Heritage publishes a yearly Index of Economic Freedom, it's worth a look.
Posted on 10/14/2007 10:22:06 AM PDT by 1rudeboy
By a razor-thin margin last week, Costa Ricans approved their country's entry into the Central American Free Trade Agreement, which they've been told will bring all kinds of benefits to their economy. But nearly half of voters in that U.S.-friendly country viewed CAFTA as a bad idea.
We've long supported free trade and hope that, with Costa Rica's approval, the pact will make commerce easier among the United States, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua and the Dominican Republic. But the growing skepticism about free trade across the Americas, including in the U.S., suggests the results have fallen short of expectations.
Recent polls in the U.S. show widespread doubts about the benefits of free trade, even among a once-reliable cheerleading group: Republicans. A Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll this month showed that Republicans, by a 2-to-1 ratio, believe free trade has been bad for our economy. Most Republican respondents favor tightening U.S. rules on imports.
Other polls have shown strong concerns among Americans that free trade hurts workers but benefits companies, yet there also is much confusion. In a March poll, respondents simultaneously opposed globalization but favored expanding U.S. commercial competition in the world.
It's clear from these results that promoters of free trade have some marketing – and myth busting – to do.
Various studies have demonstrated that the lower a country's import tariffs, the higher per capita income tends to be. Nations with open trade policies typically register far higher gross domestic products and economic growth rates than those with restrictive policies. Free trade also helps tamp down inflation.
A greater per capita gross domestic product typically means people have more money to spend. Consumers in open-trade countries also tend to have more purchasing options and pay lower prices.
Average U.S. unemployment rates have dropped . . . .
(Excerpt) Read more at dallasnews.com ...
Hey the best way to ‘sell free trade’ it would be to identify who is now holding all the good jobs ‘fleece trade’ has created. [those in China don’t count)
And what, shoot them? Da, comrade.
BUMP
Europe is pretty much protectionish and has pretty much the higher per capita incomes. Only the free trading USA is in the top ten (8th).
Until these companies (multi-national or not) start making life better for their employees, (wages, benies, job security and no more of these foreign rent-a-contact workers + illegals) this trend of distrust will continue.
Heritage publishes a yearly Index of Economic Freedom, it's worth a look.
Actually, I agree that would be a good way if it were possible.
It would be very beneficial for the proponents of free trade with, say, Red China, to show exactly all of the job gains and job losses in various areas here in the U.S. due to that trade, and to show that indeed there is a strong economic benefit to such trade with a totalitarian state.
That would indeed be a first-rate way to argue their case, but as far as I know, it has not been attempted.
The “razor thin margin?”
If it was so thin, the article would mention it.
In fact, inspite of organized Leftist protests, plus a gaggle of U.S. Congressmen visiting Costa Rica to oppose it, Costa Ricans themselves were able to see through the smokescreen.
Bernie Sanders, I.(for “idiot”)-Vt, famously made the incredible statement that free trade “hurts both sides.”
What goes around comes around. It's a two way street. If Americans want access to global markets, then expect other countries to want the same in return. If American companies can't compete, and there is no reason they can't, too bad. But don't expect the taxpayer to subsidize a bad business plan.
Of course wording in any free trade agreement is important, and there are good reasons to place tariffs on imports from countries who try cheat by dumping product below cost and other violations such as subsidizing textile companies and ag products. And don't think we don't do the same thing.
It's an ongoing battle with Europe over subsidies, especially in the ag business, which is what is keeping commodity prices artificially low. Ironically that is what creates the demand for farm subsidies in the first place.
Free trade agreements help by putting these issues on the table, and hopefully bring an end to subsidies, which are taxpayers dollars that should go to what they were origionaly for.
But try and do a story about some factory being opened, and you'll likely lose your job for failing to consider the "human interest" angle.
The proof is in the numbers. Do you expect every individual case where companies have benefit from free trade to be listed somewhere for you to scrutinize? They are actually, you just have to look. It's called profit margins.
There is much to criticize and praise in these agreements. The agreements are complex documents because of the political constraints. On balance, trade agreements are not the villains.
The villains are our lack of competitiveness imposed on us by the dims and rinos. It is natural that we have more labor and environmental protections. However, the dims and rinos are trying to impose a risk averse, nanny state that imposes extra high external costs for litigation, environment, labor, and taxes. Americans are naturally hard working, God fearing, and enterprising. We can compete in the global marketplace if we are not strangled by stifling regulations, taxes, entitlements, and litigation.
Nations with open trade policies typically register far higher gross domestic products and economic growth rates than those with restrictive policies.
is more false than true.
ping
And I showed you why you are incorrect. Countries with higher barriers to trade tend to be authoritarian in other economic matters, and it shows in those countries’ lower per capita incomes.
Looks to me like protectionist Europe and Japan are doing just fine.
Which of the European models do you propose for our economy, Luxembourg, Norway, Switzerland, Denmark, or Iceland’s? And admit it, you don’t even know how “protectionist” their economies actually are.
I would like us to model our trade policy on the USA circa 1776-1960.
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.