The world has gotten smaller, and our ability to "employ" workers in foreign lands and raise their standard of living (and ours too, through lower prices) is a fact of life. We must not shut our borders.
And you've been swallowing some globalist junk science.
The world is the same size it's always been throughout recorded history:
circumferance: 24,901.5 miles
diameter: Nearly 8,000 miles
surface area: 196,935,000 sq miles
percent of earth's ocean approximatly 70% *
percent of earth's land: approximatly 30%
highest point:Mt Everest 29, 028 above sea level
lowest point: Dead Sea 1,302 below sea level
* of the 70 percent of water;
97 percent is salt water,
3 percent is fresh water
The only thing that has changed is that Congress has placed our own natural resources comparatively off limits for utilization.
Let the other nations take care of themselves.
It's not up to us to try to "employ" the rest of the dang planet.
However, we should expect that in all of our major trade relationships our trade 'partner' is willing to buy american products, services or commodities as freely as we buy are willing to buy theirs'. This is true with most of our significant trade partners, but not with all.
Our economy can produce and sell any type of product or service pretty effectively. We have our niches that are strong, we have our niches that are weak, but on an overall basis we're pretty darn competitive in a wide variety of products and services as compared to virtually all nations on earth. Whoever has money but can't find something to buy in the american economy is trying not to find anything to buy in that economy.
China's economy has been growing as rapidly as any on earth for 15 years. When they were a charity case 15 years ago, then having no tariffs on their products and tolerating the one way street in trade is reasonable. But times have changed. In the next year the chinese economy will purchase more personal computers than the japanese economy, the germany economy or the english economy. They are without means no more.
Someone should find the latest stats, but I believe that for every $8 of product we buy from them they buy $1 from us. The annual loss in manufacturing jobs reached one million per year about 2 years ago. Our largest manufacturer, Boeing, is now evidently going to produce in china and export.
If they can't find american products, services and commodities to buy so that the ratio of trade goes back to no more than 1.5 to 1.0, then we should impose tariffs on a graduated scale. For a nation with an 8 to 1 ratio, we should have 100% tariff. For a nation with 1.5 to 1.0 ratio the tariff should be zero. For 2.0 to 1.0 ratio the tariff should be 5-10%. For 3.0 to 1.0 it should be 30%, etc.
In this way our interests will be protected. President Bush's, Reagan's, Clinton's, Ford's, bureaucrats could not ever negotiate trade treaties that would actually prevent foreign governments and institutions simply slamming american sourced goods & services unfairly and in a manner that we wouldn't do. It's their right to do that, we can't stop them from doing what they want in their country, no matter how much negotiation occurs. If the WTO seeks to get over that problem and somehow force other nations to get rid of their practices that protect domestic industries, then they will be a tyrant, that's how much strength it takes to enforce those agreements negotiated behind closed doors. Some nations have legitimate reasons to throw up tariffs and protect some industries. Witness Bush' steel efforts. India has hundreds of millions of people who depend for their sustenance on farmers who labor on the land to produce food. The food can easily be under-priced by foreign (american and other) producers, but will India's government let it in and thus let several hundred million people lose their jobs? don't count on it, except under the heel of a boot. We should not stop other nations from protecting their legitimate interests.
People who oppose the current trade status quo on policy are not anti-trade. But instead wish that our elected representatives would make the rules in the open, not deals done by bureaucrats. We also think it reasonable that trade benefit both parties to the agreement. I heard president clinton's trade negotiator say on pbs that perhaps china would be closed to significant exports from the US for another 50 years, but that we would wait. I'm not kidding you, that's what she said in an interview.
I do applaud president bush' efforts to let the very poor countries with no economy export to US for set periods of time with no tariffs. China was in that category 10-15 years ago.
The pro 'free-trade' people also are failing to learn the lesson of our difficult efforts to compete under globalism. In China taxes are very very low. They've collected a LOT of money from tariffs instead. Their government doesn't spend money like drunken congressmen (I wouldn't insult a sailor) like ours' does. They don't regulate industries into the ground, like we do. In other words, they are using 'supply-side' economic polices and we are not.
The pro-free trade people are unconcerned that many and large segments of the american economy become creatively destructed and thus willing to give it up with 'free' trade, but they also don't seek the supply side fixes for our difficulties.
When you only consider taxes, why shouldn't an american company produce in china. Taxes are much lower in china on anyone who lives or produces. The medical industry over there certainly doesn't have to pay the high insurance for american tort laws that we have to pay. When you export from america to china you have to pay a tariff also, but not the other way.
If we can't produce more here, then we won't be able to afford our social security and medicaire programs. Adam Smith tried to convince the king that letting a busines pursue its' private interests by keeping his interference down and his taxes would cause the producers to produce so that the king could benefit. Our government is discouraging producers, not encouraging them.