Posted on 10/04/2007 7:07:18 AM PDT by SJackson
The 1% that have Sub-prime problem loans are because of "free trade"? Did they import that house from China or something?
BTTT!
It must be nice to throw around insulting comments without even having to demonstrate your accuracy or even narrowing down exactly what it was you think was incorrect.
Don't bother explaining now. Obviously you have other priorities than engaging in enlightening debate.
get back to me when you can rationalize & justify $850 billion trade deficits.
yep!
Get back to me when you can explain to me how maintaining the highest standard of living in the world for decades can be the result of huge blunders in running the economy.
“There must be a level playing field with regard to regulations.”
Thank you. We agree on this.
Now extrapolate the fact that different trading “partners” have different standards (pay, environmental regulations, labor laws...etc) and you can see that the term “free trade” does not necessarily mean “fair trade” when another partner has an advantage over you. It shouldn’t tax your intellect to then see where the problem of job losses occurs in the country hamstrung by such regulations.
This is the main problem with you “free traders”.
Your position is too formulaic. Should we relax controls here in the US and live in a shit hole like most of the industrial cities of China? I don’t think so. There is actually a happy medium of reasonable safety and environmental regulations and productivity. It’s not all about the lowest cost. Really.
Until every single manufacturing facility on this planet abides by the same labor and environmental rules and regs.....there can not be “free trade” that is even close to being equitable for all those (business competitors) involved. We are so far away from “fair trade” it’s not even funny.
I’d be opposed to NAFTA too, mostly because of the way it was passed. Instead of being treated as a treaty (requiring a 2/3 vote in the Senate), it was treated as regulation of international commerce (requiring simple majorities in both houses). With its binding rules and regulations and its creation of supra-national tribunals, it sounds more like a treaty, doesn’t it?
Well, Ultra Sonic was my OLD account. So you almost had it.
I did not know you in the old days, apparently. LOL
Very clever! No, the rolling of sub-prime paper across the pond to suckers, who in the past would have been protected by the barriers of national self-interest, but no longer so because of the last penny greed upon which free trade is based, is how the problem has infected western economies other than ours.
GDP per capita:
United States: $39,676 - Degree of economic freedom = 82%
Japan: $29,251 - Degree of economic freedom = 73.6%
S. Korea: $20,499 - Degree of economic freedom = 68.6%
China: $5,896 - Degree of economic freedom = 54%
The only crap here is the never ending ignorance you display on these threads. I see you still haven't learned that we don't have to go into debt to create a current account deficit. Do you still run away when anyone asks you to explain how any debt is created when an American buys a DVD player made in Japan for cash at Best Buy?
“And outside of Europe and a few other locations, most of our trading “partners” have very much kept their markets closed.”
I do not at all disagree that we shouldn’t honor free trade agreement with countries that don’t return the favor. But when both sides act as agreed, the benefits are enormous. Returning to protectionism is like hiding behind a fixed fortification in a battle. Its stupid, and you’re going to lose.
Get back to us when you can tell us why a current account deficit and a capital account surplus is bad for our economy.
If history is any indicator, you'll just run away and pretend this question was never asked the next time trade is discussed on the forum. Run fast, run far and be sure to scream that the sky is falling.
“Be sure to read about the protectionist Congress he had to appease.”
Indeed. Reagan left office insisting that free trade was the way to go, much to the detriment of the Democrats. And now Buchananite Republicans are stabbing his memory in the back with this protectionism.
When global labor arbitrage gets called “free trade” it’s little surprise people turn against it.
They use to negotiate fair trade deals, unlike these lopsided monstrosities handed to our competitors.
It’s about time government return to the days of for and by the people....not for and by the corporate / foreign lobbyist.
America First
I wonder if the Buchananite protectionists here believe Reagan wasn't a real conservative and that only through more government control of the economy can conservatism be restored?
The problem here is that many of the choices have been taken away from individual purchasers and employees; and that many of the conditions underlying the 'equitable exchanges' have changed over time.
So Wal-Mart when it started bragged about 'Made in America' but then (without pointing out to the consumer) 'encouraged' its suppliers to engage in wage arbitrage, pocketed the bulk of the savings, and passed a bit of the savings on to its consumers.
Fine, you say; according to the laws of economics, they found a cheaper supplier, what's not to like?
The problem is analogous to the risk posed by monopolies -- they become immune to market forces, and begin doing things exclusively to their own benefit, without fear of being chastised by the market. So too the cheaper foreign suppliers degraded the quality of many items over time, so that the "unit cost" per item was less, but the "unit utility" (to coin a phrase) was worse then the original domestically-produced goods. The problem is that if *ALL* the major suppliers of a good or service collectively have what the stock investor types call a "moat", and they all decide to screw the consumer in the same way, there is no effective mechanism to correct this.
(And the same goes for service, too. Tech support from India is, in the words of the old joke, like trying to teach a pig to speak German. It wastes your time and it annoys the pig.)
And your posts still specifically exclude the dangers posed by (say) China's upgraded military-industrial complex. Just because the limited discipline of economics does not consider geopolitical and military topics, or is not sufficiently sophisticated to model them...doesn't mean they are *in reality* insignificant.
Cheers!
You're talking past Will88 here.
He is claiming that the happenings related in these posts involve other factors than just the laws of economics; or that the laws themselves are merely "idealizations" (similar to thermodynamics) which although valid in their own sphere, are only fulfilled 'exactly' under idealized conditions (air conditioners are governed by the Carnot cycle, but you never acheive 100% efficiency in practice) --and that a lot of the underlying conditions behind the laws of economics aren't really happening in the trade practices being discussed. Which is a different thing than saying "the laws are bunk."
Cheers!
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.