I'm not arguing that our current arrangements represent absolutely, completely free trade. In fact, no one here has asserted that, so you can shelve that straw man for the moment.
As you've pointed out, we have interference, and more inteference as our current options. Therefore, more freedom, or less freedom. I'm solidly on the side of more freedom, which puts us in the direction of free trade. I don't expect we'll get there overnight, but we'll never get there by increasing government interference in the marketplace.
Which is sending all our jobs overseas, taxing the remaining workers to oblivion (either income tax, property tax or whatever) - then we import a lot of skilled and skilled workers. Yes sir. That is free trade and no government interference isn't it?
No, it's not, and it's entirely disingenous to try and label that mixed bag as "free trade". Jobs are not 'sent' overseas. They go there in response to marketplace demands, that is a tenet of free trade. 'Taxing workers to oblivion' or creating government subsidies is government interference in the market, and on the opposite end of the spectrum from free trade. Arguments against it are arguments FOR free trade.
Now I didn't label it as free trade. Keep that in mind. I have never called it free trade.I have been saying all day it is not free trade.
[ Jobs are not 'sent' overseas. They go there in response to marketplace demands, that is a tenet of free trade.]
But since what we have is not free trade, I pose the jobs were sent overseas.The greatest demand that our jobs go overseas was demands made on our politicians by businesses and foreign governments. They used our tax dollars to get it done. It would not have happened as it did and as quickly as it did without the government building the factories, greasing the palms,e tc. To me that is 'sending'. WE could say 'someone paved the way', 'they were encouraged' any way you would like to put it. But the government made it possible. That is not the demands of free trade.
[ 'Taxing workers to oblivion' or creating government subsidies is government interference in the market, and on the opposite end of the spectrum from free trade. Arguments against it are arguments FOR free trade.]
Now that would sound about right. I haven't ever disagreed with free trade. I have disagreed with what we have and I disagree that it is a good thing and that it is free trade. I just know what everyone is calling free trade - what we now have - is definitely not free trade.
Now I didn't label it as free trade. Keep that in mind. I have never called it free trade. In fact, that has been my premise all day. WE are not discussing free trade. What we are discussing is something else altogether.
Now we have 'cussed and discussed' all day. It seems some admit that government interference is not free trade. Since we have government interference in a very big way - what we have is not free trade. Now we have had some attempt to pose that what we have is free trade and it is wonderful - AND If you have been hurt by this government version of free trade it is because you are just an uneducated , lazy, or somehow 'undeserving' clod---- I reject all of that.