Replies

Well, I guess my definition of free trade falls into the Milton Friedman Definition of the term. True "Free Trade" is the unrestricted movement of capital, goods, and even labor between sovereignties. Rarely in global history has there been true free trade; we only get degrees of it. Now, there's more to free trade than just tariffs and regulations; free trade must also be on a level playing field. As an example, US tax law is currently skewed to favor foreign imports over domestic producers (and foreign domestic markets over American exporters) through a grotesque corporate tax system, which is actually higher than most of Western Europe. We then give billions in subsidies to a few selected companies, making them soft and ripe to get pummeled by the competition.

An interesting paradox is that the closer we get to true free trade, the greater the risk to sovereignty. If there were totally unrestricted flow of capital, labor, and goods between the US and Canada, what's the real difference between the two?

You have just summed up what Lou Dobbs and many of the others here have been talking about for 6 months or more.

Thats all I want out of this is to have a discussion, not another flame war thread over this topic.

As far as risk to sovereignty, I don't think its that big of an issue. The sovereign is there (or should be there) to ensure the other party abides by the rules.

Sticking to mutually beneficial rules doesn't mean one has given ones sovereignty away.

If the Free Trade Agreeement turns out to be a dud, we CAN get out of it. But we respect what we have done because it can be in our best interests to do so. Limiting government is a pretty damn good way of operating things.

Trade rules are a gentleman's game to ensure fairness and equality.

What I and many others here, including Lou Dobbs, complain about is when we abide by one set of rules and the others don't. Free importing isn't Free Trade.

If the Free Trade Agreeement turns out to be a dud, we CAN get out of it. But we respect what we have done because it can be in our best interests to do so. Limiting government is a pretty damn good way of operating things.

FTA agreements is our government literally imposing self inflicted limits on how it operates. Its not a foreign government doing that. Its our own government doing it to itself.

It is done on a basis of reciprocity though. Which that reciprocity isn't very easy in the coming sometimes.

When the reciprocity goes out of whack for one reason or another, political or otherwise, that is what is in question.

What I and many others here, including Lou Dobbs, complain about is when we abide by one set of rules and the others don't.

Its our whole concept of equality and fairness under the law. In places like China that stuff is a foreign idea. They don't live by the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness idea. All men are NOT created equally.

What we want to know is why they have often times been given the exception.

Well, I guess my definition of free trade falls into the Milton Friedman Definition of the term. True "Free Trade" is the unrestricted movement of capital, goods, and even labor between sovereignties. Rarely in global history has there been true free trade; we only get degrees of it. Now, there's more to free trade than just tariffs and regulations; free trade must also be on a level playing field. As an example, US tax law is currently skewed to favor foreign imports over domestic producers (and foreign domestic markets over American exporters) through a grotesque corporate tax system, which is actually higher than most of Western Europe. We then give billions in subsidies to a few selected companies, making them soft and ripe to get pummeled by the competition.

While that is a good definition of free trade I don't think it gets to the heart of what free trade is about. In my opinion free trade is about realizing that one country can't do/make everything. If the US wanted to, I am sure that we could be a self sufficient nation. If that were the case g/s and products would become more expensive because everything would be extremely inefficient and multiple sectors would be fighting over very limited resources (land, human, natural, and so on) and in turn prices go up. So the government agrees to the NAFTA's, FTA's and the such because if there is a free flow of goods, resources, capital (though there isn't now) that on average resources would be used in a more efficient manner, prices would be lower, there would be more innovation and growth of markets.

The system isn't perfect but outsourcing is needed because once you start propping up failing industries, that can't compete, you raise the prices in every industry. This can be seen by using the steel tariffs that Bush put on imported steel. Sure he helped the steel industry but anything that was made with metal (cars, appliances, buildings, and so on) just got more expensive. I doubt that there was any net gain to the economy as a whole and in fact I bet the overall impact of the steel tariffs was negative. So to wrap up while the loss of manufacturing jobs, textile jobs, and the like is regrettable, it is better for the overall growth of the economy. While those individuals may not be able to get a job in the same industry at the same pay there are other non-skilled (and non-retail) jobs being created.