Posted on 05/23/2003 8:40:08 AM PDT by Cacophonous
1. Agriculture was on a downhill trend for many years well before NAFTA.
2. The USDA (which has 1 employee for every 3 farmers) and their policies, in combination with Federal laws, have put the hurt on agriculture; in my opinion, causing more harm than NAFTA.
3. Again due to stupid laws, we are getting hit with costs which the other countries are not paying. For instance, health care for Mexican illegals here in the USA; Social Security and Medicaid for the elderly parents of both legal and illegal immigrants, even if they have never worked in the USA. And education of the illegals' children in our schools.
4. I think you can have relatively open borders, or free trade, but not both at the same time.
Looks like the American people were snookered by the globalists once again. Now that we're losing white collar as well as blue collar jobs, maybe these suckers will finally wake up.
And as for textiles, autos, and numerous other "outsourced" industries, Big Labor can give itself a standing ovation for that. Just because an auto worker wants $25/hour to tighten a bolt doesn't mean he's worth it. They handcuffed the people signing their checks, and now their industries are tanking. The only "giant sucking sound" I hear is the gasp after the long-winded whining about a world that's just not fair.
The edition I am using was published in 1961 by the Bobb-Merrill Co., Inc. They are found in Book Four, Chapter II.
He precedes the following with a discussion of why import tariffs are a bad idea in general, and that they tend to limit the goods available to the people. All familiar arguments near and dear to capitalists.
Then he gives four cases for tariffs: 1) to protect an industry vital to national security; 2) to offset domestic taxes on a product; 3) “revenge” (his word) for tariffs imposed on exports by the other countries (he singles out France in the text); and 4) to recover a foreign market. Quite mercenary, and quite different from the “free trade uber alles” that defines the modern “free trade” movement. Also, in my mind, more logical, and more patriotic in that they put the interests of Britain (the US in our case) first.
He goes on to caution against removing tariffs in an industry that might get the market flooded by foreign goods, thereby hurting domestic employment. Think of the current to-do over tariffs on steel imports.
Anyway, here are the relevant sections:
“There seem, however, to be two cases in which it will generally be advantageous to lay some burden upon foreign, for the encouragement of domestic, industry.
“The first is, when some particular sort of industry is necessary for the defense of the country…”. pp. 174
“The second case, in which it will generally be advantageous to lay some burdon upon foreign for the encouragement of domestic industry, is when some tax is imposed at home upon the produce of the latter.” pp.176
“As there are two cases in which will generally be advantageous to lay some burdon upon foreign, for the encouragement of domestic, industry; so there are two others in which it will sometimes be a matter of deliberation: in the one, how it is proper to continue the free importation of certain foreign goods, and in the other how , or in what manner, it may be proper to restore that free importation, after it has been for some time interrupted.
“…..when some foreign nation restrains by high duties or prohibitions the importation of some of our manufactures into their country. Revenge in this case naturally dictates retaliation…”. pp. 179
“…The recovery of a great foreign market will generally more than compensate the transitory inconvenience of paying dearer during a short time for some sorts of goods.” pp. 180
“The case in which it may sometimes be a matter of deliberation, how far, or in what manner, it is proper to restore the free importation of foreign goods after it has been for some time interrupted, is, when particular manufactures, by means of high duties or prohibitions upon all foreign goods which can come into competition with them, have been so far extended as to employ a great multitude of hands…Were these high duties and prohibitions taken away all at once, cheaper foreign goods of the same kind might be poured so fast into the home market as to deprive all at once many thousands of people of their ordinary employment and means of subsistence.” pp 181.
Smith would, I wager, oppose global trade deals that destroy the domestic ability to produce.
We have out-sourced our successful industrial-driven engine and replaced it with a mouse-driven engine. "Do you want some information with that layoff notice?"
When it comes to lost jobs I am sympathetic but lets get real. If someone can do the job for half the price that you want to do the same work then what is the justification for making an employer pay it? And remember, there is an unlimited supply of work. That is not the problem. The problem is what work are we trained (and predisposed) to do? People don't like change. I don't. You don't. But change is part of life and some, not all but some, will have to change there occupation, do some retraining and retrenching and move on. That's life.
America is the wealthiest and most innovative nation the earth has ever seen. It is logical for us to shed the menial tasks and industries to our poorer competitors. In exchange, we get more time to innovate. At least that's what we're supposed to be doing, not sitting around crying because our individual skill set matches some Guatemalan basket weaver. Don't be like them and hope for a crappy job. Be an American and create your dream job.
It's a matter of national security and sovereignty.
Consider. Much of the electronics components for our guided missiles and aircraft are made in South Korea and Japan, as well as a good chunk of our steel. If we were to get into a war with North Korea or China, and either or both of those countries decided to stay neutral (not an impossible scenario), and as a result decided to quit furnishing those components and steel in order to remain neutral...well, we'd have to scramble to replace them. We would, of course, but at what cost?
It's a matter of national security and sovereignty.
Consider. Much of the electronics components for our guided missiles and aircraft are made in South Korea and Japan, as well as a good chunk of our steel. If we were to get into a war with North Korea or China, and either or both of those countries decided to stay neutral (not an impossible scenario), and as a result decided to quit furnishing those components and steel in order to remain neutral...well, we'd have to scramble to replace them. We would, of course, but at what cost?
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.