United States and Free Trade

[Frodo]

According to the most recent Pew poll results, most Americans seem to think so.  

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Yes, of course.

[James Bond 007]

Yes there's just more we could do to compete and we're not doing it.  I laid out my plans if I'm ever elected president.  There's no excuse for us not to be able to compete with the way things are. 

[Ebsy]

There's a reason that candidates (like then Senator Obama) campaign against free trade in the primaries and then proceed to enact free trade policies during their administrations (like now President Obama.) The benefits are undeniable and most of the opposition are knee-jerk protectionists that don't understand that we live in a globalized economy and that protectionism would hurt poor people in other countries far more than it would help create jobs here.

[James Bond 007]

There's a reason that candidates (like then Senator Obama) campaign against free trade in the primaries and then proceed to enact free trade policies during their administrations (like now President Obama.) The benefits are undeniable and most of the opposition are knee-jerk protectionists that don't understand that we live in a globalized economy and that protectionism would hurt poor people in other countries far more than it would help create jobs here.

You said it best and even admitted Obama is a liar!  I'm starting to like you and am in full agreement with your position supporting free trade.

[NeverAgain]

In recent years, no. I feel that NAFTA, CAFTA, Relations with China, etc. really threw the middle class for a loop. I think the premise of "free trade" is a good idea, but at this moment it's not helping, it's hurting.

[P123]

No (R), and most Americans clearly do not think so.

[beaver2.0]

Free Trade is junk.  We should leave NAFTA, the WTO, TPP, World Bank, and other similar groups.

[Ebsy]

Free Trade is junk.  We should leave NAFTA, the WTO, TPP, World Bank, and other similar groups.

The World Bank has little to nothing to due with trade.

[ag]

Free Trade is junk.  We should leave NAFTA, the WTO, TPP, World Bank, and other similar groups.

The World Bank has little to nothing to due with trade.

I mean, the guy, probably, thinks black helicopters sent by UNICEF are about to take over.

[beaver2.0]

Free Trade is junk.  We should leave NAFTA, the WTO, TPP, World Bank, and other similar groups.

The World Bank has little to nothing to due with trade.

I mean, the guy, probably, thinks black helicopters sent by UNICEF are about to take over.

No, just that free trade is horrible and has basically destroyed our economy.  I have nothing against the UN, and the World Bank is alright.

[ag]

Free Trade is junk.  We should leave NAFTA, the WTO, TPP, World Bank, and other similar groups.

The World Bank has little to nothing to due with trade.

I mean, the guy, probably, thinks black helicopters sent by UNICEF are about to take over.

No, just that free trade is horrible and has basically destroyed our economy.

Well, you are wrong. As wrong, at least, as climate change deniers and anti-GMO activists.

[RFayette]

I don't think all free trade is bad by any means, but I'm 100% opposed to NAFTA, CAFTA, PNTR, and the TPP.  If our competitors weren't dumping undervalued goods and manipulating their currency, free trade would be fine; but in the status quo, we need some more protections for American workers.

[P123]

Free Trade is junk.  We should leave NAFTA, the WTO, TPP, World Bank, and other similar groups.

Agreed, throw in CAFTA their aswell.

[ag]

I don't think all free trade is bad by any means, but I'm 100% opposed to NAFTA, CAFTA, PNTR, and the TPP.  If our competitors weren't dumping undervalued goods and manipulating their currency, free trade would be fine; but in the status quo, we need some more protections for American workers.

China is not a member of NAFTA, CAFTA or TPP. I can imagine what the Chinese have against those treaties, but it is much harder for me to understand why you would prefer the goods you buy in a supermarket to come from China (as would, likely, to a substantial extent be the case if these treaties did not exist), rather than from, say, the Dominican Republic.

"Permanent normal trade relations" is pretty much a designation of no formal trade war between countries. It is not, generally, a treaty obligation, just a unilateral agreement by the US to trade using some basic non-discrimination rules. Saying you are against it, "but not against trade" is almost like saying that you do not consider so-and-so a criminal, and would be absolutely fine with him as long as he stayed in prison for the rest of his life, though, of course, yo would rather have him sent to an electric chair.  So, no, not only you are against "any free trade", you are, pretty much, on record as being against any foreign trade, except, perhaps, some ad hoc transactions, such as could, on occasion, occur between countries at war with each other.

For the future, I suggest you try to learn at least a little bit about what you post on, before doing so.

[Potus]

I'm a free trader, but I do think the agreements are skewed toward the particularly well-connected apt of times. Not to say the smell of corruption is potent enough to turn me away from these deals, but I'd like see some kinks ironed out to strengthen American interests.

[beaver2.0]

Free Trade is junk.  We should leave NAFTA, the WTO, TPP, World Bank, and other similar groups.

The World Bank has little to nothing to due with trade.

I mean, the guy, probably, thinks black helicopters sent by UNICEF are about to take over.

No, just that free trade is horrible and has basically destroyed our economy.

Well, you are wrong. As wrong, at least, as climate change deniers and anti-GMO activists.

I resent the fact that you are lumping me in with those groups.  I want to be well reasoned in my defense of protectionism.  The fact is, higher tariffs would protect our workers and companies from our and foreign companies that manufacture products in countries where they can do it for much cheaper and then import it and make great profits.  The fact is, if we had high tariffs and protectionism, our country would have more blue-collar jobs and be stronger economically.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

You know what else would protect manufacturing jobs? A decline in automation. Declare war on machinery, if you really want to bring jobs back.

But let's be clear. Tariffs hurt American worker's and protect a cossetted group of businessmen. For example, if you tariff steel then steel prices rise and industries that use steel in manufacturing will be forced to make cuts. You also cause other nations to hit you back with reciprocal tariffs that hurt your countries ability to export, forcing export industries to make cuts.

Like, if you really want (I guess) to build up a large manufacturing sector you could go the French way, and have a few mostly nationalised "prestige" companies that raise revenue in other countries through your diplomatic pushing. Or you could go the German model of worker's councils and union-corporate symbiosis. But tariffs are just horrid garbage that don't work and punish the poor for the benefit of a few lucky richies. It's pretty much as close as "proven" as you can be in the field of economics - the antivax. global warming denialist comparisons are fair enough.

[ag]

Free Trade is junk.  We should leave NAFTA, the WTO, TPP, World Bank, and other similar groups.

The World Bank has little to nothing to due with trade.

I mean, the guy, probably, thinks black helicopters sent by UNICEF are about to take over.

No, just that free trade is horrible and has basically destroyed our economy.

Well, you are wrong. As wrong, at least, as climate change deniers and anti-GMO activists.

I resent the fact that you are lumping me in with those groups.  I want to be well reasoned in my defense of protectionism.  The fact is, higher tariffs would protect our workers and companies from our and foreign companies that manufacture products in countries where they can do it for much cheaper and then import it and make great profits.  The fact is, if we had high tariffs and protectionism, our country would have more blue-collar jobs and be stronger economically.

Higher tariffs will start trade wars, which will result in many Americans, currently working for export, losing their jobs. These newly unemployed Americans will have to buy their necessities at higher prices (since these goods will no longer be imported). However, they will still not find jobs producing no-longer-imported goods, because modern technological developments mean that in many cases it would be cheaper to replace them with machines than to pay them wages, which would allow them to survive in the US. Furhteremore, with trade flows sharply reduced, US dollar will lose much of its attraction as an international currency. Foreign governments and residents, no longer flush with dollars, will find fewer reasons-opportunities to lend to the US government, necessitating sharp reduction in public expenditure (or else, an equally sharp increas in tax collection). Should I continue?

You might resent whatever you like. But the fact is, that you are neither reasoned, nor reasonable.

[beaver2.0]

Free Trade is junk.  We should leave NAFTA, the WTO, TPP, World Bank, and other similar groups.

The World Bank has little to nothing to due with trade.

I mean, the guy, probably, thinks black helicopters sent by UNICEF are about to take over.

No, just that free trade is horrible and has basically destroyed our economy.

Well, you are wrong. As wrong, at least, as climate change deniers and anti-GMO activists.

I resent the fact that you are lumping me in with those groups.  I want to be well reasoned in my defense of protectionism.  The fact is, higher tariffs would protect our workers and companies from our and foreign companies that manufacture products in countries where they can do it for much cheaper and then import it and make great profits.  The fact is, if we had high tariffs and protectionism, our country would have more blue-collar jobs and be stronger economically.

Higher tariffs will start trade wars, which will result in many Americans, currently working for export, losing their jobs. These newly unemployed Americans will have to buy their necessities at higher prices (since these goods will no longer be imported). However, they will still not find jobs producing no-longer-imported goods, because modern technological developments mean that in many cases it would be cheaper to replace them with machines than to pay them wages, which would allow them to survive in the US. Furhteremore, with trade flows sharply reduced, US dollar will lose much of its attraction as an international currency. Foreign governments and residents, no longer flush with dollars, will find fewer reasons-opportunities to lend to the US government, necessitating sharp reduction in public expenditure (or else, an equally sharp increas in tax collection). Should I continue?

You might resent whatever you like. But the fact is, that you are neither reasoned, nor reasonable.

Let me be clear that I do not oppose all trade, but in this globalized economy, America cannot stand while other nations undercut our labor with cheap wages and predatory capitalism.  We must institute tariffs and regulations that allow American companies to compete with cheap foreign labor and protect against the movement of American corporations elsewhere.

The United States did very well with tariffs and could use more.  Free Trade, unless highly regulated, serves only to undercut the more developed nations.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Why not use free trade agreements to force through proper labour regulations, though?


You are letting American business owners off the hook. Their greed and incompetence is the enemy, not workers in other countries.

[beaver2.0]

Why not use free trade agreements to force through proper labour regulations, though?


You are letting American business owners off the hook. Their greed and incompetence is the enemy, not workers in other countries.

That would be better than what we have now, because cheap labor is basically what has destroyed our industry.

Let's be clear.  I am a strong supporter of unions and understand that free trade is not just a government plot.  I  am aware that protectionism alone and libertarianism within the country will create almost as bad a situation.

[ag]

Why not use free trade agreements to force through proper labour regulations, though?

You realize that homogenizing labor regulations between the US and Mexico would imply either sharp relaxation/abolition of much of Mexican labor law, or the sorts of regulations in the US that would make Bernie Sanders blush? Mexican labor law is incredibly stringent on labor protections. For instance, it is pretty much impossible to fire a worker (not even paying a fine), unless he deliberately assaults his supervisor (there is an exception for the so called "confidence employees": these can be fired, but have to be paid a lot of money - 90 days wages + 20 more days wages for every year of service). Downsizing, BTW, is not a legal ground for firing an employee - unless the company goes bankrupt, it cannot fire anyone. Add to this unions, that are, in many industries, much stronger than in the US. If Mexico insisted on applying Mexican labor law to the US, nothing would ever be produced North of the border. If the US insisted, as a condition of concluding trade agreements, remodeling Mexican law on US pattern (something I would wholeheartedly support), producing in Mexico would become much cheaper than it is now.

[ag]

Why not use free trade agreements to force through proper labour regulations, though?


You are letting American business owners off the hook. Their greed and incompetence is the enemy, not workers in other countries.

That would be better than what we have now, because cheap labor is basically what has destroyed our industry.

Labor in Mexico is cheap, because it is not very productive. Imposing the US minimal wage (approximately 125 pesos an hour at the current exchange rate) would completely kill formal sector employment in Mexico. It is not much more realistic than forcing McDonalds to pay USD$100 an hour to its lowliest employees. At that point, the only thing that would stand between Mexicans and famine would be informal employment. And, of course, since people are not willing to starve to death when they do not have to, informal emloyment it would be: all labor law would simply be ignored.

Most other labor regulations in Mexico, though, are much more stringent than in the US. Imposing their analogs in the US would make production in the US much more expensive than it is now.

[ag]

Free Trade is junk.  We should leave NAFTA, the WTO, TPP, World Bank, and other similar groups.

The World Bank has little to nothing to due with trade.

I mean, the guy, probably, thinks black helicopters sent by UNICEF are about to take over.

No, just that free trade is horrible and has basically destroyed our economy.

Well, you are wrong. As wrong, at least, as climate change deniers and anti-GMO activists.

I resent the fact that you are lumping me in with those groups.  I want to be well reasoned in my defense of protectionism.  The fact is, higher tariffs would protect our workers and companies from our and foreign companies that manufacture products in countries where they can do it for much cheaper and then import it and make great profits.  The fact is, if we had high tariffs and protectionism, our country would have more blue-collar jobs and be stronger economically.

Higher tariffs will start trade wars, which will result in many Americans, currently working for export, losing their jobs. These newly unemployed Americans will have to buy their necessities at higher prices (since these goods will no longer be imported). However, they will still not find jobs producing no-longer-imported goods, because modern technological developments mean that in many cases it would be cheaper to replace them with machines than to pay them wages, which would allow them to survive in the US. Furhteremore, with trade flows sharply reduced, US dollar will lose much of its attraction as an international currency. Foreign governments and residents, no longer flush with dollars, will find fewer reasons-opportunities to lend to the US government, necessitating sharp reduction in public expenditure (or else, an equally sharp increas in tax collection). Should I continue?

You might resent whatever you like. But the fact is, that you are neither reasoned, nor reasonable.

Let me be clear that I do not oppose all trade,

In the same way Donald Trump is not a racist and loves Hispanics and Muslims.