Things Fall Apart: The Coming End of the Free Trade Coalition

The American Conservative ^ | September 27, 2004 | Ian Fletcher, VP, American Engineering Association

[djreece]

marking

[William Terrell]

Opponents to Free Trade cannot understand that barriers reduce income here and abroad.

Tell me how, specifically, in 100 words or less.

[ovrtaxt]

My comments are due to his lefelong opposition to Jefferson. Jefferson had a thorough understanding of liberty and the nobler aspects of American freedom, while Hamilton seemed to me to act in self interest at the expense of the free individual. Just my opinion, but I'm not ignorant.

[FITZ]

We should only trade freely with nations that share our values and commitment to freedom.

Bump to that --- nations with freedom and our values will have a better consumer base --- and potential for real trade --- we buying from them, they buying from us.

[OXM_1962]

The free trade theories are correct in the LONG RUN, but your are ignoring the large short-term costs which make it quite probable that we will get it to the long run.

Global Free Trade theories ignore one very, very important aspect of human nature: individual and societies, for better or worse, change slowly. Conservatives have correctly criticized "liberal" policies over the years for just this reason, and we should not ignore this fundamental aspect of life just because we want cheap goods.

Let me give you a real life example of Globalization as it currently exists. A software programmer I know at Intel-Hillsboro, Oregon makes about $70k/year and is told that he will be laid off because much of the software development is being "outsourced" to Hyderbad, India. Not wanting to be total assholes, Intel does offer him a position in Hyderabad at a lower salary (in USD) which will allow him to live at a high standard of living in India. This scenario is not rare but will be unacceptable to the overwhelming majority of Americans.

Some people have supported free trade/globalization because they wanted to cripple the welfare/regulatory state. They might achieve this but will probably create conditions that will require a true global governing body. Check out the Hover Institute web site to find articles regarding this matter.

I'm not arguing for "protectionism" but for a more rational international trade policy that creates a measure of stability as well as wealth.

[justshutupandtakeit]

As you should know any governmental interference in the market place to change the allocation of resources must reduce the total output. This is true in the domestic economy as well as the world economy. One of the secrets of our economic success as a nation is that the Founders made sure that economic activity was not to be characterised by internal trade barriers such as crippled the German nation at that time.

That insight is not restricted to domestic arrangements but should be extended throughout the world.

Now this is just the ECONOMIC policy of optimization and it can be overruled for political purposes such as war considerations. And the Founders had no other way of paying for the government under the Constitution than through tariffs but that does not mean that total world output was not reduced by them.

[justshutupandtakeit]

I would not say you are ignorant in general but if that is your view of the early Founders you need to research them much more extensively.

Jefferson was one of the greatest hypocrits who ever held the presidency. His administration was a miserable failure except for having blundered into the Louisiana Purchase. His character was such that George Washington would not speak his name after he retired to Mount Vernon. Because of the treachery worked against the administration even while still Sec of State.

Hamilton on the other hand was perhaps the most important founder after Washington whose chief lietenant he was for almost twenty years. Virtually his entire adult life was devoted to the winning of REAL freedom for this nation as opposed to the pie-in-the-sky ideals of Jefferson. Hamilton was the greatest lawyer of his day and would have become fabulously wealthy had he not devoted the prime working years to the REvolution and creation of the federal government.

His life is a vast treasure chest of incredible acts and deeds and he was as great a hero as our nation has ever been blessed with.

[radicalamericannationalist]

Even with zero taxes and regulations, the wage rate of Third World nations makes it impossible for U.S. laborers to compete.

[radicalamericannationalist]

So it's in the national interest to industrialize China and give them large economic hostages? Or do you think Boeing et al will sit idly by when, during a conflict with the U.S., China threatens to nationalize their facilities?

[radicalamericannationalist]

"How much would gasoline cost if derived entirely from American wells? $10 a gallon? "

Independence from the Islamic animals dedicated to killing us. Priceless.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Capitalism is the most revolutionary force in the world and it is its nature to force change, irresistible change. And there is no such thing as "globalization" that is just a commie buzzword. There is a World Economy and has been for almost 600 yrs and there is no going back to the little fiefdomes which preceded it.

This cannot be avoided and if you believe that we are living in times where change is slow I don't know what world it is you are seeing but it is NOT the world I look upon. I am watching the world change at a tremendous pace one that is uncomfortably fast. But trying to block it would as effective as putting a boulder in a flood.

You have not thought through the implications within your friend's situation. Let us say that Intel did not move its operations to India then eventually the price differential would become so great than some other company would do it to compete with Intel. Should that continue then Intel's profits would start to fall and layoffs would result.

Price differentials in the market cannot be ignored anymore than voltage potentials can in a circuit.

One of the greatest economic thinkers, Joseph Schumpeter, described the capitalistic process as one which has a heart of "Creative destruction." Progress only comes at the cost of destroying the old. But the problem is that any impediment to that process only increases the human suffering.

Then there is the question of what governmental body is capable of making correct decisions regarding these matters and how much power you want to turn over to it.

My answer would be "none" and "none."

[justshutupandtakeit]

What makes you think that independence would free us from the destruction embrace of the Moslemaniacs? Don't you know anything about Islam?

[justshutupandtakeit]

Much of the crap we buy from China requires and industrial base circa 1950. Danger from China comes from its theft of defense secrets and their purchase from the Clinton administration.

Your question wrt Boeing is incomprehensible therefore unanswerable.

[Bandaneira]

Excellent post.

In a world of objectification everything becomes an object to be bought or sold. Many corporate business people are psychopaths who enjoy controlling others because they have no control over themselves. The only outlet they have to express their stunted, adolescent selves is in a business environment. Relating to another human being with kindness, empathy and respect is foreign to them and holds no appeal. Gentleness is boring for them.

Didn't someone say..."A cynic knows the price of everything and the value of nothing."

There is hope though. When the cannibals lose their appetite there is a chance for change.

[Bandaneira]

Hamilton was a truly great man. He really was a great American. An American attacking the memory of Hamilton is like an Indian attacking Gandhi. The dead can't argue back, but they still affect our lives. The echoes of great people's deeds reverberate throughout the ages.

The measure of greatness of an individual is how much they influence the world for the good. No-one is perfect, but certain individuals are indeed higher than others on the righteousness scale.

Hamilton is up there in the stratosphere with the greatest Americans to have ever lived.

[William Terrell]

Generalities. How, specifically, do barriers to flooding the nation with cheap trade goods produced by cheap labor in other countries reduce income here?

[radicalamericannationalist]

I know that the current jihad is fueled by petrodollars. Without the wealth generated by oil, Islam would be the rantings of the Third World, not a major export supported by the Saudi government.

[radicalamericannationalist]

Okay, I'll try to make it more comprehensive. Boeing invests lots of capital developing facilities in China. Should China and the U.S. come into conflict, China could threaten to nationalize those facilities, costing Boeing its investment. Thus, China has "economic hostages" that could be used to pressure Boeing into using its political clout in America to further Chinese interests. That is a threat to our national security.

And as to the sale of technology during Clinton, that's free trade in action.

[radicalamericannationalist]

Being as the Founders wrote the Constitution limiting themselves to tariffs for revenue generation, does this not show that the whole hearted embrace of free trade is but a modern folly?

[The Old Hoosier]

Even with zero taxes and regulations, the wage rate of Third World nations makes it impossible for U.S. laborers to compete.

If that were true, there would be zero jobs in this country.