Republican Shocker: Free Trade's Not So Good After All

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:

You've aptly described the lack of choice that can occur in China, but you fail to demonstrate that this somehow leads to a lack of choice in the USA.

You've shown coercion in their own markets, but not that Chinese coercion is leveled directly at Wal-Mart, or others.

Am I expected to examine every purchase I make to ensure that the supplier didn't break laws or harm anyone in the process of providing what ever it is? Are Dodge trucks free of Bad Guys all the way up the line? I don't know. Do the makers of Florsheim shoes spy on the competition or cheat on their taxes? I don't know. Should I?

Also, are we supposed to assume that every Chinese-made product is the result of violent repression and coercive monopoly? You certainly haven't proven that such is the case.

You're doing the racial over-generalization thing in a big way here.

...oh, and even if everything you have provided is true. Even if China really is manipulating every market in which they participate. If I grant every argument you have made, it still doesn't show that a free market is a bad thing. It only shows that free markets might be manipulated or abused by bad people.

Free-market capitalism is still a very Good Thing.

..but you fail to demonstrate that this somehow leads to a lack of choice in the USA.

What constitutes a demonstration of that to you? I have already alluded to the displacement of U.S.-mfr "choices". You are surely aware that Wal-Mart is not a victim in this, but a true accomplice.

You are aware of their practice of "best world price" consciously wielded AGAINST U.S. manufacturers?

To use your own misguided mentation against you...it is YOU who has the burden to prove that their trade policy isn't RASCIST. See how well you do at proving a negative, Slick!

And you will find that the substance of that particularly nasty issue is not as easy for you to gloss over as you likely surmise.

You have shown an inability to distinguish between national enemies...and race. To wit: You're doing the racial over-generalization thing in a big way here.

Actually it was you that was guilty of this. Your conflation of the issues is a serious problem for you.

You fail to recognize that the key clash here is communism...ideology.

That is not to say that the problem of racism is not a real one...for China.

Even leftists acknowledge their innate racial superiority complex...see the Guardian's Martin Jacque's The Middle Kingdom mentality. Wherein he noted the especial vileness of their attacks on Condileeza Rice:

One way of taking the temperature in China is the internet, a very important indicator of public opinion in a country where more traditional media are tightly controlled. The importance of - and recent upsurge in - nationalism, for example, has found powerful expression on Chinese websites. The internet response to Rice's visit has been revealing. The racist character of much of it has moved liberals to protest, most significantly Liu Xiaobo, a veteran critic of mass movements in China since Tiananmen, who has written a response on the New Century Net website.
He says that of 800 messages he has read about her visit, no less than 70 involved racist comments about her colour: of these, only two were relatively moderate; the rest were vicious, describing Rice as a "black ghost", "black dog", "black woman" and "black bitch". One stated, "You are not even like a black ghost, a really low form of life," and another, "Her brain is even more black than her skin." One writer said: "I don't support racism, but this black ghost really makes people angry, the appearance of a little black who has made good."
In fact, the reaction is not that surprising. Although it is rarely written about or commented upon, Chinese culture remains deeply racist. For the most part, the Chinese are in denial of their own racism, while white commentators, in their great majority, are either oblivious of it, or simply regard it as unimportant.
...Chinese people commonly believe they are superior to those of darker skin. The attitude towards whites, as Liu points out in his article, is much more complex. They tend to acknowledge the historical achievements of the west, but at the same time resent western hegemony and despise aspects of western culture, many believing that at some point in the future the innate virtue of Chinese civilisation will again assert itself.

They don't stop at hating the darker-skinned either. They hate us for being richer than they are, that is the "culture" that the guy is euphemistically glossing over. And they lay blame for their poverty on their U.S. accomplices...not on their Chicom overlords. Of course, this part and parcel of the Chicom management of their people.

The Communists are fully exploiting agit-prop (agitation and propaganda) against the U.S. "The Hegemon" that they inveigh against constantly..demonizing the very firms that are their most slavish accomplices in transferring technology and power to them...

If I grant every argument you have made, it still doesn't show that a free market is a bad thing. It only shows that free markets might be manipulated or abused by bad people.

Yes, I did. You are enabling the "bad people."

Free-market capitalism is still a very Good Thing.

Internally yes. And that's the way our Constitution was set up. And to tax foreign commerce.

But externally, capitalism is amoral, and needs rules...which if unenforced against such perpetrators as the Chicom violators, it leads to destruction of the internal free market...right here at home, and aiding their totalitarian menace to all freedoms everywhere.

What constitutes a demonstration of that to you? I have already alluded to the displacement of U.S.-mfr "choices". You are surely aware that Wal-Mart is not a victim in this, but a true accomplice.

You have offered only innuendo and implications, but your argument requires proof. Now, you will have to prove the alleged conspiracy involving Wal-Mart as well.

Throwing out baseless accusations that simply sound scary is not proof!

You are aware of their practice of "best world price" consciously wielded AGAINST U.S. manufacturers?

What's that!? Are you serious!?

You mean... Wal-Mart wants to get the best price it can!? The horror! They're the first company to ever engage in such mean-spirited practices, and they should be punished!

Why that's... that's... COMPETITION!

To use your own misguided mentation against you...it is YOU who has the burden to prove that their trade policy isn't RASCIST. See how well you do at proving a negative, Slick!

Why do you claim that I must prove a negative, which we both know is impossible? Do you believe that this somehow eliminates your burden of proof?

Your argument is painting all of China with a broad brush, implying that any trade with a Chinese supplier involves coercive monopoly power and brutal oppression. That's a pretty strong accusation to make with no proof. It's racist and false.

You have shown an inability to distinguish between national enemies...and race. To wit: You're doing the racial over-generalization thing in a big way here.

Actually it was you that was guilty of this. Your conflation of the issues is a serious problem for you.

You fail to recognize that the key clash here is communism...ideology.

That is not to say that the problem of racism is not a real one...for China.

Even leftists acknowledge their innate racial superiority complex...see the Guardian's Martin Jacque's The Middle Kingdom mentality. Wherein he noted the especial vileness of their attacks on Condileeza Rice:

One way of taking the temperature in China is the internet, a very important indicator of public opinion in a country where more traditional media are tightly controlled. The importance of - and recent upsurge in - nationalism, for example, has found powerful expression on Chinese websites. The internet response to Rice's visit has been revealing. The racist character of much of it has moved liberals to protest, most significantly Liu Xiaobo, a veteran critic of mass movements in China since Tiananmen, who has written a response on the New Century Net website.

He says that of 800 messages he has read about her visit, no less than 70 involved racist comments about her colour: of these, only two were relatively moderate; the rest were vicious, describing Rice as a "black ghost", "black dog", "black woman" and "black bitch". One stated, "You are not even like a black ghost, a really low form of life," and another, "Her brain is even more black than her skin." One writer said: "I don't support racism, but this black ghost really makes people angry, the appearance of a little black who has made good."

In fact, the reaction is not that surprising. Although it is rarely written about or commented upon, Chinese culture remains deeply racist. For the most part, the Chinese are in denial of their own racism, while white commentators, in their great majority, are either oblivious of it, or simply regard it as unimportant.

...Chinese people commonly believe they are superior to those of darker skin. The attitude towards whites, as Liu points out in his article, is much more complex. They tend to acknowledge the historical achievements of the west, but at the same time resent western hegemony and despise aspects of western culture, many believing that at some point in the future the innate virtue of Chinese civilisation will again assert itself.

They don't stop at hating the darker-skinned either. They hate us for being richer than they are, that is the "culture" that the guy is euphemistically glossing over. And they lay blame for their poverty on their U.S. accomplices...not on their Chicom overlords. Of course, this part and parcel of the Chicom management of their people.

The Communists are fully exploiting agit-prop (agitation and propaganda) against the U.S. "The Hegemon" that they inveigh against constantly..demonizing the very firms that are their most slavish accomplices in transferring technology and power to them...

Hrmpbhphphp...

Oh, you're finished now? I fell asleep trying to read your long-winded bloviations on everything but the subject of the thread.

China's alleged racism, alleged brutality and alleged monopolistic internal business practices have nothing to do with the central question!

Can you try to stick to the subject, please?

I'll refresh your memory: How does the activity of China prove that free markets are a Bad Thing? Prove that protectionism would solve what ever problems you raise with the current system.

Why that's... that's... COMPETITION!

False. The best world price demands that the U.S. manufacturer...cease being one...send the product to China for manufacture...or that Wal-Mart itself will somehow introduce a nearly-competitive product from its own Chinese suppliers and ...cease doing business with the U.S. manufacturer.

This is well-known business practice, and only an ignoramus would call it "competition." It is the antithesis. It is called monopoly practice. It is you who have offered only innuendo, and implications. No proofs. No denials, other than specious rhetoric. Your arguments require proof. And you have none.

.... implying that any trade with a Chinese supplier involves coercive monopoly power and brutal oppression. That's a pretty strong accusation to make with no proof.

First of all, you couldn't deny it. The Communists maintain a monopoly on power...and that extends to their "non-state" businesses as, which are thinly veiled fronts for the PLA. And the evidence of the oppression is right under your nose.

The Communist government controls that $1.2 trillion stash of U.S. dollars, not their people.

Further, it is also devoting hundreds of billions on their military advancement...all done in extreme secrecy.

It's racist

As Reagan always said of your ilk..."THERE YOU GO AGAIN!"

LOL!

... and false.

You can't deny its truth. So you just name-call. Your lies repeated ofen enough are supposed to beceome "facts" Won't happen. We are onto the propaganda spreaders you represent.

Oh, you're finished now? I fell asleep trying to read your long-winded bloviations on everything but the subject of the thread.

Projecting again, I see. And yes, you are asleep. Still. Just go back to bed, Chris. That's where you belong.

As for how trade policy bears on all this...that is incredibly easy.

Let me ask you one little question. Answer it as best you can:

How did Ronald Reagan beat the Soviet Union?

How did Ronald Reagan beat the Soviet Union?

Umm...

With the vast American wealth created by free-market capitalism?

With the vast American wealth created by free-market capitalism?

You have a glimmer, albeit only a meager part of the answer. The best break-down of the accomplishment was described in Peter Schweitzer's Victory: The Reagan Administration's Secret Strategy That Hastened the Collapse of the Soviet Union

Don't be guiled by the smiling faces...this was war.

A couple reviews might help you understand:

Editorial Reviews
From Publishers Weekly

Beginning in 1982, according to the author, then President Ronald Reagan and his senior advisers mapped out a systematic strategy to hasten the demise of the Soviet Union by attacking its fundamental economic and political weaknesses. In a convincing, startling expose that reads like a spy thriller, Schweizer ( Friendly Spies ) draws on interviews with Caspar Weinberger, George Shultz, KGB generals, Politburo members, Reagan advisers and others to show how the Reagan administration used covert operations, hidden diplomacy, military build-up and policy maneuvers to exacerbate the Soviet crisis in natural resources, sow political discord and weaken the Soviet empire. The Reagan strategy, as revealed here, included restricting Soviet access to Western credit and technology, covert financial and logistical support to Poland's Solidarity movement and to the Czech underground, a campaign to slash Soviet hard currency earnings by driving down the price of oil with Saudi cooperation, and substantial covert aid to the Afghan resistance fighting the Soviet invasion. Copyright 1994 Reed Business Information, Inc. --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.

From Library Journal

To exhaust the Soviet economy, the Reagan administration tightened technology export controls, launched SDI, funded Afghan resisters, and induced the Saudis to keep oil prices low. The unfolding of this not-so-secret strategy, in which CIA director William Casey took a leading role, is admiringly recounted by the author of Friendly Spies (Atlantic Monthly, 1993) with "re-created" dialogs and homey details of Casey's secret meetings with friendly despots like Pakistan's General Zia and the Saudi royal family. Specifics of the CIA's technology disinformation program and of its relationships with the Vatican, Solidarity, and the Voice of America make interesting reading. Otherwise, there's little new here other than the notion that Casey's maneuvers were key to the demise of the Soviet empire, which, as Schweitzer admits, was already in deep economic trouble by the end of the Carter administration. For general readers with a taste for tabloid history-Robert Decker, Palo Alto, Cal. Copyright 1994 Reed Business Information, Inc.

And then this reader's review:

"We Win - They Lose!", May 10, 2006 By E. Spencer Garrett IV (Gautier, MS USA) -

This book is one of the best ever written on public policy. It gives concrete examples of how to wage a resource-based campaign against an opponent. While the context is the U.S. - Soviet campaign of the 1980's, the same principles could be used in political campaigns, cities versus surburbs situations, state versus state economic development, legal disputes, etc.
When Ronald Reagan was trying to get Richard Allen to join his campaign team in the late 1970's, Allen asked him what his strategy was for dealing with the Soviet Union. Reagan's response, "We Win - They Lose!" It was seen then (and now by some pointy-headed leftist pundits) as simplistic in the extreme and Reagan was seen as extremely dangerous for pursuing it.
This book deals not so much with the strategy but the tactics in carrying it out. Specifically the idea was to destroy the Soviet empire by raising the cost of that empire while reducing the benefits of that empire. The trick was to use low cost (to the U.S.) tools to provide ruinous results (to the Soviets). In short, Economic Warfare.
For instance, early on the Reagan Administration found that Western European bankers were providing low-cost loans to Soviet client states based on the idea that Soviet gold reserves would insure the loans. When the Reagan Treasury Department did a study that discovered that there were more loans outstanding than gold reserves to cover them, that information was given to the bankers and the empire subsidy stopped. Low cost to us (a few million dollars for a study) yielded a high cost to them (billions in additional interest payments).
Over and over this book gives examples of Bill Casey at the CIA and how he would use these tactics to make the strategy work-- opposing the Soviet natural gas pipeline into Western Europe, secretly funding Poland's Solidarity Labor movement, bleeding the Soviet war machine in Afghanistan, convincing the Saudis to drop the price of oil at exactly the right moment so that Soviet natural gas reserves became worthless, etc. The list goes on and on.
Reagan's opponents said before the collapse of Communism that this "Reagan Doctrine" wouldn't work. Afterwards they gave the credit to Gorbachev' reform efforts and the 1950's containment theory. But unlike the Reagan Doctrine, those were just strategies. As too many businesses have discovered, long-term strategies have a way of being swamped by short-term considerations.
This book shows that Reagan's strategy in the hands of a skilled tactician like Casey was what doomed the Soviet Union. It makes for fascinating reading.

Yeah, and you know what? Through all that, Reagan was for free trade.

Go figure.

Yeah, and you know what? Through all that, Reagan was for free trade. Go figure.

Yet you apparently don't comprehend what that meant to him really, so don't tell us what he was "for."

First and foremost...he was for America.

His idea was framed by that notion of not being a patsy...see tag-line. It is a direct quote from his 1987 State of the Union address. And it bears on his entire philosophy.

It clearly is NOT the Globalism that the Bushes and Clintons are for.

Because he actually aggressively protected our industries. Not universally, but when he spotted undeniable foul play by adversary governments. So what did he do? He took countervailing action.

E.g., "import quotas" "parts content requirements" and outright tariffs when helpful...or even where it wasn't clear they were needed. He was sending a message...

Can you say Harley-Davidson?

Go figure.

Thanks for posting this, bmflr.

Don’t forget also, companies have been doing laying off and firings to coincide with pensions and benefits being lost. I’ve not seen too many stories about that over the passed 2 years. We had a whole bunch though between 2002 - 2004.

Even Business Week had to debunk the US numbers which Todd loves to tout... to wit:

Which US numbers does this article debunk?

As a result, the actual size of phantom GDP could be a lot larger, or perhaps smaller.

LOL!

WOW! $66 billion since 2003? We had GDP of nearly $48 trillion between 2003 and 2006. If this $66 billion figure is correct, that's less than 0.14%.

Obviously, we're doomed. Have another donut. LOL!

Darn it Paul! Thank you for the posting from Business Week. I'll read it, and then click "Report Abuse." Think about it, if you took the trouble of excerpting the material you think is relevant, then it wouldn't be necessary.

As it stands, I don't see why your urge to post blocks of text should result in a copyright lawsuit against FR.