More bad news for Republican candidates, especially if your name is Carly "No God given right to a job" Fiorina... Americans Sour on Trade Majority Say Free-Trade Pacts Have Hurt U.S.; Wedge Issue in Some Races The American public, already skeptical of free trade, is becoming increasingly hostile to it. Across the country, politicians are responding accordingly, and that is clouding prospects for... [more]
More bad news for Republican candidates, especially if your name is Carly "No God given right to a job" Fiorina...
Americans Sour on Trade
Majority Say Free-Trade Pacts Have Hurt U.S.; Wedge Issue in Some Races
The American public, already skeptical of free trade, is becoming increasingly hostile to it.
Across the country, politicians are responding accordingly, and that is clouding prospects for congressional approval of pending free-trade pacts with South Korea and Colombia. It is also prompting concern among U.S. businesses reliant on the rest of the world for growth.
In the latest Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll, more than half of those surveyed, 53%, said free-trade agreements have hurt the U.S. That is up from 46% three years ago and 32% in 1999.
Even Americans most likely to be winners from trade—upper-income, well-educated professionals, whose jobs are less likely to go overseas and whose industries are often buoyed by demand from international markets—are increasingly skeptical.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703466104575529753735783116.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
This article summarizes the issues I have been making for a while. Also, the article's claim that "well-educated professionals, whose jobs are less likely to go overseas" is FALSE. Science, technology, and engineering jobs are going overseas. So are some low level law jobs, like document review. Anyone who thinks that only low skilled manufacturing and call center jobs are going offshore is delusional.
[less]
Response by Riversider
over 15 years ago
Posts: 13573
Member since: Apr 2009
Not engaging in foreign trade worked great during the middle ages..
It's also interesting how the fear is based on current trade with China which does not have a free-trade agreemnent.... This is just Democrats pandering to trade unions. Maybe we shout start a trade-war too.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by sledgehammer
over 15 years ago
Posts: 899
Member since: Mar 2009
Who gives a shit what Americans think? The only opinion that counts is the one from the top earning 1% of the population in this country...
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by Post87deflation
over 15 years ago
Posts: 314
Member since: Jul 2009
#!@%$#% Smoot Hawley, all @#%!#$%#$ over again . . .
Stupid people should read their history.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by DaBulls
over 15 years ago
Posts: 261
Member since: Jun 2008
Americans can be better off being more focused at home. Selling our assets and jobs overseas benefits only very few.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by The_President
over 15 years ago
Posts: 2412
Member since: Jun 2009
"The only opinion that counts is the one from the top earning 1% of the population in this country..."
Last time I checked, the top 1% only has 1% of the vote...
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by The_President
over 15 years ago
Posts: 2412
Member since: Jun 2009
"This is just Democrats pandering to trade unions."
Really? Because most trade union members have jobs that can't be outsourced. You plan on outsourcing plumbers and electricians? If anything, this benefits non-union tech workers the most.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by Post87deflation
over 15 years ago
Posts: 314
Member since: Jul 2009
Free trade benefits everyone, but it most especially benefits the poorest and weakest, who cannot pay the premium that the rich can pay. It makes no sense to impose trade restrictions or high tariffs on imported cars, for example, if you cost the great mass of American consumers $1 billion in higher prices in order to save a few auto workers $100 million worth of jobs. You are robbing a lot of money from the poor in order to give a little money to the other poor.
The rich can still afford to import their Lexuses and Beamers, so they are not much affected either way. It's the poor who suffered most from Smoot-Hawley in the 1930s, and it's the poor who will suffer most this time if there is a new wave of protectionism.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by The_President
over 15 years ago
Posts: 2412
Member since: Jun 2009
Why don't you go to the Rust Belt and tell everyone there how great free trade is? Go to Indiana and Ohio where they have 20% + unemployment.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by Post87deflation
over 15 years ago
Posts: 314
Member since: Jul 2009
You think free trade is what brought them down? I disagree. Their primary competition is from Germany, Japan, China and Korea. We don't have FTAs with any of those.
What seems to me most likely to have brought the Rust Belt to its current situation was a combination of poor management, over-regulation, and an inflexible workplace culture. Why should the rest of us (regardless of economic class) have to subsidize bad business practices by over-paying for the things we need?
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by The_President
over 15 years ago
Posts: 2412
Member since: Jun 2009
Over-regulation? How? We've had massive de-regulation over recent decades. Plus foreign made products are subject to the SAME regulatiosn as US made products (ie: fuel mileage, lead limits, etc.). Poor management is definitely to blame, I will give you that.
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by The_President
over 15 years ago
Posts: 2412
Member since: Jun 2009
And don't worry, the great benefits of free trade will soon spread to places like Silicon Valley . I guarantee you that Silicon Valley will become the new Detroit in our lifetime, as all those josb are going offshore to India.
In fact, speaking of Idnia, did you know that Bush gave them NUCLEAR technology in exchange for mangos? I am not joking. Isn't free trade great? Why dont' we give stealth aircraft technology to China in exchange for noodles?
Ignored comment.
Unhide
Response by Post87deflation
over 15 years ago
Posts: 314
Member since: Jul 2009
Okay, a bunch of things to unpack:
1) Foreign plants are subject to the same regulations on the product, but not necessarily the same regulations on the means of production and finance.
2) There was some de-regulation in transportation and telecommunications in the late '70s under Carter. Parts of the finance industry were also partially de-regulated under Reagan & Clinton, but then mostly re-regulated (and more so!) under GWB. But the kinds of regulations that have been really burdensome on the Rust Belt (e.g., the NLRB-type items) have gradually increased and never been seriously cut back. Also, securities and finance regulation created barriers to entry that effectively protected the Big Three, as giant incumbents who can afford compliance costs and fleets of lawyers, from domestic competition that they should have faced from the likes of Tucker and AMC.
3) Saying there was de-regulation, even if your statement were true (which it's not, in any relevant sense), does not preclude being over-regulated, because (a) the Rust Belt's obvious failure started around 1970, and it's possible that was already enough damage to get us where we are today in spite of a too-little-too-late de-regulation effort, and (b) we were starting from a very high baseline, so cutting back on regulation may still leave too much.
4) I reject your analogy of India to China. India is a great multi-ethnic democracy, whereas China is run by unelected generals and bureaucrats. I should hope in 20 years India is as close and solid an ally as Canada or Japan or the U.K. have been for the past 50.
5) FTAs involve permitting the free movement of most goods and services, but I don't have a problem with restricting the sale of sensitive technology (like nuclear and military items). What you're describing is not what anyone has in mind when free trade is brought up, so really you are arguing with a straw man. They also have nothing to do with your previous points about the Rust Belt.
6) I decline to address your prediction as to the supposed doom of Silicon Valley, at least until you address the actual known historical consequences of Smoot-Hawley.
Not engaging in foreign trade worked great during the middle ages..
It's also interesting how the fear is based on current trade with China which does not have a free-trade agreemnent.... This is just Democrats pandering to trade unions. Maybe we shout start a trade-war too.
Who gives a shit what Americans think? The only opinion that counts is the one from the top earning 1% of the population in this country...
#!@%$#% Smoot Hawley, all @#%!#$%#$ over again . . .
Stupid people should read their history.
Americans can be better off being more focused at home. Selling our assets and jobs overseas benefits only very few.
"The only opinion that counts is the one from the top earning 1% of the population in this country..."
Last time I checked, the top 1% only has 1% of the vote...
"This is just Democrats pandering to trade unions."
Really? Because most trade union members have jobs that can't be outsourced. You plan on outsourcing plumbers and electricians? If anything, this benefits non-union tech workers the most.
Free trade benefits everyone, but it most especially benefits the poorest and weakest, who cannot pay the premium that the rich can pay. It makes no sense to impose trade restrictions or high tariffs on imported cars, for example, if you cost the great mass of American consumers $1 billion in higher prices in order to save a few auto workers $100 million worth of jobs. You are robbing a lot of money from the poor in order to give a little money to the other poor.
The rich can still afford to import their Lexuses and Beamers, so they are not much affected either way. It's the poor who suffered most from Smoot-Hawley in the 1930s, and it's the poor who will suffer most this time if there is a new wave of protectionism.
Why don't you go to the Rust Belt and tell everyone there how great free trade is? Go to Indiana and Ohio where they have 20% + unemployment.
You think free trade is what brought them down? I disagree. Their primary competition is from Germany, Japan, China and Korea. We don't have FTAs with any of those.
What seems to me most likely to have brought the Rust Belt to its current situation was a combination of poor management, over-regulation, and an inflexible workplace culture. Why should the rest of us (regardless of economic class) have to subsidize bad business practices by over-paying for the things we need?
Over-regulation? How? We've had massive de-regulation over recent decades. Plus foreign made products are subject to the SAME regulatiosn as US made products (ie: fuel mileage, lead limits, etc.). Poor management is definitely to blame, I will give you that.
And don't worry, the great benefits of free trade will soon spread to places like Silicon Valley . I guarantee you that Silicon Valley will become the new Detroit in our lifetime, as all those josb are going offshore to India.
In fact, speaking of Idnia, did you know that Bush gave them NUCLEAR technology in exchange for mangos? I am not joking. Isn't free trade great? Why dont' we give stealth aircraft technology to China in exchange for noodles?
Okay, a bunch of things to unpack:
1) Foreign plants are subject to the same regulations on the product, but not necessarily the same regulations on the means of production and finance.
2) There was some de-regulation in transportation and telecommunications in the late '70s under Carter. Parts of the finance industry were also partially de-regulated under Reagan & Clinton, but then mostly re-regulated (and more so!) under GWB. But the kinds of regulations that have been really burdensome on the Rust Belt (e.g., the NLRB-type items) have gradually increased and never been seriously cut back. Also, securities and finance regulation created barriers to entry that effectively protected the Big Three, as giant incumbents who can afford compliance costs and fleets of lawyers, from domestic competition that they should have faced from the likes of Tucker and AMC.
3) Saying there was de-regulation, even if your statement were true (which it's not, in any relevant sense), does not preclude being over-regulated, because (a) the Rust Belt's obvious failure started around 1970, and it's possible that was already enough damage to get us where we are today in spite of a too-little-too-late de-regulation effort, and (b) we were starting from a very high baseline, so cutting back on regulation may still leave too much.
4) I reject your analogy of India to China. India is a great multi-ethnic democracy, whereas China is run by unelected generals and bureaucrats. I should hope in 20 years India is as close and solid an ally as Canada or Japan or the U.K. have been for the past 50.
5) FTAs involve permitting the free movement of most goods and services, but I don't have a problem with restricting the sale of sensitive technology (like nuclear and military items). What you're describing is not what anyone has in mind when free trade is brought up, so really you are arguing with a straw man. They also have nothing to do with your previous points about the Rust Belt.
6) I decline to address your prediction as to the supposed doom of Silicon Valley, at least until you address the actual known historical consequences of Smoot-Hawley.