Posted on 05/09/2009 12:47:21 PM PDT by Cringing Negativism Network
Yesterday I happened upon a post by a fellow FReeper. In retrospect, I am sorry for responding rudely to their post - and I hope they happen upon this apology.
The post was presenting their heartfelt opinion that American industry and our system itself must be allowed to come apart so that something better can replace it.
It was a Rand-ian position. The system is becoming oppressive, therefore we must weaken it.
Is that what he is asking for? A definition of free trade?
Cuz that sure isn't what he asked.
He started with the presumption that Reagan would have disapproved of NAFTA because of the parallel environmental provisions that subsequent presidents negotiated, and has been throwing stuff at the wall to see what sticks ever since.
I’ve stated many times: there should be zero tariffs, duties, or quotas related to the import or export of goods. Period.
All other trade - with tariffs, quotas, etc - is inherently not free, and represents a degree of socialist managing of the economy.
Your turn. What do you consider free trade? What is your position on the practice of fair trade?
No exceptions? None?
All other trade - with tariffs, quotas, etc - is inherently not free, and represents a degree of socialist managing of the economy.
Do you think making exceptions for national defense is "managing the econoomy" (I don't) or that it could be considered providing "for the common defense and general welfare of the United States" as the Constitution requires?
Your turn. What do you consider free trade?
Well, I always thought you could be considered to support free trade without the all-or-nothing dictate you've laid out. Under a definition of "no exceptions," no, I wouldn't support that. But that doesn't mean I am supporting "managed trade" either, as the motivation for my exceptions is not based on economic goals, but of survival.
What is your position on the practice of fair trade?
Before we get in a tit for tat over that question, can you tell me what your definition of "fair trade" is?
No exceptions means no exceptions. Period. There aren’t any items that we cannot make here, or stock in sufficient supplies right now, that would warrant the breaking of the fundamental principles of free market capitalism.
Fair trade? That is simply managed trade, socialism lite. It’s what we have now, and have had pretty much always. We move closer to real free trade, but the fair trade/managed trade crowd keeps pulling us back to the socialist side.
Why do you think the global economy is “progressing” in this way that the free traders in the US are out and a Marxist is in? How are the capitalists going to get out from under the weight of the world's government(s) and unions.
It is bad enough to be dealing with Unions in our country. It will be insufferable to work with international unions protected by trade agreements.
There is going to be “change.” It's not going to be good. We would be better off heading it off at the pass with an alternatively less destructive alternative that is good for our country.
Do you think making exceptions for national defense is "socialist managing the econoomy" (I don't) or that it could be considered providing "for the common defense and general welfare of the United States" as the Constitution requires?
Socialist? Really?
I'll ask you to name one, and then indicate their postion regarding the FTA's we are negotiating with Panama, Colombia, or South Korea.
I see you refuse to even answer.
Eh?
Nope. Just pointing out facts that you don't even dare try to address.
Let's try it again:
“Of the $387 billion in goods the U.S. imported in 1986, more than 20% was protected by special tariffs, quotas, or other types of restraints, according to Gary C. Hufbauer, a Georgetown University professor. When Reagan took office, the figure was 12%.”
All of the provisions in NAFTA were negotiated by "subsequent presidents."
RINOs can never be honest about Ronald Reagan.
You're accusing Ronald Reagan of breaking the fundamental principles of free market capitalism?
Ronald Reagan developed intelligent and informed solutions to trade issues that served the best interests of the American people.
He wasn't a dogmatic simpleton like you. That's why you hate him. And that's why you couldn't help outing yourself. Your kind always does.
Here is one, http://www.iww.org/ of many international workers’ unions vying for global trade agreement status. To do your reasearch I charge $300.00/hr.
None of us yet know what Obama will negotiate in his trade agreements. But I would bet, it won’t be “free.” It is going to be left like everything he does in the US. He is going to “level the playing field” in the cost of workers labor.
Do you have any idea how many aluminum cans he'll need to find to pay that?
You notice how protectionists won't acknowledge that NAFTA was Reagan's idea, or that he kick-started the talks that led to the creation of the WTO?I think George Washington and the founding fathers kick started it... there is a direct link from NAFTA to President Clinton to GW. They were both presidents, ya know? Actually, maybe we should just go back to Christopher Columbus when he discovered "America." That's the ticket!
Or maybe French foreign minister Robert Schuman who proposed the creation of the European Coal and Steel Community.
I don’t know why any free market advocate would want to pretend that everything is honkey dorey given the state of the economy and our sickening role in it. Futher, the low wage earners have elected a Marxist with a rubber stamping Congress to bring “change.”
Do they not think there are blue and white collar workers here who can not compete with labor costs in third world countries? Do they think we are going to be able to continue to create fake wealth of debt to be the purchasers in this global economic scheme?
Americans are not known for playing the role of peasants to the interests of a disloyal globalist elite who don’t give a hoot about them other than to call them stupid, lazy, fat and yadayada. Americans will use Marxists to cut them off at the knees if they don’t wake up and engage reality.
You’re right! It’s the American domestic economy destroying American taxpayer funded predatory globalist WTO dictionary definition.
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.