Posted on 08/04/2003 12:33:05 PM PDT by Willie Green
You may assume anything you want, and as usual, you would be wrong. You are a one-trick-pony who posts the same lame brain comments time after time even though they have been thoroughly refuted each time you post them. As I said, Brain last.
What they do on their end is up to them. If they want to waste their money trying to prop up industries, that's fine with me, but ultimately they will pay for that (unless, you think communism/socialism works; I don't). By "free trade" I only mean the freedom for Americans to trade with whom they would like. I understand the need for some restrictions (i.e. I support the Cuban embargo) for defense purposes, etc. But the anti-trade crowd here is opposed to trade with China, Mexico, etc., simply to protect their own jobs at the expense of all other Americans.
Because economic freedom is at the base of almost all others, and I want to conserve Americans' freedoms. If you aren't free to acquire capital and spend it as you choose, for the most part (see my post in #82 of this thread), then many of your other freedoms will be diminished or removed as well (freedom of travel, association, etc.). Ultimately, I don't really care about getting into who is more conservative (I have never voted for anything other than Republicans, who are the only ones even close to advancing conservative causes; many of the people that debate me on here about free trade have admitted they have voted Democratic (read Fritz Hollings' (D-South Carolina) retirement announcement speech today where he railed against free trade to understand why). I care about what works best for our country and the most Americans. Ultimately, all I can say as far as free trade being more or less "conservative", it's no surprise that on this issue, the FReepers that hate my stance on free trade the most, are 100% in line with the AFL-CIO leadership on this issue. And that is about as Left as one can get.
our industries should go ahead and pay the restrictive tariffs that other nations impose without protest;
we should force our over-taxed and over-regulated industries to compete - without benefit of some combination of tax relief and/or tariffs - with heavily subsidized foreign competition that can hire labor at a fraction of US labor costs;
that because of the cheap working conditions, we should allow America's manufacturing base to move offshore, thereby adding to the unemployment rolls here;
simply accept that since the erosion of American manufacturing is a by-product of "free trade", it's ok (i.e., even though noone will suggest whether, how or why it's a good thing, hey, it's "free trade", so it can't be bad);
and that we should ignore approximately 180 years of American history and tradition and adopt a system that both Adam Smith and Karl Marx predicted would destroy the West (which is why the former opposed free trade, and the latter, wanting to see the West destroy itself, encouraged the US and Britain to pursue it).
Did I sum up the free trade position correctly?
It's funny how much faith you paleos put in Karl Marx and his economic theories. If Karl Marx was in favor of something economically, don't you think to most people that would be a great signal to do the opposite? The paleos and the Marxists (i.e. AFL-CIO)... marching hand in hand yet again.
I agree Marx was full of crap, and will gladly disregard anything he wrote.
You still didn't answer the rest of the post. To refresh your memory:
So...
our industries should go ahead and pay the restrictive tariffs that other nations impose without protest;
we should force our over-taxed and over-regulated industries to compete - without benefit of some combination of tax relief and/or tariffs - with heavily subsidized foreign competition that can hire labor at a fraction of US labor costs;
that because of the cheap working conditions, we should allow America's manufacturing base to move offshore, thereby adding to the unemployment rolls here;
simply accept that since the erosion of American manufacturing is a by-product of "free trade", it's ok (i.e., even though noone will suggest whether, how or why it's a good thing, hey, it's "free trade", so it can't be bad);
and that we should ignore approximately 180 years of American history and tradition and adopt a system that Adam Smith...predicted would destroy the West .
Did I sum up the free trade position correctly?
Is it not an American's choice whether to deal with these markets or not? If other countries want to waste their money on tariffs, why would I care? Sure, I'd like to see them lower their tariffs as well because that will ease things on the U.S. in the short-term, but in the long-term it won't really matter as long as our side isn't wasting its money. But then, NAFTA removed these tariffs on the other side, and you are still opposed to that. So that's just a red herring argument on your part, obviously.
2) we should force our over-taxed and over-regulated industries to compete - without benefit of some combination of tax relief and/or tariffs - with heavily subsidized foreign competition that can hire labor at a fraction of US labor costs
I'm for lowering taxes and restrictive regulations as well. Raising tariffs to counter taxes and regulations? That makes no sense at all. That's like trying to cure your headache by banging your head on the wall even harder.
3) that because of the cheap working conditions, we should allow America's manufacturing base to move offshore, thereby adding to the unemployment rolls here;
In the long-term, the money saved will more than provide for the jobs lost in the very near-term. Always has and always will. Or, we can follow your idea and be like Japan with its banks: just stuck in a terrible situation because we're too scared to do the right thing and let the markets operate.
The problem here is that all your questions are loaded with blatently incorrect economic assumptions. I could answer them forever but you will always have new fears and new worries. Japan one day, Mexico the next, then China, then someone else in a few years, and on and on and on... Luckily the U.S. is still the freest market in the world, despite our politicians having to go along with the bad economics of "the little man" in order to get reelected. So unlike you, I'm not really worried about things until that changes. The economic policies of China, Japan, the EU, and South America (apart from Chile) insure that we will continue to dominate as we have for the past couple centuries. Now, if China ever decides to open its market up to unrestricted free trade, well then I'd be worried. Its funny because all the things the paleos yell at China about (not floating the yuan, subsidizing industry, etc.) are all the reasons that they should rest easy in knowing that China will continue to lag behind the U.S. economically. Only a group that has such faith in Marxist economic policies would be worry about losing to China because of their Marxist economic policies (many of which they have abandoned, leading to their increasing economic success).
What choice do Americans have if there are no more domestic producers because of the predatory trade practices?
All NAFTA did was make Americans part of a globalist organization whose goals are to re-distribute wealth, a la socialism. You know, from each according to his ability to each according to his needs. Which means the US gets screwed. Socialism in action.
I'm for lowering taxes and restrictive regulations as well.
We agree here, as well as doing what we can to ease up the impact of the unions.
Raising tariffs to counter taxes and regulations?
No no no no. You raise them to force the OTHER guys to pay them, or lower their own tariffs and play fair.
One of two things will happen: either they will lower their own tariffs, or producers here will rise up to meet demand (or an equitable combination). In the long run, the consumer will come out ahead anyway, and the economic might of the US is secured.
It's using our own economic might to force change.
Right now, there is nothing forcing the other guys to play fair, so it is unprofitable for domestic producers to try to meet the demand. Yes, consumers are coming ahead for now, but it can't last.
And the impacts on the consumer should be a benefit of, not a justification for, a policy. In the long-term, the money saved will more than provide for the jobs lost in the very near-term. Always has and always will.
Economically, that may be true, though I'm not convinced. For the time, I'll not address it.
But, and this is important, and it is something that the Founding Fathers knew, YOU CANNOT BASE A TRADE POLICY ON THE RIGHT OF THE CONSUME TO BUY CHEAP STUFF.
You have to have a means of protecting vital industries; you have to have a means of recovering a market once it is lost. You have to have a means of retaliating against predatory trade practices. How would you propose we do this?
You also haven't addressed the protectionist history of the US - which made us the most profitable nation, biggest exporter, and mightiest economic power on earth - why Kennedy suddenlt decided that 180 years of experience should be tossed, and that all those funny guys in wigs didn't know what they were talking about.
They lived in a totally different economic world. I don't think they would have supported slavery today (as many of the founding fathers did then), nor do I think many of them would have played this class warfare trade protectionist game the paleos and the unions play today (Hamilton probably would have). To say they allowed for tariffs and supported them in some cases (in others they did not) shows they would have necessarily supported them today is to say they would have supported slavery today as well.
This is what I mean by many of the protectionist paleos being Marxist. Support of tariffs is not Marxist per se, but statements such as the one above most definitely are. That reads like something straight out of The Communist Manifesto.
I think they were brilliant. Do you think they would have supported slavery today?
Wait a second... so they did support it. I understand the circumstances. Circumstances change.
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.