Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Paul Ross

>>Actually his version of free trade differs from the current Administration and the Xlinton’s rather dramatically. The Bush’s while trying to claim they are merely following in his footsteps, would, if he was still available to commment, condemn hims as merely a fair trader, because he explicitly declared that our being open, while the other side wasn’t, or cheated...was not free trade. He also never believed in an international organization to decide our trade disputes...abdicating our rights to the WTO. This also has become a lynchpin of the last two administrations. Note, we have never formally executed a Treaty to become a part of this. This was merely done by legislation enacting the “Agreement” of NAFTA, appended as an 8-page addendum thereto. Congress cannot by simple legislation elevate something to Treaty status, and usurp our own Constitutionally-structured system so cavalierly. And it cannot also enact excess delegations of authority to the executive branch of functions fundamentally reserved to it alone.<<

I’m old enough to remember the speech that Reagan gave that kicked off his 1980 campaign - he devoted a great deal of time to something he called “a North American accord”, which became the precursor to NAFTA. Whether this means that he would have endorsed NAFTA, etc. in its current form obviously we don’t know, but I suspect that he would have concluded that the benefits of low tariffs are worth the price of having these cumbersome agreements. I agree with Milton Friedman - we don’t need any agreement to lower tariffs, we can do so unilaterally.


351 posted on 10/04/2007 3:11:37 PM PDT by NKStarr (GAN)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 278 | View Replies ]


To: NKStarr
...but I suspect that he would have concluded that the benefits of low tariffs are worth the price of having these cumbersome agreements.

NO. We have his actual example. Insisting on fair agreements with Japan as one example. Putting tariffs up to protect Harley Davidson, requiring domestic content requirements of the automakers, etc.

I agree with Milton Friedman - we don’t need any agreement to lower tariffs, we can do so unilaterally.

To which Reagan, who had appointed him as chair of his Council of Economic Advisers, respectfully declined to implement, because he recognized more astutely than Uncle Miltie, that we needed to engage the foreign "trading partners" to not only eliminate the overt barriers to our productive exports, but the non-tariff barriers as well.

To that end, we needed leverage. Those without reciprocal barriers have no leverage. As Bush has proved over, and over, and over and over and over and over again with the Chicoms. They laugh themselves silly when he puffs up his chest and says they are doing wrong.

They call his bluff every single time. He will not betray his import lobby backers, and defend the country. They know it. He knows it. And I am willing to bet YOU KNOW IT TOO.

And there is nothing "conservative" about him or what is being passed off as Free trade...when it isn't. It is phoney. Just like the Democrat's phoney soldiers.

363 posted on 10/04/2007 4:14:21 PM PDT by Paul Ross (Ronald Reagan-1987:"We are always willing to be trade partners but never trade patsies.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 351 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson