Yeah, I know. It’s only been 30 years of short runs and 19 trillion in debt.
Government regulations, lawsuit abuse, taxation - the march toward toward socialism and Big Government control and Crony Capitalism (the pattern of business going hat in hand and on bended knee - eventually moving beyond a Stockholm Syndrome relationship to bankrolling politicians for favored market status) have torqued free trade.
Who’s history foretells their willingness to change this?
Trump’s or Cruz’s?
I say Cruz’s.
In the predawn glimmering this morning here in Germany my neighbor's rooster stepped out, ruffled his feathers, puffed his chest, and let go with a cock-a-doodle-doo (although I'm told they do it differently here in Germany, at least the Germans have a different onomatopoeic for it). Shortly thereafter, the sun rose. Satisfied, our rooster retired to the henhouse no doubt with the intention of rendering the hens equally satisfied.
The question is not whether the American economy in certain sectors have been harmed coincidently in time with trade agreements but whether there is data which demonstrates cause and effect.
Even when cause-and-effect are demonstrated in certain sectors, the next question which must be addressed is whether, on balance, the whole economy has been advantaged or disadvantaged by these trade agreements. To answer these questions we must have resort to more than the bombast of Donald Trump, we must actually see data.
And when we make these judgments we must ask ourselves are we advantaged or sometimes disadvantaged by our own protectionist measures? Is the American consumer advantaged because a very few families in Florida are in effect subsidized by the American consumers for growing sugar cane? Donald Trump tells us that our problem is that we make "stupid" deals because our negotiators are "stupid."
The reality is that some sectors are sacrificed by our trade negotiators to advantage other sectors. This is not stupidity but cupidity. When Donald Trump enters the picture we will have a different brand of cupidity but that does not make him smart.
Finally, we should ask ourselves whether the fault lies with the trade agreements or with the sweep of technology and the span of globalization. IBM today as literally tens of thousands of Indians sitting before computer monitors in India doing IT work for American and European companies. They are getting in salary a fraction of what it would cost to put an American in front of that computer monitor. It might well be that your next x-ray will be read by a physician in India instead of a doctor in America.
We should ask ourselves whether our educational establishment, our regulations, our tax policy, our intrusive environmental bullying are more responsible for the weakness in the American economy than the trade agreements. We should ask whether those deficiencies can be repaired by "smarter" trade agreements? Above all, we should have resort to data rather than bombast to answer these questions.