Posted on 10/04/2007 7:07:18 AM PDT by SJackson
I've seen a lot of opinion polling, but my jaw dropped when I saw this result from our special NBC News-Wall Street Journal poll of Republicans in advance of next week's presidential candidate debate sponsored by CNBC, MSNBC and the WSJ. By a nearly two-to-one margin, Republican voters believe free trade is bad for the U.S. economy, a shift in opinion that mirrors Democratic views and suggests trade deals could face high hurdles under a new president.
Six in 10 Republicans in the poll agreed with a statement that free trade has been bad for the U.S. and said they would agree with a Republican candidate who favored tougher regulations to limit foreign imports. That represents a challenge for Republican candidates who generally echo Mr. Bush’s calls for continued trade expansion, and reflects a substantial shift in sentiment from eight years ago.
"It’s a lot harder to sell the free-trade message to Republicans," said Republican pollster Neil Newhouse, who conducts the Journal/NBC poll with Democratic counterpart Peter Hart.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnbc.com ...
Bigger government, for the economy!
The dollar hasn't lost so much as other economies have gained. Exactly what was predicted by many several years ago. Google "The Long Boom", an article published in Wired magazine and later a book.
As third world economies grow, they will have more ability to purchase our stuff, because their currency will be more valuable. That's happening with our company, where we're selling a lot more to South America, Australia, and China than ever. And our sales have hit a spurt recently as the dollar goes lower vs. other currencies.
People whine about outsourcing, but the practice has recently reversed, in part because of the currency slide. As places like India become more affluent, it makes it more expensive to hire people there, and thus outsourcing reverses.
All this was very predictable, and was predicted nearly 10 years ago. "The Long Boom" has proven correct, and it should continue for quite a few more years.
“Bigger government, for the economy!”
Back to your one-liners I see, one-liners that have little to do with the statement you purport to be responding to.
Some of us think the government already has enough control over our economy. Some think the government has too much control. Some think we need the government to take more control. To which camp do you belong?
You suggested I believe that trade and economic policy is determined by the lowest prices obtainable. In response, I explained to you what I believe should drive economic policy. You obviously have a problem with the freedom to trade but you won't/can't explain why that is. You also won't/can't prove to us that we're paying a price for our "so-called free trade." Finally, you haven't yet told us what you would do to manage trade to create that elusive level playing field.
I believe you want to use government to make this happen which begs the question how, as a conservative, you think the government becomes reliable, capable and responsible when it comes to trade when they have such a dismal track record when attempting to manage so many other things.
You want to look at everything as per capita, or total this and total that.
Yes, I like to deal with facts. You, apparently, like to deal with feelings.
But few any longer deny that the combination of our trade policies which export jobs and immigration policies which intentionally allow in millions of lower wage workers, both legal and illegal, is increasing corporate profits and decreasing the buying power of our lower wage American citizen, and is beginning to affect some higher wage earners.
Only people who don't understand free(r) trade and can't prove it's bad for our economy try to lump it in with the completely separte issue of illegal immigration. If we'd build a wall and punish people who hire illegals that problem would eventually go away. It wouldn't impact our freedom to trade on iota.
Now are you going to show us where free(r) trade has increased unemployment and decreased incomes or will you continue to ignore the question and, instead, attempt to divert the topic to illegal immigration? Put up some facts or stop making your silly assertions.
But how did this nation grow and prosper for 200 years before all this free trade legislation?
We've created more wealth in this country since 1980 than the previous 200 years combined. Economic freedom is one of the key reason for that. Freedom to trade is a pillar of economic freedom. I believe more economic freedom is good for us and can prove it. I can also show that more economic freedom results in greater personal liberty. Can you prove otherwise? We used to bleed people 200 years ago when they were sick. Does that mean we should be doing it today?
You’re simply a purist who can’t see beyond some economic theory you heard in college or read in a book.
You're simply someone who hurls pejoratives instead of backing his argument with facts. I remember lots of kids doing that in college. You can get away with it there. However, in the real world you'd better deal with what's factual or you won't be valuable to your employer for long.
By subjecting the US to the decision making authority of GATT and other international organizations (or LOST), we inevitable compromise our sovereignty and lessen the freedom you say you’re so concerned about. GATT can, and has, challenged laws of US states.
More assertions without proof. Why am I not surprised?
You’ve swallowed the free trade mantra. Others are very protectionist. The debate sounds as if there is no middle ground
Once again, if you could prove that free(r) trade has been detrimental to our economy you'd post it. Instead you whine. There is no middle ground. If you are not for the freedom to trade, except for a few circumstances related to national security, you are for government control of trade and that makes you a protectionist.
but there has always been middle ground and that’s where the US should be: negotiating more with individual nations and preserving our sovereignty.
Negotiating with individual nations is exactly what we're doing these days because broader trade deals have become harder to negotiate thanks to protectionists like you. How negotiating regional trade deals removes our sovereignty, but a trade deal with an individual country does not, remains a mystery.
I made some sensible suggestions for changing the industry. The change is not going to come from the existing industry. It will take a champion with single-minded devotion to lower costs and improve quality. The existing higher education industry would vilify and discredit any efforts. The effort would need to bypass the existing industry and sell its product directly to consumers (students, parents, and employers).
If a champion could arise, the existing higher education industry would contract leading to lower employment for everyone in the industry including professors. I would either find a way to ride the new industry or find other meaningful work. I would not scream and pout or blame Bush. Higher education is so important to our economy that we desperately need to dramatically lower costs and improve quality. Unfortunately most in the higher education industry would vehemently disagree with my position.
“Higher education is a cottage industry, shielded from competition by accreditation, state legislatures, and endowments. Tenure is not a major issue in the big picture. Many states have post tenure review. Since the vast majority of professors are not in unions, non productive faculty are routinely given no pay increases, poor teaching assignments, and lots of administrative work.”
And that’s the entire point. If open markets and free trade, an absence of protectionism and barriers to competition are to rule the day, it should also rule the day in higher education. We are told that free markets provide all answers.
Just as has been done in other areas, protectionist measures should be legislatively removed. Then we can absolutely outsource most or all college teaching positions.
You're right. My statement was overly broad.
Not all education makes you more valuable. Other factors come into play. But education in the right field can always make you more valuable. Those fields may change over time.
As a general concept though, more education is a good thing. It's certainly possible to pick an area which, for one reason or another, holds less value to the marketplace, and so won't necessarily help you make money.
It’s as simple as that.
The question regarded free trade per se, as far as I could tell.
Once again...
The budget deficit has nothing to do with the trade "deficit". Nothing. Nada. Zilch.
The budget deficit is a result of bad money management by congress. It's domestic overspending. Trade isn't the culprit. It has nothing at all to do with this topic.
You want to look at everything as per capita, or total this and total that.
Yes, I like to deal with facts. You, apparently, like to deal with feelings.”
What nonsense. We must have stats by income bracket to know where the total increases per capita are falling. Higher wage earners have progressed, lower wage earners have stagnated or actually decreased in earnings such as construction work in many areas.
And, I actually read a proposal by someone in the Bush Administration that ONLY total figures be provided, no more of these irritating stats by income group that show disparities in wage growth. I’m sure you’d approve. Sort of like some black ‘leaders’ wanting the FBI to stop keeping crime stats by race a few years back. - That’s one way to show improvement, or at least pretend there are no serious problems.
You ask for proof, but have made assertion after assertion after assertion and have provided nothing in the way of proof.
You’ve bought into the free trade ideology. I haven’t, but am in a more middle ground position. This discussion is mostly a waste of time.
And the growth in wealth in the US likely has more to do with women entering the workforce: increased economic activity, increased earnings, increased buying power, increased demand, and the growth of many new industries and products that didn’t exist in the 1950s, non of which have much, if anything, to do with trade policy.
You are wrong and Warren is right. He put his money where his mouth is. 4 years ago he wrote our trade deficit is ruinous, he didn't post trash talk and kindergarten level free trade theories like you do
Much has happened since the days of soup lines and free trade had nothing to do with their demise. I believe a world war did that.
“I believe you want to use government to make this happen which begs the question how, as a conservative, you think the government becomes reliable, capable and responsible when it comes to trade when they have such a dismal track record when attempting to manage so many other things.”
What a peculiar statement. EVERYBODY, including you, wants to use government to make their desired trade/economic policy happen. Starting with lowered tariffs on Japanese electronic products in the 1950s, it’s been, and had to be, government that changed trade and economic policies. Who else can do it in the US?
Who passed NAFTA, and other trade agreements? And those agreements are negotiated trade, not real free trade. Why is NAFTA thousands of pages long?
“Many do have an understanding of economics, but just don’t believe that economic theory answers all governmental policy questions.
It’s as simple as that.
The question regarded free trade per se, as far as I could tell.”
Free trade theory is part of international economic theory.
And three hundred years later, Spain is second after the United States in the size of its negative international asset position at somewhere around -$800 billion, I believe, while we are over -$2 trillion.
(However, the ratio of Spain's international asset position to its GDP is at -60% or so, and our ratio of international assets to GDP is only at about -20% of our GDP.)
Higher wage earners have progressed, lower wage earners have stagnated or actually decreased in earnings such as construction work in many areas.
Prove it.
You ask for proof, but have made assertion after assertion after assertion and have provided nothing in the way of proof.
What specifically would you like me to prove? That we're richer today than we were 30 years ago? I can do that but all you need to do is look around you for the evidence.
I haven’t, but am in a more middle ground position.
Of course you've never defined that position. How convenient. Or, is it your ability to nuance that's allowed you to play the middle?
This discussion is mostly a waste of time.
Go back to my first reply to you. It was in response to a lot of assertions you made that you have never been able to back up. Don't you think you should be able to support your arguments?
And the growth in wealth in the US likely has more to do with women entering the workforce: increased economic activity, increased earnings, increased buying power, increased demand, and the growth of many new industries and products that didn’t exist in the 1950s, non of which have much, if anything, to do with trade policy.
None of which had much, if anything, to do with trade policy? You're funny. For someone who wants us to believe he knows so much about how a successful economy works you certainly have an odd way of trying to prove it. LOL!
So the trade deficit has absolutely nothing to do with the rapidly rising U.S. foreign debt. Bunch of hooey if you ask me.
And I didn't? LOL!
4 years ago he wrote our trade deficit is ruinous,
And he was wrong.
The laws you quote — gravity, speed of light, etc — those are called laws because all attempts to violate them result in the same consequences. We engineers like to say “these laws are enforced by nature for attempts to break them — sometimes, with lethal consequences.”
eg: I can make anyone believe in the law of gravity by throwing them out a second story window. If 100 economists had differing opinions on the law of gravity the way they do about the “laws” of economics, I could make EVERY single economist in that set of 100 believe ONE law of gravity by simply throwing every one of them out a second story window one at a time. No debate necessary. They might not believe it before I threw them out the window, but I can guarantee with 100% certainty that they’ll believe in the absolute law of gravity before I’d have to repeat the training.
Moreover: The results of this lesson will be the same for every single economist I throw out that window. I don’t care if they’re a Marxist, socialist, or a free market capitalist - when I’m done with them, they’re going to all believe ONE law of gravity, because every single one of them is going in the same direction: Down. Every single one of them is going to hit the earth at the same speed. I don’t give a rat’s rear end if the marxist thought that he could land differently from the capitalist. In the end, they’re both getting what the external framework of the universe is going to give them.
Economic “laws” have no such consequences. Economic “laws” have consequences that are the outcome of a set of human behaviors and relationships between individuals or groups of humans. Not every person will receive the same outcome every single time. To an engineer, this means that some proscription of how these relationships proceed is *not* a “law.” It might be a nice idea, it might even rise to the level of a theory, but unless multiple experiments repeat with exactly the same results every single time, you don’t have a law.
Economics is nothing more or less than a study of how to most efficiently allocate scarce resources. That’s why free marketism is one theory, with its own set of “laws,” and socialism is another grand theory, with its own set of “laws.”
You can come up with a set of “laws” for any economic system you care to name, and these “laws” are perhaps valid only within that particular economic system.
Economic “laws” are, by comparison to physical laws of the universe, “nice ideas.” It would be *nice* if the world worked in that particular way. Sometimes it does — and then all participants agree that things are working reasonably well. But because human crowds are non-linear actors, these economic laws aren’t quite so sturdy in actual practice as physical laws are.
Economists are giving themselves quite a bit of unwarranted praise when they call their field “The Dismal Science,” because there is no science in economics. There’s mathematics, to be sure. But there is no science, and economists don’t use the scientific method to arrive at their “laws.” Do economists run macro-economic experiments? Nope. If they did, would they have a control set against which to compare their results? Nope. Do economists, once getting a particular set of results, then re-run the experiment to see if the results are repeatable? Nope.
Economics is not a science. Economists who try to claim that they are, are frauds and poseurs, trying to ride on the coattails of real sciences.
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.