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

[harpseal]

Ping

On or off let me know

[1rudeboy]

Is that a rhetorical question, or is your web browser down?

[harpseal]

Tariffs worked for crappy motorcycles, therefore tariffs will work for everything. [A protectionist V8 moment]

Gee those supposedly crappy motorcycles have captured one fifth of the world market overall without being able to be sold legitimately in China. Hmm, I guess the world does not share your opinion on the value of a Harley.

Perhaps you can for a change deal with the world instead of your theoretical world which exists only in some theoreticians mind.

[harpseal]

The USA has had a protective tariff since 1789. It was the second act of the first Congress. Learn some history before you mistate it further.

[TopQuark]

Unionist plant, Willie Green, at his best:

demanded that the Japanese open their ports to trade or else...
This blatant misuse of American military power for the benefit of private enterprise

Where does it follow from that opening trade was for the benefit of "private enterprise?" (Never mind that at that time we did not have any other kind of enterprise).

Trade benefits the nation, but Willie tries to portray this action as if he was paid by the "owners," them rich folk, you know. Burn their estates, long live the revolution!

Willie Green is taking FR for a ride.

He posts only anti-corporate and anti-capitalist propaganda on this forum. Seldom participates in his threads, and when he does, he plugs in, carefully, falsehoods such as the one quoted above. Of such as these, under a guise of a joke: "With the way Dubya is racking up the Budget Deficit and National Debt, we'll probably have to sell those states back to the French!"

You'll never catch him saying anything positive about this country or its core institutions. The workers, however --- excuse me, Comrade Green, the proletariat --- is always unjustly suffering.

This socialist plant does what all of theme do: uses the freedom of expression on this forum to destabilize its very purpose.

[1rudeboy]

The fact remains that Harley Davidson was getting its teeth kicked in because of mismanagement, and crappy product. Ask yourself this question, has H-D captured so much of the world market now because of government handouts, or because it competes?

[1rudeboy]

History? Smoot-Hawley. Enjoy.

[TopQuark]

Sorry, you simply repeat what you said before.

You have grievances that are based on illusion and attribution of motives --- anything but economics. I could not find anything new in your last post to comment on.

Thank you for the exchange.

[1rudeboy]

You have grievances that are based on illusion and attribution of motives --- anything but economics.

If you cannot argue economics, what else do you have?

[Cronos]

For the first 200 years America had various forms of protectionist policies. During that time we became the strongest nation on earth, with a middle-class the envy of the world. BTW, the Republican Party platforms included tariffs for a century.

The implicit conclusion that protectionist policies were the sole reason for us becoming the strongest nation on earth is incorrect, wrong, false etc. One CANNOT forget the other factors viz. we had a huge immigrant boom, we expanded to the West, we quadrupled in size, we stuck out of silly European wars, WWI and II happened during which we did not interfere until crucial turning points and our war economy boomed, we stayed capitalistic when the countries we now compete with flirted with socialism.

Why do I bring this up? Because I don't think the reason why we're in this state is so simplistic, nor is the solution so simplistic as to involve purely protectionism. Don't forget that China and India and Russia were fiercely protectionist until the 80s and 90s but when they opened up, they've boomed. And they have opened up now. Whatever tariffs etc. they have NOW is nothing compared to what they had earlier. We can beat this downturn and we WILL beat it, but to give a simplistic solution to a complex problem is not the way.

[Willie Green]

He posts only anti-corporate and anti-capitalist propaganda on this forum.

Actually, I'm extremely pro-business: AMERICAN business and AMERICAN jobs.
You'll find my conservative views expressed on a variety of issues: my advocacy of a revenue tariff is ALWAYS accompanied by a recommended offsetting reduction in the domestic corporate income tax. I also am consistant in my opposition to extremist environmental regulations which virtually prohibit economic access to our vast natural resources. And I routinely advocate development of our nation's infrastructure with modernization of our nuclear power plants, desalination plants for fresh water supply, and electricly powered high-speed rail and maglev transportation systems: ALL of which would benefit AMERICAN industries and AMERICAN jobs.

Seldom participates in his threads,

I participate quite frequently. For the most part, I've simply started ignoring the disengenuous trolls such as yourself.

But I thank-you for continueing your campaign of personal attacks against me. It helps keep the thread bumped to the top of "latest posts" for other's to see while I surf around the Web for additional articles to post.

[harpseal]

History? Smoot-Hawley. Enjoy.

I am quite familiar with the Smoot hawley tariff which was enacted in response to european tariffs that were limiting the market for American imports. It was enacted in June of 1930 and may well have been what kept the US economy from collapsing to the point that we as a nation totally lost all vestigaes of Constitutional goverence. Of course the Smoot-hawley tariffs are almost impossible to isolate in their effects because they were enacted in combination with an income tax increase and Federal Reserve policies tightening credit. I am quite familiar with the Smoot-Hawley tariff even though I honestly can not remember if Smoot was from teh Senate and hawley from the House or vice-versa. I do know teh final tariff enacted contained all of the tariffs of both the House and the Senate.

Would you elaborate on why you think this is a significant event for those who seek no American tariffs?

[1rudeboy]

Because a good number of economists acknowledge that the Smoot-Hawley Act exacerbated the Depression. Not the ones you read, mind you. In fact, the whole notion that something is "almost impossible to isolate" in effect is surprising to hear from you. You've been parading-around for weeks asking your pro-free-trade opponents to demonstrate conclusively that tariffs hurt, instead of help, our economy. Why the double-standard?

[Willie Green]

Don't waste your breathe on the china shills.

Thanks. For the most part, I don't bother with 'em anymore.
But every now and then, I can't resist the temptation to give 'em a good kick in the butt.

[LibertyAndJusticeForAll]

I believe that protectionist policies are ONLY PART of the reason why we became the strongest nation on earth, NOT the ONLY reason. Just as I believe that TODAY it is ONLY PART of the answer. I refer you to harpseal's list of 13 excellent ideas; ONLY 2 involve protectionism. That's 2 out of 13! See harpseal's profile page.

As a Christian Conservative I am more likely to imply that America's deep religious convictions had more to do with our becoming the strongest nation on earth than any trade policy. However, it cannot be denied that America, once upon a time, took measures to protect it's middle-class, it's workforce and it's small businesses; and that these efforts met with very good results.
Today, many of America's small and mid-sized manufacturers are dying because of a lopsided so-called "free trade" policy that is nothing like free trade. It is unfair trade and our gigantic trade deficit is more evidence of how lopsided it is.
Furniture and textile companies 100 years old cannot compete with the slave wages of the PRC, not to mention the 40% devalued yuan, or China's and India's tariffs.
The PRC has an economic warfare strategy of dumping their goods with the express purpose of driving-out American competition. This was admitted openly by 2 PRC senior officers. It is also rather obvious.
Our own Bush administration admits that the mounting job losses are unacceptable; 2.7 million in manufacturing alone.
Furthermore, in post #22 I list just some of the links that support my reasoning.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/996809/posts?page=22#22

[hedgetrimmer]

What is "my side of the fence"? How is advocation Americanism marxist? Explain to me exactly what is "free" about a global socialist organization making trade policy for purportedly free Americans? It is true that congress no longer makes trade policy, but an unelected trade minister does. How is that Constitutional? How does that support freedom?


"Communists and socialists feel sure that setting up international "free" trade systems which impose regulations chuck full of intrigues, redistribution plans, arbitrary law, and interdependence schemes, will win out against the conservative interests of every free nation.

What could be better than to use "free" trade to reverse the advantage of the relatively free, moral, prosperous, and strong nations of the Earth, so that the tyrannical, amoral, poor, and weak nations of the socialist bloc might get the upper hand?

What could be a more cunning approach than to market the idea that those who oppose "free" trade are enemies of freedom?"
--Steve Farrell


This is the dialect.Those who oppose "free" trade are the enemies of freedom. And yes, my "free trading opponents" mirror Marx's vision of the world completely.

[harpseal]

A good number of economists take the stand the Smoot Hawley act mitigated the worst effects of the Great Depression in the USA. The evidence seems to be out as to which it was unless or until you can come up with something that isolates its effects from the effects of the Federal Reserve actions of the time. i have even seen some who have argued that teh immanent passage of the Smoot Hawley tariffs were teh cuase of the stock Market Crash of 1929. The time differential alone would make that ludicrous to most but the fact that there was no Smoot Hawley tariff until the separate House and senate versions of the tariff sct of 1930 went to conference committee and adopted all of the tariffs of both houses makes such speculation insane.

Would you care to back up your assertion with other than unsubstantiated opinion.

[1rudeboy]

Would you care to back up your assertion with other than unsubstantiated opinion[?]

Why? Can't I simply claim the "almost impossible to isolate the effect" privilege that you "created?"

[hedgetrimmer]

Nothing new. Then you agree that the WTO is a global socialist organization. You agree that America has one vote among many socialists. You agree that the treaties coming out of the WTO support socialism because the majority is socialist and always vote to support socialism. You agree that free trade really isn't free because it is controlled by socialists and not a free people.

Thanks.

[1rudeboy]

What is "my side of the fence?"

Imagine yourself at the latest WTO meeting in Cancun. Determine which side of the riot-fence you'd have been on.

Now consider, is it more likely or less likely that the person standing next to me has a bust of Lenin in his studio?