The New Protectionists

opinionjournal ^ | March 10, 2006 | WSJ

[groanup]

REVIEW & OUTLOOK

The New Protectionists - How to create a real security crisis.

Friday, March 10, 2006 12:01 a.m. EST

Dubai Ports World finally threw in the kaffiyah on its American operations yesterday, agreeing to sell them "to a U.S. entity." We hope that entity turns out to be Halliburton, if only for the torment that would cause certain eminences on Capitol Hill.

Dubai Ports was susceptible to this political stampede because it was an Arab-owned company buying port operations, which Democrats have played up as uniquely vulnerable. But this is also the second such mugging of a foreign investor in recent months, following last year's demagoguery against a Chinese company's bid to buy Unocal, a middling American oil company. If Members of Congress want a real security crisis--a financial security crisis--they'll keep this up.

What's especially dangerous here is that we're seeing the re-emergence of the "national security" protectionists. They were last seen in the late 1980s, when Japan in particular was the target of a political foreign-investment panic. The Japanese were buying Pebble Beach and Rockefeller Center, and so America was soon going to be a colony of Tokyo. A Japanese bid for Fairchild Semiconductor of Silicon Valley was seen as a threat to American defense. Those fears seem laughable now. But here we go again, with new targets of anxiety.

snip

[1rudeboy]

You could shorten it to National Socialist. Just a thought.

[groanup]

You are confusing commerce with government.

Government exists for one reason, to maintain order so that we can all engage in commerce and make money. Do you disagree?

[unseen]

yes facts can get in the way of your rosy picture of free trade. The argument is 100% correct. Look at the debt level of American families before Free trade and look at it after free trade. But since you are tired of facts I will not bore you with any more. Just keep saying to yourself....free trade is good, free trade is good and don't let little facts get in the way of your world-view.

[1rudeboy]

If you don't like debt, don't get into it. Not too complicated.

[groanup]

You blame all of this on free trade? My friend you are so miserably mistaken. Taxes. Taxes, taxes taxes. Nothing else comes close.

[1rudeboy]

Sounds like he's blaming free trade for his mortgage.

[unseen]

Hell yes, I disagree

[Shermy]

I know about that future possibility. And I fully expect that treaty will allow the UAE to remain in the OPEC price fixing scheme, therefore, "free" in name only.

[unseen]

And where do you think taxes came from. It is no coincidence that the raise in taxes correlates exactly to the decrease in tariffs. In early America before the income tax, The federal government earned the majority of its revenue by tariffs. (i.e tax on trade). with the decrease of that revenue the government turned to us.

[1rudeboy]

Yeah, I don't see the U.S. exporting much crude oil or natural gas to the U.A.E. either. /sarc

[oceanview]

wow, I'm scared now. the "we will pay a heavy price for daring to stand up against our UAE overlords" boogeyman.

let's see who the UAE turns to, a country where 50 iranian patrol boats and a few brigades of their soliders can take their "arab kingdom" down in 2 hours without the presence of the US military there.

[unseen]

not in debt. But the governments debt and the personal debt rate among the nation will and does effect me in several ways. The increase in trade debt gives American weatlh flowing out of America. Long term bad for America. the national debt gives the holders of that debt power over America in this case China long term bad for America. The increase in the personal debt rate increases bankruptcy which increase fees and rates for me. Long term bad for everyone. So while I choose not to be in debt and invest the increasing rates of debt to net worth in this country effects me and everyone else effecting our long term standard of living.

[1rudeboy]

"Increase in trade debt?" How does buying Swiss chocolate make me worse off (other than stretch my waistband)?

[groanup]

Look at the debt level of American families before Free trade and look at it after free trade.

This is a new one on me. Please explain how free trade has caused me to borrow against my Master Card. I would have thought it was the lowest interest rates in 25 years and high home values that would have caused an increase in debt levels because every home owner is now able to refinance his/her credit card debt and take some money out of the old house.

Is that a bad thing? I don't know.

The really bad thing is taxes.

Let's see, the oil companies took 18 cents out of a gallon of gas during the "crisis" that we recently experienced with Katrina and such. The imperial Federal Government took 40 cents out of each gallon of gas.

We had hearings in congress where the Senators sat in judgement of the oil company executives and their record profits.

Even though the profit margins were maintained.

Where were the hearings about how much the government takes out of a gallon of gas? Did I miss them? Were they on the TV the night I got drunk? Were they in greek? I'll keep repeating that mantra until someone shoots me. Unless I see you and I shoot you first.

[unseen]

Increase in trade debt?" How does buying Swiss chocolate make me worse off (other than stretch my waistband)?


You really have no idea how this effects you in the long run? If you are serious how can you talk about free trade's effects?

[groanup]

I'll send you to a place that can make you understand. Google Hong Kong. If you don't, or if you think I am an idiot, fine, you lose. There is nothing more powerful than a society that is free and has a very low tax base. Nothing else matters. It really doesn't. Listen, I have been a de facto economist for decades. I don't know all the answers but I do know the truth. Free people unfettered by government and taxes can create enormous wealth. Absolutely enourmous wealth.

[1rudeboy]

Please tell me what you think I'm missing. How am I affected? Indulge me.

[Howlin]

LOL!

[CowboyJay]

"Globalism has a very thin skin."

That's because its proponents have to behave in a very 'protectionist' manner to get anyone to buy in. ;)

[groanup]

I thought about replying to you in freepmail but I thought I would go along with your AA friends. You should not post on this thread in your inebriated state.