Posted on 01/10/2010 7:22:50 AM PST by 1rudeboy
Lots of interesting stuff, here.
More cheap stuff at any cost. Enjoy the fruits of outsourcing.
Let the trade war begin.
Bring back all the outsourced jobs, and require reciprocal trade, by country.
Just do it.
Man, you guys read and compose replies quickly. LOL
The Asian growth model on steroids.
Lure Western manufacturing plants with cheap labor. Gain maximum possible access to the US and other markets of Western nations (easy to do with “free” trade nitwits making decisions). Close domestic markets to most imports from Western nations. Create huge trade surpluses with gullible Western nations and squeal like stuck pigs if any Western nations demands that China really practice two-way free trade.
Undervalue your currency and keep the pretend free trade going on and on as your cash reserves build up and the US becomes more and more indebted to you. Most in the US are still too stuck on their pretend free market and pretend free trade theories to realize that their gigantic budget deficits and trade deficits are closely related.
And the flip-side of that protectionist argument is that, if the U.S. government collected more in taxes (either by tariff or preventing U.S. companies from off-shoring), it would spend less money.
China will also increase exporting unemployment to this country.
So, since we're talking China, you contend that the US has two-way free trade with them?
And stop using cheap slur words as a substitute for rational discussion. You sound like Jesse Jackson. Protectionist is the equivalent of a racism charge, used by the pretend free traders who refuse to acknowledge that damned little two-way free trade exists between the US and most nations in the world.
It's the well proven Asian model for growth that most all developing nations want to follow. And that requires that the US export jobs to cheap labor nations, and give them low tariff access to US markets. You apparently approve of this as US policy on and on?
Come off it, I’ve probably told you that we don’t have free trade with China a hundred times. And could you point out my “cheap slur word?” Thanks in advance.
The globalist and pretend free traders have their slur words just as the race baiters do: protectionist, isolationist, restrictionist, nativist, xenophobe, nationalistic. They're used in the US and EU constantly in discussions of trade, immigration, globalism, etc.
“Protectionist” is a “cheap slur word?” As distinguished from “pretend free trader,” or “globalist?” Please elaborate on this style-rule. Is it a matter of usage? Such as?
Now that is a good joke. Freepers don't read.
I have yet to see any evidence anyone’s read the article. But you are correct, it happens a lot.
Yes, it is used to avoid real discussion of specific facts and issues. When any tactic is suggested, or tried, as a means to get China to open its market more in any area, or to stop dumping products in the US, the pretend free traders immediately begin the "protectionism" accusations. Not much detailed discussion of an issue takes place, just the protectionism charge, and the spectre of a giant trade war. - "Globalist" and "Globalism" are in such common usage, I guess it's a personal opinion whether or not they're slurs.
And pretend free trade and pretend free markets are not slurs. They're just my phrases to describe the reality of US participation in international trade. Maybe we almost have free trade with a few European nations, but few others. And the international markets are not free markets for a large number of reasons. Anyone who discusses international trade as if it's free trade in free markets is pretending.
And, demanding equal access to markets, or fair trade, is not protectionism.
And that pretending has given foreign nations far freer access to US markets than the US has to other nations' markets. And that's causing huge damage to the US, and that's a major part of why we have such huge trade and budget deficits, and national debt.
And there is no way out unless some of these loony policies are changed.
What's the relationship? Is it a formula? Plug in one and you'll get the other?
That would be a useful formula. Please ping me when you post it. Thanks.
That's what is called "free trade," silly. And I don't see why I have to take a knee and bow to the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States every time I use the word, "protectionist," when you are free to define terms any way you wish. In fact, it is hypocritical for you to insist that I do so.
Thank you (at least), for the "maybe." Actually, we have free trade agreements with zero European countries. So in this case, you could've simply typed, "we have 'pretend' free trade with a few European nations."
What's the point of introducing a new term when even you cannot use it correctly?
Amen. What is called 'free trade' is government to government lobbyist agreements.
Trade is we buy product from you and you buy product from us. It is not we buy product from you and trade you jobs, factories and Treasuries in return. That's the loony deals that have caused economic misery.
Democrat leaders yell that the placebo of green jobs with resurrect us and Republican leaders are yelling for the mirage of tax cuts. Obviously if the leaders bought product in shopping centers they would see where the jobs are. And jobs are not coming back until we make more of what we import.
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.