Posted on 06/01/2004 12:34:21 PM PDT by Willie Green
I guess there are people here at FR who don't like free trade. I find their arguments hard to understand. I'm a fan a free trade -- the more freedom we have in the world, and the more freedom people have to buy and sell things whereever they want at whatever price they want, the better for all of us. I'm a believer in the power of liberty.
This is the first I've heard of the CAFTA agreement, but it sounds good to me.
If you were a true conservative, you'd understand that excessive federal regulation places our domestic businesses and industries at an economic disadvantage in the global market. These "free" trade agreements, that you favor, enable transnational corporations to wage economic warfare against our domestic industries with imported goods whose production is not hampered by similar constraints.
Looks like you win the prize for the most pro free trade cliches in one sentence but seriously, I'd suggest studying the reality of the damage free trade has done to this economy (huge trade deficits, explosion of debt at all levels, loss of whole industries with millions of jobs, increased illegal immigration, etc.) vs. the various theories expounded on by free traders that were supposed to deliver so much yet in actuality has been so little.
You make a good argument for deregulating our private sector as much as we can.
"Liberty" and "freedom" are not cliches, in my humble opinion -- they are fundamental principles, and the more we have, the better.
I've heard lots and lots of people make arguments about how liberty should be curtailed in some way or another -- allegedly for our own good. The left does this constantly, and there are folks on the right who do it from time to time also. I have to respectfully disagree. The problems that come from freedom are not as bad as the problems come from excessive government.
CAFTA preamble says they will promote sustainable development in CAFTA countries. Sustainable development is the statist control of all resources, including private property. Any trade agreement that forces sustainable development as an item of agreement isn't promoting free trade. Any politician or nongovnermental organization that supports sustainable development is supporting the reorganization of the free world into a global socialist world.
Therefore, if you read the trade agreement and understand the terms it uses, you will see that it does not support freedom, but rather is using trade as a means to control freedom.
I think "sustainable development" means different things to different people. It can be a code word for excessive government intrusion into private business -- that's how the left often uses the term. But it has other meanings that are innocuous.
WHAT? Free trade with California? Never!
Only?
This article tries to have it both ways. Trade with CAFTA countries is nothing. And free trade with CAFTA countries is the biggest threat to the US since the Soviet Union.
fed regs and lawsuits are more likely the cause of the manufacturing problem than are either free trade or labor costs. One of my customers is being threatened with their work going to China for price concessions. I would have to tell them to kiss my ass.
Well, even though I dislike the conclusions of this article, I don't think they quite make the point you describe. I think the author is saying that their buying power is very small (since they are so poor) but their ability to make cheap exports to the U. S. is high (since they are so poor and so numerous).
I'm for free trade. I'm not for free trade *agreements*. Free trade can happen without organizations such as NAFTA and GATT (WTO). But free trade agreements force us to trade with others under top-down, once-size-fits-all, judiciated-not-legislated, inflexible rules. They mostly are once congress trying to bind the actions of future congresses, denying the democratic process the ability to respond to situations as they arise, usually fueled by a sense that the great unwashed will probably demand something that "we-who-know-all" won't want.
And don't make any mistake about it: Free Trade Agreements are always the first step to establishing world government. United Europe, a horror we have yet to see unfold, was at first merely a Free Trade Agreement. Now, look how GATT (WTO) is becoming World Trade Agreement. Look at how Congress uses the commerce clause to regulate all areas of American life, and then realize that GATT is, essentially, a global commerce clause.
These little countries need American products, take a look at their housing. We are not exporting cause their governments don't have land ownership rules like in the USA,not because the people are poor. They can't improve where they live cause they can't get loans or sell what they build.
In todays economy it is bad for an unemployed steel worker no doubt. Has anyone here ever explained the steelworkers vacation and leave schedule that caused the loss of 100s of thousands of jobs? Try this on for size. After 5 years you get two weeks leave on top of vacation at full pay. after 10 years it is 30 days. That means that a man with 10 years on the job gets two months off. What is the productivity rate of a company that pays every man with seniority to take off 20% of the year? Union contracts and weak management killed steel. Take a look at the minimills and see what was the real cause of the end of big steel.
CAFTA ends that, so Cingular and Verizon will be able to compete for cellphone customers. State Farm can insure homes if they want. Sears and WalMart can open stores. Costa Rica already looks far more American than Laredo or El Paso, and a much bigger percentage of the population speaks English. You can pick up a bucket of chicken at the drive-thru window at the KFC in San Jose. Taco Bell does a thriving business there today. The guy behind the counter at the Burger King I visited there in February speaks better english than the one I sometimes visit here in Houston.
I want more of that. We are colonizing the world with American industry and making it better. Free trade agreements make it happen faster.
I've never been to Costa Rica but you make it sound very nice -- maybe I will some day.
I'm glad to hear you say that government monopolies will have to cruble (or at least adapt to competition) -- that's good for us, and good for the citizens of other countries that are starting to enjoy more of the blessings of freedom in their economy.
I understand where you're coming from but anyone that thinks these trade agreements are going to promote freedom and liberty is sadly mistaken. NAFTA, CAFTA and the coming FTAA (Free Trade of the Americas) are nothing more than trojan horses for those who wish to integrate this hemsiphere into a solid trading bloc ala the EU. By the time this integration is completed you can kiss your Constitution and Bill of Rights good-bye because the demands will be made for a new constitution to direct the new suprastate (American Union?) and at the same time we'll hear nothing but trash talk about our our legal system as well as Const.
I'd suggest doing a little research on the current battles overseas as they create the EU constitution to get a preview of what's in store for us and I can guarantee that it won't be pretty. To re-iterate, the negatives of our flawed trade policies will continue to de-construct this country as we know it.
Consumers benefit. Workers benefit, too, because the agreements increase trade. Increased trade means more jobs for people making stuff that gets traded.
There are always some near-term dislocations as the respective economies adjust to the new reality. But the economy is always adjusting to new realities.
I disagree that it's political. The socialist euroweenies have long envisioned a united Europe. There is no such movement here in the western hemisphere. Far from it.
So you're saying that lower trade barriers will lead to world socalism? That's quite an alarming statement. But I don't think I agree with that prediction. I think that lower trade barriers simply lead to more trade with fewer tarrifs, which is a genreally good thing.
I agree -- your comments are well put.
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.