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.
All three options result in the union losing members. Most unions in the manufacturing sector realize this and bargain accordingly. Where the minimum wage does have an impact is in the service sector. You can't move your hospital to North Carolina when the janitors start demanding unbearable compensation. Which is a whole 'nother topic.
And of course that's even more true of China and Mexico and all those other third world countries we're trying to compete with and send all our jobs to ----maybe they didn't really NEED Nafta and the so-called free-trade government deals we've made, they could have fixed up their governments and done much better.
Same here. I don't know why someone thinks because they're in college or have a degree, they are necessarily much more brilliant than someone in a machine shop ---I've seen enough of both to know otherwise. You need to be average only to get into college and get a degree, pretty much the same to work in a machine shop. I've got a degree and I've seen some of the college students were weren't all that bright.
Obviously the situation is better when every actor in the economy enjoys freedom, liberty, and property rights. A situation where one trader enjoys freedom, liberty and property rights the other doesn't is preferable to situation where neither trader enjoys freedom, liberty and property rights. You'd enslave this half of the world (denying me my freedom, liberty, and right to property) to 'punish' the dictators of that half. No thanks. You don't extend freedom there by trying to stamp it out here.
I inserted the definition for the terms you used. Let's revisit the statement from you and look for my 'straw man':
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.
lais·sez faire n.
An economic doctrine that opposes governmental regulation of or interference in commerce beyond the minimum necessary for a free-enterprise system to operate according to its own economic laws. Noninterference in the affairs of others.
cap·i·tal·ism n.
An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.
Now, please try to explain again how the freedom of individuals to trade the product of their labor as they see fit is "as authoritarian Communism".
au·thor·i·tar·i·an adj.
Characterized by or favoring absolute obedience to authority, as against individual freedom.
com·mu·nism n.
A system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people.
The distinction I made between individuals and corporations in reply #107 is quite clear.
It is irrelevant how many obfuscatory definitions you post.
They're merely additional evidence of your inability to deal with the point that was made.
Smoke and mirrors, straw-men and spin.
Bingo again! Go to the head of your class! At least partially.
It is certainly true that they would be much better off free of the force and coersion which thay suffer from under their governments.
But the second part is faulty. All free people need and deserve free trade. It is part of the definition of being free. The freedom to make your own arrangements.
I'm not here to debate Nafta and the like. I support free trade, not those agreements. If they are more free than before, they are a step in the right direction. If not, they are going the wrong way. They are no doubt terribly flawed agreements between governments. Individual people are the best judge of what arrangements serve their own purposes best.
You apparently stand by it, but won't(can't?) explain it...
I never said that. Anyone who says so is little better than an idiot.
If as you predict there will be no work for the average joe, who then will buy your work?
I digress however...
Your argument is really circular I believe. If everything is to be automated and relatively few have a job, for whom then are all these goods being manufactured? Again, supply and demand - if there is no demand, there is no reason to produce.
The beauty of capitalism is that SUCCESSFUL entrepreneurs only produce a product they can sell. I believe the flaw in your logic is seeing the world as a "static pie", when in reality the pie keeps getting bigger and bigger. A visionary doesn't see 1 billion Chinese as "too many mouths to feed", but rather sees the opportunity of an immense marketplace.
The problem we in the west face is not too many workers with nothing to do - just the opposite - we are having to import our work force from the "developing" world.
Capitalism = balance (eventually :-)
Regards,
In the first place as many here have pointed out, there is no "free" trade. And the outcome is proportional to the amount of interference.
Secondly, check out the time frame when the so called "free trade" agreements went into full effect and then check the level of the stock market then and compare it to now. You might be surprised at the results, even given the largest stock market crash since the depression.
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.