Redstate

It should be fairly stated that they are in favor of outsourcing all of Halliburton's jobs.

The rest, they are opposed to.

I have to confess that I have lost touch with this issue. I have assumed for a long time that this is a Settled Issue in the United States... that I need not worry that the second coming of Smoot-Hawley is quietly working its way through the legislative process. If it is, call me gobsmacked.

I know there are the usual pitchforkers out there, but is anyone serious pushing protectionism these days?

parts of the drive behind the economic boom of the 1990s was NAFTA.

Steel tariffs.

Trade Promotion Authority expires sometime this year.

The latest WTO round is stalled.

Outsourcing is the new way to argue against free trade.

Many who supported NAFTA are opposing CAFTA (especially the Dems).

I hope to cover this issue more because there are some interesting dynamics.  Dems are split between some pro-CAFTA Hispanic groups and the anti-CAFTA labor unions.  The whole Hispanic electorate aspect is interesting.  The rising protectionism in the country is worrisome.  The elite concensus on free trade (heck even the NYT supports CAFTA) is strong but the populist anti-trade position could become stronger.

Steel tariffs.

That wasn't "protectionism" though. Bush didn't get out of Harvard with an MBA thinking that protectionism was a good idea. That was a blatant political horse trade. Does anybody remember what he got for it?

The latest WTO round is stalled.

Aren't they always? I thought they held those in places like Cancun, and then the guys who get sent to them stall so the boondoggle lasts longer.

the populist anti-trade position could become stronger

Did anybody ever take Marx aside and explain to him what would really happen with a dictatorship of the proletariat?

I think that they tend to get over-emphasized a bit in the trade debate.  A lot of people forget that we had even higher steel tariffs between 69 and 109 percent imposed back when the Clinton administration first took office, an administration which is now generally regarded as one that supported free trade.  Mr. Clinton agreed to the tariffs for much the same reason that Mr. Bush did to his - namely they were part of the political horse-trading necessary to get the votes needed on a broader trade issue (NAFTA for Mr. Clinton and TPA for Mr. Bush).

Granted they are economically foolish but I can see a case made for agreeing to a temporary tariff on a few items in order to get the votes necessary for a more permanent and broader trade issue.

realize that the fewer barriers to trade overall, the better.  There may be specific instances where the necessity of them are arguable (some of them presented above), but overall fewer trade barriers is generally recognized as a good thing even if it does result in some minor negative effects.

Since this topic seems not so controversial (thus far most seem to be in agreement) here's an extension to the free trade / free market philosophy which I don't understand.

What is the best way to view business subsidies?  Do they act as a negative (as in promoting trade) trade barrier if done properly?  If so, is that a good thing from the M. Friedman philosophy of free markets?  I know the US government is fond of subsidies to airlines, energy companies, drug companies, etc.  It seems like corporate bailouts/subsidies are frequently pushed by both parties.

that free trade leads to the abilitiy of countries with companies that are economic powerhouses to increase their GDP. Most people that favor "fair" over "free" trade don't argue that it will decrease our GDP, though some more concerned about the thirdworld are concerned about taking advantage of them, but the decrease of other factors such as unemployment ect.

Protectionism only works to help increase our GDP if our bussinesses our weaker then other bussiensses in the world wich is of course no longer the case as it was when we started protectionest policies back in the 1800's to protect manufacturers against being put under by Englands companies who had been discussing flooding the american market in order to shut down our companies.

Now here's a subject I like, but like better to stay away from talking about it as I know my passions can get the better of me.

Free Trade does not exist and cannot, it's a nice catch phrase, but truly impossible to acquire as a total entity, not unlike many other things.

I've been investing for a few decades now and like to take a maverick attitude into "Business War" as I foundly call it. "Free-Trade" affects only what it's supporting documents attend to say it does. "Free-Trade" does nothing further than to facilitate wealth, this point of view has very few legitimate deterrer's, but how that wealth is distibuted guided by the supporting documentation and subsequent legislation is where the focus of any investor or businessman possessing any savy whatsoever would be.

If said legislation concentrates wealth within the community of the production/service source, then that will indeed increase overall profits, but will do very little to spur economic growth truly gainfully.

Those who possess ownership over, production, shipping, storage, distribution, consumption outlets and taxation tend to be the big winners, the average American see very little change in their economic outlook, it just becomes steady and internal opportunity becomes a bit more scarce.

The up side to this is people like myself can acquire far more wealth because we will anticipate and most likely correctly (from interpreting the legislation) the needs of the agreements, as listed above.

When the phrase "Free-Trade" is legislated correctly, it very well has the potential to extend a great monetary increase to the middle class sectors of society and the economy where the money actually spurs the most economic growth that could truly be considered gainful.

What I'm saying is, be careful of the wording in the legislation, find out who the lobbyist are concerning this when it is introduced and then draft out a prospectus of likely and potential winners, a person could get rich doing such things or do what's best for the whole, either way, it's your personal call should you choose to get involved.

and some of the biggest CAFTA opponents are the sugar farmers so don't try and put all the CAFTA opposition on the unions.  Big sugar is against it too and they have a lot more clout with this Administration, especially in Florida.

I'm from East Feliciana Parish.

what is fundamentally wrong with including provisions for worker's rights and environmental protections in trade agreements.  Shouldn't we be working towards a level playing field, not just seeking cheap labor?

We can argue about whether NAFTA was good or bad for the U.S. but one country it was decidely not good for was Mexico.  They got their border factories for a few years and temporary prosperity, but now those jobs have all gone to China.  In the meantime heavily subsidized American agricultural products have flooded the Mexican market making it impossible for small Mexican farmers, who used to be able to make a meager living selling in their local markets, unable to compete, leading to an even bigger flood of illegal immigration to this country.  Free trade is a bitch.

In the meantime heavily subsidized American agricultural products have flooded the Mexican market making it impossible for small Mexican farmers, who used to be able to make a meager living selling in their local markets, unable to compete, leading to an even bigger flood of illegal immigration to this country.  Free trade is a bitch.

That is just a short term disruption because the 'depression-causing' (or protectionist) policies of the Mexicans artificially supported small paesano farmers.  The movement of people will eventually create more jobs and more wealth in both the US and in Mexico.  If Mexico is lagging it is only because their markets are less open and slowing the growth of jobs and wealth.

Jobs that go to China are jobs that free the locals to do more productive / profitable things.  The economy is slowed by the number of low-level jobs that must be done.  As these jobs are moved abroad the people are forced into better and better jobs.

is that US ag subsidies were created to protect farmers from price depressions brought on by their own efficiencies. Mexican ag is far more heavily subsidized, it however, is on the France/German model that keeps small inefficient farms in business.

And they are just as wrong.

That's the short version.  They distort the market.  But they are better than trade barriers.  Trade barriers (and quotas) cost the home and foreign countries; Subsidies are paid for by the home country (through taxpayers).

Agricultural and business subsidies are not part of a free market philosophy.

History doesn't bare out your scenario.

Mexico's gross domestic product (GDP) increased by only 1.1% annually during 1980-90, when weak oil prices, rising inflation, a foreign debt of more than $100 billion, and worsening budget deficits exacerbated the nation's economic problems. The economic picture brightened in the 1990s, especially with approval of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), and GDP growth averaged 3.1% annually during 1990-2001; a short-term currency crisis in mid-decade was eased when the U.S. extended a $20 billion line of credit. In the early 2000s the gross national product was $550.2 billion (about $5530 per capita), and the annual budget totaled $174 billion in revenue and $176 billion in expenditure

If anyone has annual stats, I'd love to see them.  But NAFTA created a boom in trade and a sharp increase in the well-being of Northern Mexicans.  The U.S. also boomed throughout the 1990s partly due to NAFTA.  And our long term growth rate is higher than most developed countries due to our freer trade regime.

They artificially prop up businesses/farms to the point that the businesses/farms become dependant on them.

If I was in charge of the budget subsidies for agriculture and businesses.

If I was in charge those subsidies would be among the first Iwould remove from the budget.

The cost of subsidies can be seen as a line item on a budget. Therefore they last only as long as their beneficiaries have power.

Trade barriers can be passed and forgotton. There's not a cost associated in many people's minds since the cost is borne by all consumers of the protected product. At least with subsidies it's easier to debate the levels and gradually reduce them.

For the average American to see little change in their economic outlook then you have to assume that lower prices and higher economic growth will not change a person's outlook. Economic growth doesn't directly affect most people, but in aggregate it does allow people to keep jobs and raises the probability of being successful in non trade related business ventures.

But I would agree that there are always parties on the edge of free trade negotiations making sure that 'free' trade doesn't become a problem to their corner of earth. However that's sometimes the price of the agreements. A 'good' agreement is not the opposite of a 'perfect' one.

from some investments. I'll see if I can find them. In the meanwhile, I can tell you that I was all for NAFTA (having a home and business interest on the Mexican border). But it didn't quite turn out to be a great investment, and the numbers are really not that compelling as of yet, but could better relatively soon.

The mequilladora owner living in the gated compestre community is the person you refer to as the Northern Mexican who benefits. The mequilladora business communities are why NAFTA was created in the first place (I know a thing or two about this). There exist a mass of assemply plants that span nearly the enitre Mexican border region. As they did, then they do now mostly serve as assemply operations to avoid the "Made in Mexico" tag which usually hurts sells of such products as RCA television. Now, the same can occur without amy import limitation and, (here's the really important part). American firms make product parts in Chinese or Phillipino territory or wherever cheap labor exist. Those parts are then shipped to Mexico and assembled. They still do not have the tag, "Made in Mexico" or "Made in China" in fact the way the legislation works, is that the product is made....., right here, hehe, bet you didn't know that, infact many products you buy and read the back of that say "Made in America" take this journey to your homes and businesses.

It's actually becomming more lucrative in a larger since now that other countries like China, India, Oman, France and a host of others bring products orginating from their homeland into ours without import limits or forms of truly tracking then in the same manner. There are holes, numbers have to be adjusted to see the real impact, and of those benefitting, they are an elite group mostly.

Assembly and other workers tend not to totally be the Mexican manistreamer either. The Mexican's themselves utilize cheap labor in the form of extrodinarily poor and uneducated Mexican "Indians" who are not at all treated very well in that nation. And there is in the end a deepening of the divide between the wealthy and not in Mexico, this most likely won't help us in the short term, but will slowly increase the standard of living for the avereage Mexican.

But an analysis of the improvement of the average Mexican's social condition reveals only an incentive to the government to keep the political institutions in Mexico at an incredibly high rate of corruption, disjointment, ineffectiveness with negatively reinforced impressions because that will keep labor very cheap and increase the profits of those corrupted officials in the country at a maximum. Not illegal, maybe none of our business, but not very moral.

I'll look for those papers for you with the adjusted figures.

And besides what is fundamentally wrong with including provisions for worker's rights and environmental protections in trade agreements.

In the name of Allah, the most merciful, the most kind, nothing at all is wrong with it.

And that is why, starting next Wednesday, you infidels will begin to convert to Islam. Without which, I am afraid we will be unable to conclude this trade agreement concerning the oil you want.

No, it is not at all unreasonable. All the truly advanced societies already follow The Prophet. We wish only to bring you the benefits that we enjoy in our society. It is the humane thing to do, to provide your people with mosques. Your people need mosques, and they do not now have them. So we shall make it a condition of our agreement that you will have them.

We also seek to make sure that you are keeping your society clean and pure. Cleanliness and pureness are virtues; you should not oppose these. And so, Allah willing, your women will begin to cover themselves properly, so that your society will not suffer the filth of pornography and sexual imagery.

Or, you may freeze in the dark.

Worker rights in Arabia and Worker rights in the US and in Mexico and EU and Korea etc aren't likely to be similar and maybe from time to time will take on a political tinge.

Can't Saudia Arabia demand US autoworkers not be fed from kitchens fouled by pork?  or that aircraft factories not be financed by jewish banks?(just protecting their human rights after all)

Obviously such provisions are intolerable to us. (though not to the EU )

we can agree on global corporate and intellectual property rights, why not workers' rights?  Start with the right to organize without the need for the unoin to be organized by the government or the company.  Require companies to negotiate in good faith with said unions.  Universal right to strike.  Minimal health, safety and exposure limits based on accepted NIOSH or similar standards.  Global standard workweek and overtime (hours but not necessarily pay rates).

All that would be a good start

The US farm subsidies have make farmers in many coutries poor to destitute - because it costs less to import US food than to grow it locally.

This does not sound like "free trade" to me.

Removing the subsidies would probably increase the price of food in the US, but it could jump start the economies of countries in the third world.

...richie

is really accurate. The fact that it is cheaper to import US/Canadian/Australian wheat, beef, etc. that it can be produced domestically in most of the world is a function of the efficiency of the farms in those countries, not a function of subsidies.

Our subsidies may be unique in the world as we pay farmers to not grow crops or to limit production. Removing US farm subsidies, or more correctly price supports, would probably in the short term of 3-5 years drop the food cost of US consumers considerably and it would certainly result is the world markets being glutted with very, very cheap US agricultural products.

country is so all-encompassing that it is hard to envision what the end of all subsidization would mean.  There are all kinds of things involved besides crop supports.  But the end of sugar and cotton subsidies would certainly kill those crops in this country overnight.  Beef is so cheap because we are subsidizing the price of corn, so without those price supports many farmers would stop growing and simply go out of business.  Another reason beef is so cheap is that a lot of beef grazes on leased federal land at less than market rates.  That would have to end.  Fruits and vegetables, although they get less direct subsidies, are relatively inexpensive, because the farmers out west don't have to bear the true cost of irrigating their crops.  If they had to do that fruits and vegetables would be significantly more expensive.  American wheat and corn is cheap on the world market because much of the cost of getting thos commodities to the Gulf Coast ports is paid for by the Federal Governments in the form of maintaining the locks, dams and navigation on the Mississippi, Ohio and Tennessee Rivers (not to mention the interstate highways and the ports themselves).

First off, the subsidies you list are price supports.

Second, sugar and cotton aren't subsidized. Congress sets tariffs, and Article I power, on the imports of cotton and sugar.

Third, fruit is kept at artificially high prices through manadatory membership in growers cooperatives.

As to the other booshwah. The federal lands are for public use. That includes grazing. They don't make me pay a fee to hike the George Washington forest either.

The maintenance of roads, locks, dams, railroads is what one expects of a society. They are not subsidies.

protected by tarriffs, you are correct.  Cotton by price supports.

You don't derive economic benefit from hiking in the George Washington Forest.  The Federal government leases its grazing lands (and timber and mineral rights) at below market rates.  Most of the laws governing the granting of these leases were written at a time when the goal was to get people to settle the west.  That is no longer a valid reason to let ranchers (or miners or loggers) have leases at below market rates.  If you believe in the market then the government should be able to demand market rates for the valuable resources it holds in trust for the American people.

Unlike the highway system, The only reason we maintain the locks and dams (yes the dams are used for flood control too, but the main purpose of the system is navigation and often works at cross-purposes to flood control) is so that private industry (mostly grain farmers but also other bulk commodities like coal, fertilizer and fuel) can ship their products cheaply to the coast.  If it is so vital to them, get the Corps of Engineers out of the business and let private industry maintain it or let them depend on the rail system to ship their product.  It is just another huge indirect subsidy to private industry.

I don't even know where to start.

But I will give you credit for a basic hostility towards economic activity. I've never seen it so succinctly expressed.

And I'll also give you credit for a completely factual post. Maybe the first.

This post is about "Free Trade".  So I point out some areas where the Government is distorting the market through price supports and subsidizing mostly large scale agriculture and I am hostile towards "economic activity".  Aren't most of the farm programs legacies of the New Deal?  I thought you hated the New Deal.  FDR almost turned this country Socialist!  All those locks, dams and levees were started during the New Deal.  And the Irrigation Projects out west, again the New Deal.  You should be begging the Federal Government to turn the BLM, TVA, and the Corps of Engineers over to private industry.  After all, shouldn't private industry be able to run them all so much more efficiently?  And why on earth should farmers and ranchers want to lease federal land?  They are rugged individualists.  They should demand the government sell them that land, they can manage it better.

I heard an interview with a tobacco farmer on NPR a few years back.  I am paraphrasing but the gist of the quote, said without the least sense of irony was: "All we want is the government to get off our backs so we can grow tobacco and make a living.  And we want the government to reinstate export subsidies."

..a study by a group called the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development concludes that free trade is the best thing since sliced bread. In other news, the sun rose this morning.

"Is this our reward for free trade? My answer is no. Though these are good times in America, our growth today is anemic, compared to what it was in the Protectionist Era, and the Roaring Twenties, when growth rates hit seven percent. Free trade does not explain our prosperity; free trade explains the economic insecurity that is the worm in the apple of our prosperity."

I should say 3 cheers for Pat B., who articulates it well.

Posters seem to think it is a question of unlimited free trade versus protectionism.  But, it is a matter of degrees in various economic sectors.   There has always  been some protectionism, and  I don't see that changing,  unless you want drastic political consequences.

If the thrust of the neo-conservatives is to promote  complete one-sided free trade as the most important goal, at the expense of  all other  American goals, they will lose political power.

I  heard Greenspan say that he thinks that free and fair trade are the same.  I don't agree.  

You can let a  small, influential segment of the populace  get  richer by selling off the country (Buffett says 2 billion dollars per day), but that is not going to be considered fair, if  the majority of voters don't see the prosperity of globalization, and  Americans  think that private greed is trumping  economic patriotism.   They don't want to lose their national sovereignty  to multinational corporations, and foreign creditors.   The reaction will be just the opposite of what conservatives want, a more bureaucratic, socialistic, and  less free America.

Under current economic trends (outsourcing, illegal cheap labor, deficit spending,  huge trade deficits, increased national indebtedness, under-reported inflation, and forfeiting our national defense advantages, etc.)  the popularity of free trade versus fair trade will diminish, unless some of these economic problems are solved.

Posters seem to think it is a question of unlimited free trade versus protectionism.  But, it is a matter of degrees in various economic sectors.   There has always  been some protectionism, and  I don't see that changing,  unless you want drastic political consequences.

If the thrust of the neo-conservatives is to promote  complete one-sided free trade as the most important goal, at the expense of  all other  American goals, they will lose political power.

I  heard Greenspan say that he thinks that free and fair trade are the same.  I don't agree.  

You can let a  small, influential segment of the populace  get  richer by selling off the country (Buffett says 2 billion dollars per day), but that is not going to be considered fair, if  the majority of voters don't see the prosperity of globalization, and  Americans  think that private greed is trumping  economic patriotism.   They don't want to lose their national sovereignty  to multinational corporations, and foreign creditors.   The reaction will be just the opposite of what conservatives want, a more bureaucratic, socialistic, and  less free America.

Under current economic trends (outsourcing, illegal cheap labor, deficit spending,  huge trade deficits, increased national indebtedness, under-reported inflation, and forfeiting our national defense advantages, etc.)  the popularity of free trade versus fair trade will diminish, unless some of these economic problems are solved.

The following is from http://www.news.cornell.edu/Chronicle/04/10.21.04/outsourcing_jobs.html:

"The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics had reported that only 4,633 private-sector jobs in companies with more than 50 employees were lost during that time period, a gross underestimation, warn the report's authors.

Bronfenbrenner and co-author Stephanie Luce, a faculty member at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst, obtained their information through online tracking of media reports, corporate research and the creation of a database of information on all production shifts announced or confirmed in the media. Their report was commissioned by the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission, which sought the information because there is no government-mandated reporting system to track production shifts from the United States to other countries."

The important point here is that "there is no government-mandated system to track production shifts from the United States to other countries."  Is this true?  If that is the case, how do we know that "outsourcing made up a miniscule portion of the jobs lost during the 2001-2003 layoff period," as stated by Pejman Yousefzadeh.  Where is the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics getting its numbers?  From companies?