[Paul Ross]

As is any belief that real wages have fallen.

The Census Bureau and the Bureau of Labor Statistics admits that they have fallen 4% or so over the past five years.

Inflation-adjusted hourly and weekly wages are below where they were at the start of the recovery in November 2001. See, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Current Employment Statistics Survey. 2006 http://www.bls.gov/ces/home.htm.

Consequently, median household income (inflation-adjusted) has fallen five years in a row and was 4% lower in 2004 than in 1999, falling from $46,129 to $44,389. See U.S. Census Bureau. Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States. 2004. http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/income.html.

We have welfare recipients driving cars, watching color tvs, living in air conditioned apartments, and who have ALL the food they need.

That has nothing to do with wages, and everything to do with those who do work being robbed still more by our never-shrinking Federal and State Governments.

If we are falling behind why is it that the US is still the most desirable nation for immigrants?

Because we just happen to still be better in decline, than those nations they flee, as you alluded to. That should not be difficult to grasp.

It is also FALSE that we had a "practically closed economy" such a statement would only be made by someone who could count on his hearers not knowing much American history.

Actually he is accurate with regard to having a protectionist structure for imports/exports. Designed to encourage self-sufficiency. Let's see where you go wrong:

It must IGNORE the Cotton industry during the 17-1800s

Nope. Not ignored. Just proving we were exporters, not importers....right?

the steel industry later

Again...net exporters.

the oil industry

Again net exporters until, what, the 60's/70's.

British investment during the 1800s

Investment was not precluded...because it aided the general policy of industrialization and self-sufficiency. As you see, being protectionist is hardly isolationist.

the tobacco industry

Again net exporters to this very day...and subsidized I might add.

sugar well almost all our history in fact.

Yes, more exports. You made my case. Thank you.

McKinley's rhetoric is nothing but.

No, he was in full accord with the Republican Congress, and the Party Platform, and really meant it.

Tom Friedman tries to peddle the same baloney that you appear to defend.

What are you smoking? He is the primary "free trade" and "globalist" advocate and celebrant that the Administration relies on. Everyone in the White House has been told to read his books, such as "The World is Flat" and so on. Policy after policy Friedman pushes winds up being the W policy. From the Mideast to China.

He sees nothing but gloom and destruction.

Gee, someone better tell W to stop promoting Friedman's views then.

The Wikipedia quote sets up straw man after straw man to demolish. WHO believes there was an era of free trade in the US? No one I know or have heard.

You sure seemed to imply such.

What major scholar has EVER put the entire blame for the Depression on Smoot-Hawley or for WWII? All I have seen is reference to it as a FACTOR leading up to the Depression.

Correct, but the pack of baying free trade hounds here at FR will undoubtedly ostracize you forevermore...

Hamilton's program was designed to remove the distortions caused by British colonial policy and was only mildly protectionist (rates around 15%).

Mild or not, it was very effective.

He designed the tariff MAINLY as a revenue tariff to fund the government.

And to unify it. To bind North and South, East and West, Farmer and City folk. And it worked.

Hamilton's goal was to allow the US to develop a balanced economy less dependent upon agricultural exports.

He also was extremely keen on kick-starting domestic manufactures.

After him the leaders used the tariff as a means of assisting political allies as much as achieving a national goal. This is one of the major problems of protectionism it leaves the realm of economics and moves into politics.

The same can be said of the Free Trade apostles.

The other is that is slows innovation by protecting industries whose time has passed.

That can indeed happen. But that is why trust busting and other spurs to competition need to be embraced. Foreign oligolopolies are hardly boons to true competiton. Once the U.S. producers fail to be a credible supplier of anything, the prices go up. Oil is a perfect example.

And by reducing international trade it prevents the international division of labor from achieving its full extent and thereby lowers productivity and income as a whole.

The last point is simply laughable. "International Division of Labor." Get real. This is not about labor efficiency. The U.S. was it. The height of productivity. We are even now considered more efficient than our other peer competitor...Japan...who we essentially created, as they followed Arthur Deming's formula.

No, this is really about nation's playing tug of war to get industry...and the U.S. abdicating its responsibility. It is being minded by a bunch of deluded doctrinnaire dilletantes and self-rationalizers and apologists for their devastating trade failures.

Your question "Why are there lower income Americans" is too stupid even to address.

Hence you lose the point, that your free trade is in fact depleting American wealth.

[justshutupandtakeit]

In order to understand the HH figures you have to disaggregate the numbers. If you do so you will see that the number of members making up a HH has dropped. It is foolish to pretend that Americans are not better of financially than they were in the 70s or earlier.

My example of welfare recipients demonstrated that even the lowest on the economic totem pole have lives better than the vast majority of people around the world and better than those of Americans past.

We are not in decline except to the Leftists. What nation has taken the lead over us?

It is false that we have EVER had a closed economy.

Perhaps I am thinking of the wrong economist I thought you were referring to a NYTimes columnist.

I never implied any such thing as that we had a golden age of Free Trade apparently you wanted to believe that.

In spite of the Hamiltonian task the US ran trade deficits almost constantly until the around the 1870s. War may have caused some change in that tendency. But Hamilton was not a big advocate of protection for a mature economy and was much more of an advocate of bounties to develop new industry. His reliance on the tariff was necessitated by the need to pay for the fed gov and to unravel the net of British colonial impacts on the shape of the economy. He would not be an advocate of protectionism in a mature, modern economy clearly understanding the fact that it reduces income at home and abroad by distorting the allocation of economic inputs and contravening the Division of Labor.

Free Trade does not favor any sector at the expense of the whole. It favors sectors and BENEFITS the whole.

Free Traders at FR will not contradict my statement that Smoot was a mere factor in the Depression. They understand quite well that Fed mistakes and the Dust Bowl among other things had major roles as well. I have NEVER seen one entirely blame Smoot.

Hamilton's major tool in binding the Nation together was the Constitution itself and the Assumption of State Revolutionary War debts. Actually the tariff worked against that goal by using the tariffs paid by the South to aid Northern industry. It became a major complaint later.

The Division of Labor carried to its fullest extent internationally in no way implies that US labor is not the most productive. The Theory of Comparative Advantage shows that it benefits both nations to trade even if one has an Absolute Advantage in producing every product. By adopting policies which work against the Division of Labor you lower income everywhere at home and abroad. International trade INCREASES overall income at home and abroad. Restricting the Export Cycle does the same. As the most dynamic economy in history the US's role is in the creation of new products and industries. Protectionism works against its very strength and is turned to only by backward and undeveloped nations. Lower income Americans benefit more than any other from Free Trade since it maximizes their purchasing power and lowers inflation rates. There are ALWAYS going to be lower income Americans and Free Trade has nothing to do with their existence or persistent existence. The largest reason they exist is because of their cultures and mindset.