Posted on 09/30/2004 4:35:23 PM PDT by rmlew
Ping
Ping to read later
A presidential candidate who campaigns on a platform of stopping illegal immigration, ending free trade and nuking Saudi Arabia would be so far ahead in the polls that he could tell the debate commisssion to "Go to Hell".
Free trade will be fine. But we've got to go back and take a good look at how we've implemented it.
We should only trade freely with nations that share our values and commitment to freedom. Free trade with any other nations only invites the kind of one sided trade we're experiencing with China.
Bump for later
Neither Bush nor Peroutka have this common sense. The CP has become knee-jerk isolationist.
It's not in our interest to artificially prop up industries that are no longer profitable.
Make America competitive by repealing regulations and keeping taxes low--don't try to step in front of an economic train with new regulations that limit Americans' economic freedom. Protectionism always fails in the end.
don't try to step in front of an economic train with new regulations that limit Americans' economic freedom. Protectionism always fails in the end.
Tell that to Alexander Hamilton.
Tell those americans working in foreign auto plants that make light trucks. the tariff on light truck imports is the reason why Toyota, Nissan, etc al, are building pickups in Texas and Alabama.
if the current free trade policies continue - we will lose the private sector middle class in the US.
I have always thought that a good experiment would be to write our trade laws using other countries laws. For instance Japan's trade laws would be translated into English and then handed over to them for prompt attention. Of course that won't happen because it may get them mad enough at us to not buy our debt!
Good article, but I have to disagree that agricultural and mining jobs are "immune" to offshoring.
Imported foods undercut domestic production,
And other imported goods undercut domestic demand for minerals and metals such as copper, lead, iron, coal, etc. etc. that are used as raw materials in manufacturing.
Business only exists because it is profitable. When it ceases to be profitable, it ends. Protectionism is an attempt to make an end-run around this rule, and ultimately it fails.
You would have the government pick losers and winners.
What benefits the steel industry comes at the expense of the auto industry, not to mention consumers. What's good for preserving manufacturing that is no longer economically sustainable is bad for farmers, who rely on exports to make a living.
Where I live agriculture makes up most of the economy, but that does not keep Mexican tomatoes off the store shelf. This author has a pretty good handle on the truth despite that.
how many people have voted against incumbents because they were unemployed, and compare this to how many have done so because they couldn't buy a pair of scissors for $.99.
Hope the Republicans figure this out before it is too late.
so Toyota and Nissan sells those pickups they make in the US at a loss, is that it?
tell us who benefits from the tech industry moving offshore? those were supposed to be the jobs of the future, when manufacturing left the US. what's going to replace tech and knowledge jobs? more service jobs (low pay), more government jobs, more health care workers, more real estate agents?
So perhaps someone can illuminate for me just how many nations support the concept expressed in the 2nd Amendment?
Trading with the enemy leads to "unintended consequences."
No, no one does that. But if we follow your plans to make their steel more expensive, they might shut down the plants they have.
tell us who benefits from the tech industry moving offshore?
To the extent that the tech industry does it and it cuts costs, it's part of the reason you and millions of others can afford to type on your computer right now, actually. And as a small businessman, I will gladly outsource tech work if it helps keep me afloat.
BTW, we're still short on health care workers--some parts of the country are in crisis.
health care workers are essentially quasi-government workers - since a significant part of health care dollars comes from government.
maybe you could identify exactly where private sector people ought to find jobs - the real private sector, not government or health care or some other industry tied to government spending. because those are the workers that comprise the net tax base for the country.
every restaurant and hotel owner in the US is screaming that they need mexican illegals as a source of cheap labor to "reduce costs". as if they have some god given right to low cost labor. what's next, if a small business owner came crying that they needed slavery to keep their business afloat - should we give it to them? because thats the logical extension of this "I deserve unlimited access to lower costs" mantra.
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.