so let's show DMD we can stay on "issues"

[Azazello1313]

both democratic candidates say they will roll back NAFTA, put a freeze on new free trade agreements, and generally support protectionist policies under the notion that they "protect american jobs"

 

the republican candidate, john mccain, is an unabashed supporter of NAFTA and other free trade agreements, and today raised the idea of pursuing a free trade agreement with the european union.

 

which position do you agree with, and why?

[untateve]

I freely admit that this is an issue in which I am weak and as such, I can't add to the debate. However, I hope this thread becomes informative, as many have in the past.

[westvirginia]

As a comitted capitalist and free-marketeer, I don't know why slick willie pushed so hard to get NAFTA passed then dropped the ball on GAAT. Is wiegie around anywhere?

[CaP'N GRuNGe]

Just found this: http://www.cfr.org/publication/14762/

 

Haven't read it yet but it might help with the discussion.

[I Like Soup]

While I agree that a free market means that a country's resource strength is fully utilized (i.e. labor in Asia), the water gets muddied because of unequal legislation on business practices (i.e. Mexican trucking companies aren't held to the same standards as American truckers so it isn't fair and equal, blah, blah). With that said, I wouldn't mind our government revisit their stance on this while I further educate myself on the subject (read: see what y'all say on the Huddlle).

[Jimmy Neutron]

Great question.

 

My views are a little :tinhat: on NAFTA. I think that agreement and others like it (see EU) are a thinly disguised plan to abort nationhood. I am completely against losing our identity and relative autonomy as Americans. I like the things that make us different, even though they present challenges to our society.

 

I think we should be more concerned about our trading policies with China, India and the other major players in the emerging world economy.

 

While I am a general proponent of free trade, there are times I can justify a degree of protectionism. For example, I think the timing of awrding the Air Force tanker contract to Airbus flat out sucked. With our economy in a distinct down-turn, this conctract should have gone to Boeing in a good faith effort to bouy up the economy. Why help the EU create 100,000 jobs overseas when we can so desperately use them here? I think it would be wise to award all of our defense contracts to US companies providing products and services here in the good ol' U.S. of A.

[CaP'N GRuNGe]

Basically free trade should theoretically level the playing field between the nations of the world. Business will flow to low cost areas (read LABOR).

 

There are obviously positives and negatives. Theoretically the consumer is the big winner. The labor market in the short term has regional winners and losers.

 

I do think that open markets in closed societys help to open up those societys to western thought.

[yo mama]

No one disputes that free trade is good, and that free trade agreements (when properly drafted) help facilitate free trade.

 

The problem, as I see it, is that free trade agreements frequently fall short when it comes to promoting global enivironmental concerns. NAFTA did a terrible job of this, allowing Mexican "maquiladoras" to pollute worse than anything imaginable virtually along the US border. And a lot of that junk got into American soil and drinking water (not to mention Mexico's). It's also pretty easy to bury protectionist aspects in trade agreements. Lastly, many free trade agreements are drafted without sufficient regard to foreign working conditions that would be unquestionably illegal here in the US. To the extent "free trade" merely allows us to permit other countries to do what is illegal here, I say nay.

 

But more to Az's point, retreating from global free trade in order protect job loss is retarded. It will only weaken our grasp on global economic dominance if we cling to the outdated models of what got us here in the first place: innovation, hard work, and fiscal responsibility (both household and governmental). We're slipping in each of these three areas, slowly but surely, on a national scale. Avoiding free trade because it exposes certain job markets for the dinosaurs they are is not a viable long-term economic solution. Though, pandering to the those dinosaurs certainly provides some with short-term political gains.

Edited March 26, 2008 by yo mama

[Azazello1313]

Your opening argument sort of violates what you are saying you are trying to do by throwing around terms like "protectionist" and portraying both sides really as black and white. But I appreciate the effort.

 

what?? "protectionist" is the word most commonly used in all circles to describe policies that restrain trade between nations, as opposed to policies that try to foster more, freer, trade. the term comes from their own rhetoric, "protecting" american jobs, and the like. it is NOT an unfairly pejorative term on my part.

[I Like Soup]

what?? "protectionist" is the word most commonly used in all circles to describe policies that restrain trade between nations, as opposed to policies that try to foster more, freer, trade. the term comes from their own rhetoric, "protecting" american jobs, and the like. it is NOT an unfairly pejorative term on my part.

C'mon Grunge, you turd.

 

Oops, sorry DMD.

 

[Azazello1313]

Basically free trade should theoretically level the playing field between the nations of the world. Business will flow to low cost areas (read LABOR).

 

There are obviously positives and negatives. Theoretically the consumer is the big winner. The labor market in the short term has regional winners and losers.

 

I do think that open markets in closed societys help to open up those societys to western thought.

 

pretty much. but am I wrong in remembering you at some point saying you're a fan of lou dobbs? dude's the biggest protectionist out there.

[CaP'N GRuNGe]

what?? "protectionist" is the word most commonly used in all circles to describe policies that restrain trade between nations, as opposed to policies that try to foster more, freer, trade. the term comes from their own rhetoric, "protecting" american jobs, and the like. it is NOT an unfairly pejorative term on my part.

 

You need to refresh your screen. I already admitted that my words weren't helpful and then deleted them. It just seemed that you were approaching this issue in a slanted fashion while claiming to want to discuss "issues". I took initial offense to that and then realized that maybe I needed to give you the benefit of the doubt and took them back.

[CaP'N GRuNGe]

pretty much. but am I wrong in remembering you at some point saying you're a fan of lou dobbs? dude's the biggest protectionist out there.

 

Meh. I have mixed feelings on Dobbs. I'm beginning to rethink my position on him. Jack Cafferty is pretty entertaining though.

[westvirginia]

Great question.

 

My views are a little :tinhat: on NAFTA. I think that agreement and others like it (see EU) are a thinly disguised plan to abort nationhood. I am completely against losing our identity and relative autonomy as Americans. I like the things that make us different, even though they present challenges to our society.

 

I think we should be more concerned about our trading policies with China, India and the other major players in the emerging world economy.

 

While I am a general proponent of free trade, there are times I can justify a degree of protectionism. For example, I think the timing of awrding the Air Force tanker contract to Airbus flat out sucked. With our economy in a distinct down-turn, this conctract should have gone to Boeing in a good faith effort to bouy up the economy. Why help the EU create 100,000 jobs overseas when we can so desperately use them here? I think it would be wise to award all of our defense contracts to US companies providing products and services here in the good ol' U.S. of A.

 

Jimmy makes great points here. Where we differ is that I think the only way we can level the playing field with China, India and others is by HONEST free trade agreements. If they insist on protectionist provisions, we insist on those of our own of rough equivalency.

 

I agree wholeheartedly about the airbus thing. Why a DEFENSE contract was bid abroad, even to such a stalwart ally as the brits, I'll never know.

[Azazello1313]

I have to say, it was pretty damn smart of mccain to start pushing the idea of an EU/US free trade zone. it sort of pulls the rug out from under all of the protectionist arguments against NAFTA (unequal labor, regulatory environments).

 

let's start outsourcing jobs to romania!

[yo mama]

By the way, Thank you Az, for taking the time to put forth such a thought-provoking post.

Edited March 26, 2008 by yo mama

[Controller]

Free trade = good ...In the big picture, ALL participants in free trade agreement benefit. You can argue that globalization results in loss of national identity and/or autonomy, but the trend is unstoppable so arguing about it is a waste of time.

 

Gov't intervention in general = bad

 

The guy who made $54.68 per hour for screwing in headlights needs to realize that his job is gone and it aint comin' back. If the only way to win Michigan and Ohio is by lying to people and giving them false hope, then only Hillary can win those states.

[westvirginia]

Free trade = good ...In the big picture, ALL participants in free trade agreement benefit. You can argue that globalization results in loss of national identity and/or autonomy, but the trend is unstoppable so arguing about it is a waste of time.

 

Gov't intervention in general = bad

 

The guy who made $54.68 per hour for screwing in headlights needs to realize that his job is gone and it aint comin' back. If the only way to win Michigan and Ohio is by lying to people and giving them false hope, then only Hillary can win those states.

 

 

Ding ding!!!

[Azazello1313]

You need to refresh your screen. I already admitted that my words weren't helpful and then deleted them. It just seemed that you were approaching this issue in a slanted fashion while claiming to want to discuss "issues". I took initial offense to that and then realized that maybe I needed to give you the benefit of the doubt and took them back.

 

ok, cool. I will say, neither hillary nor obama are hard-core protectionists, in the mold of a kucinich or a ralph nadir type. they're both just clearly more protectionist than the guy one of them will be facing in november. specifically toward NAFTA, CAFTA, etc.

[Jimmy Neutron]

Jimmy makes great points here. Where we differ is that I think the only way we can level the playing field with China, India and others is by HONEST free trade agreements. If they insist on protectionist provisions, we insist on those of our own of rough equivalency.

 

We don't differ there, WV - I just did not elaborate. Frankly, I don't know a ton about our policies with our trading partners. I have heard (but can not verify) that we really take it in the shorts from some countries.

Edited March 26, 2008 by Jimmy Neutron

[Avernus]

things are going waaayy too smoothly here...

[westvirginia]

things are going waaayy too smoothly here...

 

None of the bozo's like MM or shizeater have responded yet...

[CaP'N GRuNGe]

Free trade = good ...In the big picture, ALL participants in free trade agreement benefit. You can argue that globalization results in loss of national identity and/or autonomy, but the trend is unstoppable so arguing about it is a waste of time.

 

Gov't intervention in general = bad

 

The guy who made $54.68 per hour for screwing in headlights needs to realize that his job is gone and it aint comin' back. If the only way to win Michigan and Ohio is by lying to people and giving them false hope, then only Hillary can win those states.

 

Well, to look at the other side of it, that guy making 54.68 loses his job to someone that is making 5.468. Great for the consumer. Except that guy that lost his job gets a new job where he is making a fraction of what he made before. He defaults on his mortgage. He defaults on his car loan. He defaults on his credit cards. He has no money to send his kids to school. He has no money to stimulate the economy. The standard of living in the guy's country worsens while other countries standard of living may or may not rise. May or may not depending on where the wealth is concentrated. Example: China. So there are new jobs created for a few million Chinese who make money they weren't making before, but still a pittance as the multinational corporation is hogging all the profit do to globalisation. So then you want the Chinese to unionize and demand better pay, working conditions, etc like we did following the industrial revolution. Only thing is, China is not a Democracy and the government will crack down on that sort of thing much more strongly then our government did. Etc, etc.

Edited March 26, 2008 by CaP'N GRuNGe

[yo mama]

Well, to look at the other side of it, that guy making 54.68 loses his job to someone that is making 5.468. Great for the consumer. Except that guy that lost his job gets a new job where he is making a fraction of what he made before. He defaults on his mortgage. He defaults on his car loan. He defaults on his credit cards. He has no money to send his kids to school. He has no money to stimulate the economy. The standard of living in the guy's country worsens while other countries standard of living may or may not rise.

But that goes to personal financial responsibility and the concept of innovation. The high paying jobs are out there, for those who have the skills and education to secure them. Those who are unwilling or unable to obtain said skills and education don't deserve to be paid the same as those who are. That's the lifeblood of capitalism, right there.

Edited March 26, 2008 by yo mama

[westvirginia]

Well, to look at the other side of it, that guy making 54.68 loses his job to someone that is making 5.468. Great for the consumer. Except that guy that lost his job gets a new job where he is making a fraction of what he made before. He defaults on his mortgage. He defaults on his car loan. He defaults on his credit cards. He has no money to send his kids to school. He has no money to stimulate the economy. The standard of living in the guy's country worsens while other countries standard of living may or may not rise. May or may not depending on where the wealth is concentrated. Example: China. So there are new jobs created for a few million Chinese who make money they weren't making before, but still a pittance as the multinational corporation is hogging all the profit do to globalisation. So then you want the Chinese to unionize and demand better pay, working conditions, etc like we did following the industrial education. Only thing is, China is not a Democracy and the government will crack down on that sort of thing much more strongly then our government did. Etc, etc.

 

But in another generation, the guy making 5.468 has his wages rise to the point that his standard of living is equal with that of western Europe or the US. Then the guy putting the headlight in can truly compete with the guy in China/India/BFE. And they don't want to go back to squallor, so they realize a little loss is better than a lot. Everyone competes, fat is cut from economies (see the us Auto market in the 80's) and pretty soon, it's to the level where GOVERNMENTS are competing for business by lowering taxes.

 

Whoohoo! Anarchistgasm...