Posted on 10/25/2006 5:56:53 AM PDT by from occupied ga
I believe that is EXACTLY the point he's making. That restrictions, tariffs, etc. harm people
the government works hand-in-hand with big business in order to avoid paying AMERICANS to produce them
Seriously, did you read past the title? Specifically did you read te part where each American sugar job saved cost the consumers $826,000? If you read it, did you understand it? It would appear not.
Anyone who thinks our national trade policies are dictated by trade bodies like the WTO obviously hasn't been following the softwood lumber dispute between the U.S. and Canada over the last five years.
Every international trade board involved in that dispute (NAFTA, WTO, etc.) decided in favor of the Canadian lumber producers, but that didn't mean a damn thing at the end of the day when the dispute was eventually resolved (heavily in favor of the U.S., of course).
I guess there are some people who are so simple that they won't ever get it.
BS. You act as if the world economy is a rational beast unfettered by actual people, politics, systems of government. So China is using the money we give them to build more missiles pointed at China. That is politics, not economics. So, we are employing illegals. That's politics again, not economics.
The almighty dollar is not ALL that conservatism is about. It is about conserving our culture, and our identity. America was about rugged individualism, reliability. Small towns where you could make clothes and sell them to the baker who made your bread, who bought his furnace from the blacksmith. Pretending that service jobs are just as good as American manufacturing, American pride in products made as home just because we can squeeze a few extra bucks in is ridiculous.
It's like saying that McDonald's eating is just as good as a home cooked meal. It's really cheap and all. That is what is important. Tea and coffee my ass. We import computer chips for guided missiles from Taiwan. Hope China doesn't bomb them with our technology, and missiles built with our greenbacks.
bump for later
I am envious.
Yep we can't grow coffee here so we better buy furniture from China. LOL
Here's a good example. We can't grow coffee here so lets buy all our oil from somewhere else.
But isn't sugar an issue of national security?
We thank you for outsourcing that job.
GA, it certaily only make good economic sense to import goods which this country CANNOT produce on it's own, or prodcue in quantites sufficient to make then available at a reasonable price. That is not my problem with "free trade".
My issue is when the government of this country openly conspires to undermine both American labor and industry. As an example, I put it to you that the end result of agreements such as NAFTA has been to destroy organized labor and re-institute, as closely as possible, legal slavery by merely transporting the slavery from within the borders of the United States to Mexico, Indonesia, etc.
Now, I'm no fan of labor unions, but it is no secret that neither the government or busienss actually likes them (unless the union is pumping money into a campaign or giving back negtiated pay and benefits simply to keep jobs).
There are host of industries in this country (notably steel, automobles, electronics) that are being systematically dismantled and shipped to places where labor laws simply do not exist, and where an American CEO can maximize his company's profits by simply avoiding having to pay a decent wage to anyone. While it is the job of the executive to maximize profits in any way he can, at some point this method becomes counter-productive to his nation, as the skills and manufacturing base required to produce soom goods and commodities (many of them much more vital than coffee, cocoa or saffron) simply disappear.
Perhaps if American corporations spent more time figuring out how to better serve the consumer and give them what they wanted, at a reasonable price, they would not have to resort to shortchanging the workers (and, more importantly, THE CONSUMERS) they depend upon.
We are putting our own people out of work, and destroying our own economic base, for the sake of higher stock prices and dividends.
I believe that model ended in the 19th century. Since you're so into rugged individualism, why don't you tell us how to make a pencil from raw materials.
Let them eat cake?
Child, you'll get no argument from me on the soft-timber debate. Clearly, the US gov't is in cahoots with American lumber producers to bar Canadian products. This is wrong.
However, when the EU can bar American farmers from competing in their market by dictating the size, shape, color and curvature of a cucumber (for example), are they not engaging in the same thing? In the end, all countries serve their own interests, but to pretend that such "governing bodies" are above the fray is ridiculous.
I see it somewhat differently, that the government conspires to undermine SOME industries and SOME jobs for the benefit of a politically well connected other industries and other segments of the workforce. If we really did have a level playing field then I suspect that you wouldn't object, but the government doesn't level the playing field, it levels the scoreboard.
Competition outside of the socialist manufacturing plants (public education high schools), is probably the best solution. Competition will always give you the best possible product at the lowest possible cost.
"...it levels the scoreboard."
Hmmm, and yet there are trade deficits with China that exceed several hundred billion dollars. China can own and operate 14 American ports, but American firms cannot operate any in China. I could go on and on, but you get the point.
I hardly see a level scoreboard at all, in this regard.
Those same tariffs and quotas probably cost several times more than that as confectioners either went out of business or went offshore. Kraft shifted their Lifesaves production to Canada due to the high cost of sugar in the USA.
Seems like Gresham's law doesn't it? Good money drives out the bad...
BTW - when is the last time a labor union - as opposed to an auto manufacturer - has been found in restriant of trade? So is it that there are "places where labor laws do not exist" or that U.S. labor unions have been granted too many subsidies/protections. The answer lies in the suffering business model of Ford nd GM, whose eventual bankruptcies, just like thier cousins in the steel industry, are inevitable.
Blame the CEOs, not the trade deals. American steelmakers allowed their plants to rot while the rest of the world modernized, and Honda, Toyota and Nissan are all expanding their US manufacturing operations while the Big Three automakers flounder.
I won't ignore it, but I will suggest that there's more to the equation than "it's cheaper to import."
Williams himself notes that local workers get hurt by free trade -- a rather stunning admission for him, actually, since he used to gloss over that.
More to the point, however, it is not particularly comforting that our quest for "cheaper" has led to the export of large sectors of our manufacturing capability to our most likely global rival.
Economics is fine -- but it's not the only thing that matters.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.