Well, my nationwide data can’t compare to your anecdotes.

No. Because the vast majority of the American people you prey on, and laugh at, and demean....

I don't prey on anyone. I do laugh at confused people like you.

don't have the option of protecting themselves.

The vast majority of Americans don't have the option of buying a foreign ETF or mutual fund?

Heck, a free marketer would want the mines open and operating here . . . why can't a protectionist act the same way?

Actually the Chicoms gamed the "system" that you are defending, and by dumping magnetic product, with misappropriated (stolen intellectual property) technology without which they could not have competed. They dumped so much product on the "market" they severely depressed it, such that it was effective in "persuading" Unocal to shut down, creating a defacto Chinese monopoly of a strategic supply. Unocal did this out of simple economics (they couldn't beat the Chinese Treasury and slave labor force) and also because they had no certain victory in an uphill fight against the Chicom's left hands...their American stooges masquerading as simple enviro fanatics.

It was not coincidence.

"Once is Happenstance. Twice is Coincidence. The third time it's Enemy action".

And it is a loss of industrial capacity that could have profound implications in a direct clash. Restarting an operation such as that is not like pushing a switch. And by your phoney free trade fanatacism, you are doing the enemy's work by keeping America misinformed, disinformed, and blinded with confusion. Keeping the public in the dark about how it is being stripped of its means of defense.

I'm a free-market conservative.

From what I have seen of your arguments, you are are neither for a free market, nor a conservative.

On the free market, Reagan rejected your definition of market freedom, as he astutely recognized the games foreign adversaries played, hence he DEMANDED bilateral fairness when dealing with the stacked decks they set up. Reagan also recognized that small American manufacturers...the very fount of creativity, needed special warding against foreign governmental monopoly attacks.

He would have been especially dubious of the freedom of international markets dominated by a communist tyranny such as China. Why do you think he was so zealous at strangling the Soviet's from our capital and technology?

Nor are you particularly conservative since you don't seem to care a wit about national defense, let alone our industrial capacity to sustain it.

and rising wages.

You meant cost of living:

I don't prey on anyone.

Yes, you do, gambling against the dollar.

I do laugh at confused people like you.

And that means you demean the majority of Republicans who are now clearly persuaded you are wrong, to wit: "Republican Shocker- Free trade not so good after all..."

Yes, you do, gambling against the dollar.

You'll have to explain who that preys on.

And that means you demean the majority of Republicans who are now clearly persuaded you are wrong

I laugh at people who are wrong. Whether they're the majority or not. Sorry if I hurt your feelings. Have another donut.

“Well, my nationwide data can’t compare to your anecdotes.”

Nope, nationwide data doesn’t tell us about REAL folks.

I like Rush Limbaugh, but he said if factories go out of business in an area, people just have to adapt, even it means they need to drive an hour and a half to work.

But a few months later Rush said that HE makes sure that he lives close to his job.

To heck with the regular folks.

"free trade" (this time, in financial derivatives) *did* in fact influence

Congratulations. You won your point, while not showing how this free trade is a bad thing.

Americans buying lots of foreign goods is not the cause of trade deficits. Trade deficits are a result of US savings not matching US investment. They are a side effect of relying exclusively on easy fiat money creation to get out of every macroeconomic difficulty. They are also caused by foreign central banks deliberately stockpiling dollar debt rather than allowing their own citizens to purchase US goods with their foreign exchange earnings.

This has in just this president's term resulted in a net transfer of ownership of US capital assets to foreigners, of approximately $4 trillion. It has also resulted in a fall in the purchasing power of the dollar of 1/3rd against other major fiat monies, and of more like 1/2 against major commodities (gold, oil e.g.). Both have transfered enourmous amounts of raw political power to implacable enemies and materially reduced US weight and influence in the world.

There is simply no excuse for it whatever. We have financed a war exclusively by borrowing and then had the Fed print money to keep the cost managable in the short term. We have falsified capital allocation internally as a result, and at least $2 trillion in capital we do not have was pushed into low to zero yield excess real estate, largely just goosing prices, and now resulting in bad debts running into the trillions.

When we ought to have controlled domestic spending as rigorously as possible to fund war efforts, we instead massively expanded federal entitlements, and are now in the process of extending those to huge new classes of non citizens. Objective public accountants declare that the net worth of the US government is approximately negative $60 trillion through unfunded retirement and health care promises, but nobody is reforming any of it, instead they are extending it recklessly.

We are living far beyond our means and our enemies know it. Our future power is palpably ebbing as a direct result. And you treat the whole thing as another occasion for ideological bromide and utter passivity. That is why men who think as you do will not long be allowed to run the country.

Nope, nationwide data doesn’t tell us about REAL folks.

You see, when I said 4.7% unemployment and rising wages, I didn't mean that everyone in the country experienced rising wages. Glad I could clear that up for you.

That is why men who think as you do will not long be allowed to run the country.

And how do I think?

Do you believe all the stats that your read?

Do you ever figure the govt. wants to make the employment picture look rosy?

Do you believe all the stats that your read?

Compared to anecdotes, stats consisting of millions of data points are preferred.

Do you ever figure the govt. wants to make the employment picture look rosy?

You insult us all and make us to be a bunch of dummies. We aren’t.

No, not at all. Being ignorant of a particular subject doesn't make someone a "dummie". I'm ignorant on lots of subjects, but I'm certainly not "dumb". Ignorant just means "I haven't learned that yet."

I have to say that before reading Thomas Sowell's Basic Economics, even though I had passed two semesters of Economics in college, I believe I was still pretty ignorant on the subject. I'm deeply grateful for Dr. Sowell's writing which taught me much.

Those who treat free trade with fear and loathing are either ignorant of the laws of economics, or they deliberately disregard them. The saddest situation is those who are ignorant on a particular subject, but too proud to admit it. That keeps them from learning more.

We are being screwed daily by these trade agreements, and most of us know it. It’s unfair trade, not free trade, but you seem to miss that point. Maybe it’s you that is the dummy, while acting like an intellectual elitist.

How are you being "screwed" daily by individuals freely buying and selling with the trade partner of their own choosing? How does my having the option of buying Chinese-made goods "screw" you?

individuals freely buying and selling

The chicom machine is not an individual. It is an implacable enemy of our survival.

with the trade partner of their own choosing?

Choosing? Choosing? Show us the Wal-Mart with US-Only products. There is no choice. There is a defacto monopoly.

And your love of markets seems to be rather oblivious to their actual absence. To wit: if the Chicom currency, instead of being subsidized and manipulated from Beijing, was forced to be "on the market" [at whose feet certain phoney FReepers worship at]...then let's see what happens.

In reality, The consumer doesn't get the choice. The Chicoms and their Quisling accomplices have made the choice for American consumers...by coopting the entire "market". The whole thing is governmentally manipulated from China.

This poll clearly didn't include a lot of freepers.

Likely not. It would have been even higher in recognizing the damage to our national security that China's manipulated trade has created.

The phoney free traders have been long bested here, and are a vanishingly insignificant minority. Only Wall Street and the White House are the last believers in indiscriminate unilateral import openness, blind to foreign barriers and subsidies.

Choosing? Choosing? Show us the Wal-Mart with US-Only products. There is no choice. There is a defacto monopoly.

Yes "choosing choosing"! Is anyone putting a gun to your head and throwing you into an arm-bar to get you into Wal-Mart? No? Oh, so you choose to shop there, right?

In reality, The consumer doesn't get the choice.

Really? I'm still waiting for evidence of the armed encounter that forced you to shop at Wal-Mart. Until you provide such proof, you are still choosing to shop there.

You may well--and do seem to--think such a choice is a bad one, but it's a choice nonetheless.

Just as I teach my teenagers, bad consequences are not equal to an absence of choice. There may well be bad consequences associated with choosing to buy Chinese-made goods, but that is not the same thing as "no choice".

News of problems with Chinese-made goods has had the entirely predictable results of decreasing demand for those goods. This was all accomplished with no government mandate. The market did it.

The Chicoms and their Quisling accomplices have made the choice for American consumers...by coopting the entire "market". The whole thing is governmentally manipulated from China.

Racist ranting and possible-future-war fear-mongering aside, why shouldn't China be able to sell their goods in the USA? What's the real harm, other than unwelcome low-priced competition?

I'm still waiting for evidence of the armed encounter that forced you to shop at Wal-Mart. Until you provide such proof, you are still choosing to shop there...

You are mentally confused, as you don't recognize the multiplicity of forms of coercion. Failing to recognize how market manipulation deprives "choice." I personally don't shop at Wal-Mart, but still wind up being forced to buy foreign products...such as light bulbs, and flat screen displays, computers etc. The prevalance of the Chicom displacement of our consumer manufacturers...to the brink of monopoly... is undeniable.

Does the word "Monopoly" mean anything to you? Do you recognize what it means to "choice"? How often are there usually "armed encounters" to establish those monopolies? In the U.S., seldom. But not so in the international "Global" market...which is not predicated on freedom at all but merely exploits our unilateral openness as the vulnerability to destroy our independence it is.

Make no mistake, there is coercion...use of armed force...backing up their trade war against the US manufacturing base. And that coercion is directed at their own labor force. Chicom atrocities against their own people continue unabated...denying them any choice but to work for peanuts. Here is an interesting article for you to read before you get so liberal and lazy in your desparagement of those who know more about the Chicom threat than you do:

HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH

China: Rampant Violence and Intimidation Against Petitioners

Officials and “Retrievers” Block Citizens’ Complaints

(Hong Kong, December 8, 2005) — Thousands of citizens who petition Chinese authorities for the redress of grievances are attacked, beaten, threatened, and intimidated, Human Rights Watch said in a new report released today. Activists and representatives trying to help petitioners are also beaten and arrested. The 89-page report, “We Could Disappear at Any Time: Retaliation and Abuses against Chinese Petitioners,” is the first in-depth look at the treatment of Chinese citizens who travel to Beijing to demand approval of or answers to their complaints of mistreatment by officials. Research was carried out in China.

“Petitioners open a window into the myriad human rights and social problems in China,” said Kenneth Roth, Executive Director of Human Rights Watch. “If one wants to understand unrest in China, just look at what petitioners complain about and what they go through to find justice.”

China’s petitioning system has a long cultural and historical tradition dating to the beginnings of the Chinese empire. Administered through national and local regulations, it allows ordinary people to formally raise grievances about subjects as diverse as police brutality, illegal land seizures, poor infrastructure, and corruption.

In present-day China, petitioners often stage sit-ins in front of Zhongnanhai, the compound where China’s leaders live and work, and try to push petitions into their limousines. Thousands of others throng Beijing’s streets in front of national petitions offices, holding up signs. Their numbers swell during major political events, such as national political conventions or the visits of foreign leaders.

A staggering ten million petitions were filed in 2004, though success appears to be quite rare. A recent study found that only three of two thousand petitioners surveyed had their problems resolved.

“[The police officer] said to me, ‘We’ve handled this matter plenty already. We’ve seen a lot of these letters. They’re all just wasted paper, no use. You can go wherever you want, take the case up with anyone you want. Go to the U.N. if you want!...Eventually, we’ll come and arrest you,’” said one petitioner interviewed by Human Rights Watch.

Petitioners, many of them rural people with minimal education or resources, often come to Beijing fleeing local violence and seeking a venue of last resort. Yet while they wait for their petitions to be addressed in Beijing, many are ambushed by groups of plainclothes security officers on the street, beaten, and kidnapped. Many are taken back to their home provinces, imprisoned, and even tortured. A few petitioners who spoke to Human Rights Watch had lost the use of limbs due to torture in detention. The perpetrators of these abuses are usually government employees or agents who act with impunity.

Much of the violence and abuse against petitioners in Beijing emanates from efforts by local officials to stop local residents from going to the capital to complain, out of fear that their own record will be tarnished in the eyes of the national authorities.

Local officials send “retrievers” [jiefang renyuan]—plain-clothes security officers—who attack and intimidate petitioners and force them to return to their home province. Beijing police, in turn, play their part: to quell the threat of rising discontent, they raze the shantytowns where petitioners live in Beijing, round up petitioners, and hand them over to the retrievers, turning a blind eye to the retaliatory violence. Human Rights Watch said that these abuses call for urgent measures to protect petitioners from systematic violence and ill-treatment.

“The stories of abuse we heard—and which we report in the words of petitioners themselves—are chilling,” said Roth. “This kind of heavy-handed treatment angers ordinary people who already have suffered abuses like corruption and police brutality.”

While new regulations on petitioning were issued in May 2005, they appear to have had little effect on restraining the retrievers and their abuses. Touted as a sign of reform, Human Rights Watch said that the new rules have also failed to bring basic fairness to a dysfunctional system.

There is a robust ongoing debate in China about whether to keep or abolish the system. Those who want to do away with the system argue that it is inherently arbitrary and at odds with the protection of human rights and the development of the rule of law. Others suggest it should be overhauled but remain in place, as petitioning offers average Chinese perhaps the only legally sanctioned avenue to raise what, in many cases, are politically-charged grievances.

For many, petitioning offers the illusion of redress while bringing only abuse and poverty. Human Rights Watch said that in a political system lacking accountability to its own citizens, the government and Party often find themselves out of touch with ground realities or the views of ordinary people. With few other channels to raise grievances, and without a free press or the right to freedom of association or assembly, the Chinese government and Chinese Communist Party use the petitioning system as a release valve to maintain social stability.

“In a one-party system intolerant of dissent, petitioning is one of the only ways that ordinary Chinese have to air their grievances,” said Roth. “By using or allowing violence to squelch grievances, the authorities are effectively closing off some of the only political space in the country. They should realize that this endangers the very thing they are trying to protect—social stability.”

Appendix: Selected Testimonies from “We Could Disappear at Any Time”

Ms. Kang’s case began when her husband, injured in a state-run factory, was unable to collect promised workers’ compensation. Alleging official corruption in management of the factory, Ms. Kang began to petition, and eventually took her complaint to Beijing. In 2002 she was seized there and taken back to Jilin:

[In Jilin], I spent sixteen days in the detention house. They shackled me to a chair by my hands and feet. I couldn’t move at all. Everything was swollen, my hands, my feet. Everything became numb. They beat me and I couldn’t take it. It was so hard. After sixteen days, I was sentenced to reeducation through labor for one year. It was the first month of the lunar new year [roughly, February 2002]…. I was beaten in there four times because I wouldn’t eat….

Mr. and Mrs. Jiang’s saga began when they alleged that officials in their village stole 540,000 RMB [U.S.$66,000] through graft. Mr. Jiang told Human Rights Watch what happened next:

At 8:00 p.m. on the evening of December 30, the electric and phone lines in my house were cut. The village deputy [Communist] Party secretary brought the [thugs] on his motorcycle to my house. The vice secretary was just waiting outside on the motorcycle until the men beat me to a pulp to take him home. He [the vice secretary] gave the men 10,000 yuan [U.S.$1,200] to beat me to death. The village deputy secretary paid them to kill me. They organized it that day over lunch.

Ming, a petitioner from Shanxi who lives in the Beijing petitioners’ village with his eleven-year-old son, said that when he raised public concerns about attempts by the Party secretary of his village to take on multiple conflicting government positions, the Party secretary ordered him killed:

At 7:00 p.m. on January 31, 2002, five or six people went to my house. They brought an iron hammer. They came in and said nothing. They weren’t from our village, I’d never seen them before, they were thugs. First they hit my wife and my younger brother’s wife in the head with an iron hammer. They were coming for me, but they didn’t know who they were dealing with. My brother hit [one attacker] over the head with a chair, and then when the chair broke he beat him to death with the chair leg…

Related Material

We Could Disappear at Any Time: Retaliation and Abuses against Chinese Petitioners
Report, December 8, 2005

China
Country Page