I am for a lot of things, you can't take free trade as a single unrelated issue. I am for sound money. I am for deregulation. I am for small government. I am for fiscal conservatism. I am for reform of laws that treat corporations as separate individuals from their owners. Our trade deficit is already headed in the wrong direction, and it has little to do with our trade policies.
In the last 20 years we lost 2 million jobs to outsourcing, in the last 10 years we created 35 million jobs. You want to reverse that trend and then say its good for the middle class?
1. No. Tariff's are the exact opposite of "a free market." I don't know how to state that more clearly. 2. No. It would not "enable US manufacturers to compete", it would do exactly the opposite. It would enable US manufacturers NOT to compete. It would save them from having to compete. It would subsidize them and the American consumers would pick up the tab. Enjoy your new $70k Ford Escort and your new $4,000 19" TV. Yes, yes I can. Please quit dodging the question. I thought that Ron Paul stood for straight-talking? If you had the power, would you implement unilateral free trade rules with every nation-state on Earth?
well, then you're talking about hypotheticals. Because realistically, trade policy is influenced by fiscal policy, monetary policy, and the soundness of the currency. He does. But he doesn't approach each issue individually. His platform is tightly sewn together into one comprehensive philosophy. It's many parts making a whole. Only if I had the power to transform fiscal policy, monetary policy and restore soundness to the currency. I can attempt to predict how unilateral free trade would work under our current system, and it would be disastrous. Our currency is nearly worthless, and our GDP is driven by debt and foreign investment, not domestic production.
Ah... you make an excellent argument for managed trade agreements like NATFA. I'm glad we finally know where you stand.
I thought you wanted to know why people are against free trade. I'm not really looking to argue or convert anyone
Good point. I am trying to understand. I am completely and terribly confused though, because I can't make logical sense of your reasoning. You want tariff's because they do X -- but they don't do X. In fact, they have the exact opposite effect. I'm not sure if you really want X or if you really want the opposite of X. Something doesn't match and I don't know if it's the goal or the strategy.
No. That's a logical fallacy if you insist I am trying to prove a negative. Managed Trade is bad. If it was good, we wouldn't be losing our manufacturing jobs. Managed Trade is a consequence of bad policy, but it is only a band-aid, not a solution. The US has a massive trade deficit, which is not fair trade, free trade etc. But the reality is that until the fundamentals of the economy are addressed and put into order, you cannot integrate a flawed economy into a global system and expect success. So to be clear, I am a free trader. However to achieve effective free trade (where the market rules) you have to remove regulation, subsidies, preferential trade agreements, unsound currency, taxation and more.
Since we're coming clean... I'm a free trade advocate. I am for free trade, and I see managed trade as a step towards that direction. I also want to see government subsidies of industry removed -- worldwide. But, as I know the difficulties involved in that, I see managed trade as a necessary bridge to the future. If one country is subsidizing it's aircraft industry (*cough* AIRBUS *cough*) and another country isn't -- the two companies cannot compete fairly in a free market. Can we get the Euros to stop finding sneaky ways to subsidize AirBus? Probably not. The short-term solution? Long nasty complex trade agreements -- managed trade. Is managed trade bad? Sure! Would free trade be better? Definitely! But, we don't live in a perfect world and I don't suspect that we will have a perfect world in my lifetime. When most people argue against NAFTA (etc...) they are arguing for protectionism. Protectionism protests certain special interests (farmers, auto manufacturers, tomato growers, etc...) at a hidden cost to the entire populace in higher prices for goods. I am against protectionism. I will toss a couple of URL's into the thread, in case anyone is interested: The Case for Unilateral Free Trade and Open Immigration The Blessings of Free Trade I know that someone (Hayek?) wrote an excellent defense of unilateral free trade -- but I am currently away from my library and am unable to recall who wrote it. So, I am pro-NAFTA in the short-term and anti-NAFTA in the long term. For the current time, the presence of some annoying rules serves to enhance overall economic liberty. I can live with that. Politics makes strange bed-fellows!
In a perfect world, we would lose all of our manufacturing jobs. We would send them overseas to be done less expensively and we would move on to creating wealth in better ways. Then we would use our increased wealth to buy products from overseas which are now less expensive than we could have manufactured them ourselves. Wait... that sounds a lot like today. Well, except that manufacturing has grown faster than the overall U.S. economy since the recession ended in 2001.
I'm not sure about this logic. The bureaucracy of subsidies actually creates higher production costs, because those costs are born by the workers and companies in the form of income taxes. Or deficit spending which erodes the value of the currency. Either way, subsidies are not necessarily a "free" advantage. I'm against NAFTA primarily for security reasons. I don't have a problem with harmonized tariffs and tariff codes (I work with NAFTA trade regularly). One would need to read the Treaty to understand how much it is about globalization, and not about trade. I'll say it makes strange bed fellows. FA Hayek is one of Ron Paul's greatest influences. Strange company you keep. But if you read Hayek, or Mises, you know that government and regulation trends towards growth. Acceptable growth is a canard. IMO, a constant and vigilant move towards free trade is needed. Right now, NAFTA is doing more damage than it is doing good, and the trend is only going to continue.
That's not a perfect world. That is an imperfect world where no goods are produced locally. One has to have a fundamental understanding of trades and wealth. Wealth is measurable. Globalized production classes are anti-liberty and anti-free market. But we would continue to transfer our wealth because we only consume, and do not produce. This one threw me for a loop. Could you please explain it in more detail or with a source? I'm not sure what you are saying.
Things have changed... We are a global economy, we meaning the entire world.. FREE TRADE is necessary and beneficial for all.. I'm for it.
I'm quoting Dr. Michael Bond, who is a professor of finance at the Cleveland State University and the senior fellow in health care policy at James Madison Institute in Florida. I'm not sure what Dr. Bond is using as his indicator.
That's a perfect world for me. Let people half a world away perform low-value-add jobs in high-pollution industries. I'd rather live in an area where people perform high-value-add jobs in low-pollution industries. The future is mental labor, not physical labor. That's a non statement. Be careful not to be so 1930's about what you consider "production." Don't stress about measuring production in kilograms -- measure production in dollars. The source was Dr. Michael Bond, professor of finance at the Cleveland State University and senior fellow in health care policy at James Madison Institute in Florida. But really, it's irrelevant. Manufacturing isn't a goal and shouldn't be a goal. Don't get caught up in luddite thinking. You're agreeing with me. Those subsidies are "free" only to the recipient. That's a non statement. Be specific. Hayek was a good guy. Paul and I both read Hayek. I just don't view Hayek through Paul's limited and nationalistic viewpoint. You don't need Hayek or von Mises to tell you that government tends to protect and grow itself. However, this is where we part ways. I'm being practical where Paul is being theoretical. NAFTA is a step in the right direction. The world is better off than it was before NAFTA. Paul is an idealist. NAFTA isn't perfect. Oh boo hoo! Nothing is perfect! That's life.
You can also make the claim that America also is a currency manipulator by lower its interest rates it reduces the desire of others to hold the dollar for which the dollar falls. Also making Chinese’s goods as expensive as American goods will only lead to a reduction in consumption and a lower standard of living.
Thanks. I'll have to try to dig up the stats. It's been awhile since I've been really looking at it, but when I was, manufacturing was saying goodbye to our economy. And that is bad, for reasons I'll go into later.
You still need someone to work in the grocery store, to pick up garbage, to pave the roads. We're physical beings, not astral projections. Do you have an example of a strong economy from history, that eroded it's manufacturing base for services and thrived for more than 50 years? Or perhaps you did not understand it. Dollars only represent an idea of wealth, they have no intrinsic value. If you are hungry and there is no food, you cannot eat your dollars. Pretty much all you could do is wipe your butt with them, or burn them for heat. They are merely fiat bills of credit representing no tangible value or fixed purchasing power. Your argument is actually counter-intelligent. China is the next great economic power, and they will do it by producing goods, not providing services. It's disingenuous to say that production shouldn't be measured in hard goods, only in notes of credit. You're overlooking the fundamentals of what Rothbard and Von Mises talk about. That money itself does not convey the social value of a good or service. Remember, our choices are not statistical, they are ordinal. This country was built on (sic) luddite thinking. Investors and corporations the world over are salivating at the Chinese, and their luddite market. So then you are admitting that managed trade is not necessary. The subsidies to one industry in an economy cost another segment of an economy. Managed trade is not necessary to compete with Airbus, the trick is to compete in a different good that bears the deficit of airbus being subsidized in it's economy. Free markets don't work on protectionism, they work by filling market needs as cheaply and efficiently as possible. Have you read NAFTA? But you have read "The Road to Serfdom" correct? The world is not better off since NAFTA. Not unless you are a socialist. All we have done is transfer wealth, jobs, investment and opportunities to another country. The social cost here is enormous. The long term ramifications will be enormous. But if you're a Trotskyite or Marxist, then maybe it's a good idea to take the wealth of some and spread it to others. Frankly, I don't believe in socialism. I don't believe in globalism. The transfer of jobs to Mexico and overseas was never done with the consent of the people. And their starting to get pissed off that 2 centuries of productivity and growth are being eroded in less than a generation.
Ah, NAFTA did not do that.. The American consumer did that. It happened in the combined process of two stages: 1. Americans stopped buying American goods in lieu of buying cheaper goods from other countries. 2. Americans have continually supported a union mentality that seeks more pay for less work from less skilled people. Item one occurred because people could not afford to buy goods from an undereducated over payed, under worked work force. Manufacturers already strapped financially by over paying, under worked, under educated workers could not compete in the global market, the effect of which was brought on again, by American consumers not buying their obviously over priced goods. Hence, these manufacturers in an effort to maintain profitability have had no choice but to move jobs over seas in order to satisfy both the demands of the American consumer and their bottom line so they can continue to remain in business and over pay taxes to support people he do not like to work for a living... In a nutshell what we have here is the basic principles of liberalism... Not NAFTA... Want more of this? Vote Democrat..