Free trade

[NHPolitico]

We should reduce our dependence on trade.

We should apply across-the board equalized tariffs (percent-for-percent).  

We should focus on reducing the trade deficit.  

Stop NAFTA, GATT, WTO, etc.-- they threaten our sovereignty.  We've always had bilateral trade treaties with other nations. They worked just fine.

We should not bailout nations like Mexico for their mismanagement.  

We should oppose MFN and WTO membership and further World Bank and Asian Development Bank loans for China. We should engage China for trade, as we should with other nations, but it must be equitable and we must require that they stay out of our elections, stop stealing our nuclear secrets, stop targeting our cities, stop forced abortions, stop forced participation in work "concentration" camps, and stop the oppression of women, Christians, Tibetans & political dissidents in exchange.   We used to shame companies that did things like sell scrap iron to the Empire of Japan while they made belligerent overtures which ended in Pearl Harbor, yet we encourage companies today to treat basicly hostile nations like China as dear friends of our country. Steel dumping from Asia must cease.

We must work to break up OPEC and wean ourselves off our dependence on Middle East oil with consequent oil conservation, an upping of domestic production, reconsideration of alternative power sources, and rapid development of emerging Russian oil reserves.

We can't treat transnational corporations as if they are American companies who seek to act in the best interest of this country or its workers. They are more interested in global sovereignty than American sovereignty. It's up to our leaders to look out for the interests of American workers.

[NHPolitico]

I beleive in a worldwide free trade zone in every sector, industrial, agricultural, services, even telecommunications. This would lead to the creation of a world economy in which foreign nations would have no meaning. This could possibly be followed up by a world currency, loosening of borders, and other things that have happened in the EU. However, as in Europe, this requires as a prerequisite that all members be democratic nations. Once this happens we will have a truly Fukuyaman end of history.

Exactly. Why have borders, why enforce them, why have a currency, etc.?  None of it is in line with the goals of global free trade. I live under the Constitution, not the employee manual of Transnational Corporation X.

[NHPolitico]

I beleive in a worldwide free trade zone in every sector, industrial, agricultural, services, even telecommunications. This would lead to the creation of a world economy in which foreign nations would have no meaning. This could possibly be followed up by a world currency, loosening of borders, and other things that have happened in the EU. However, as in Europe, this requires as a prerequisite that all members be democratic nations. Once this happens we will have a truly Fukuyaman end of history.

Exactly. Why have borders, why enforce them, why have a currency, etc.?  None of it is in line with the goals of global free trade. I live under the Constitution, not the employee manual of Transnational Corporation X.

Read my response to M's post. That theory is wrong.

The world won't be under the conditions for your theory. Free trade hastens the break-up of borders and cultural identities and currencies and nationalism.  It hastens a chaos controlled, as it is, by a corporate elite who only accidentally act in the best interests of the workers of a nation.

[NHPolitico]

I'd add that this is what happens when you de-industrialize and only consume...

US consumer debt has reached staggering levels after more than doubling over the past 10 years. According to the most recent figures from the Federal Reserve Board, consumer debt hit $1.98 trillion in October 2003, up from $1.5 trillion three years ago. This figure, representing credit card and car loan debt, but excluding mortgages, translates into approximately $18,700 per US household.

Outstanding consumer credit, including mortgage and other debt, reached $9.3 trillion in April 2003, representing an increase from $7 trillion in January 2000. The total credit card debt alone stands at $735 billion, with the household card debt of those who carry balances estimated to average $12,000.

The levels of consumer debt have increased as millions of jobs have been destroyed. Unlike past recessions, consumers continued to borrow during the last downturn, which began in March 2001 and officially ended in November 2001. The prime lending rate set by the Federal Reserve is at an historic low, allowing mortgage rates to drop to their lowest recorded levels. The automobile companies, which have offered zero percent financing for the past two years, have begun doing the same for 2004.

According to CNNMoney.com, consumer spending accounts for some 70 percent of the US gross domestic product. "So the world economy is leveraged to the US consumer. And the US consumer is leveraged to the hilt," states the web site.

[NHPolitico]

Free trade is really my only conservative issue.

Don't feel sad. Free trade is a liberal issue.

[NHPolitico]

Free trade is really my only conservative issue.

Don't feel sad. Free trade is a liberal issue.

Conservatives usually are the pro-free trade people.

Not the real ones. The GOP has absorbed some Hubert Humphrey and Scoop Jackson Democrats into the fold. We've been hijacked. Reagan fought unfair trade practices by imposing import quotas on steel, machine tools and Japanese cars, and using a 50 percent tariff to save Harley-Davidson.



Goldwater wasn't a supporter of free trade, either.

[NHPolitico]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Okay, you can cite examples (some disputable), but what is the intellectual connection between conservatism and protectionism? I thought conservatives usually promote less government interference in business, less protection for unions and industrial laborers, on the basis of support for free enterprise. I thought this was the heart of economic conservatism-- the lassiez faire. So whats the issue here?

Republicans and Federalists wanted a strong nation-- inside and out. They believed that strong families were a part of that and that men needed good jobs to have strong families. They fought against job and wage pressures from foreign labor. Northern states liked having their jobs and industries protected from cheap labor. Southern states didn't care for them-- and so the Democrats advocated the Southern sentiment against tariffs. We liked the revenue from it, too. It kept us from having to tax incomes.

Cold War Republicans also supported using trade as a way to get concessions from communists. We'll trade with you, if you act less communist and less threatening to us and our interests.

[NHPolitico]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So why do conservatives today fight against full employment policies? Plus, "nationalism" is an ideology and conservatism is supposed to be anti-ideological.

Regarding history of the parties, I agree, when the Dems represented the South, they wanted cheap machine tools to import. The Reps represented the industrial states that wanted protection.

I'm not sure which programs you're talking about. The GOP Congress gave us Temporary Assistance for Needy Families-- a welfare reform plan that allows states to offer wage subsidies and offer child day care and one-stop-shopping for looking through want ads and help with applying for the jobs.  The one thing I'd change as a conservative is the whole process of the feds taxing income in states and then sending it back to the states. I want the feds out of the business of it and let the states tax as they need to in order to fund these programs.  Things like minimum wages and government works programs and such aren't productive in raising employment.

[NHPolitico]

Plus, "nationalism" is an ideology and conservatism is supposed to be anti-ideological.

I don't know what you mean by that assertion.  What do you mean that conservatism is anti-ideological?

[NHPolitico]

Here's a thought.

I was talking with a friend of mine at school in History class.

I brought up the idea of a law mandating US companies to employ ALL of their employees (including out-of-country employees) at the US minimum wage. This would make most of the companies bring jobs back to the US.

"But," my friend replied, "won't the prices of goods go up as a result?"

So what's my response? ::laughs::

Well, it seems like we should be somewhere in between. With completely free trade we'll have a MAJOR loss of jobs in the US (as if it wasn't so bad already). And if we have protectionism and "fair" trade, other countries will be like "oh you want to be 'fair'? we'll be fair with you too." And Americans may lose jobs in other countries.

You are advocating Marxist policies-- telling companies who they should hire and fire.  That's not helpful to creating wealth and employment. Inflation is only one result of such a policy.  

You can't employ the whole US in service industry jobs. A nation has to produce things to be strong.  A nation has to produce things to be independent and sovereign.  Even if you suppose that everyone will work in white collar jobs, those jobs can leave, too, and they are.

[NHPolitico]

Plus, "nationalism" is an ideology and conservatism is supposed to be anti-ideological.

I don't know what you mean by that assertion.  What do you mean that conservatism is anti-ideological?

Well, rightwingers in Europe talked about "The End of Ideology" right alongside "the End of History".
All those "neoliberal" economic ideologues believe it to be totally unideological. Few things are further from the truth, however.

Neoliberalism is definitely idelogical, conservatism is less ideological than most ideologies though.

I'm sorry, but this discussion reminds me of a Seinfeld episode or a late-night dorm room debate.  

[NHPolitico]

Plus, "nationalism" is an ideology and conservatism is supposed to be anti-ideological.

I don't know what you mean by that assertion.  What do you mean that conservatism is anti-ideological?

Well, rightwingers in Europe talked about "The End of Ideology" right alongside "the End of History".
All those "neoliberal" economic ideologues believe it to be totally unideological. Few things are further from the truth, however.

Neoliberalism is definitely idelogical, conservatism is less ideological than most ideologies though.

I'm sorry, but this discussion reminds me of a Seinfeld episode or a late-night dorm room debate.  

OK...I suppose the "sorry" means that I should be insulted...

I guess you have a right to decide how you'd like to take that comment.

[NHPolitico]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

A full employment policy is a generalized monetary and fiscal policy designed to ensure the economy operating at maximal employment; or the natural rate of unemployment. Government works programs create jobs just as any other projects create jobs. But a full employment package also means expansion in the money supply, interest rates that are not inflation-targeted, and deficit spending. Full employment has always been a goal of left-wing governments throughout history from Truman's Fair Deal to the British Labour party in the 1960s and 70s. They have always been opposed or at least not really supported by conservatives. The conservatives won some points in the late 70s and early 80s when there was a huge trade-off between employment and inflation due to economic restructuring. But Reagan generally tolerated very high unemployment rates compared to what was being advocated by Democrats. The reason this isn't such a huge issue now may be because the trade-off with inflation is not so clear.

My understanding of conservatism as anti-ideological comes from Russell Kirk, author of the Politics of Prudence and one-time partner of William Buckley.

"Conservatism is not a fixed and immutable body of dogma, and conservatives inherit from Burke a talent for re-expressing their convictions to fit the time... As H. Stuart Hughes wrote more than thirty years ago, 'Conservatism is the negation of ideology.' Because any ideology-that is, a theory of fanatic politics promising the terrestrial paradise-is illusory, eventually the consequences of the ideology are perceived by most people to be ruinous; and then, God willing, a healthy reaction occurs."

Conservatism as it is thought of modern-day in the US is the conservation of the principles of the Founders (including the social conservatism of that era).  It also exhibits itself by applying the concepts from then (the importance of private ownership, for example) to liberal public policy-- Social Security, Medicare, etc.  Conservatives can be plenty fanatical and idealistic. We can be quite passionate about a return to our nation's origins.

[NHPolitico]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Okay, you can cite examples (some disputable), but what is the intellectual connection between conservatism and protectionism? I thought conservatives usually promote less government interference in business, less protection for unions and industrial laborers, on the basis of support for free enterprise. I thought this was the heart of economic conservatism-- the lassiez faire. So whats the issue here?

I'd also add this, from the Constitution Party's 2004 platform:

Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution states that Congress shall have the power "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations," and "to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing" copyright and patent protection for authors and inventors.

Congress may not abdicate or transfer to others these Constitutional powers. We oppose, therefore, the unconstitutional transfer of authority over U.S. trade policy from Congress to agencies, domestic or foreign, which improperly exercise policy-setting functions with respect to U.S. trade policy, and the unconstitutional transfer of authority over copyright and patent policy from Congress to agencies, domestic and foreign.

We favor the abolition of the Office of Special Trade Representative, and insist on the withdrawal of the United States from the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), the World Trade Organization (WTO), and all other agreements wherein bureaucracies, institutions or individuals, other than the Congress of the United States, improperly assume responsibility for establishing policies which directly affect the economic well-being of every American citizen. We also favor more vigorous efforts to protect the copyright and patent rights of their owners in both domestic and foreign markets.

As indicated in Article I, Section 8: duties, imposts, and excises are legitimate revenue-raising measures on which the United States government may properly rely. As Abraham Lincoln pointed out, the legitimate costs of the federal government can be borne either by taxes on American citizens and businesses or by tariffs on foreign companies and products. The latter is preferable to the former.

Similarly, we oppose all international trade agreements which have the effect of diminishing America's economic self-sufficiency and of exporting jobs, the loss of which will impoverish American families, undermine American communities, and diminish America's capacity for economic self-reliance.

We see our country and its workers as more than bargaining chips for multinational corporations and international banks in their ill-conceived and evil New World Order.

The defense of the American nation and the preservation of its economic integrity are essential to the defense of the liberty and prosperity of every American citizen.

We will insist on strict federal criminal penalties for any officer of the United States government, or spouse thereof, who subsequently hires himself or herself out to represent any foreign government or other entity, public or private, with respect to influencing either public opinion or public policy on matters affecting U.S. trade with any such governments or other entities.

The indebtedness of the American government has contributed dangerously to making our economy more vulnerable to foreign takeover and manipulation. Particularly in the area of national security, foreign interests have thus been abetted in gaining access to America's high-tech secrets under the guise of commercial enterprise. We propose that technology transfers which compromise national security be made illegal, and urge that all violators be prosecuted.

We reject the concept of Most Favored Nation status, especially insofar as it has been used to curry favor with regimes whose domestic and international policies are abhorrent to decent people everywhere, and are in fundamental conflict with the vital interests of the United States of America.

The United States government should establish the firm policy that U.S. or multinational businesses investing abroad do so at their own risk. There is no obligation by our Government to protect those businesses with the lives of our service personnel, or the taxes of our citizens.

[NHPolitico]

NH, did you vote protectionist in the poll?

I can't recall, but I think so.

[NHPolitico]

NH, did you vote protectionist in the poll?

You wanted to know who cast the single vote?
I can't recall, but I think so.

OK...I was just wondering.

[NHPolitico]

Okay, you can cite examples (some disputable), but what is the intellectual connection between conservatism and protectionism? I thought conservatives usually promote less government interference in business, less protection for unions and industrial laborers, on the basis of support for free enterprise. I thought this was the heart of economic conservatism-- the lassiez faire. So whats the issue here?

Here's another quote that explains it. Basicly, real conservatives don't want to be so reliant on the rest of the world in order for us to live the way we want to live.  It's an isolationist view, but it explains the isolationist view in away different from how people would automatically think of it (as a kind of head-in-the-sand policy or a policy of cowardice of whatever).  We aren't independent when we are so tightly linked to global markets. We are a state of the United States of the Earth.  It's Al Sharpton's "Jonestown Kool-Aid" analogy from the debates: cheap prices taste good, but what's the end result.  In fact, most of the things that taste good are bad for you, which is a cautionary tale that can be applied to lots of areas of public policy.  It feels good to get cheap drugs with a Medicare expansion, but Americans my age will have to pay for it later in a big way.  Americans have severe myopia regarding practically everything and we need a wake-up call. Cheap prices via Asian slave labor, for example, isn't a long-term plan, it's a short term plan.

"To the Old Right, however, manufacturing was a critical component of American power, indispensable to our sovereignty and independence, and the access road for working Americans into the middle class."