Posted on 11/08/2015 3:39:07 PM PST by 1rudeboy
Abstract
The impact of free trade on America is regularly the subject of contentious debate both on Capitol Hill and in the media. Questions and uncertainties abound: What is free trade? What is fair trade? What is protectionism? Do imports kill American jobs? The fact is, the freedom to trade is the foundation of America's modern economic system. It provides historically unprecedented opportunities for individuals to achieve prosperity and made the U.S. the envy of the world.
[]
The impact of free trade on America is regularly the subject of contentious debate both on Capitol Hill and in the media. In general, the free trade argument plays out on two very distinct levels: On one level are the efforts by individual industries or firms to obtain special protection against foreign competition through tariffs or quotas, or occasionally through "safeguards" or other retaliatory actions permitted in trade agreements. Such protectionism can be quite lucrative for the industry or firms in question, which often lobby extravagantly to gain the benefit. Unfortunately, the cost is borne by the American public overall, which must pay higher prices and choose from a narrowed range of product options.
The second level at which trade is debated is much broader, involving issues such as exchange rates, environmental issues, and labor standards in foreign countries. At this level, those seeking "protection" are generally not seeking special favors in order to boost profits, but are seeking relief from the cost disadvantage imposed on them by burdensome regulations in the U.S. or differences in monetary policy between the U.S. and foreign governments. Broad groups, such as unions or environmental nongovernmental organizations, may join the battle to preserve and extend what they see as regulatory gains. While these motives may seem somewhat more “pure†than the rent-seeking lobbying of industries or firms, the end result of such government protectionist action is the same: narrow benefits for a special interest, higher prices and less consumer choice for all Americans, and a loss of overall economic efficiency.
Fundamentally, free trade is about rejecting favoritism and expanding economic opportunity for all. It is essential that policymakers and presidential hopefuls separate hype from fact and assess upcoming trade initiatives objectively. Armed with the facts, they can then help to promote dynamic economic growth and lasting prosperity in the U.S.
[]
What About Critics Who Claim the U.S. Has Lost Millions of Jobs Due to the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and Chinese Imports?
The United States has gained millions of new jobs since NAFTA was created and since China joined the World Trade Organization (WTO) in December 2001. (See Chart)
What Does a Trade Deficit Mean?
The misleading phrase "trade deficit" implies that dollars are being drained from the U.S. economy. However, once all financial transactions, including foreign investment, are accounted for, the deficit vanishes. In 2014, for instance, Americans sent $4.4 trillion abroad by purchasing imports, investing in companies abroad, repaying foreign investors, or otherwise transferring dollars. In 2014, Americans also received $4.4 trillion from people and companies abroad that bought U.S. exports, invested in the U.S., paid U.S. investors, or otherwise transferred money. This is not just a fluke; it is an accounting identity that many people overlook.
Does a Growing Trade Deficit Mean More Unemployment?
The trade deficit does not cause unemployment. For example, while imports to the United States and the U.S. trade deficit both decreased significantly from 2008 to 2009, the unemployment rate increased from 5.8 percent to 9.3 percent. From 2009 to 2014, imports to the United States and the trade deficit increased significantly, but the U.S. unemployment rate decreased from 9.3 percent to 6.2 percent. This is exactly the opposite of what would happen if bigger trade deficits caused more unemployment.
What Should the Government Do About Unfair Foreign Trade Practices? Some politicians suggest that if other countries subsidize their exports or restrict imports, the United States should do the same thing. President Ronald Reagan understood that the U.S. government should do what is best for the United States--not copy bad policies from other countries: "If one partner shoots a hole in the boat, does it make sense for the other one to shoot another hole in the boat? Some say, yes, and call that getting tough. Well, I call it stupid."
[]
Sorry I’ve been scarce, but I’ve been busy (manufacturing job, lol). It was time to give the hornet’s nest a good whack.
I have a large trade deficit with Wal*Mart and DirecTV. So far all of us seem to be doing ok.
Make it easier to do business here. Its really a pretty simple concept.
PING
Read this. It says all the things I would have said to you if: (1) I had the time; or (2) I thought you’d actually try to understand it.
Trade is one thing. But a “trade”treaty that addresses US gun laws, immigration policies, etc is not. A “trade” treaty that gives foreigners the right to sue the US government if a government policy impedes them in any way whatsoever? A “trade” treaty that discusses climate change.
Trade is fine. But I do not want foreigners to have any say whatsoever in US govt policy.
Well said.
I am in favor of trade, but until about 1990 a nation had to jump through some hoops to get most favored status. Now with free trade agreements that system is dead and we have zero leverage. In fact,, they can demand we accommodate them legally. You can literally use prison labor as in parts of Asia and freely sell the items here.
If you are a member of the WTO, then you get to use the book. It's as simple as that . . . .
I hate that guy!
I added almost $30 to our trade deficit with Canada today on whiskey alone.
Pretty quiet for a pro-free trade thread.
Yup, me too!
And as far as Canada goes, as we say here in Detroit, "be kind to your neighbors from the south."
The numbers used in this article are from the same BLS that says unemployment is at 5% while 94,000,000 Americans of working age are not working and includes a person who worked for as little as one hour for pay in the last two weeks as employed. So what use are they ?
Yeah, but it's the only sector that creates value. </sarc>
Right, the BLS is a bunch of liars. We know that because of the 94,000,000 number we got from ah, oh yeah, the BLS...
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.