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

[ninenot]

The goods are not the question.

As it stands now, the working definition of 'free trade' is that US Trade Policies (under WTO/NAFTA rules) allow manufacturers to sell their goods in the USA--which is fine, except that the manufacturers are NOT 'indigenous' Chinese, Indian, Filipino, or Mexican firms.

Instead, they are often transnationals whose operation in China (or the others) was set up as a method of avoiding US tax, regulation, or labor costs.

IOW, (and let's not get into a discussion about 'lazy, fat, yada yada Americans--not productive...) the United States, over a period of 100+ years, has created social structures which provide for good working conditions and relatively high pay, in addition to providing for ecological and tax revenues which fund the infrastructure.

Companies find these structures to be costly (and we can agree that they ARE costly.) In order to avoid the costs, they move. This is 'unrestricted capital' at work.

What happens, of course, is that numbers of workers in the US get dumped--as well as their managers, their (former) company's suppliers, etc., etc., etc.

It's not a matter that JoeBlow did a lousy job--and, by the way, in most cases, JoeBlow's production and quality numbers were as good as (or better than) those coming from offshore plants. It's a matter of US Trade Policy. For some reason or other, the US has decided to ignore conditions in other countries which would trigger massive interventions (OSHA, EEOC, EPA--you name it) here in the US.

That's only the beginning. The US also doesn't have a good track record of protecting Intellectual Property (patents/copyrights) in foreign countries, either.

Ironically, then, the firms which are currently manufacturing products in China, (the worst IP violator) will find themselves put out of business by the very country which they thought was their savior.

Completes the cycle, eh?

If it were black-and-white, it wouldn't call for much discussion. It's not that simple.

In the end, however, the Preamble clearly states that one of the functions of Gummint is 'to provide for domestic tranquility...and life, liberty, etc....' meaning that the only defense (and this IS a war) is within not only the power of the Feds, but within their specific charter.

[ninenot]

(Note the steel tariff that had to be reconsidered, of course that may be making your point since it was the threat of trade sanctions that forced us to relent. )

The steel tariff problem was created by the Feds because they can't think past the end of their nose.

The Feds did NOT slap a tariff on 'fabricated steel products,' meaning that domestic fabricators got killed by foreign fabricators--because the foreigners simply fabricated the steel before sending it here.

Meantime, our domestic fabricators paid the higher price for raw steel--and became non-competitive.

Maybe that's why the Sec/Treasury was canned, eh?

[superloser]

As China becomes more capitalist, it will become more free.

By that token, this argument is also true:

As the United States becomes more socialist, it will become less free.

Correct?

[KC_for_Freedom]

Maybe that's why the Sec/Treasury was canned, eh?

O'neil was said to have never supported cutting taxes. And made it clear he disagreed with the boss. Hence he was canned. The steel tariffs were intended to help US steel raw manufacturers, and did until the French and the rest of Europe said they would fight us with broad general tariffs of their own, and we did not want a trade war during the 2004 elections, so we backed down.

[Dr Warmoose]

Words like these can only find germination in the mind of a selfish, lazy government or union worker who's never tasted the slighted success.

You are either a troll, or have never worked a day in your life. How's the trust-fund?

Given contract law, can you explain how the courts are constantly filled with people suing others over breeches of contract that was formed under the aegis of "free-trade"? This is part of the overwhelming empirical evidence that exists to demonstrate that "Free Trade" is only an academic subject that totally ignores human nature and pretends that which is demonstrably false - that people are inherently good and always seeking perfect morality.

[1rudeboy]

Legal contracts are formed, and breaches of contract occur, regardless of trade policy.

[sarcasm]

I'm still waiting for your proof that real wages have been increasing - seems that you can't. Exactly who is the prevaricator?

[ClintonBeGone]

Given contract law, can you explain how the courts are constantly filled with people suing others over breeches of contract that was formed under the aegis of "free-trade"?

What an ignorant question. You can bet if I promised you a case of your prozac in exchange for an amount equal to your welfare or disability check and you didn't pay me, I would sue. A contract is actually PART of the entire trade process. Are you really the best your side has?

[ninenot]

Perhaps.

The steel tariffs were also short-sighted in their application and hurt far more people (by Gummint stupididy) than they helped. See my above post.

ONeill is an all around jerk--but, by coincidence, his last position before SecTreas was CEO of Alcoa. Hmmmmmmm.

[Dr Warmoose]

What an ignorant question.

Whatever you feel it is, you were still unable to understand it or answer it. But that's OK, it is perfectly normal for those who who don't have answers to lash out with insults.

Let's say that we had your hypothetical Prozac/welfare check contract, and I didn't pay you. Isn't that indicative of the true problem in free trade? Apparently you are unable to recognize that it is a moral failure that causes breakdowns in trade. If I paid you the welfare check, and in turn you withheld the Prozac, then one needs to wonder why you did. If you supplied the Prozac without taking payment at the time of the trade, and I took advantage of your naivete by withholding payment then I would have an advantage in that I would have the Prozac and use of the welfare check.

This is typical of every breakdown in free trade. One side is trying to get more out of the deal than the other. Since you are completely unable to see this, please meet me with a case of Prozac, and let me prey upon your gullibility. I will bring the title to the Brooklyn Bridge in fair trade.

[ClintonBeGone]

Any failure in the transaction is the responsibility of the parties involved. Is that difficult to understand or require some sort of government warning lable? I feel like talking to someone that doesn't understand why the sun rises in the east.

[Dr Warmoose]

Any failure in the transaction is the responsibility of the parties involved.

So now you see. Good.

Is that difficult to understand or require some sort of government warning lable?

Now move your eyes from the tree bark and look at the trees and the forest. Government attracts the worst of the ne're do wells who want the power and the money without actually having to earn it. That is why free trade won't ever happen. If you are a government agent who has the power to make or break companies and you are approached by someone who is looking for an advantage over his competitor, and by regulatory force you can profit both yourself and your benefactor, what is keeping you? This love affair with free-trade?

Back out further and now you understand why George Bush put tariffs on steel.

I feel like talking to someone that doesn't understand why the sun rises in the east.

You are projecting. But that's OK, I expect that.

[1rudeboy]

I refer you to my #95. Again.

[1rudeboy]

I will bring the title to the Brooklyn Bridge in fair trade.

Splitting hairs I know, but the buyer would not sue you for breach of contract in this case, because unless you legally have title to the bridge, a valid contract for its sale has not been formed in the first place.

[ClintonBeGone]

Government attracts the worst of the ne're do wells who want the power and the money without actually having to earn it. . . .If you are a government agent who has the power to make or break companies and you are approached by someone who is looking for an advantage over his competitor, and by regulatory force you can profit both yourself and your benefactor, what is keeping you?

But for some of your more unintelligible mutterings, and your absolutely poor attitude, I could swear we both agree with the goal of maximizing trade opportunities.

[ClintonBeGone]

Splitting hairs I know, but the buyer would not sue you for breach of contract in this case, because unless you legally have title to the bridge, a valid contract for its sale has not been formed in the first place.

Doesn't it just kill ya that you have to explain to presumed adults such elementary concepts such as what elements constitute a valid contract? Dr Warmoose? It's more like talking to Dr Seuss.

[Reaganwuzthebest]

In general the practice of trade protectionist practices should be for specific objectives and time limited because otherwise our industries will loose their competitiveness and after that happens, protectionism will drag us down to the European model of high taxes and government provided socialism.

It's not about practicing protectionism for the sake of it or as a matter of routine, but only as a last resort. So your statement above I agree with fully.

China is undercutting our workers and dumping on our markets. I think tariffs on their imported products at this point is more than justified. They can threaten retaliatory action all they want, they're hardly buying anything from us anyway.

[XBob]

11 -

""Who exactly is 'forcing' them? If they can't compete, close up shop and sell the real estate for a new subdivision."
Do you think that bankruptcy is a good substitute for prudent trade policy? If so, you have a lot of company."

I'll bet that we can recruit many Indians or Chinese to become Americans to replace ClintonBeGone and others like him, at a much cheaper price. What an idea - !!!

[AEMILIUS PAULUS]

Statement: "...Nobody makes whale oil lamps anymore..."

Response: They work at McDonald's.

[XBob]

CBG - Just how many of your friends and neighbors are involved in manufacturing or construction?

About 95% of mine are. Have you ever even met a manufacturing or construction worker?

You sound like you are a primitive carnivore, who can only prey on the work of others.