The New Protectionists

opinionjournal ^ | March 10, 2006 | WSJ

[unseen]

as I have said over and over again, there is a huge difference in free trade and fair trade. I am for trade as much as anyone. I am not xenophobic nor do I think trade is bad. You are proving the theory that all free traders have their blinders on. No one on this thread has suggested that we stop trading and withdraw from the world. What we need to do is understand that free trade is not the answer and our leaders need to grow some balls and have other countries live up to their commitments. Like China and Japan and their monetary policy. Like the EU and their trade barriers.

[groanup]

Thanks for the ping.

As it stands right now I can trade with whomever I want. Unseen would not permit that. Unseen is not a friend. That is the whole argument.

[LowCountryJoe]

as I have said over and over again, there is a huge difference in free trade and fair trade.

Then how about you define both "free trade" and this other concept that you call "fair trade". If you'd like to use a link, that's fine, but just know this: nearly every organization who favors this concept called "fair trade" has socialist/communist ties.

[LowCountryJoe]

Still waiting for what should be a simple reply.

[LowCountryJoe]

Still waiting!

[rcocean]

Excellent article.

Thanks for posting it.

[LowCountryJoe]

Upon further review, it appears that you are, once again, exposed as the good little truth teller that we've all come to know:

To: LowCountryJoe Your GDP charts totally fail to include declining U.S. household income. The 70+% of the dislocateds still unemployed or earning substantially less than they were before the destructive outsourcing/importing. I.e., if GDP is going up (questionable when the dollar is not being adjusted to a more stable measure of value, such as Gold), it is not being broadly experienced. The housing bubble which you so drearily brag upon...actually proves we are in an inflationary spiral, soon to burst, as all these bubbles do. A lot of the houses in the $230-250 thousand range in Minnesota today are not intrinsically worth what we paid less than $100,000 for only a decade ago. A lot of home-builders here will confirm that. This bubble was financed...and perpetuated by the low US interest-rates, aided and abetted by a cheap-money policy to try and keep the economy appearing to be buoyant...as it trades away its seed corn. You sophists keep worrying about the tariffs causing the depression. Milton Friedman made his name arguing this. But he has recently come to rethink his thesis: Actually, it was the bubble of the 20's that caused it. Too many businesses too far out on a limb. Global protectionism, not so much US protectionism, hindered US recovery.

136 posted on 01/19/2005 11:41:13 AM EST by Paul Ross (Life is NOT like a box of chocolates...) | To 15 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

I take back what I had written about you earlier; about being right about something for once. Still waiting for that first time, Mr. Ross...you're are a phony of the highest order.

[unseen]

Well since I've been busy the last couple of days here's a quick take

Fair trade:

The US government has also applied special safeguard measures against Chinese imports. Under the terms of China’s accession to the WTO, safeguard tariffs and quotas can be applied solely against Chinese products; in the case of textiles and clothing, safeguards can be applied even when imports exert only a slight adverse impact on the domestic industry. Both provisions are at variance with the WTO’s principle of nondiscrimination (which China agreed to waive as a condition of accession). In November 2003, the US government used the special safeguard provisions to curb the growth of Chinese exports of knit fabrics, brassieres, and dressing gowns. The US apparel industry complained that, since Chinese exports of these items soared from about $122 million in 1998 to $550 million in 2002, it was time to put on the brakes.



Free trade:


According to the World Bank, when the MFA comes to an end, China will be able to increase its share of world garment exports from 20 percent in 2003 to 50 percent by 2010. Peering at such projections, the American Textile Manufacturers Institute (ATMI), the leading textile lobby, claims that Chinese textile and apparel exports will flood the US market and destroy up to 630,000 US jobs.


http://www.iie.com/publications/opeds/oped.cfm?ResearchID=190


Now which would you rather have. A cheap shirt or 600,000 Americans working,paying taxes, NOT getting food stamps, unemployment benefits etc. Also remember that those 600,000 are the most at risk Americans. Usually they have the least amount of education and the jobs are low paying meaning that most live pay-to-pay. If we had complete Free trade (which we are moving towards) with China we would be flooded with textile imports. What is left of this industry (due to NAFTA another FREE TRADE agreement) would be totally wiped out and we the greatest country in the world would no longer be able to produce our own clothes. Talk about the emperor having no clothes!

[unseen]

You can not trade with whoever you want. Iran, Syria, North Korea all have high levels of restrictions. From you post it seems like you would want to be able to trade with Iran who chants Death to America daily. Maybe we should sell them some advance fighter jets? or some missile technology like we did to China so they can point their missiles at us more accurately. Right? You free traders should have no problems with that trade agreement.

[groanup]

You are talking about security issues that involve countries who have a designation of terrorist states or sponsors or terrorism. Get a clue.

[unseen]

So! from your argument that the government should stay out of the way of your commerce, trade with Iran, Syria and North Korea should be fine in your book. If it isn't then you do not believe in total free trade. You can't have it both ways. Take China for instance, it is a communist country. It has been known in its history for periods of openness and periods of brutal crack downs. What we trade with them today in a spirit of friendship could turn out to be used against us. But those considerations using your argument should not be taken into the debate with free trade with China.

[Paul Ross]

And today protectionists have moved on to claiming that China is buying too much steel.

Maybe they are.

Remember how Japan's steel buying of all scrap material was ramped up prior to WW-II for its armaments and munitions. This is not mere coincidence or an idle comparison.

[Paul Ross]

Actually, I was right. Your attempt to salvage a scintalla of your credibility is a lost cause. You see, as your own 'link' proves...you didn't send that table to me.

You sent that post to raybbr. Not me. I posted a reply in a narrow context looking at it from the context of our previous arguments which were related to the faux free traders continuing mistatements about the GDP, the CPI and housing bubble, etc...to which your table was not germane and not responsive. My post pointed it out. I believe that the way GDP is currently reported is suspect. I did not find it essential to argue with any other substantive implications of your table.

So now you posted it to me explicitly, for the first time, demanding I evaluate it. Well, I did. And I see that you still can't grapple with those evaluations. Nor do you grapple with your own contradictions with Manciwics...who does not reach the same over-statements and misrepresentations as you.

Instead you go out of your way to make anhile assertions of mendacity against opponents who long ago bested you. It's your modus operandi.

And those opponents are undoubtedly legion by now.

[Paul Ross]

Still waiting!

Sorry. Just came back from a long weekend snow-mobiling. We have a decent amount of snow finally!

[Paul Ross]

Thanks for posting it.

You're welcome. Note that a lot of these brokers haven't uttered a peep yet about Merk or this article yet? Probably huddling in some secret online-conclave how to go about it.

[LowCountryJoe]

Read the very first two paragraphs posted in #542 again. The first one is italicized and is my wording...the second one belongs to you - I never said that I pinged you and in fact asked you if you remembered. Anyhow, still no reply to the true/false questions, still cannot get Mankiw's name correct, still cannot understand why entities voluntary trade with one another, still use big words without saying anything, still a fear mongerer, still an advocate for government interference in markets, and still pretty Cheddar - Sharp Cheddar.

[LowCountryJoe]

In regards to the comments that you posted before you spammed the article in here...would you rather that the United States be running a trade surplus and being the lenders of capital to foreign governments? Or are you still not ready to concede the capital flow issue?

[LowCountryJoe]

I posted a reply in a narrow context looking at it from the context of our previous arguments which were related to the faux free traders continuing mistatements about the GDP...

"Narrow" is right on the money for a term that I'd use to describe your views. You talked of incomes, not even fully understanding that GDP is national income.

Instead you go out of your way to make anhile assertions of mendacity against opponents who long ago bested you.

You're correct. I guess I just cannot come to grips that net capital inflows are the very same thing as trading away "seed cord"...whatever the hell "seed corn" is. Maybe it's an agricultural product in need of a subsidy or, at the very minimum, the government intervention of choice by economic-know-nothings, a protective tariff.

[Paul Ross]

Your points are the fact-free context-free spam...and you want to use our money to subsidize your foreign investments that sabotage America. Forget it.

The capital flow issue? What issue? you contradicted your own source.

[Toddsterpatriot]

The very nature of the GDP equation states empirical that trade deficits are a negative when figuring up GDP. This is a simple addtion and subtraction equation a 3rd grader could do it.

What do the furriners do with the dollars they earn? GDP = Consumption + Domestic Investment + Governmental Spending + Net Exports. Do foreigners add to our domestic investment? Does their purchase of Treasury debt allow higher government spending? Do the lower interest rates caused by foreign investments allow higher consumption?