Free Trade: A Report Card

American Chronicle ^ | January 19, 2006 | Barbara Anderson

[Willie Green]

China Business Cheerleaders Ignore National Security Threats

[Willie Green]

ping

[Irontank]

I love that "free trade" (which suggests freedom from governmnent interference in trade) is supposedly accomplished by creating international bureaucracies and thousands of pages of government regulations

The Constitution clearly grants Congress alone the authority to regulate international trade. Neither Congress nor the President can give this authority away by treaty...every member of Congress who votes for CAFTA is voting to abdicate power to an international body in direct violation of the Constitution.

[hedgetrimmer]

laws do not allow us to use tariffs which are constutitutional in our system of government. Trade laws usurp the right of the American people to apply tariffs when they see them as appropriate. The elimination of tariffs also mean that the government must raise money through income tax and other taxes, as opposed to a voluntary tax through tariffs.

[hedgetrimmer]

I love that "free trade" (which suggests freedom from governmnent interference in trade) is supposedly accomplished by creating international bureaucracies and thousands of pages of government regulations

A point that the "free traders" on this site choose to ignore.

[dljordan]

You're just a traitor! A low-life traitor to the American people and our Dear Leader! :)

[MNJohnnie]

Willie Green ignores basic economic fact and recent history to preach his failed policy of Economic Isolationism. Gee Willie, Preached the Same thing in the 1980s about Japan. What, you figure if you repeat the same lies over and over ONE day you will get it right??? Don't hold your breath. Take some BASIC Econ classes Willie.

[RegulatorCountry]

"Take some BASIC Econ classes Willie."

You might want to bone up on Constitutional law, since you're suggesting a need for education, MNJohnnie. Chasing the absolute bottom-dollar labor cost does not supercede the Constitution, last I checked.

[Last Dakotan]

Gee Willie, Preached the Same thing in the 1980s about Japan.

You knew Willie in the 1980's? I don't recall a FR then or the Internet for that matter.

[agere_contra]

A point that the "free traders" on this site choose to ignore.

Er, no we don't. Free Trade is what it is - conservative principles applied to trade, the principle of reducing taxation on trade just like we want to reduce taxation on wealth. If someone sets up a complex tarriff agreement which excludes some nations and includes others - and calls THAT "Free Trade" then it's hardly our fault. I want to knock down tarriffs for exactly the same reason that I want to knock down taxes. Are you in favour of tarriffs?

[Willie Green]

You knew Willie in the 1980's? I don't recall a FR then or the Internet for that matter.

You shouldn't directly confront Johnnie with "irrelevant" facts like that.
He may become distraught and pursue that line of "debate" until you're sick of looking at his replies.
It makes it difficult to scroll through the thread to find more intelligent responses.

[ex-snook]

CNBCMarket Dispatches, 11:05 A.M. ET Dow tumbles on weak 4Q results

Still hasn't come back since Clinton-Bush made China one of our favorite free-trading partners.

[Last Dakotan]

He may become distraught and pursue that line of "debate" until you're sick of looking at his replies.

LOL, good point. Actually the large Japanese investment in auto assembly plants in this country was a result of the tougher line taken with our trading "partners" in the 1980's, but there I go with facts again.

[Thorin]

Thanks for posting. From my vantage point in industrial Ohio, I give free trade an "F."

[hedgetrimmer]

Are you in favour of tarriffs?

Are you in favor of the United States Constitution?

[A. Pole]

By a two-vote margin, CAFTA passed Congress in the midnight hours, after having the vote kept open for an additional fifteen minutes in order to round up aye votes. [...] Since FTAA [different than CAFTA] is being largely negotiated in secret, we may only learn of its laws after the fact.

Free trade bump

[Nowhere Man]

Thanks for the ping. Some links to read:

Why America's Dying, NAFTA's Smoking Gun, Who Dunnit and Why? - by Chuck Harder

[ARCADIA]

I want to knock down tarriffs for exactly the same reason that I want to knock down taxes.

That is completely nonsensical. Government expenses are paid through taxes or tariffs, you can't reduce both unless you reduce spending.

[NewRomeTacitus]

Barbara Anderson summed up my assessment of what's called "Free Trade Policy" far better than I could - may the Lord protect her. I'm still mystified as to how the world will be a better place when we're all driven to subsistence wages.

America thrived phenomenally post-WWII when almost everything was the inverse of what it is now: wages rose with productivity, millions of citizens advanced due to investment in veteran support, our superior products flooded the planet, we maintained the leading edge in all sciences, corporate entities focused more on being better than their competitors rather than resorting to political machinations and our citizenry enjoyed a sense of stability and optimism thanks to those well-earned achievements and a faith/family-based foundation.

Now we screw our veterans, suppress wages through the illegal alien invasion and outsourcing, watch the last of our manufacturing capability shipped overseas, powerlessly ponder what our former enemies will do with all the capital we've given them, blanch at the piecemeal selling of our sovereignty through trade agreements and wonder how we, as a nation, can survive coming challenges after secularism and self-centerdness has replaced religion and sense of community in our latest generation.

That last problem is thanks to the 1960s radicals' domination of our entire educational system...may they all rot in Hell.

What to do? Oppose these Agreements, hound your representatives and keep up the fallout shelter strategy. Be prepared.

[WilliamofCarmichael]

RE: "Free Trade is what it is - conservative principles applied to trade. . . ."

The American Jobs Creation Act of 2004:

One Internet source says, "The genisis of this law was to repeal the Extraterritorial Income Exclusion, which the World Trde Organzation insisted was in violation of the WTO trade agreement to which the US is a party. Retaliatory sanctions were in place in the form of excise taxes on USA exports to the European Union."

Here was a case where Congress had given tax breaks to U.S. corporations which earn money from exports -- but the WTO ruled that the tax breaks were subsidies.

Failure to repeal the "subsidies" would result in WTO-approved excise taxes on USA exports to the European Union. Other Internet sources say that, mean while, the Europeans continued to exempt their exports from VAT taxes on some of the stages of production -- clearly, in the minds of some, a subsidy.

How does this international meddling by the WTO, et al. meet your definition?