Riding the free trade raft over the falls

WorldNetDaily ^ | April 18, 2005 | Patrick J. Buchanan

[A. Pole]

The reason Cuba is still enslaved has nothing to do with trade policy and everything to do with Fidel Castro and his cronies.

Maybe it has something with the memory of free market time under the Batista regime (shown in the Godfather II)?

[A. Pole]

And add the fact that as living standards drop Americans will no longer wish to pay the cost of being a superpower.

Why should they? Actually they might long for the foreign conquest (a secret of easy Spanish conquest of Aztec and Inkas empires and of parts of Roman empire by the barbarians)

[WilliamofCarmichael]

RE: "Your $4K computer (1985) would have cost you about $1K in 1990--and it was STILL made in the USA.

Ditto the color TV.

When color TV first came out a set cost as much as a new car. Within a few years a majority of families could afford one -- and all production cost reductions done here.

And like the 1990 computer v. the 1985 computer the later and cheaper TVs were superior in every way -- all improvements made here.

Cheaper and better was a product of Yankee Ingenuity. No one suffered because goods were produced here. Go figure.

[WilliamofCarmichael]

RE: "Would Marx or Lenin or Mao see today's China as truly Communist?"

Not truly Communist in the sense that the state has withered away but otherwise, yes. IMO.

I know that Deng studied the Soviets' experience with Lenin's New Economic Plan (NEP) even grilling Armand Hammer about his experience in the USSR in the era.

I've seen a study done by CP/USA acknowledging that "socialism with Chinese characteristics" works as long as the Communist Party of China remains supreme.

The CPC believes that China is in the primary stages of building socialism -- and who are the masters of building strong economies for this future workers' paradise? Western useful idiots.

[WilliamofCarmichael]

RE: Yankee Ingenuity and keeping production here.

I was remiss in not making it clear that I was talking exclusively about "free trading" technology, wealth, and production to developing nations.

I am FOR free trade with countries that do not depend upon wealth transfers to build their economies. I am especially against "free trading" away our goodies to communist China.

Countries should build their economies the old fashion way not the modern Davos world of wealth transfers advocated by New Democrat Third Way progressives and their conservative "free trader" useful idiots. IMO.

[Cronos]

Strictly speaking, the empire did not end until Hong Kong was turned over to China in 1997. Britain was still adding new territory to the empire through the 1890s

Well, we're BOTH wrong ;-P I should have written that the Empire plateaued by the late 1800s. It was adding a few pieces of land through to the 1890s but it had effectively reached the End of it's expansion, kind of like after TRajan, in Hadrian's time

And the British Empire hasn't ended -- there are still self-governing lands like Canada and Australia that have the Queen as their head of government and there are still colonies like the Bahamas, Pitcairn and Dulcie, Diego Garcia and the Falkland islands

[Cronos]

Well, we're still waiting for the RedChinese consumer marketplace to emerge.

It already HAS -- China is now the second largest buyer of cell-phones in the world and is the second largest or largest market for Nokia, Sony-Ericsson, Motorola etc. Ditto for consumerables like soft drinks etc.

[ran15]

Great post about comparing how looking back makes the mistake of comparing apples and oranges.

For example housing which is most people's biggest cost in life by far. The majority of what people are paying for their house is the land. Which is artificially driven up by the no-growthers stopping much development. And has nothing to do with free trade.

[Cronos]

Germany was formed in 1871, so yes, it was expanding, a new nation.

[remember]

Comes now the trade shocker for February. The deficit hit an all-time monthly record: $61 billion. The annual U.S. trade deficit is now running at $717 billion, $100 billion above the 2004 record.

Buchanan is correct that the trade deficit is rapidly getting worse. I had been following it on a yearly basis at http://home.att.net/~rdavis2/tradeall.html. However, it's worsening so quickly now, I've started to follow it on a monthly basis. The following graph shows that even its monthly movement is decidedly down:

The numbers can be seen at http://home.att.net/~rdavis2/gstrade.html.

[raybbr]

The majority of what people are paying for their house is the land.

Huh? When was the last time you bought land and then built a house? I paid $63K for the land and another $200K for the house. Where did you ever get your idea?

[raybbr]

It already HAS -- China is now the second largest buyer of cell-phones in the world and is the second largest or largest market for Nokia, Sony-Ericsson, Motorola etc

Hah hah hah! Cell phones? That make me feel better.

[ninenot]

What do you think my philosophical basis to be, and therefore inaccurate

Libertarianism.

[1rudeboy]

I want to know what are the guiding principles of a freeper who can agree with Karl Marx on trade.

Ditto. Why don't you find one on this thread that argues that free trade leads to antagonism of the proletariat and class warfare. Ping me when you hear something.

[ninenot]

A $4000 Pontiac Star Chief (1958) would sell for $26,546.00 today.

No matter how you dress the pig, the fact remains that the cost, inflation-adjusted, is about the same.

The electronic doodads replaced actual sheet metal, and there are production efficiencies which have been achieved in the last 50 years. So what?

[ninenot]

One can hardly argue that the cost of tax and regulation has been deleterious to industry in the US, and deleterious to the welfare of US residents in many regards.

But you miss the point. The concept PJBuchanan has consistently promoted has been FAIR trade--iow, adjusting US tariffs to compensate for tax/reg costs on a country-by-country basis.

[1rudeboy]

Milton Friedman does a good job here.

[ninenot]

You are correct.

The argument is NOT about "free" trade, but "fair" trade.

Since the US burdens its industry and population with relatively high tax and regulation costs, tariffs should be enacted to reflect the differences.

Currency manipulators (e.g., PRChina) get the same treatment. Of course, PRC gets both treatments...

[ninenot]

the guy with the "McJob at Wal-Mart" today enjoys a standard of living that would be the envy of that unionized factory worker 30 years ago.

You can prove this, of course.

[ninenot]

In 1965, I was working part-time changing oil and filling gas tanks, at $2.15/hour.

That's $12.65 today--more than WallyWorld's average $10.15/hour wage.