QUESTION: Are free-trade agreements good or bad for U.S. manufacturing jobs?

Northwest Indiana News ^ | Monday, October 06, 2003 | Barbara Glepko-Toncheff (Letter to the Editor)

[Willie Green]

For education and discussion only. Not for commercial use.

The American consumers have hurt themselves by being awed by the "better deal" Trojan horse and consistently sending their hard-earned dollars overseas to the coffers of foreign-owned companies being subsidized by the American government. These companies then take the lion's share of the profits, pay taxes there to support their homeland, and come back and buy up more of the American pie, while greedy politicians and CEOs to massage our trade laws to their benefit.

Every American should read author Roger Simmermaker's hot new book: "How Americans Can Buy American" before our sovereignty is completely sold out and the living standard bar is lowered more. The first chapter can be read online, and the author can be contacted there.

Burdened with legacy costs, three times higher taxes and government-imposed regulations, domestic-owned companies have to compete with slave labor and are forced to look for the cheapest way to conduct business to please the consumer's demands for the cheapest, thus the job exodus.

In essence, the American consumers helped fuel the same vehicle that came back and ran over them. We will become a colony again by losing our manufacturing independence, only this time under Asian rule. Total capitalism will be the death of our middle class society. Do you think the wealthiest among us care? Only Wal-Mart workers and rich CEOs will be left.

The Internal Revenue Service was formed to make up for the deficit when the tariffs were dropped in 1913. That's why all four great men on Mount Rushmore were protectionists. Do you like April 15? Grandma was right when she told you, "Don't be penny wise and pound foolish!"

Barbara Glepko-Toncheff

Chagrin Falls, Ohio

[JNB]

About the support for unfair trade where the flow is trade is in one direction, about the continuation to trade with countries where the US is at a severe disadvantage because of minipulations in their currecnies. The extreme short term mentality that so many CEOs have where they only look at the quarter ahead, instead of the long term and so on. If the US a country that is defined by its Westeren based society, or is the US only a place to make money? In the Post WWII period, it was about both, now it seems it is more and more about the rat race.

I will be the first to admit that I am a conservative because of social issues. On economics issues, I will be the first to agree that Tort reform is badly needed, that enviromental regulations, especially those tacked on after 75 are excessive, that workmans comp is out of controll and that gov spending at all levels has been out of controll except for a brief period in the mid 90s since the late 60s. I agree that there are too many burdens on business, but that said, the current trade and i mmigration polices are cancerous long term for the US, and WILL result in a backlash that will shift that magical 5% of the vote to elect in those that will tax and regulate more than ever before. I say to dogmatic free traders, is that extra 15 cents a share in annual profit worth having to deal more more burdens down the road?

[TopQuark]

At a glance your last post appears to be informative and thoughtul. I'll try to read it in detail tomorrow and, I have anything intelligent to say will reply then. Right now, I am sorry to say, I have no such desire after your accusation that I do find offensive.

[A. Pole]

It's best that the US exercise our technological superiority and migrate our workforce to defining the future of the marketplace rather than let it push us around.

Where will you "migrate our workforce"? Maybe we should "migrate our" CEOs to China or India? But I am not sure if those countries will be willing to take them.

[A. Pole]

Protectionism led to horrible economic times in our country.

Do you mean times from Washington until Clinton?

[1rudeboy]

Completely non-responsive. Never thought you could do it anyway.

[1rudeboy]

If these protectionists were so concerned about the welfare of these slave-laborers in China, then they should explain how protectionism will help them. They cannot, and refuse to admit that these workers' only hope is the invisible hand of the free market.

[TopQuark]

they should explain how protectionism will help them. That is exactly right.

If the much-hated Nike did not open a plant in Malaysia, employing local labor at whatever meager wage, those workers would not have any job at all. I suspect the protectionists, as well the Leftists, know that but use this card anyway: it makes them sleep well at night, having ridden the high moral horse all day ("I stand with slave labor against the capita… I mean, the rich"); and, their enemy is here, at home --- they don't really give a damn about those people.

I really don't think they do care: they love mankind (an idea) because they cannot love real people.

[1rudeboy]

It's even more simple than that . . . the free market compelled Nike to certify that its products are not produced with slave labor, while protectionists slept.

[Cronos]

How logical would it be to say that Perry's actions led to Japan's drift away from isolation, making it want to cathc up with Europe and leading to it's desire for Empire, thereon through the defeat of the Russian fleet in 1905 by the Japanese straight through to Pearl Harbour??

[Cronos]

of course its better than the opium wars fought by the British to sell opium to China. China of course said no, the Brits bombed them and robbed Hong Kong, kind of like a COlombian drug lord attackign the US and conquering Florida and forcing us to buy coke.

[A. Pole]

of course its better than the opium wars fought by the British to sell opium to China. China of course said no, the Brits bombed them and robbed Hong Kong, kind of like a COlombian drug lord attackign the US and conquering Florida and forcing us to buy coke.

Hey, free trade should include drugs as well and military should aid the invisible hand of the market.

[harpseal]

I agree that the ITC tariff study was very much on the fence about the Steeel tariffs I have stated that repeatedly based upon the executive study. The study against tariffs was funded by the Steel Consumers. My take on teh ITC study of teh Steel Tariffs is as follows from my previous post:

The USITC study of the effect of the 2001 steel tariffs on Steel Consumers shows that the overall net cost/benefit may be either positive or negative so a reasonable conclusion is this tariff on net can neither be declared helpful or harmful based on this study at this time.

I have at other times posted a different study of the China trade that shows tariffs have a net benefit to the US economy. I have done this on other threads and called your attention to it before. It is not coming up this AM but when it does again I will repost this.

IF you insist on misrepresenting what I have posted then I will have to start treating you like as I would any other troll who lies intentionally. For this post I will presume that your mistake was innocent. Now once more I have reperatedly in teh past posted a study of the China trade showing that tariffs proved a net benefit to the USA. Please come up with some evidence if you have any.

[harpseal]

This is the study which you have been referred to before that shows tariffs are beneficial to the USA in one case. LINK. Now this is on the presumption you were merely mixed up by the fact there is more than one study in economics.

[Axenolith]

When the Chinese have tariffs on our goods and won't float their currency against ours, who has free trade???

[Axenolith]

banking, insurance, telecommunications, and software are all service-sector industries

They also happen to make up some of the sectors being offshored the fastest...

[harpseal]

could've asked about the following, your disdain for so many fellow citizens, as demonstrated by what? But I am tired of this: like all liberals, you accuse someone with a different view of policy of having evil motives.

Please understand there have been many threads covering the issue of trade and those who advocate the current trade rules seem very willing to dismiss the structural problems in the US economy caused by those trade rules which many think harm Americans. Instead of discussing policy honestly and refernceing facts and mathematics to butress their arguments all that seems to come forth from those arguibng for the current unfair trade rules is invective and assertions that are unsupported.

Now I understand your being upset with teh assertion that you have disdain for your fellow citizens (presuming you are an American Citizen). But to accuse someone of being a Liberal because of that staement given the history of these threads is unfair. Certainly for some advocates of teh current trade rules the term Marxist is descriptive (albeit not all and there is no personal accustion of you implied herein).

If we can keep the discussion focused on gacts perhaps we can avoid the invective that seems to afflict so many of these threads.

[Willie Green]

How logical would it be to say that Perry's actions led to Japan's drift away from isolation, making it want to cathc up with Europe and leading to it's desire for Empire, thereon through the defeat of the Russian fleet in 1905 by the Japanese straight through to Pearl Harbour??

Sounds pretty straightforward to me.

[harpseal]

The Smoot Hawley tariffs were passed after the start of the Great Depression in the USA (generally agrred as the market Crash of 1929). The Worldwide Depression actually started far earlier and had a great deal to do with the Bank of England tightening credit. The reparations payments from germany and Austria in the 1920's were also significant for them. There were many causes and the overall effect of Smoot Hawley may have been positive for the economy as many economists argued at the time and up to the 1950's.

However, clearly you are correct when you talk of how small a factor international trade was as part of our economy and that is one other reason why Smoot Hawley can not be considered a proven case for a tariff causing harm to the US economy. Then again we have the Fordley-MacCumber (sp) tariffs of the 1920's which raised rates to what was at the time the highest ever and seemed to result in a boom.

[ZULU]

The U.S> is facing the greatest economic crisis in its history.

Greedy and unscrupulous corporate executives, along with their cronies in the political world, have removed American jobs overseas, and continue to flood the U.S. with poorly made, expensive products manufacturered at slave wages while reaping monumental gains for themselves.

It doesn't take a genius to figure out that our trade balance will inevitably suffer.

What allowed the U.S. to win WW1 and WW2 was our unmatched industrial capacity. If we ever faced a major war today, we wouldn't be able to fight it without German and Japanese guns, Chinese uniforms, etc. What a disgrace!!

Teddy Roosevelt, a conservative patriotic Republican, would NEVER have allowed such a fatal hemorrhaging of our National industrial capacity to benefit a gang of greedy modern robber barons.

[general_re]

And you know this because...?