[riri]

ping

[Semper Vigilantis]

IMHO They need us more than we need them (this applies to EU and UN as well). They can play by our rules or not play with us. Their choice.

[A. Pole]

But, he acknowledges, the policy isn't cost free. "It means there are going to be higher apparel prices," he said. And the relationship with China may hit a bump.

Hey, nobody said that fair trade is free!

[Walkin Man]

They are not meant to solve the industry's problems," Silvia said. "I think they're really meant to buy time, to let workers gradually move into something else. Inexpensive commodity apparel producers are naturally going to gravitate" to low-wage countries.

What the *ell is this mythical "something else" that all of these millions of former middle-class working taxpayers are supposed to be able to move into and get on with their lives?

So-called High-tech or computer jobs? Sorry, those are being exported to India. Lets see that leaves...McJobs and door greeting at the local Great Wall-Mart.

"But it begs the question: Why aren't we doing more to retrain workers to find new jobs in new industries rather than postponing the inevitable by raising protectionist barriers to trade in an election year?"

Retrain workers in WHAT???

This is 'free trade" BS! There is no "new industry" in America just waiting to employ millions of displaced workers and pay them a middle-class wage!

Although if one is identified, you can be sure the government will move heaven and earth to see to it that those jobs are sent to Mexico, China and India as well!

[Dialup Llama]

Without these tariffs we will not have ANY textile industry in the US in three years in the same way that the US no longer makes any TVs.

Companies will shift production to China even for a marginal benefit and the Chinese seem capable of always laying a bid under any current labor market to gain the business.

Many people would be willing to pay a little more for US made clothes or running shoes. I don't know how much more US labor contributes to these products in terms of higher prices. I don't think it is much.

However, US companies will not let me make that decision. They would like me to still pay the higher prices but force me to buy only the China made clothes.

[chimera]

But, he acknowledges, the policy isn't cost free. "It means there are going to be higher apparel prices," he said. ...

I don't think so. At least not significantly higher. Last time I was out shopping for clothing I checked both make and price. The foreign-made item was on the rack for $27.79, the equivalent domestic-made unit (which looked and felt better, so I bought it) was $28.99. Sure, it was a dollar or so different, but for the quality and wearability I'd pay the extra dollar. It wasn't going to break the bank.

What probably is different is how much of the sale price went into the company's bottom line. Maybe the foreign-made item cost $2 to make, while the domestic-made item cost $7. So the corporation doesn't pocket the extra $5. I'd find it hard to believe that the company would go out of business because it made $5 less profit. Sure, the shareholders might get $1 per share dividend instead of $1.01, and maybe the CEO and Vice Presidents get a $10 million bonus that year instead of $15 million, but all that means is that they only buy three yachts this year instead of four. Like I said, BFD.

[searchandrecovery]

To me, it looks like we can either:
a. promote free trade and lose millions of American jobs
or
b. enforce trade restrictions with our known commumist enemies

You be the judge.

[Paul Ross]

Neither Cato nor Ikenson have any credibility. And this punk has the nerve to spit on GWB.

[GOP_1900AD]

Bush is starting to get all of the border busting globalists into a snit. Good. It's a sign he's doing the right thing.