support of some internet purity pipe-dream you seem to have. One does not log on and have diplomatic immunity, and laws must be enforced, whether the reality is virtual or otherwise. Duncan Hunter is not going to lead us into some ultra-controlled internet situation, he just does not see it as free pass to indulge illegal vice. You are correct there is really no such entity as “fair trade” but you failed to mention there is no such animal as “free trade” either. I think with some research it comes clear that Hunter and his trade issues have everything to do with the security of this country,and less with the economics of international trade. It is much to do with Americans being able to manufacture for it’s security, and not being dependent on Maoists. It is about time someone in a leadership position put China on notice. I fail to see how enormous trade deficits are a good thing, year after year, fighting with our hands behind our backs, unless you intend on invoking magic. Hunter thinks we got a bad deal and he wants to renegotiate, and perhaps not subsidize the Chinese war machine with American dollars to the extent we see now. Everything continues on smoothly for now, but there is a debt bubble that will burst eventually, and eventually the nanny-state won’t be able to bear it when there are far more riding in the wagon than pulling it. I appreciate your concerns, but I find them ill placed and largely unfounded, it’s slippery slope logic and I think it’s well beyond Hunter’s intent.