Free trade slip-sliding away?

The Washington Times ^ | May 18, 2005 | Tony Blankley

[LowCountryJoe]

[/snip, because it's required]

According to the Financial Times, the generally free trade enjoyed by the United States since 1945 has accounted for about 10 percent of our economic activity. That is to say, America would be about a trillion dollars a year poorer without the benefits of free trade. Of course world trade will not decline over night. But it is an ominous political fact that there may be an emerging majority in Congress prepared to sacrifice the golden goose on the altar of their deepest economic fears.

[LowCountryJoe]

Strong close worthy of being underlined and bolded in some spots.

[rdb3]

Heaven help us.

[IM2MAD]

Whatever happened to FAIR trade?

[cotton1706]

Thank God. Good riddance. It's a sham anyway.

[rob777]

Of course world trade will not decline over night. But it is an ominous political fact that there may be an emerging majority in Congress prepared to sacrifice the golden goose on the altar of their deepest economic fears.





I detect a foreboding parallel to the end of the 19th Century free trade era leading to the Great Depression, and ultimately contributing to world wars.

[the gillman@blacklagoon.com]

...According to the Financial Times, the generally free trade enjoyed by the United States since 1945 has accounted for about 10 percent of our economic activity. That is to say,...

That the other 90 percent of the businesses and people want nothing to do with it.

CAFTA is not about free trade, it's about merging governences, like the EU stinkfest.

[rob777]

Whatever happened to FAIR trade?



I am all for "fair" trade as long as it is producers and consumers determining whether a trade is fair, not the government.

BTW: GATT, NAFTA, etc. are not examples of genuine "FREE" trade. Whatever their merits, or lack thereof, they symbolize centrally managed trade.

[LowCountryJoe]

Isn't trade by definition, fair?

Trade - Exchange; voluntary agreements between buyers and sellers.

[LowCountryJoe]

It's a sham anyway.

Hmm, a sham that each party benefits from?! That's interesting; care to generously offer some more of your profound wisdom on the matter?

[cotton1706]

Sure, for instance, in this CAFTA proposal the nations of Central and South America have free access to our markets immediately but we don't get free access to theirs for a couple of years. Hardly beneficial to both parties.

[Realism]

since 1945

I only need to back 11 years, the beginning of NAFTA. A lot of promises were made and what do we have to show for it? Debt... from the Fed all the way down to the average working family. Our kids have no place to earn a decent wage upon completion of school. It's been 11 years, we're in a hole and yet we continue to dig.

[LowCountryJoe]

That the other 90 percent of the businesses and people want nothing to do with it.

Hyperbole much? I'd like you to find even 25% of the business community that opposes free(er) trade...make sure to cite your reference(s).

[LowCountryJoe]

Then we must be stupid, as consumers, for buying their incredibly valued goods too soon! I'm on board with your point of wiew now, I hear you.

Hey, by the way, can you tell me what the foreigners do (their ForEx banks) with the dollars that we gave them in order to facilitate the transactions?

[Realism]

I'd like you to find even 25% of the business community

Sorry to interrupt, but how about the vast majority of the small business community. Americas backbone is being driven out of business due to the dumping of cheap merchandise on our borders.

[cotton1706]

You lost me on that question. I don't understand. Do you mean if we loaned them money, what did they do with it? If that's your question, I don't know.

[rob777]

CAFTA is not about free trade, it's about merging governences, like the EU stinkfest.




I think that it is important to distinguish between genuine FREE trade and the centrally managed trade we have seen in the latter half of the 20th Century. We were a LOT closer to genuine free trade during a good part of the 19th Century. That system gave way to protectionist trade wars, which paved the way for economic decline and world wars.

While one may argue that even centrally managed trade is better than the protectionist era which proceeded it, it is still a product of the kind of collectivist ideology that pervaded the 20th Century.

[LowCountryJoe]

Really? Record low rates, unemployment at below 5.5%, record home ownership, record levels of (not savings) but equity security holdings, record levels of aggregate disposable income, a standard of living that's unmatched...yeah, it's real bad post NAFTA. Can I take a hit from your water pipe?

[cotton1706]

This is all true. But I hope you are not implying that before "free trade" came along, we were a destitute nation scraping to get by.

[LowCountryJoe]

The fact that you don't understand the question and think that we loaned them the money shows me where we're at in this discussion. I know that's abrasive of me but I really thought that we had moved beyond the current account/capital account aspects in this argument.

How economists understand the trade deficit

Read that - all of it, and then get back with me; ask questions if you need to.

[Protagoras]

I detect a foreboding parallel to the end of the 19th Century free trade era leading to the Great Depression, and ultimately contributing to world wars.

If goods don't cross borders, armies will.