Today's Free Trade is not about the Free Market

JEFFHEAD.COM ^ | 08/01/2003 | Jeff Head

[Jeff Head]

TODAY'S FREE TRADE IS NOT ABOUT THE FREE MARKET

We are in a very real battle in this nation and it is a battle for our heart and soul. It is spread out on many, many fronts...education, foreign policy, work ethic (individually and societally), immigration, the economy, moral values...and the list goes on.

Let's focus on the economy and one significant part of it...a major, growing part of it. Free Trade and foreign outsourcing.

I was going to entitle this article..."I used to make something"...or..."We used to make something in this country". But, I thought better of it and realized that such a statment was really focusing on the tail end of the issue as opposed to the root.

So, instead, I am simply calling it, "Today's Free Trade is not about the Free Market."

And it is so, today's Free Trade is NOT about the free market. Instead, in a very similar manner to other key issues in this battle for the heart and soul of America, what is happening is that a very craftily wordsmithed message of "Free Trade" has been put forth that people have bought into, thinking "How could anyone be against free trade? Why, isn't that all-American?".

Like with abortion, "How could anyone be against a woman's right to choose? Isn't that all American?".

In both cases, the craftily worded title has nothing remotely to do with what is actually going on.

The free market is the system our founders based our commerce on, where the intrinsic, underlying moral values of the people involved in the free market governed the equitable, free exchange of goods and services for other goods and services or currency. Sort of like John Adams said regarding the Constitution...

"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other."- John Adams, Oct. 11, 1798

It is that underlying moral foundation coupled woth our liberty that made the Free Market in America the envy of the world, just like those same issues made our governmental form the envy of the world.

Well, as far as I am conerned, Adam's words could be tailored to this topic like so, ie... The Free Market was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for the economy of any other.

This is a basic truth. Like our government, our free market was not supposed to be very regulated or burdened with miriad rules. The people and the companies were to use their own moral foundation to govern themselves. But, when the moral foundation is removed, you do not have what was intended for the Constitution, and you do not have a true free market.

When we use our foreign policy and economic policy to set up shop and trade with countries, societies, organizations or to implement policies that exploit their people's mercilessly, who keep them down without a hope for true liberty or freedom, who trample the moral values our own system was based upon...and when we do it knowingly, without compuction for those very underlying values, then we do not create a free market...no, that free trade has nothing whatsoever to do with, and is in no way similar to the FREE MARKET, rather, it serves to corrupt it.

Such notions, such actions are in fact wordsmithing for popularizing and putting forth a policy to drain the United States manufacturing, technological, agricultural, energy and other critical industries in order to weaken us...plain and simple...and it is working.

Based on my own travels on behalf of US firms and then later consulting for them...that is what is really happening here in my own opinion, and until we refocus as a people on that underlying moral foundation and the absolute need for it...we will continue to lose ground.

By the way, those same principles that are working at the societal level, have equal application at the personal level too...in fact, in the end it is the sum of their working at the personal level that creates the issue at the societal level.

Jeff Head
Engineering Consultant and,
Author of The Dragon's Fury Series
How current conditions could lead to World War

August 1, 2003
Emmett, Idaho

[editor-surveyor]

As America speeds along the 'Road to Serfdom.'

Great Article Jeff.

[Texas_Dawg]

Actually, it optimizes profits for the ruling elite. It's flaw is that it treats labor as a mere commodity, with all the rights, privileges and political self-interest of a damn sugar-beet.

Workers of the World, Unite!

[Cacophonous]

That's the point; the third world types that control all the wealth aren't practicing capitalism. They get their wealth through free trade arrangements with suckers like us, keep the riches for themselves, and the masses never see it.

[meadsjn]

So how do you suggest we win this war?

During the 2000 campaign, GWB stated that his support for MFN status for China was dependent on their reducing their import tariffs by or to x percentage by 2005. He won't be in office then if he doesn't deal with with this now.

Considering the levels of unemployment being caused currently, and being projected in future years, it would be reasonable to demand that China immediately drop its import tariffs or lose MFN status. They won't. So a resonable response is to place a tariff on everything we import from China, and tax all money being transferred to China. At the same time, the income tax on American workers and businesses could be reduced (zero would be the Constitutionally correct amount) as the tariffs and duties replace the revenue.

The same could be done with India. Every dollar sent to foreign entities could be taxed. If the IRS can track the income of American workers, they can surely track and collect taxes on money going out of the country.

In any event, the revenue from income taxes will continue to decline as employment and personal income decline. If a displaced worker is lucky, he/she might be able to replace a 70k job with a 35k job, which for a family of four is almost down to the zero-tax level. And those with less income will be getting EIC (from your tax dollars, thank you).

[Cacophonous]

Now you get it. Now you know why Marx advocated free trade.

[Texas_Dawg]

As America speeds along the 'Road to Serfdom.'

Huh? F.A. Hayak was 100% opposed to trade protectionism.

[HighRoadToChina]

You are of course right is calling me on using Nazi China. But the parallels between the two are astonishing similar:

1. Concentration camps vs. Laogai slave camps.

2. 6 million Jews exterimated vs. over 60 million Chinese and 1.2 million Tibetans killed.

3. Forced medical experimentation on Jews vs. forced organ harvesting on Laogai prisoners for Westerners who can pay $30,000 for an organ.

4. Greatest military buildup vs. today's Communist Chinese build up using our dollars.

The comparison goes on and on. So do forgive me if I should call my native land "Nazi China" because that is exactly what Communist China is, really, at least to me.

[Texas_Dawg]

Now you know why Marx advocated free trade.

Let me guess... you got this idea from Willie's cute little quote. Did you read the entire text?

[GOP_1900AD]

How about starting out with "are you in favor of straight talk about geopolitics with the PRC?" For example, how I wish someone would have the guts to tell them something like "hands off Taiwan and ASEAN" or "we know what you did to mess with our elections and we WILL take action." This is far short of nuking but would certainly depart from the sorts of kowtowing we see today by the Left and by the Red Team faction on the Right.

[Texas_Dawg]

So a resonable response is to place a tariff on everything we import from China, and tax all money being transferred to China.

Do you think by raising tariffs and taxes that obligates an American firm to do business here?

[Jeff Head]

Use a little inference TD...it's right there. I gave you some conditionals as to when and why I would do it, and that I prayed to God that those conditions never arose If the conditionals don't apply, then the answer is obvious.

Your original question did not have the rather significant qualifiers you are now attaching to it. My response answers the question with or without qualifiers.

If today, August 1, 2003, the types of qualifiers I spoke of do not apply, then the anser is no.

[Texas_Dawg]

So is that a "No"?

[Normal4me]

"Maybe our citizens need to quit blaming politicians for all their problems and work a little harder if they aren't happy with their economic situation.

The way I see it is at one time the government thought it was a good idea to sell out manufacturing jobs due to the newest, greatest "Information" industry that was upon us. Lots of people went to college to learn how to program computers and were making big dollars. Now THAT is being exported, my question is what is the next BIG thing to employee people? Healthcare?

[Eva]

There may be many human rights issues that China has in common with the Nazis, but it spoils your premise of a soft economic war as opposed to a political cold war.

[Texas_Dawg]

Your original question did not have the rather significant qualifiers you are now attaching to it.

It didn't need them. A very simple question. Your answer is "No". Thanks. That's all I was asking.

[elfman2]

Lost interest before I found your point. You spent too long saying nothing.

[Cacophonous]

No I actually read Marx's views on the subjects. I like to know what the enemy is thinking.

I've also read Adam Smith on the subject, and he makes a lot more sense. And a smattering of a few other economists.

You should take the time to educate yourself. You might learn something. Probably not, but maybe.

[DoughtyOne]

Thank you Jeff, although I fear it will be lost on many who consider themselves to be conservatism's staunchest supporters. Well, said.

[HighRoadToChina]

You lost me there: " your premise of a soft economic war as opposed to a political cold war"

Please explain.

[Cacophonous]

Yet you took the time to respond...