Economic Rivals Given “Go-Ahead” to Destroy Rest of Domestic Manufacturing by Bush’s Stand on Trade

Trade Alert.us ^ | 1/30/04 | William Hawkins

[sarcasm]

Nope, I won't withdraw a truthful comment - even if you don't like it.

[raybbr]

That chart is interesting. It shows that wages were highest around 1978 and then declined sharply through the Reagan "trickle-down" economy and only in 1998 do they start to climb again after falling way down. How do you explain this?

[ClintonBeGone]

So, which is it? Are you "very rabid" about free trade (no degrees mentioned)? Or, are you for levels of free trade?

If you're going to engage in an intelligent discussion with me (at least on my end) I do expect you'll read and pay attention to the points I make. I am indeed a rabid free trader. I am not FOR levels of free trade. My point was simply (and how often we must make things 'simple' for those on your side) that impediments to free trade are not on/off or black/white. They are degrees of evil.

[Viva Le Dissention]

However, since their government subsidizes their businesses, and our tax money subsidizes their businesses, not to mention the devalued yuan, the high-tariffs against our imports, and other complete manipulation of the market, you can hardly call this free trade or a free market

Well, of course, since you know everything about free trade, you also know that the WTO allows a country that imports an item which was subsidized in production by the home country to levy a tariff on the item equal to that of the subsidy in the home country--so, really what you are saying is not relevant to our discussion. The WTO allows a country to negate the subsidy.

Second, I understand that you are obviously a Statist. I think you have some fundamental misunderstandings about the workings of Capitalism; or, perhaps worse, you understand Capitalism well, but rather choose to ignore it in favor of an all-powerful State. I lean towards the former, given your ignorance of WTO trade rules.

I frankly don't understand what you think you accomplish by denouncing laissez-faire economics; it has a remarkable track record, despite the efforts of folks like you in trying to destroy it through things like minimum wage laws, anti-trust laws, etc. We will win. Free trade will win. By the time the elections roll around in Nov., we will have had 16 straight years of Presidents who have pushed a free trade agenda. It will not change.

[e_castillo]

I suppose your are implying that WTO actually means something to the Chinese about onserving laws. I don't agree with that. I would say that they are having a grand time luring foreign investment! Loral comes to mind right off the bat. Yes in the last ten years China has changed quite a bit and it's not in our interest to see it continue in the manner that it has.

[1rudeboy]

Take a close look at the vertical axis. It is change in percent. A fall in real wages (a negative percent change) would show the line falling below the horizontal axis.

[Viva Le Dissention]

It's not in our interest to see china more politically free and more capitalist? What?

[Reaganwuzthebest]

The hint that free trade needs to be held accountable for the larger consequences of a society implies that someone must manage things for the little people. This is such bull I can't believe you think it will work here any better than it has in Cuba.

All I'm in favor of is going back to those policies the US pursued back in the 80s and before. They worked to create the largest middle class in the world.

Trading with third world countries isn't working, we're losing our jobs to them thanks to the cheap labor. I prefer to trade with those more on economic par with us. American workers deserve a level playing field. I see few companies outsourcing to Europe or Japan or Canada, why is that? It's all to India at the moment.

[e_castillo]

It's not in our interest to see china more politically free and more capitalist? What?

Wrong angle. Lets start by asking them to retire from the old "closed" Soviet base in Lurdes Cuba! Also lets start by asking them to quite suppporting rebel murderers in Central and South America. Seems to me they are more interested in creating a huge flow of people fleeing Chinese style democracy on our southern border.

[sarcasm]

Take a close look at the vertical axis. It is change in percent. A fall in real wages (a negative percent change) would show the line falling below the horizontal axis.

I see you still can't read a graph. Real wages climbed from 1960-1975 and are now below the peak that they reached in that year.

[1rudeboy]

your #85: ". . . real wages are lower now than they were in 1975."
your #92: ". . . real wages are lower now than they were in 1975 for all but those who more than a college education." [sic]

In other words, you should have revised your #85 to read "real wages are lower for some." In other words, your #85 was not "truthful," under the commonly understood definition of the word.

[Viva Le Dissention]

How is it the wrong angle? Are you saying that it isn't in our interest to see a stronger economy in China? I think that you are--you feel threatened by it, I think, but such is capitalism.

[raybbr]

My point was simply (and how often we must make things 'simple' for those on your side) that impediments to free trade are not on/off or black/white. They are degrees of evil.

If free trade is the goal then there would be no barriers whatsoever, right. So, then how can there be "degrees of evil"? Wouldn't they be "all evil, all the time" if I took your logic?

By the way, you haven't answered my question to cite anywhere that there is free trade. And since we both know that place doesn't exist, how can the global economy work? I know you think you came up with a pithy reply to answer that but, if trade restrictions that exist today are so bad, then, how is it that we have a working global economy?

[1rudeboy]

I refer you to my #95. Are you suggesting the author misread his own graph?

[e_castillo]

How is it the wrong angle?

It's my belief thats the Soviets were brought down not by more trade but by less. Sure a capitalist society which observes US patents is in our interest but I really doubt that we are seeing real change in that direction.

[PhilipFreneau]

Sanity, at last.

[Reaganwuzthebest]

It doesn't matter what you post that proves your point is correct, it's all hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil, free trade is wonderful and real wages are skyrocketing.

[sarcasm]

American average real wages are lower now than they were in 1975 - the only exception is for the small number of workers who have more than a college education. No matter how you try to spin it, the economy hasn't done much for the average worker in over 25 years.

[Viva Le Dissention]

Yeah, because 40 years of boycotts with Cuba have brought Castro to his knees.

Do you honestly think that capitalism can exist without freedom? How do you think so?

[sarcasm]

I refer you to my #95. Are you suggesting the author misread his own graph?

As you very well know, the author was using 1960 as a base. Real wages are higher than they were in 1960 but lower than in 1975.