Patrick J. Buchanan Examines "The Slow Awakening of George W."

Washington Times ^ | 09-17-03 | Buchanan, Patrick J.

[Texas_Dawg]

You have never set foot on a college campus. You may have seen commercials about them on TV, though.

So are you going to the game or not? Who do you think will win?

[DoughtyOne]

Thanks for the nice comments.

[Recourse]

Reagan was a staunch advocate of free trade and opposed tariffs. Ronald Reagan’s words are worth recalling: "The freer the flow of world trade, the stronger the tides of human progress and peace among nations." (reprinted from The Cato Institute).

Reagan himself was a dreamer, capable of imagining a world without trade barriers. Reagan himself is the politician first credited with proposing NAFTA. In announcing his presidential candidacy in Nov. 1979, he had proposed a “North American accord” in which commerce & people would move freely across the borders of Canada & Mexico.
Anti-free-traders are modern-day Luddites who support the fringe left's protests against the WTO, GATT, etc. Would it surprise you to discover that most of the protestors against free trade are from the far left? After all, Tom Hayden (formerly of the SDS) was in Seattle a few years ago to protest against free trade. Does it give you comfort that avowed Marxists agree with you? See below:

http://www.cnn.com/1999/US/12/02/wto.protest.perspective/

Free trade across international borders is not just good for business or good for job-creation. It is good -- period.

So said President Bush in a remarkable speech earlier this year, when he made the case for free trade on unabashedly moral grounds. "Open trade is not just an economic opportunity, it is a moral imperative," he told the Council of the Americas in May. "Trade creates jobs for the unemployed. When we negotiate for open markets, we are providing new hope for the world's poor. And when we promote open trade, we are promoting political freedom. Societies that open to commerce across their borders will open to democracy within their borders -- not always immediately, and not always smoothly, but in good time."

Protectionism distorts markets, hurts importers, kills jobs, and sows distrust between nations. But the foremost reason governments should refuse to impede free trade is that it is theft. It steals from the many to enrich the few. It deprives individuals of the right to control their own property -- to choose for themselves where to buy the products they want and to sell the goods they own.

[RockyMtnMan]

Do you really think that Indians and Americans are equally efficient?

The question is too broad. Sometimes they are sometimes they are not, there is not a definitave answer here.

Americans aren't more competitive on any level that would cause the unemployment rate to decline once a cyclical correction is over?

American's can compete on a skills basis, not a wage basis.

Do you think the stock market and economy should go up endlessly?

The stock market will go up gradually over time up until there is a massive labor shortage from the boomer retirement. Alternatively the credit bubble will pop because of unemployment and interest rates will skyrocket sending the market back down.

Do you realize that 93.9% of the American work force is employed?

Any analyst (finance/business/otherwise) worth his salt knows that relying on a metric like "those seeking work" is foolish. The number is subject to political tampering and will say whatever the current administration wants it to say. Use the SS database and IRS database and you'll have a real number that reflects reality.

[VxH]

>>I think people who hate people wealthier than them epitomize the definition of "greed".

Are people who despise carpet baggers,"greedy", Tex?

[jpl]

It's true that Reagan was in principle a free trader and opposed to tariffs, but part of Reagan's genius was that while idealistic, he was also a realist and knew that in the real world a tariff is sometimes beneficial and necessary. That's why he personally intervened to save a great American company, Harley-Davidson, from predatory foreign maneuvering.

[Theodore R.]

Willie, what I meant to say is that the Constitution does not address economic issues in Article II (the executive branch). Those are mainly confined to Article I (the legislative branch), as you so listed.

Since John Quincy Adams, people have blamed a "weak" economy on the sitting administration. JQA lost to Jackson, etc., etc.

[Joe Hadenuf]

Pat's right about this.

And only blind, or those with anti-American agendas refuse to admit this.

Open borders, invasion of *millions* of illegal aliens and the global free traitors are killing America, one job at a time.

[RLK]

Is it possible to have a large national economy run entirely on everyone in the country suing someone else?

--------------------------

That's an approximation of where the spoiled kids in this country think we're going and where they want to lead us. Fifty years ago my mother said communism was a system in which advocates all were going to become artists, poets, and intellectuals. We have a new form of communism. Under the new form of communism for the elite we will have a $10,000,000,000,000 trade deficit so all the substantive work will be done in other countries to support us while we become a nation of artists, poets, intellectuals, lawyers, and paper pushers coasting in easy lives on the work of others.

[RockyMtnMan]

Actually Reagan was a proponent of Trickl-down economics. In order for trickle-down to work capital must be invested domestically to create new jobs/businesses/consumers. Your assumption is that "free-trade" encourages domestic investment which, it does the exact opposite of ecouraging investment in new developing markets elswhere in the world.

Capital flows have been flowing in record numbers to third-world nations not to new businesses here at home.

[Texas_Dawg]

American's can compete on a skills basis, not a wage basis.

This is why discussing economics with people in your crowd is futile. You simply don't understand what economic efficiency even means.

[Lazamataz]

So are you going to the game or not? Who do you think will win?

Start a thread about football so I can ignore it, moron.

[dogbyte12]

The 2,600 workers layed off from RJ Reynolds (just announced today) are going to do what? North Carolina is bleeding manufacturing and textile jobs. It is a race to the bottom.

I think the onus is on the free traders to explain what to do about the unemployable. There will be a large group of unemployable people in the future. Economically, culturally, law enforcement wise, what is their plan to counter-act this by product of "free trade". I went to my home town 2 weeks ago, to an area that was booming in the 80's and 90's. The job losses in the area are huge. Gangs, guns, drugs, graffiti have moved in blighting the area. This was an upwardly mobile community. I felt safe growing up there when the economy was good. I wouldn't go out there alone, or unarmed now though.

Unemployed young men are roaming the streets.

[Texas_Dawg]

Are people who despise carpet baggers,"greedy", Tex?

Yes.

[rightbanker]

Hi dogbyte12:

the problem you talk about is REAL -- don't get me wrong, I fully acknowledge that. But I think restricting trade as a response to that solution is like preferring a short term "high" rather than a long term cure. In the long term, restricting trade is going to make EVERYBODY worse off, in the long run.

The problem is -- and this is where you are right on the money -- democracy. That is, TODAY's citizens have to be willing to make a sacrifice NOW so that in the long run somebody else -- their children, their younger co-workers, etc. will be better off in the future. How do you convince them to do that? Well, hopefully enough of them have a stake in the improved future that they merely need to act out of extended self-interest, rather than altruism.

But what about those "dead=enders" with NO place in the future? Unfortunately, some of them are going to be REAL dead-enders. they are going to end up in prison, leading criminal lives, living on the dole. That's an ineliminable segment of society -- but hopefully small.

there are others at the margins, not quite the complete underclass or criminal class, but in some sense "outmoded" for the new prosperity. It's because there is bound to be such a class that we really do need some sort of minimal safety net. It's the price we pay for social order.

Plus, we've got to make it the case that race, class, ethnicity etc don't "trap" you in the under-class or the slightly less under-class. that's why we need to make it the case that no matter what your parents economic/social status was, YOU still have a chance to achieve, because you live in a safe neighborhood (even if a poor one) and have access to decent schools and are not locked or trapped in any way.

I agree this kind of approach doesn't really do away with the short term pain felt by some of the less adaptable among us. But here's the point, there aren't any short term ""feel good" solutions that don't have disasterous long term consequences.

[Lazamataz]

This is why discussing economics with people in your crowd is futile.

You keep saying the same thing. But you keep coming to these threads.

You have NOTHING constructive to offer, so why don't you go away?

[Texas_Dawg]

Start a thread about football so I can ignore it, moron.

So will you be watching? Come on. Give me your prediction. LSU's got a pretty strong offense. Do you think we can stop that?

[riri]

So are you going to the game or not? Who do you think will win?

Maybe you could charter an invisible jet and take some time off of your invisible job and go to the game....ahhh, no that would not work because then you could not sit on FR all day playing the part of ruthless billionare tycoon from your parent's basement.

[Willie Green]

Unfortunately for President Bush, while he has a good heart, he was horribly miseducated at Harvard. He simply cannot comprehend that it is free-trade globalism that is destroying U.S. manufacturing jobs, and may yet destroy his presidency.

Bwahahahahaha! Ain't that the truth?
By his own admission, he was barely able to maintain a "C" average.
And his undergraduate major was what? History?
Sheeesh, that MBA of his has "rubber stamp" written all over it.
About the only thing he learned how to do was schmoooze with Daddy's cronies.

Yeah, he'd be a nice guy to schmoooze with, alright. I wouldn't mind inviting him to a backyard Barbeque myself. It'd be fun. But it's also no secret as to why he's so frustratingly clueless most of the time, either.

[headsonpikes]

"Your argument(post#10) won't sell to anyone except various fanatics."

I'm trusting that you're being ironic, R. ;^)

It's a boar's nest, hutch. Since all policies are the product of interests influencing legislators, and officials preserving their benefices, everything the government touches turns to muck.

Sort of a reverse Midas effect.