[Theodore R.]

Though the word "economy" is not in the Constitution, the public expects the president to be "manager of the economy." If a president has a hemorrhage of job losses "on his watch," whether responsible or not, voters may retire him quickly from office.

[apackof2]

UAW

[JohnGalt]

There is political truth in what you say, but again Pat and Bush are going after a simply big government solution, rather than a focus on deregulation and tax cuts, as Reagan did.

While there is no paleo-right consensus on trade, there is one on monetary policy, which is the real culprit for the loss of manufacturing jobs as American products simply cannot compete in foreign markets of Third World countries.

[truthkeeper]

Flame on folks, but this time I think Pat's commentary deserves a big fat BUMP to the top.

[Buck72]

Pat's right about this. We need to level the playing field by using tarrifs and lowering the burden of regulations and taxes on American companies.

[TomB]

Separated at birth?

Patrick J. Buchanan...........................Stimson J. Cat

[EternalVigilance]

Unfortunately for President Bush, while he has a good heart, he was horribly miseducated at Harvard.

Kinda dumb to criticize someone's education with such twisted syntax.

Pat needs an editor.

[hchutch]

The only reason we had such an industrial base through the 1960s was because everyone else's (Germany, Japan, UK, USSR, China, Taiwan, etc.) had been bombed into rubble in World War II.

Part of this loss was to be expected. The rest of it was stuff we did to ourselves through allowing the trial lawyers to run rampant, and by letting regulations get way out of hand. The big problem that we have is that businessmen and the folks who REALLY made our economy work (the Rich so many people love to bash) have had it with the BS and are voting with their companies.

[RLK]

Unfortunately for President Bush, while he has a good heart, he was horribly miseducated at Harvard.

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

A good heart, sort of, a miseducation, no brain, and and an obliviousness characteristic of a social class separated from serious reality.

[BMiles2112]

Since 2000, one in every six manufacturing jobs, 2.7 million, has disappeared. These jobs paid an average wage of $54,000.... with $53,000 and using the same machinery and technology as a U.S. factory – can employ 25 reliable, intelligent, hardworking Chinese at $1 an hour.
$54,000? Though I agree that the huge cost of unnecessary regulations and taxes on corporations is a problem, I think this wage is a part of the problem, too. Pay them $35,000 a year and you won't have anywhere near as many jobs being shipped overseas.

[woofie]

Wait, Im starting to understand it .....Pat is really a Chinese communist at heart

[ckilmer]

oil is also a factor in the trade deficit. the US last year net imported 100 billion dollars in oil. Trade deficit with china was also 100 billion dollar.

might also be a good idea to change sewage& garbage to oil for $15@ barrel
http://www.discover.com/recent_issue/index.html
http://www.changingworldtech.com/news-4.html

[DoctorMichael]

Bump.

[DoctorMichael]

".......We will thus buy 10 percent of the entire GDP of China, while she buys 0.25 percent of the GDP of the United States..........."

........and what WILL our wonderful trading partners, the Chinese, want to buy with all that surplus of American dollars that they can't already make for themselves?

"Big Ticket" items?

Hmmmmmmmmm.........Cray Supercomputers for modeling nuclear bombs before manufacture?

Hmmmmmmmmm..........Ballistic missle technology?

[Walkin Man]

President Bush is done, put a fork in him. He is well on the way to being a one-term President.

He could care less if millions of Americans are losing their jobs due to the free-trade religious cult that controls the Repub party.

You can not only thank free-traitors for massive unemployment in America, you can say hello to 8 years of demoRat control, all thanks to the free-traitors.

[LIBERATENJ]

OK, This is long. But it needs to be posted. This is an article written by Walter E. Williams in 1998:

Free Trade versus Fair Trade


The defeat of President Clinton's call for "fast-track" authority proves that people love monopolies in what they sell and free markets in what they buy. It means higher prices for what they sell and lower prices for what they buy. Businessmen and union leaders concoct all manner of myth-making to achieve monopoly power and international trade is no exception. Let's examine some of it.

There's the bugaboo about trade deficits, as in complaints that we buy more from Japan than they buy from us. That's not only mythology, but it's not true. Let me use domestic trade to make my point. I buy more from my grocer than he buys from me, but is there a "trade deficit?" When I buy $100 worth of groceries, the value of my current account(goods) rises by $100 but the value of my capital account(money) goes down by $100. By the same token, the grocer's current account(goods) goes down by $100 and his capital account(money) rises by $100. There's no trade imbalance whatsoever; I've given him $100 worth of value and he's given me $100 worth of value. Similarly, when a Japanese automaker sells us a $15,000 car, his current account goes down by $15,000, and ours goes up. He might purchase $15,000 worth of AT&T stock instead of buying California oranges. But just as in the grocer example, his capital account rose by $15,000 and ours goes down.

Protectionist (seekers of monopoly) sometimes argue that American workers can't compete with low-wage foreign workers. On it's face, this argument is ludicrous. If true, we would export almost nothing; American wages are about the highest in the world, yet we are the worlds major exporter. Wages alone explain virtually nothing about trade patterns. It's wages relative to productivity. For example, the fact that a Mexican road construction worker might earn just $3 an hour, while his American counterpart earns $25 an hour, doesn't mean Americans can't compete. The reason is simple. American workers have more capital(modern heavy equipment) working with them, making the output of a day's work much greater.

How about tariffs saving jobs? That's kind of true, but they're saved at the expense of other jobs. Steel-tariff restrictions might save jobs for steelworkers, but they destroy other jobs. Steel teriffs raise steel prices. Thus, steel-using companies-like tractor, refridgerator, and car manufacturers-face higher production costs. Higher costs weaken their ability to compete both domestically and internationally. Politicians love this. Steelworker beneficiaries of tariffs will be eternally grateful and know whom to vote for. The invisible victims in steel-using industries won't know why they are unemployed. Politicians can blame their plight on anything from Reaganomics, the UPS strike, or global warming.

There is no intellectually respectable argument against free trade. The thousands of pages found in GATT and NAFTA are not about free trade, but they are side deals and giveaways. Thousands of pages are not necessary free trade. At one time there wasn't free trade within our borders; here's what our Founders wrote to promote free trade: " No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State. No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another; nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another." That North American Free Trade Agreement is found in Article 1, Section 9, of our Constitution. With a word change here and there, it could just as easily serve us internationally.

[ex-snook]

America needs PROTECTIONISM - military and economic.

Just who recovers (in this country) in a 'jobless' recovery?

Bush has the most inept cabinet since Carter but Bush picked them. His presidency needs a complete overhaul with a new team.

[A. Pole]

At a rally in Ohio, which has lost 160,000 manufacturing jobs since mid-2000, President Bush railed: "We've lost thousands of manufacturing jobs because production moved overseas. ... America must send a message overseas – say, look, we expect there to be a fair playing field when it comes to trade." Yes, friends, at long last, we have their attention. What's behind this radically revised presidential rhetoric? It is this: U.S. manufacturing jobs are vanishing, and unless he turns it around, Bush's presidency may vanish along with them.

"Free" trade bump.

[A. Pole]

The president's father and Bill Clinton contended that every $1 billion in exports created 20,000 jobs. Thus, a $550 billion trade deficit kills 11 million production and manufacturing jobs.

Sounds right.

[RightOnTheLeftCoast]

The Bush Administration has allowed the dollar to decline dramatically against foreign currencies and shows every intention of sticking with this strategery. This is a profoundly pro-export, anti-import strategy, and exactly the right medicine to address the hemorrhage of jobs.

[N3WBI3]

Talk is cheap GW, lets see some action..