Posted on 05/10/2013 3:33:32 AM PDT by lowbridge
As a general rule, corporations should be able to build plants where they want, whether it’s in America or elsewhere. Moreover, if they choose to go overseas, we should be asking, “Why is that?” Are our corporate taxes too high? Do we have too many regulations? Is there something else that we can do as a nation to be more business-friendly, to keep building plants here in America, so that we can employ more people and rake in more taxes?
However, it’s a little different with a company like General Motors.
Taxpayers lost more than 10 billion bailing out GM because Obama thinks it’s fine for his corporate allies to embrace capitalism on the way up and socialism on the way down. Now, GM’s taking some of that money that it pilfered from us and it’s building a plant in China with it.
(Excerpt) Read more at rightwingnews.com ...
I love it like Ronald Reagan.
Watch your BP, calm down Potsie.
But, in general, the protective system of our day is conservative, while the free trade system is destructive. It breaks up old nationalities and pushes the antagonism of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie to the extreme point. In a word, the free trade system hastens the social revolution. It is in this revolutionary sense alone, gentlemen, that I vote in favor of free trade.
- Karl Marx
Getting hard to stick to the "Never buy another Dodge" part of that as I go through my mid-life crisis REALLY REALLY wanting a Challenger SRT ........
How long before car parts supposedly made for the Chink domestic market start to get shipped back to the USA?
BTW are you the same Wright that posts a million times on Am. Thinker? Reagan was committed to ‘free’ trade until he was not. Reagan was committed to ‘free’ trade just like Nixon. Reagan was also committed to Border Security until he was not. Reagan was also in agreement with Milton Friedman until he was not. The real ‘free’ trade genius in your world was the great Whig dishonest Abe Lincoln!
young entrepreneurs developing....... If they are doing so great then how come the economy sucks? What you have today in America is like a small town with one restaurant. If B opens up a new restaurant then he cuts into A's business. A and B cannot prosper but A can if B never opens up his restaurant. What we have today in America is a static or shrinking economic pie which was not the case during our great expansionary days. Blame free trade, EPA, OSHA and other factors
It's must be great being an optimistic fool. Your young entrepreneurs might be expanding but all they do is put others out of business. Great for them but a net zero for the overall economy. Can you name some of them? I want to know what kind of businesses they are in
Worst part is even the young entrepreneurs you hail would not have a chance if the Federale Reserve was not pumping a trillion in imaginary money into the economy each year, same reason the DJA is up these days
The world is much larger than your county
Wow! Such wisdom. I have no problem with world trade but I despise the one sided "free trade" which we have today
I still suggest reading Forbes. It will put to an end your misconceptions
It is available on line for free or by subscription for only $60 per year.
Reagan was committed to free trade, just like he is to peace thru strength. Sometimes you have to beat the war drums, or even go to war, to get to peace.
He was smart enough. unlike some folks around here, to understand that sometimes tactics have to be used to ultimately achieve strategic ends. But he was committed to free trade as part of free markets which is an indespensible part of free markets. You can’t have it both ways. You can’t like Reagan and say that all of us who agree with him are anti American. You cannot. You shoud examine your own lack of economic understanding.
...indespensible part of overall freedom.....multi tasking today.
Yes CV, you are in agreement with a dictator who history has proven wrong about everything. CONGRATS. You and Lenin and Marx stay over there....bert, Lakeshark and I will stand with Reagan, Friedman, Sowell, Kudlow, and on and on and on and on and on...and liberty.
Go live in Brazil, that's your kind of country. The Obama-bots will be taxing you more and more to support what you call noncompetitive "domestic labor". Real nations with national pride like Korea do their best to keep all Koreans with decent jobs. Same in Japan. Germany does a good job at this too. You are far more suited to live in freaky Latino kleptocracies like Mexico, Guatemala and Brazil. You have that Latin padrone mentality where you want your laborers kissing your butt
Volume VI, No. 5
May 1988
Ronald Reagan: Protectionist
by Sheldon L. Richman
Mark Shields, a columnist for the Washington Post, recently wrote of President Reagan’s “blind devotion to the doctrine of free trade.” If President Reagan has a devotion to free trade, it must be blind because he has been way off the mark. In fact, he has been the most protectionist president since Herbert Hoover.
Admittedly, his rhetoric has been confusing. In 1986 Reagan said, “Our trade policy rests firmly on the foundation of free and open markets. I recognize. . . the inescapable conclusion that all of history has taught: the freer the flow of world trade, the stronger the tides of human progress and peace among nations.”
But he advocated protectionism early in his 1980 campaign, saying to the U.S. auto industry: “Japan is part of the problem. This is where government can be legitimately involved. That is, to convince the Japanese in one way or another that, in their own interests, that deluge of cars must be slowed while our industry gets back on its feet...”
When he imposed a 100% tariff on selected Japanese electronic products for allegedly “dumping” computer memory chips, he said he did it “to enforce the principles of free and fair trade.” And Treasury Secretary James A. Baker has boasted about the protectionist record: Reagan “has granted more import relief to U.S. industry than any of his predecessors in more than half a century.”
It’s true that the administration has fought with protectionists in Congress, but only over who should have the power to restrict trade. As Reagan put it, “It’s better policy to allow for presidents—me or my successors—to have options for dealing with trade problems.”
Defenders of the Reagan policies will say that he has engaged in protectionism to open foreign markets. But they cannot deny that one-quarter of all imports are today restricted, a 100% increase over 1980.
Nor are foreign markets more open. The Reagan administration talks about exporting free enterprise, but in fact it has exported economic intervention to Japan, South Korea, and other nations.
When the United States imposes import quotas or pressures a foreign government to do so, a compulsory cartel must arise in the exporting country, since its government will assign the quotas among private firms and administer the system. Ronald Reagan has forced nations that export textiles, apparel, sugar, steel, and other products to cartelize these industries.
Can trade restrictions open foreign markets? The use of government power to regulate trade is more likely to produce conflict of which American consumers and exporters become the victims. It is also naive, because it ignores the political pressure to maintain existing restrictions. The United States, for example, could impose new limits on Japanese autos to force Japan to accept beef exports from Iowa. But, as syndicated columnist Stephen Chapman asks, “Does anyone believe that when Japan starts buying Iowa beef, Ford and Chrysler will stop trying to keep out Japanese cars?”
Considering our own intricate web of trade restrictions, it is sanctimonious for the U.S. government to lecture others about opening their markets. It might be in a better position to make demand~ if it first stripped our economy of those restrictions. But wouldn’t we be giving up bargaining chips? Yes. But the objective is not to negotiate; it is to enjoy the benefits of productivity and the international division of labor. The bonanza of unconditional free trade would be so great for the United States that it would set a good example for the rest of the world.
The value of free trade does not depend on open markets abroad. It is good for the nation that practices it, regardless of what others do. The purpose of an economic system is not to produce jobs or sell products abroad. Those are means. The end is satisfaction of our material wants. Free trade is good because our standard of living depends on how easily we can get the products and services we want.
One is led to ask: with free-traders like this, who needs
protectionists?
The administration has thus far:
Forced Japan to accept restraints on auto exports;
Tightened considerably the quotas on imported sugar;
Negotiated to increase the restrictiveness of the Multifiber Arrangement governing trade in textiles and apparel;
Required 18 countries, including Brazil, Spain, South
Korea, Japan, Mexico, South Africa, Finland, Australia, and the European Community, to accept “voluntary restraint agreements” that reduce their steel imports to the United States;
Imposed a 45% duty on Japanese motorcycles for the benefit of Harley Davidson, which admitted that superior
Japanese management was the cause of its problems;
Raised tariffs on Canadian lumber and cedar shingles;
Forced the Japanese into an agreement to control the price of computer memory chips;
Removed third-world countries on several occasions from the duty-free import program for developing nations;
Pressed Japan to force its automakers to buy more American-made parts;
Demanded that Taiwan, West Germany, Japan, and Switzerland restrain their exports of machine tools;
Accused the Japanese of dumping roller bearings on grounds that the price did not rise to cover a fall in the value of the yen;
Accused the Japanese of dumping forklift trucks and color picture tubes;
Extended quotas on imported clothes pins;
Failed to ask Congress to end the ban on the export of Alaskan oil and timber cut from federal lands;
Redefined dumping so domestic firms can more easily charge foreign competitors with unfair trade practices;
Beefed-up the Export-Import Bank, an institution dedicated to distorting the American economy at the expense of the American people in order to artificially promote exports of eight large corporations.
The World Bank estimates that import restrictions in 1984 had the same effect as a 66% income tax surcharge on America’s poorest citizens. Less obvious is the harm to American producers, who lose exports and pay more for capital goods because of protectionism. For example, everyone, including the beleaguered American auto industry, has to pay more for steel because of the Reagan administration’s restrictions on imports. Even the steel industry is hurt because artificially high prices stimulate the search for alternative materials.
President Reagan missed a unique opportunity to begin freeing the American economy from the shackles of trade restrictions. He need not have given the American people a technical lesson in economics. He could have said that free trade requires no more justification than domestic economic freedom; indeed, it requires no more justification than the traditional American values of a humane and open society.
This is why you shouldn’t try this at home. Yes, Reagan used trade as a weapon at time, but as your article states, he did it to bring about free trade ultimately. Yes, sometimes Reagan violated the principles of Reagan. We all do unless we’re named Jesus. Yes, the global economy was chaning rapidly during the eight years of Reagan’s Presidency. None of that is disputed by any of this. The bottom line is, Reagan believed that the best path to freedom and liberty and prosperity for the most people was thru free trade and free markets.
Like I said, don’t try this at home....
Very interesting post.
I also used to be a free trader.
Your analysis is largely based on past comparisons. The validity is not complete because it fails to consider the historical fact that the world, and especially the world of business, is in transition. There is change in process from when the USA was the only significant business force to where there are several significant players.
People want to leave their old poor lives and be like America. I think that the real problem that you and others here have is change. Toffler called it future shock, the inability to react to change. History is a long dynamic process. Clinging to a static past is to die while remaining alive.
I recently had my now 40 something Brazilian former exchange students come for a visit. They brought money, theirs and their friends. They were intent on shopping. They live in a country of Tariffs and therefore of very limited freedom. They spent most of their time buying stuff.
The fact it was American made or not didn’t make a difference. The main factor was it was available and inexpensive. The isolationist protectionist policies are the road to perdition, suited to an era that was.
Of the significant players, one is in serious trouble. That is Europe. They are really in trouble. Then there is the GCC. They are thriving and developing both a strong financial, distribution, and manufacturing base. They will use their resources to become the dominant petrochemical producers and dominant Aluminum producers. They are eroding European dominance in Africa by actively competing with the old line trading companies. They have built vibrant new cities that stand aside the east west trade lanes. They are capitalists and don’t restrict themselves with the shackles of tariffs.
To thrive, America must continue to do what we do best. The process of binding us with IMF like shackles is the certain way to harm. Again I say, buy Forbes, read it from cover to cover every issue, and the realization will come.
I have examined my outlook on ‘free’ trade and even though trade between individuals should be unhindered it is the crony/political part of Globalism/Communism, Nafta, IMF, OPEC, World Bank, Central Banking collusion-fraud-thief and all the other disturbances in Laissez Faire economics that have bastardized the whole trade theory. As an example, why did the US aka Obama send $50B to Argentina to support Oil exploration by Corp owned by Soros?
I have read Forbes many times and have liked it sometimes. Pre-internet I read it each week. It's the People Magazine of American business. You reflect the Forbes mag optimistic outlook which has no basis in realty if you want to look at America as a whole. Are select pockets flourishing? Of course but the nation is declining, not that you care. But your grandchildren will
The Chinese Koreans Japanese think much longer range than you and other free traders do
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.