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.
If you mean that I recognize that population supply can exceed demand for labor, yes, that is true. I don't believe that liberals quite look at it that way, but I can see where an Aggie could become confused attempting to make the distinction.
By virtue of its various policies, I do believe that the government has a legitimate role to play in balancing the supply & demand for labor in order to achieve economic stability and prosperity for the majority of our citizens. Abolition of slavery and child labor were major advances, as was establishment of a "retirement age".
"Merchants have no country. The mere spot they stand on does not constitute so strong an attachment as that from which they draw their gains."
--Thomas Jefferson to Horatio G. Spafford, 1814. ME 14:119
"I hope we shall... crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country."
--Thomas Jefferson to George Logan, 1816. FE 10:69
What's patriotic about giving money to a bunch of bureaucrats in Washington D.C.?
Those VP's and Directors should be happy to save money on costs. It makes profits possible, which allows businesses to expand and employ greater numbers of people, as well as invest in future capital goods to further reduce costs and raise the standard of living. What does shoveling money into Washington D.C. accomplish?
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.
It's not coercion, the Pakistanis and Chinese simply prefer working longer hours in America to living in their respective countries. They still appreciate the opportunities that exist here. Is your problem that you're not willing to work as hard? It's your choice...
Everyone faces returning to their former position if they do not comply with the terms of their voluntary agreements.
The H1B can be cancelled without reason by the company.
H1B must be some acronym known only to elite business people. But if the terms of emplyment agreed to by both parties allow either side to leave without reason, it is no problem for free people.
But the effect is to shut out eager and qualified Americans.
Apparently not eager enough or free enough to work at the wage offered by the employer.
It also prevents Americans from getting work experience.
It also allows people other than Americans to gain work experience.
Taking the simplistic approach, that can only be true if the total population of the world is an odd number.
Getting more complex, jobs are an unlimited resource. You do not need an employer to perform a service or provide a good. The fact that NOTHING can ever reach 100% efficiency means that there is ALWAYS job opportunities. There will always be a better way to do something. Therefore, competition keeps employment opportunities unlimited.
You seem to have left out the most important interest. Human interest.
It is in the national and corporate interest for people to be free to make their own arrangements.
I'm sorry you missed your chance to fit in:
"It is thus necessary that the individual should come to realize that his own ego is of no importance in comparison with the existence of his nation; that the position of the individual ego is conditioned solely by the interests of the nation as a whole ... that above all the unity of a nation's spirit and will are worth far more than the freedom of the spirit and will of an individual. .... This state of mind, which subordinates the interests of the ego to the conservation of the community, is really the first premise for every truly human culture .... we understand only the individual's capacity to make sacrifices for the community, for his fellow man." -Adolph Hitler, 1933
I thought you'd at least offer an explanation for how funneling our money in the form of taxes to Washington D.C. was 'patriotic'. You do understand that corporations have no money, except that which individuals exchange with them for goods, right? That any tax on a corporation, is simply a tax on the purchaser of their goods...
Then why are you interested in denying others the same privilege to work as long as they want for the money they want?
Jefferson was correct, and it is as it should be.
"I hope we shall... crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country."
--Thomas Jefferson to George Logan, 1816. FE 10:69
Bold mine. No group should usurp rights, which is all laws should be designed to defend. Businesses or government would be equally evil if they usurped rights.
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.