Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

FREE TRADE IS A BAD IDEA
Bob Lonsberry ^ | 11/25/2002 | Bob Lonsberry

Posted on 11/25/2002 8:15:37 AM PST by SAMWolf

I hope they don't kick me out of the Republican Party for this.

But free trade is a bad idea.

For years it hasn't set right with me, and I've tried to figure out why. And now I know. It's because it violates a simple principle of life.

And that is self-reliance.

International free trade, while certainly necessary and useful to an extent, can easily be overemphasized to such a degree that it jeopardizes a country's economic self-interest and national security.

The United States is a good example.

But first, let's look at Mexico.

Under the North American Free Trade Agreement, all Mexican protections against American or Canadian agricultural imports are about to disappear. That means cheaper Canadian and American farm products are going to flood Mexico.

And Mexican farms are going to close down. The impact on Mexican agriculture is going to be immense.

Which means Mexico is going to be less capable of supplying its own needs. And it means a ton of farm workers are going to be out of work and headed north. And that's not good for anybody.

Just like it's no good that the United States has a dramatic trade deficit, that it buys far more from overseas than it sells. And that there are entire sections of the American economy which are dependent on foreign goods. For whole product lines, there simply are no American manufacturers anymore. From electronic goods to clothing to steel, we don't make things anymore.

And American corporations are closing domestic factories to shift manufacturing overseas.

All of which fits perfectly into the world of free trade.

And all of which screws us royally.

Because independence is good and interdependence is bad. Because interdependence is the same as reliance and that is the opposite of self-reliance.

And history teaches that -- without exception -- prosperity and security require national self-reliance. Americans should eat American agricultural products and use American manufactured products and channel their income back into the economy that produced it -- the American economy. When a nation becomes reliant on foreign products -- as the United States clearly is -- its comfort and peace are held hostage by the producers of those foreign products.

If a nation cannot produce what it needs -- as the United States now cannot -- it is in a precarious position that weakens and enslaves it.

We will be weakened as we exchange our prosperity -- hard currency -- for foreign products, and we will be enslaved as our national policy inevitably must be tailored to preserve our access to foreign goods. These are truths which have been understood and implemented around the world for centuries. To abandon them now is to abandon national self-interest and to doom the United States to premature but certain decline.

And it is to bring the same fate to many nations of the world.

In developing countries, lingering poverty and delayed development are tied directly to a failure to be nationally self-reliant. When nations feed themselves, they do not starve. When they manufacture their own goods, they don't go without.

When they understand that their consumer dollars must be recycled into their own economies, they do not long linger in recession or unemployment.

Free trade serves a very few at the top of international corporations, but it does not serve the average American. Rather, it takes away his job and his nation's strength.

Certainly, the flow of goods and produce around the globe is needful and beneficial, but so is protection, and buttering your own bread first. The sense of national economic identity must not be lost, and neither should the commitment to protecting American prosperity -- even at the cost of limiting free trade.

Our first obligation is to feed, house, clothe and prosper American families. Every thing else comes second. That must be our attitude. Just as Mexico and every other nation must have the same attitude about its people and its economy.

Independence is good, interdependence is bad.

Self-reliance is the key to prosperity -- for individuals and nations.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Foreign Affairs; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: freetrade; globalism; oneworlders
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 321 next last
To: ThomasJefferson
Huh? Where did you get that definition?

-------------------------

From a survey of reality.

121 posted on 11/25/2002 11:06:31 AM PST by RLK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: FITZ
That's true and a very good point!
122 posted on 11/25/2002 11:07:31 AM PST by dcwusmc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: Aldous Huxley
What passes for free trade today is highly regulated and controlled by elites. More goods would be produced in the United States if we eliminated unnecessary regulations and significantly reduced taxation, both of which are ultimately inflationary, but that won't happen because these things benefit elites by reducing competition.

Corporate cronyism. It flourished under The Rapist, but as you note has always worked itself out in tax and regulatory policy. The need for a broad coalition to explicity identify and combat this trend is dire. It should be lead by Republicans, who despite countervailing stereotypes, and an absolute abundance of sins on their own part, have long stood, especially by comparison to the 'Rats, for across the board pro-business policies, as opposed to those that favor entrenched "industry leaders".

123 posted on 11/25/2002 11:09:08 AM PST by Stultis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: BrowningBAR
Our corporations are replacing eager and qualified Americans ( through the H1B process) with foreigners.

Those damn foreigners!! We don't want em here, and we don't want to do business with them in their own countries either!!

Our eager and qualified Americans don't seem eager enough to work that they accept the wages offered. You keep ignoring that.

BTW, I'll promise to genuflect to your superior knowledge if you speak english and tell me what H1B means. I mean I feel so small because I'm not privy to your little code.

124 posted on 11/25/2002 11:09:22 AM PST by Protagoras
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: Willie Green
The excesses of unbridled, laissez-faire Capitalism can be just as oppressive of individual freedom and opportunity as authoritarian Communism.

The excesses of unbridled, [freedom of individuals to trade the product of their labors as they see fit] can be just as oppressive of individual freedom and opportunity as authoritarian Communism.

Perhaps you can explain/justify your statement. It seems you know a lot of things that just aren't so...

125 posted on 11/25/2002 11:10:43 AM PST by Gunslingr3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: RLK
From a survey of reality.

Oh, so you made it up. It looks like it. It is however incorrect, as is most of what you have said.

126 posted on 11/25/2002 11:10:52 AM PST by Protagoras
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: BrowningBAR
I have been to enough meetings at the Fortune 500 company I work for to know the glee and excitment that shines on the faces of VP's and Directors when the talk about cutting costs by relocating overseas.

Furthermore, I have first hand experience with the H1B process at this company. I can assure you they favor contract worker from India and China over native born Americans. The reason being they can hire and fire them cheaply. These foriegn workers know if they don't work extremly long hours the result is being sent back to Pakistan or China. It is coercion, simply put.


Who imposes these costs on the firm? Does the firm? Can they control what their taxes are going to be? How much they'll have to pay for CONTINUOUS legal support? Or how high the minimum wage is? Or how tough it is to fire someone because of 'workers rights'?
The answer is, they can't. Their job is to make as much money as possible. That's the name of the game.
By constantly raising the cost to do business, the US is basically telling them to 'love it or leave it'.
They're leaving it. And the beauty is, by going to Bermuda or the Bahamas, they get all of the same freedom as inside the U.S. without all of the taxes.
Better yet, look at growth and innovation. Since corporate taxation in the end of the gilded age, both have declined DRAMATICALLY.

Do yourself a favor and don't let this faux, liberal patriotism cloud your better sense. Seriously.
And get a copy of Hayek's 'Road to Serfdom'. You'll be better for it.
127 posted on 11/25/2002 11:11:36 AM PST by dyed_in_the_wool
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: Stultis
for across the board pro-business policies,

Like subsidies and other corporate welfare?

Pro business in that way is anti-freemarket and anti-freedom.

128 posted on 11/25/2002 11:13:11 AM PST by Protagoras
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: RLK
It's about what needs to be done and about sustaining an economy.

Needs to be done? According to whom? The pilotburo? 'The Economy' is simply the effort of every individual to satisfy his wants and needs. History has demonstrated the most efficient way this can take place is under freedom, where one's right to liberty and property are undisturbed. It 'sustains' itself every time someone is dissatisfied with their current conditions enough to act.

129 posted on 11/25/2002 11:14:05 AM PST by Gunslingr3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: Gunslingr3
Perhaps you can explain/justify your statement. It seems you know a lot of things that just aren't so...

It was already explained quite adequately.
That's what necessitated your insertion of your own wording
to disingenuously set-up a straw-man to attack.

130 posted on 11/25/2002 11:15:47 AM PST by Willie Green
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: FITZ
much larger cost of living in large part to the huge number of taxes we must pay.

Bingo! Fix your government and you fix a large part of the problem.

131 posted on 11/25/2002 11:17:05 AM PST by Protagoras
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: ThomasJefferson
Oh, so you made it up. It looks like it. It is however incorrect, as is most of what you have said.

--------------------

No, I did't jest sit down and make it up, spoiled idiot child. I consulted economic law, mathematical law, and history texts. As far as being incorrect, you should live so long.

132 posted on 11/25/2002 11:17:33 AM PST by RLK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

Comment #133 Removed by Moderator

To: RLK
ec·o·nom·ics n. Abbr. econ. 1. (used with a sing. verb). The social science that deals with the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services and with the theory and management of economies or economic systems.
134 posted on 11/25/2002 11:19:30 AM PST by Protagoras
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: FITZ
Several reasons. First, government intervention, such as minimum wage, ect. Also, national attitude. Uneducated workers are fighting for their drill press jobs, and refuse to seek other means of earning wages. If you refuse to change with the economy and times, you will be out of work. People are not going out and finding the truly needed services, they are crying over their lost jobs and joining unions to try to secure their insecure job.
135 posted on 11/25/2002 11:19:46 AM PST by Texaggie79
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: RLK
So, in order to maintain our economy, we need to refuse to grow in technology and capabilities and stick with status quo? That ought to ensure our security in our economy..... sure.
136 posted on 11/25/2002 11:22:28 AM PST by Texaggie79
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

Comment #137 Removed by Moderator

To: Gunslingr3
History has demonstrated the most efficient way this can take place is under freedom, where one's right to liberty and property are undisturbed....

---------------------------

Right. Including trade with communist/socialist nations using slave labor. Wow, are you a winner. Restate the statement under freedom, where one's right to liberty and property are undisturbed and state it more accurately as, " under MY freedom, where MY right to liberty and property are undisturbed AND SCREW EVERYBODY ELSE's.

138 posted on 11/25/2002 11:25:22 AM PST by RLK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: BrowningBAR
My first allegience is to God and Country.

Those two words should never be listed as if they were even closely equivilent.

But as long as you list God rightfully as your first allegience, you might ask yourself if he makes distinctions on how we treat our fellow man. Does he ask us to base it on what side of the geographical line someone lives on?

139 posted on 11/25/2002 11:26:21 AM PST by Protagoras
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: RLK
Including trade with communist/socialist nations using slave labor.

Better to have those "slaves" starve to death. It's for their own good you know.

140 posted on 11/25/2002 11:28:02 AM PST by Protagoras
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 321 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson