Free trade loses lustre

The Sunday Times ^ | February 29, 2004

[sarcasm]

WASHINGTON: Free trade is losing support in the US, in particular among high-income Americans, as more professionals feel threatened by job outsourcing to low-wage nations.

A recent poll by a Washington research group found falling support for free trade but the shift was most dramatic among those earning more than $US100,000 ($A130,000) a year.

The University of Maryland's Program on International Policy Attitudes found the percentage of those earning more than $US100,000 who actively supported free trade slid from 57 per cent in 1999 to 28 per cent in January 2004.

These results surprised even the researchers.

"It is rare in any case that any demographic slice drops 20 or 30 points on any issue," said research director Clay Ramsay.

"It certainly provides evidence for the theory that job insecurity is creeping up the income scale."

The poll showed more white-collar Americans joining the blue-collar outcry against globalisation and cast a cloud on the ability of the US to remain a leader in free trade. It also suggested protectionist talk would rise during the presidential election campaign.

But researchers said the results showed a majority of Americans endorsed free trade in principle, even if they believed it was being handled poorly by Washington.

"Feelings about international trade have gone from lukewarm, to luker," said PIPA director Steven Kull.

"Two-thirds say they support the reciprocal lowering of trade barriers but feel more needs to be done to mitigate the effects on workers and the environment." But the trend towards outsourcing of software and engineering jobs to countries such as India had led to a rethink of the benefits.

Senator Charles Schumer wrote recently in the New York Times that free trade had to be reconsidered in light of new economic realities, notably that much of the outsourcing was going to "a relatively few countries with abundant cheap labour".

"When American companies replace domestic employees with lower-cost foreign workers to sell more cheaply in home markets, it seems hard to argue this is the way free trade is supposed to work," Senator Schumer wrote.

[sarcasm]

ping

[Rudder]

...free trade in principle

Which is what? Free trade is not unfettered trade...but exactly what is "free trade" in principle? I'll bet it's tough to find a clear definition of this term--any takers?

[Mr. Bird]

Senator Charles Schumer wrote recently in the New York Times that free trade had to be reconsidered

It's funny. Free trade and outsourcing threads can go on for a couple hundred replies. It seems like the excerpt above should delineate the issue quite nicely.

[sarcasm]

The co-author was Paul Craig Roberts - hardly a liberal.

[Mr. Bird]

I know, and the issue of outsourcing is hardly a black/white one. I'm just amused when fellow freepers end up on the same side as Chuckie.

[1rudeboy]

Then perhaps a discussion of how "hardly a liberal" finds so much in common with a real one. Happens more often than you think.

[1rudeboy]

I wonder if the fact that the U.S. and Australia just signed a free-trade agreement has anything to do with the fact that this Aussie newspaper went fishing for a poll.

[sarcasm]

Just like so-called conservatives find themselves in agreement with the New York Times editorial board.

[sarcasm]

Did you read the article?

[1rudeboy]

Not the same and you know it . . . would you care for me to post something from the Communist Party?

[sarcasm]

It's exactly the same - you agree with the socialists at the New York Times with regards to so-called free trade.

[Beck_isright]

""When American companies replace domestic employees with lower-cost foreign workers to sell more cheaply in home markets, it seems hard to argue this is the way free trade is supposed to work," Senator Schumer wrote."

Oh my God, I agree with the dirtball. That's not good. This means this issue is far more important than imagined.

[LibLieSlayer]

Chucky and the dims are brilliant. What we really NEED to do is to revert back to the FAILED "ISOLATIONIST" ways that drove us into depression, and emboldened our enemies to dare think us weak enough to challenge. Is not the "War on Terror" enough for these socio-communist sympathizers? Do we really need to end up fighting another "World War"?

Our economy would become the focal point for attacks from many of our international trading partners. Just look at what was threatened against us over the recent steel tariffs.

Just how many knives in the back can Ole Uncle Sam survive? The EU would love an out-and-out trade war. They are using any excuse today to threaten our exports. They have already stopped beef and poultry imports from the US.

President Bush pushes for free but fair trade. It is hard to define, but easily recognized when one sees it...

LLS

[sarcasm]

I doubt that Schumer had much input.

[1rudeboy]

Two can play your game of sophism. By your standard, I can argue that you agree with the chair of the Labor Commission at the Communist Party of the U.S.A. with regards to so-called free trade. Let's see now, where does that get us? I'm Left-leaning, and you are a Leftist. [chortle]

[sarcasm]

I guess that you also believe that the chair of the labor commission is speaking the truth about his position. You probably also believe that the guarantees of freedom of speech and religion in the Soviet constitution were for real.

[A. Pole]

Which is what? Free trade is not unfettered trade...but exactly what is "free trade" in principle? I'll bet it's tough to find a clear definition of this term--any takers?

Free trade means the removal of the national borders in economy (primarily removal of tariffs) and transferring the economical sovereignity from the nation state to the private international owners while the workers become the freely traded commodity without having any claims based on shared nationality or citizenship.

Remaining national institution like military and police are to be paid by the workers while defending the private wealth. The redistribution of income is to be reduced or eliminated.

[A. Pole]

[Rudder:] Which is what? Free trade is not unfettered trade...but exactly what is "free trade" in principle? I'll bet it's tough to find a clear definition of this term--any takers?

Free trade means the removal of the national borders in economy (primarily removal of tariffs) and transferring the economical sovereignity from the nation state to the private international owners while the workers become the freely traded commodity without having any claims based on shared nationality or citizenship.

Remaining national institution like military and police are to be paid by the workers while defending the private wealth. The downward redistribution of income is to be reduced or eliminated.

[Doohickey]

...a majority of Americans endorsed free trade in principle, even if they believed it was being handled poorly by Washington.

Um...I thought the whole point of "free trade" was to keep the government out of it. So, how can Washington be handling it poorly if it isn't supposed to be handling it at all?