Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Krauthammer: A ‘no’ to free trade is a ‘yes’ to China
The Albuquerque Journal ^ | May 15, 2015 | Dr. Charles Krauthammer

Posted on 05/15/2015 12:03:20 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet

That free trade is advantageous to both sides is the rarest of political propositions – provable, indeed mathematically. David Ricardo did so in 1817.

The Law of Comparative Advantage has held up nicely for 198 years.

Nor is this abstract theory. We’ve lived it. The free-trade regime created after World War II precipitated the most astonishing advance of global welfare and prosperity the world has ever seen.

And that regime was created, overseen, guaranteed and presided over by the United States.

That era might be coming to a close, however, as Democratic congressional opposition to free trade continues to grow.

On Tuesday, every Democrat in the Senate (but one) voted to block trade promotion – aka fast-track – authority for President Obama, which would have given him the power to conclude the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), a trade deal being hammered out with 11 other countries, including such key allies as Japan, Australia and Singapore.

Fast-track authority allows an administration to negotiate the details of a trade agreement and then come to Congress for a non-amendable up-or-down vote.

In various forms, that has been granted to every president since Franklin Roosevelt. For good reason. If the complex, detailed horse trading that is required to nail down an agreement is carried out in the open – especially with multiple parties – the deal never gets done.

Like all modern presidents, Obama wants a deal. But he has utterly failed to bring his party along.

It’s not just because for six years he’s treated all of Congress with disdain and prefers insult to argument when confronted with opposition, this time from Democrats like Elizabeth Warren. It’s also because he’s expended practically no political capital on the issue. He says it’s a top priority. Has he given even a single televised address?(continued)

(Excerpt) Read more at abqjournal.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Foreign Affairs; Government; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: china; economy; fasttrack; freetrade; obama; tedcruz; trade
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-65 next last
To: 2ndDivisionVet

It seems to be more than simple trade agreements. The devil is in the details.


21 posted on 05/15/2015 2:53:30 AM PDT by SWAMPSNIPER (The Second Amendment, a Matter of Fact, Not A Matter of Opinion)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cringing Negativism Network

“Last year we had a 342 billion dollar trade deficit with China. A new bad record, in a long history of ever-increasing terrible records with China.”

If this was affecting the elites the same way it affects the average American, it would change.


22 posted on 05/15/2015 2:54:05 AM PDT by pieceofthepuzzle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: nathanbedford
Very well said! All of this underscores that as a nation we have no long-term strategy.
23 posted on 05/15/2015 3:02:21 AM PDT by pieceofthepuzzle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Cringing Negativism Network
Last year we had a 342 billion dollar trade deficit with China.

This proves that capitalism is not what distinguishes decent people from communists.

24 posted on 05/15/2015 3:28:38 AM PDT by Ethan Clive Osgoode (<<== Click here to learn about Evolution!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
That free trade is advantageous to both sides is the rarest of political propositions – provable, indeed mathematically. David Ricardo did so in 1817.
25 posted on 05/15/2015 3:38:50 AM PDT by SeeSharp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cringing Negativism Network
Last year we had a 342 billion dollar trade deficit with China.

So what? New York had a trade deficit with Illinois. I had a trade deficit with Walmart.

26 posted on 05/15/2015 3:40:59 AM PDT by SeeSharp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SeeSharp

Countries have trade deficits.

Your examples are entities within the country’s borders. I have no problem whatsoever with Texas, competing with California. None at all. Texas will win by the way.

What we are facing internationally is much more destructive, and I don’t support what we are doing at all.

America needs to support, and to build up America.


27 posted on 05/15/2015 3:50:53 AM PDT by Cringing Negativism Network ( http://www.census.gov/foreign-tradebalance/c5700.html)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Krauthammer is a McConnell toady and that’s weird, a high IQ scholarly fellow following after a dumbass.


28 posted on 05/15/2015 4:00:01 AM PDT by arthurus (.it's true!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cringing Negativism Network; SeeSharp
The point is that ultimately the dollars sent overseas in any trading partnership have to come back to the U.S. in some way. A trade deficit in and of itself is not the problem in that respect.

I've long said that this is a very complicated issue, and one of the things I've found is that it lends to oversimplification in so many ways.

Personally, I believe the U.S. government is under tremendous pressure to maintain and expand these trade agreements because we see it as an absolute necessity in maintaining the status of the U.S. dollar as a global reserve currency. I keep informed about major trends in commerce and trade as part of my work, and in the last few years I've seen something that I had never seen before -- and which probably raises all kind of alarms in Washington: articles, conferences, and research publications about global trade that have no mention of the U.S. as a major player on the world stage.

29 posted on 05/15/2015 4:02:09 AM PDT by Alberta's Child ( Invade."It doesn't work for me. I gotta have more cowbell!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child

I think the opposite.

America is giving away the status of the dollar as the global currency, precisely because we are giving away America’s superiority in global markets.

We are destroying our very own nation.


30 posted on 05/15/2015 4:05:35 AM PDT by Cringing Negativism Network ( http://www.census.gov/foreign-tradebalance/c5700.html)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Cringing Negativism Network
Countries have trade deficits.

Making up your own definitions?

31 posted on 05/15/2015 4:07:03 AM PDT by SeeSharp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Cringing Negativism Network
I'm not sure how you measure "superiority" in this context.

The U.S. currently has about 4% of the world's consumer base. There are probably more people living (and working) within 2,500 miles of Singapore than in the rest of the world combined. Think about that for a moment and ask yourself what makes us "superior" in a global economy if that's where we stand.

32 posted on 05/15/2015 4:11:11 AM PDT by Alberta's Child ( Invade."It doesn't work for me. I gotta have more cowbell!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: SeeSharp

My definition is, I am an American.

I repeat, Countries have trade deficits. America at the moment, has a HUGE trade deficit with China.

342 billion dollars last year. It is steadily and rapidly growing, every single year.

It appears to be much worse this year as well.

It is at very least worse, for the first three months.

So what precisely is your point?


33 posted on 05/15/2015 4:14:23 AM PDT by Cringing Negativism Network ( http://www.census.gov/foreign-tradebalance/c5700.html)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child

That was not my point.

I think we are selling off our superiority, along with everything else which is great about our country.

Both parties. “For sale”.


34 posted on 05/15/2015 4:17:06 AM PDT by Cringing Negativism Network ( http://www.census.gov/foreign-tradebalance/c5700.html)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Cringing Negativism Network
My point is that I don't think we're "selling off" our superiority at all. The rest of the world is simply catching up to us.

It's hard to grasp this when we look at an issue just in the context of what we've seen in our lifetimes, but the sobering truth is that the "superiority" you describe was really just an anomaly of the post-WW2 decades when the U.S. was the only major industrial power that hadn't been decimated during the war. We may have had less than 10% of the world's population but we probably had more than 80% of the world's GDP at one time -- but that was only because the rest of the world wasn't capable of producing very much. That has obviously changed, and we'd better come to grips with it because that's the way it's likely to be for a long time.

35 posted on 05/15/2015 4:30:29 AM PDT by Alberta's Child ( Invade."It doesn't work for me. I gotta have more cowbell!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: RC one
Free trade is the appropriate system but you don't get there successfully when your own system is all tied up and chained with high taxes and a jungle of regulations. Free trade that would bring back real prosperity to America along with reindustrializing the country would be unilaterally removing restrictions at this end on trade other than some militarily strategic ones, removal of all the regulation and taxes from American business and tying the dollar to gold or using some other method to make it permanently stable. American Industry in America is still -except for the taxes and regulation, far and away the most innovative and efficient. Without all the smothering hampering of trade from Washington, the American worker at, say $20-25 an hour is more cost effective (cheaper) than the Indonesian at $1 an hour. We have exported our industry and jobs because we have taxed and regulated it to unprofitability and we have pursued it around the world so that it is not profitable to return money to the USA for companies who do business outside of the country and it is less and less profitable to even be an American company.

People, even those who think of themselves as free market conservatives, shy at the idea of unilaterally going free trade but done properly in regard to regulation and taxes that would make the USA a powerful magnet for the world's investment dollars and the other economies would have to do likewise or ossify and decline.

If we did all that in one fell swoop, possibly prices would go up briefly but then would enter a long decline and wages would begin a long and rapid rise.

That all could be done in thirty days. Another requirement for the maximum benefit is the sidestepping of American universities or untying them from government- shoving them into the market. All government subsidies and regulations of academia should cease. The reinvention of education in America might be not so rapid but it would occur and America would again be the locus of most of the brainpower in the world. Processes that even now are slowly replacing the communist cocoon that is our university system would blossom and existing universities would shed their tenured and unprofitable drones or founder and would have to begin teaching real subjects again as they did 65 years ago.

36 posted on 05/15/2015 4:30:48 AM PDT by arthurus (.it's true!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: nathanbedford

You said it right.


37 posted on 05/15/2015 4:33:00 AM PDT by arthurus (.it's true!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Charles failed to mention the Brigadeers that are agin it


38 posted on 05/15/2015 4:35:20 AM PDT by bert ((K.E.; N.P.; GOPc.;+12, 73, ..... No peace? then no peace!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SpaceBar
You are correct about the US having a competitive edge in the post WW2 period.

Because of that, the US pursued multi-lateral trade via the WTO.

But, as the US, overtime, lost that competitive edge, we shifted away from expanding multi-lateral to pursuing bi-lateral and regional trade agreements, as well a concentrating on our own back yard.

The first prez to pursue this with fast track authority was Reagan with Israel, the Caribbean Basin Initiative(which would eventually be replaced with CAFTA), and bilateral agreements with Canada and Mexico.

Under GWB Bush, the two bilaterals would become the trilateral NAFTA.

Under GW Bush CAFTA was completed and Chile was completed. Bush began the bilaterals with Columbia, Panama, and Korea and they were completed under Obama.

Keep in mind that Bush was not able to complete those 3 agreements because the dems blocked them because they thought the investor protections were excessive and Obama renegotiated them with more protections for labor and environment.

39 posted on 05/15/2015 4:46:10 AM PDT by Ben Ficklin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Cringing Negativism Network

Who cares about trade deficits? Why do they matter? I have formally and informally studied this for years.


40 posted on 05/15/2015 4:49:40 AM PDT by impimp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-65 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson