[PugetSoundSoldier]

Please see your Post 229:

“Free Trade Agreements” are not about free trade. It’s more like a massive affirmative action program run by more government bureaucrats to demand that businesses have “equal opportunity” in foreign markets, with the government acting as their marketing department and taxpayers serving as their insurance company. I wonder how businesses ever survived without government sponsored “trade missions” /s. Even Milton Friedman called NAFTA “managed trade.”

I assumed you were using the reference to Friedman and NAFTA to tie in with your statement that free trade agreements are not about free trade.

If I was wrong, I apologize.

Can I thus state you are in favor of free trade? Perhaps not NAFTA as it was created, but the concept of free trade?

[calcowgirl]

All you need to do is to read Friedman to know that he would not be supportive of massive government bureacracies that have been established in the name of the mislabled "free trade" that we are seeing today. It goes against everything he ever preached. Show me where he ever said "managed trade is a good thing and we should have more of it."

I favor trade, with as few impediments as possible. That doesn't mean that I think we need 2000 page documents and huge government bureacracies regulating it. It doesn't mean that I support taxpayers subsidizing the import of foreign goods. It doesn't mean that US businesses should have the full protection of the US government and US taxpayer if they choose to establish a business in a foreign country. The lame attempts on this thread to label anyone a "protectionist" who does not favor the current "free trade" framework is absurd as I have not seen anyone promote tariffs for the sole purpose of protecting US businesses or equalizing prices.