Graphs will have to be seen at the site. And the author says he may not keep that site up much longer.
Recommendations are at the end, above the references and author's profile.
/johnny
(sarc)
Repeal the 16th amendment, create a NRST and collect moderate to low tariffs. The NSRT could go away when the deficit is zero, probably 100 years from now.
This reads like a college freshman’s term paper.
Trying to summarize Friedman as only a Free Trade advocate is like saying that Ted Nuegent plays guitar. It doesn’t tell but a little of the story.
Conservative economics is a broad spectrum and includes many more than Friedman. Fellow economists have known for years that Free Trade alone produces very uneven results — See the Mystery of Capital by Hernando De Sota if you want some insight.
At tarriff controled economy example that should be discussed is Smoot Hawley in the time of Hoover and on into the FDR era. It took years to figure out that this was an economy killer.
We are probably past the era where our economy is so dominate that nothing can withstand its force, which is what protected us against the Japanese in the 80s — they tried to eat us and choked.
Excellent article. Free trade theorists often do not have to live with the fallout of their theories. The money quote from the article:
“Of course, they ignore the fact that one cannot be a consumer, unless one is first a producer, a worker. It does not matter how cheap goods are, if one does not have a job to produce money to buy those goods.
When you consider the fact that a lot of the imported cheap goods are now being bought with borrowed money, or welfare bennies, or unemployment, it makes you wonder just how long the printing presses can sustain the house of cards.
With currencies pegged or propped, there’s no international free trade. Before we stop seeing balance of payment deficits, the dollar will fall much. If that doesn’t happen, we’ll see a general default situation completed.
Thanks for posting. This was very interesting. Many on here are already aware of a lot of the things Streitz mentioned...but Streitz is able to put it together in one thoroughly researched piece.
I am sure the Free Trade supporters will share their spin/trolling about this article, but, one thing they can never do...prove that Free Trade works. They cannot
You cannot create wealth by redistributing it...
Let me get this straight Kodak vs Fuji is an example of the downside of free trade? The guy starts starts this example by explaining that the US government encouraged Fuji to compete against Kodak. How in Sam Hill is that an example of free trade?
From the article: “Instead, U.S. trade policy encouraged Japan to enter the market with Fuji Film to compete against Kodak. The free trade idea was to let both companies compete in Japan and United States and this would produce the best result for consumers.
In the Untied States, Fuji Film has reached a market share of about 30% of the United States film market. It is consistently priced about 20% lower than Kodak’s main line of film. Kodak does not have a brand in the economy sector of the film market, and by law, it is barred from producing its own private label. (An example of how U.S. monopoly laws work against U.S. firms, even those facing foreign competition.)”
Can someone please explain the free trade angle on this example? Free means free means no government interference.
As soon as one of our homegrown companies gets large enough to dominate the world our government beats them down. As soon as we are on a path of dominating the world in the production of fuel energy our government squashes coal, nuclear, oil, and now its is doing is best to start killing gas. As soon as a business starts getting rich they get visits from the EPA, OSHA, FTC, EEOC, and the IRS.
Free trade should it ever be tried is not the problem.
Streitz then goes on to cite NAFTA and GATT as further deficiency with free trade. Again I ask what do those examples have to do with free trade? Free means free which means I do not need a 100,000 page document explaining what I may or may not do. Freedom is the absence of laws.
Streitz is signing onto massive government control in hopes of solving government inflicted problems. One example...say socks. A company makes socks so in order to protect them all imported socks are banned or taxed into oblivion. The sock company is now a monopolist maybe it gets a competitor or two but they all have to buy domestically grown cotton...right? So as with all government enforced cartels we will have unions and high prices and some very rich cotton farmers.
Are we going to tax ourselves on imported oil? What about sugar? Should we keep protecting it from competition so that we can finish decimating US confectionery industry?
But hey I am sure Obama would be glad to manage what is left of free economy. He can set the tariffs, decide who gets exemption, and for damn sure he will be glad to make sure everyone pays the worlds highest corporate tax rates. Oh yeah and he is just the man to protect the “WELFARE” of the us worker. God knows all of those greedy rich business owners who buy stuff over there (like sugar and steel and oil and rubber and coffee) to sell or make into goods here are not looking out for the worker.
Man the barricades comrade,
Ping