Why FREE TRADE was never the answer.

self | 7/28/03 | RaceBannon

[CWOJackson]

"Just out of curiosity, what do you see different about today's economy that would advocate "free trade", when historically we never have?"

Over 200 years of constant movement forward in time.

[Cacophonous]

C'mon, Chief, you can give me a better answer than that.

[Krafty123]

I am too ambitious to become an electrician. However, I am trying to make my technical education as broad as possible. I find quantum computing, photonics, and nanotech interesting, and hope to make an impact in one of them. If I do, I will never ship off my IP to a third-world country - I mean, whats Intel going to do when China "nationalizes" their fabs?

Ari

[Alberta's Child]

Just out of curiosity, what do you see different about today's economy that would advocate "free trade", when historically we never have?

Historically we never "needed" free trade in any way, because we were living in a convoluted economic system in which we were exploiting most of our workers anyway (slaves in the South, Chinese coolies in the West, Irish immigrants in the coal mines of Pennsylvania and West Virginia, young Eastern European and Asian girls working in sweatshops in Northeastern cities, etc.).

Because we've eradicated all those practices here in the U.S., we have to figure out some other way to make our system work. All we've done is exchange our exploited labor for someone else's.

[CWOJackson]

Not really. American's economic base has changed many times since those happy smuggling free traders, the founding fathers, created this nation.

[UnBlinkingEye]

Nobody with an IQ over 40 is going to spend $200,000 for a system upgrade to realize a savings of $125,000.

Your definitive statement:

I'm guessing at these numbers, BTW

[Cacophonous]

The "free trade" era did not begin until the 1960s, at which point the economic practices you named were long gone. We were, at that point, a creditor nation. We are now a debtor nation.

Besides, with that logic, China shouldn't need free trade.

[Gunslingr3]

It is YOU FREE TRAITORS that are the Marxist supporters!

Your quoting Marx saying that free trade is destructive, In case no one told you, Marx was an idiot. Furthermore, in that quote he is stating that free trade is destructive to the social order, by removing nationalism it would focus discord on the conflict he percieved between the bourgeiouse and proletariat. Like I said, he was an idiot...

[Cacophonous]

American's economic base has changed many times

HOW? And how did those changes suddenly cause us to go the "free trade" route in the 1960s?

[CWOJackson]

But look at how every Marxist society has flourished.

[RockyMtnMan]

Part of the problem is that I won't be able to compete in this field without a specific software package that runs for around $65,000 these days. My company will not be buying that software at that price. If we find a comparable software package from an overseas supplier for $25,000 or so, we will probably but it.

HAHAHAHA, This is equivilent to saying that I want to find a new Ferrari for $25,000 so I can sell it for $50,000. Welcome to reality, perhaps you should focus on another product or service. If you do figure out how to get it at that price let Ferrari know how you did it so I can pick one up.

[CWOJackson]

1960's?

We didn't develope some of the world's largest sea ports in the 1700 and 1800 hundreds because we needed them to protect us from trade. Those sea ports were crammed with merchant ships...doing what?

[Gunslingr3]

HAHAHAHA, This is equivilent to saying that I want to find a new Ferrari for $25,000 so I can sell it for $50,000. Welcome to reality, perhaps you should focus on another product or service. If you do figure out how to get it at that price let Ferrari know how you did it so I can pick one up.

If the Chinese were making Ferraris, we probably could afford one. I for one can't wait until the 80% of people in country are making goods I want to trade for instead of rice. I have no use for rice.

[Alberta's Child]

The "free trade" era did not begin until the 1960s, at which point the economic practices you named were long gone.

It is no coincidence that the "free trade" era began at about the same time the post-WWII reconstruction of Europe and Asia had come to an end.

My one complaint about many opponents of free trade (Pat Buchanan is a classic example) is that they look back with nostalgia upon the 1950s as the "normal" economic condition in this country's history. In fact, this is not the case at all -- the 1950s were an anomaly, not the norm. The U.S. was able to function back then as an industrial superpower because we were the only ones in the world who had the industrial capacity to meet the world's needs.

[RaceBannon]

I am not sure. If they had similar economies, then, sure, like the free trade we have between Connecticut and Massachusetts, yes, but not free trade between those who impose tariffs on us and use slave labor while we try to do it capitalistically.

[Cacophonous]

Marxist governments need to impose tariffs because they cannot manufacture enough to support themselves, but he would never admit that. Marxist governments also need other nations to remove tariffs because they would not be able to pay those either, for what few things they were able to make.

So the socialists managed to get the West to remove tariffs on the hare-brained notion that "free trade" was somehow pro-Western, even though it violated every economic practice and historical precedent the West had.

[Cacophonous]

Right. In the English Empire, they were paying tariffs. So to with America.

[RockyMtnMan]

The point is you get what you pay for. If you want a cheap immitation that doesn't really meet your needs by all means get one made in China. If your going to bank your business on it maybe it's worth the extra money. You have to spend money to make money.

[CWOJackson]

Yes, and now they pay taxes instead.

[Alberta's Child]

Welcome to reality, perhaps you should focus on another product or service.

I am. Which is why the $65,000 software is staying on the shelf. My company is too small to compete in that field with larger firms that already generate enough business to make the $65,000 purchase worthwhile.

I'm sure it will only be a matter of time before an alternative software package is developed. I've already come across a much cheaper package that does about 90% of what the expensive one does -- I'm just trying to figure out if my staff has the programming capability to do the other 10% at a reasonable cost.