The New Protectionists

opinionjournal ^ | March 10, 2006 | WSJ

[hawkiye]

"hanks to the head up their a-s wing of the GOP, we have PO'd one of the few Arab countries that actually believes in free markets and has a relatively pro-American foreign policy."

Yeah free trade with a totalitarian slave trading dictatorship hmmmm seems to be a contradiction here so who do these dictators believe should be able to trade freely and have fre markets? The dictator or are his subjects and slaves allowed to trade freely also?

[LowCountryJoe]

Todd, check out OKIEDOC's tag-line. Reminds me of that one liner that goes "Hi, I'm [a 'True Conservative'] from the government and I'm here to..." - well, you know the rest. But we're the cockroaches because we actually believe in capitalism!? Am I understanding this correctly in this conservative forum?

[LowCountryJoe]

The US marketplace is the biggest, richest Fair in the world and instead of charging full price we give this prime retail location away for free. It's like when it comes to trade Republicans turn socialist as far as the avg. American citizen is concerned. Now of course this free trade gives the rich a lot of money by lowering labor cost and enabling the companies to disregard environmental regulations, and social programs expense. So free trade allows companies to get all the benefits of our marketplace with none of the expenses and the American Joe gets screwed by higher taxes. The soviet Union did not practice protectionism. In fact they had free trade between their satellite countries. The problem with the Soviet Union was there was no profit motive for people to work thus people did crappy work or no work.

This portion is riddled with inaccuracies and one large false analogy. If you properly understood International Economics you would not have written what you did. I've got some very good (and easy to read) recommendations if you're interested...however, while they would not reinforce your current view(s) on the subject they just might save you some future embarrassment.

[nopardons]

And THAT is the problem. The vast majority of posters don't understand a thing about any of this. And worse, they don't want to!

[LowCountryJoe]

seems that Europe is selling about 4 times more wine in the US as we are in Europe.

This is effecting them in other ways..it has to be. Maybe higher domestic wine costs? who knows what it is it is something. You are familiar with the acronym TANSTAAFL, aren't you.

[unseen]

joe your reply is riddled with free trade elitism and a lack of knowledge on national security. I have several sources that may allow you to understand the pain and hardship free trade is causing in the heartland of America (The same heartland that reelected Bush) if your interested which may allow you to sound less like a know-it-all.


Wow see how easy it is to rip someone and yet provide absolutely no evidence to support your point. I have a firm grasp of international economics I have read the arguments for both free and fair trade and I find the evidence points overwhelmingly to the fact that free trade is bad for our poor and lower middle class.

[unseen]

it has to be? Why? since when did our trade agreements EVER give the US the advantage?

[LowCountryJoe]

Read this!

And then perhaps you can tell me how and why we have real GDP growth, real net wealth increases, and an unemployment rate where it is with such pain and hardships. While it is true that some people suffer through some pain and hardship for intermediate lengths of time, the new allocation of labor and capital produce better outcomes through time [and with the by-product of the perpetuating and increasing liberty and access of people to engage in commerce]. If you doubt these things, then I have no further interest in trying to deepen our discussion...it would be a lost cause.

[LowCountryJoe]

You mean to tell me that the consumer didn't win? Do you have any evidence at all - through the use of any broadly used statistical measure - that a trade agreement made the United States worse off?

If so, I'd like to see it.

[endthematrix]

"While it is true that some people suffer through some pain and hardship for intermediate lengths of time, the new allocation of labor and capital produce better outcomes through time "

Not to confuse your economist frame of thinking, I'll add some applicable wisdom. "When your neighbor is out of work, it's a recession. When YOU are out of work, then it's a depression!" - From dear old dad, born 1926 and seen it all.

[LowCountryJoe]

That's anecdotal! And anecdotal doesn't spell an unemployment rate of less than 5%. Nice try, though, but emotional rhetoric and sloganism seldom passes the whiff test.

[Paul Ross]

concerns over infrastructure and defense related entities - are real.
if the UAE had wanted to buy Applebees, would anyone have cared? no. they own alot of manhattan real estate, did anyone complain? no. if they want to buy a casino, do we care? no.
the arguments about this being "protectionism", are laughable.

Agreed.

[Paul Ross]

"So now we have to explain to these countries that we are trying to convert to freedom that we will not trade with them."

Total, and Complete B.S.

[Paul Ross]

BUMP!

"National Defense Protectionists" Sign Me Up!

LOL! Me too!

The WSJ has really hosed themselves with their over-the-top rhetoric and lemming-like brinksmanship disregarding national security. The argument that world trade and investment will go away offended is clearly just plain bogus. They recognize, unlike apparently the editors at WSJ and the 'Bots, that there clearly ARE security implications to operations...and clearly discounted the administration rhetoric as piffle. Here is an Indian take on it:

No Exceptional Security
K.Vijayakumar - Bangalore, India

As the editorial says, foreigners who invest in the U.S. may be in a way financing the military that keeps Americans safe. But will the U.S. allow foreigners, even citizens of friendly countries, to run the military? If foreign companies were to invest in building new ports, the Congress may not have objected. But operating the ports is understandably a different matter. In these uncertain times, if the Congress thinks that security can be compromised if ports are operated by even a foreign company from a friendly Islamic country, it cannot possibly be faulted. Security does not allow for exceptions.

Gee. The Indians get it. Why won't the 'bots?

They're A-I-N-O's Americans In Name Only. AINOs need to get into a 12 Step Program.

[panaxanax]

"Okay, how 'bout this: central planning versus capitalism? Now, which one do you prefer? I have my suspicions."

I prefer being an American that does not advocate the slow surrender to globalism and a one world government, that's what I prefer.

[jpsb]

Gee, and I thought it was "life, liberty and the pursuit of happinees" how 1950ish of me.

[rcocean]

Silly, crazy, article.

Don't agree with every single item of Free Trade, you're a protectionist, racist, sexist, homophobic, who wants to "wall off America".

LOL.

We just want US control of the ports.

WSJ = their God is money.

[groanup]

Total, and Complete B.S.

Stay tuned. Paul Ross is now going to tell us how and why he is smarter than the WSJ editorial board, Rush Limbaugh and ME!!. LOL. He probably won't have a problem with that last one.

[groanup]

Gee, and I thought it was "life, liberty and the pursuit of happinees" how 1950ish of me.

How do you enjoy life liberty and the pursuit of happiness? I and most people I know engage in commerce to make money.

[groanup]

WSJ = their God is money.

thank-you for making a point. I'm sure there is one somewhere in your rant.