Republicans turned on free trade, turning on tax rates.

Yeah, we'll just restrict imports into a service economy. That'll solve our problems...

Jam it back in, in the dark.

It was the same position Perot took in '92, but don't expect the Wall Street Journal to try and note the difference between free trade and Free Trade Deals.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Not really, but implying that Perot and Paul are part of the problem is factually inaccurate, because neither of them were or are opposed to free trade.

In other WSJ reporting news:
Cato-at-liberty » Lies, Damn Lies, Statistics, and a Media Happy to Abuse Them

Quote:

he Wall Street Journal reports ($) today that support for free trade is fading among Americans who are likely to vote Republican. Perhaps that’s true. It certainly wouldn’t be surprising given the way most Americans are misled by their political representatives and the mainstream media about how to measure trade’s impact on the economy.

But something really smells about today’s lead article in the WSJ. The WSJ/NBC News poll upon which the article is based simply doesn’t support the author’s conclusions. In fact, the article is misleading in ways I find inexcusable for a newspaper of that caliber. If you weren’t already, you should be highly skeptical of polling results (at least as reported second hand).

The third paragraph in the article reads: “Six in 10 Republicans in the poll agreed with a statement that free trade has been bad for the U.S. and said they would agree with a Republican candidate who favored tougher regulations to limit foreign imports.” Next to that paragraph is a graphic box with a bar chart showing responses to the question: “Is foreign trade good or bad for the U.S. economy?” The “Good” bar showed 32%; the “Bad” bar showed 59%.

Here’s the first problem. That question (“Is foreign trade good or bad for the U.S. economy?”) was not asked in the poll. The second problem: no questions were asked about whether the respondents would agree with a Republican candidate who favors tougher regulations to limit foreign imports. But that didn’t stop the author from reporting that phantom result in paragraph three.

Here is a link to the subject WSJ/NBC poll. Question 10 is the only question about trade, which gives two statements and asks the respondent to reveal which statement comes closer to his/her point of view.

Statement A: “Foreign trade has been good for the U.S. economy, because demand for U.S. products abroad has resulted in economic growth and jobs for Americans here at home and provided more choices for consumers.” (32% of Republicans agree)

Statement B: “Foreign trade has been bad for the U.S. economy, because imports from abroad have reduced U.S. demand for American-made goods, cost jobs here at home, and produced potentially unsafe products.” (59% of Republicans agree)

From these results, John Harwood concludes that “six in 10 Republicans in the poll agreed with a statement that free trade has been bad for the U.S. and said they would agree with a Republican candidate who favored tougher regulations to limit foreign imports.”

But as you can see, there is a clear bias in the manner of phrasing the questions. You’re not agreeing that foreign trade is good or bad, but that it’s good or bad because… And respondents are more likely to be familiar with one of the offered consequences of trade. Certainly, the issue of “potentially unsafe products” is fresh on our minds, thus respondents are basically escorted to that answer.

What bugs me most about this is that the competing statements: foreign trade has been good for the U.S. economy vs. foreign trade has been bad for the U.S. economy would have been perfectly objective phraseology. Why introduce subjective perspectives?

That a professional polling agency would introduce such obvious bias into its polls and a major newspaper would ignore the obvious problems with the results is troubling. For all we know, Ron Paul and Mike Gravel are the leading candidates for their respective parties’ nominations.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

It doesn't mean that there isn't a significant problem, but I do think the phraseology in the poll is troubling. He also has a point about poll results being skewed because of the lead toys fiasco.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Originally Posted by tommyt

The biggest problem with free trade today is that it fails to take into account the labor and product testing policies that we observe in America compared to those of other nations. That's why we've gone, in the last twenty or so years, from a manufacturing giant to an almost purely service/import-resale economy. Between a lack of import tariffs, and the looser labor/testing laws in nations such as China and other large producers of goods, it's infinitely less expensive to simply import. I believe that we should stop allowing the free flow of outside goods into America and promote American manufacturing, until other nations fall in line with America with testing and labor laws that protect both the consumers and the workers producing the products.

Holy shit! A pure service/import-resale economy!? Everybody would have to work in environmentally controlled spaces! What'll we do without black lung?

the horror

I was speaking idiomatically.

Goods should flow freely without intrusion, excepting of course when those goods are made with poison.

Manufacturers in China making high profit margins is fine, because it also means that consumers save millions compared to the kind of goods that are manufactured in America.

The danger isn't a want of work but rising food and energy prices. Especially since they've been taken off the CPI.

To solve these problems we have to consider why they're getting so expensive. A good place to start would be ending farm subsidies and the growing of energy on arable land as opposed to food.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

The problem isn't what he's spewing out of his mouth. (mostly)

Giuliani is still a terrible choice, though. Somebody who's built their entire political career on fighting crime/terrorism isn't going to put much effort into sound economic policy. I also can't fathom how he manages to be the least disgusting when he's built his candidacy on 9/11 Never Forget I Was There.

I'd say vote for Richardson, but he probably won't win either.

FELIPE NO

The Dutch?

How ya doing, buddy?

Originally Posted by Evil_J_McNasty

Bradylama mentioned near the top of the thread that ours is a service economy, and is largely correct. Thing is, we didn't choose to become a service economy, it's not the next logical step on an evolutionary ladder or anything, it was forced upon us. Corporations saw that moving overseas and importing would be cheaper than paying union inflated wages, and thus we were forced to become a service economy.

Yeah, service economies are the next step up the developmental ladder. In a service economy, wealth is primarily generated by intellectual capacities, and since there is a potentially unlimited amount of services to be offered the potential for wealth creation is similarly unlimited. In a manufacturing economy, the creation of wealth is constricted by the ability to produce real goods and the availability of raw materials. This was also a step up from agricultural economies, in which land was the primary means of wealth and anybody who didn't own land could enjoy back-breaking menial labor or performing odd jobs in crowded and disease-ridden urban hubs.

Service industries also have the added benefit of providing much better working conditions than manufacturing. Would you rather work in a hot factory with heavy machinery, or an air conditioned office?

Quote:

The benefit of losing all our manufacturing jobs is, frankly, lost on me. Goods at Wal-Mart are cheaper, but our wages have been stagnant for years now, in some cases not even keeping up with inflation. Not an equal tradeoff in my book. Now that our dollar is worthless all those cheap imports are suddenly not so cheap, and we've still got our less than sizable wallets.

The cheap dollar is a problem, but if you want to blame anybody for that, blame the government and Bernanke. Cheap foreign goods have increased savings among the poor, which is a very good thing on net. Maybe some working class sob story will pull on people's heart strings but the truth is that we're gaining more jobs than we're exporting. These fired factory workers aren't hanging around in shanty towns for want of work, they have other skills than producing widgets and many of them find better jobs than the ones they were working in the factory.

We're not even losing our manufacturing capacity: INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTION AND CAPACITY UTILIZATION

If you'll notice on the chart, all industries have grown between September '06 and September '07, with the exception of mining and construction.

Quote:

Bradylama also suggests to get rid of farm subsidies, and again I largely agree, but I think they shouldn't be wiped out, just adjusted. Most of them go to giant corporate farms who have no need of them, and should instead go towards the small family farms. There aren't too many left, so we could drastically cut the subsidies.

No offense to any good 'ole boys here, but fuck farmers. If food is so cheap that they can't profit on the economies of scale that corporate farms can, then they don't deserve our tax money. Let them sell their farms and find better jobs.

Quote:

Of course this whole argument about free trade is effectively null. If we did anything substantial against free trade the World Trade Organization would swoop in, declare it an illegal action, and then fly back to their headquarters whilst stroking cats and wearing monocles. Should we scrap the WTO? They supersede even countries, and are largely answerable to no one...

Well, the WTO first needs countries to enforce their declarations, and other member nations have to agree to punitive actions. There's no enforcement agency that the WTO can use to make us do what we don't want to do.

Not that I care for the WTO but be for real.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by Matt

You say that many of the factory workers who were laid off were able to find better jobs later on. I'd love to see proof of this. For what I know, most laid-off factory workers have been forced to accept jobs in the service industry for far lower wages and benefits.

Your article doesn't talk about job quality, but sure what the Heck.

NPR report on job creation potential from 2004

Report from the CATO Institute on jobs lost and jobs gained:

Quote:

The ongoing growth in total employment is frequently dismissed on the ground that most of the new positions being created are low-paying, dead-end "McJobs." The facts, however, show otherwise.

Management and professional specialty jobs have grown rapidly during the recent era of globalization. Between 1983 and 2002, the total number of such positions climbed from 23.6 million to ddle class with the 42.5 million--an 80 percent increase. In other words, these changing high-paying positions have jumped from 23.4 percent of total employment to 31.1 percent.

These high-quality jobs will continue growing in the years to come. According to projections for 2002-2012 prepared by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, management, business, financial, and professional and professional positions will grow from 43.2 million to 52.0 million--a 20 percent increase that will lift these jobs from 30.0 percent of total employment to 31.5 percent.

That article also notes that job loss in manufacturing jobs was 16% between 2000 and 2003, and exports dropped 9.6%, while imports only raised .6%. It's not foreign trade that lowers manufacturing employment, it's our inability to trade. If we were opening up foreign markets to US goods instead of attempting to restrict imports, it would be a boon for US manufacturing.

Quote:

Also, you link to some fancy statistic page concerning manufacturing capacity. Did you back up and think for a second that the numbers might be higher because more and more factories have closed down, affecting capacity in no way whatsoever?

No, I didn't, because I was attempting to dispel the de-industrialization myth. The idea that free trade presents a security risk because all of our junk is being manufactured overseas.

Quote:

No enforcement agency? What about the World Bank? What about the IMF? We don't control them, but they control us. There is so much money flowing through the WB and IMF from the United States that if we were to cut them out entirely, we would be out of a lot of money. And because no politician wants to be the blame for a dismal loss of investment nation-wide, it's doubtful our government will ever oppose them.

The World Bank and IMF would suffer tremendously without the availability of US credit. Our government cooperates with these organizations because we can use their policies to soften up foreign economies for American interests, more often than not to their detriment.


EvilJMcnasty:

Point 1: Wal-Mart actually does provide their employees with decent benefits, and if you were following the news lately, they're instituting a new insurance plan that guarantees their employees cheap drugs. Not all Wal-Mart jobs are cashier monkey positions, either. Just 20 miles south of here, there's a Wal-Mart distribution center which employs over a thousand managers, technicians, truckers, etc., and there are many more like it all across the country. They also provide millions of well paying managerial positions. Wal-Mart also employs... drum roll please... the elderly, people who would have never been employed by GM because they would've been forced into retirement. This also skews the numbers in favor of Wal-Mart being the largest employer.


Point 2: See above Cato report.

Point 3: The Middle Class was a priority, and so was using military power to strong-arm countries into supporting US corporate interests. Laissez Faire doesn't undercut the "middle class" any more than any other system of economic policy. What do you think created the Middle Class, even? It sure as Hell wasn't the government. Skilled, middle class jobs became the majority because of the service economy which started up in the 50's.

Point 4:Corporate farms aren't monopolized, pardner.

Also, subsidies tend to discourage farms from being environmentally sound. As the New Zealand example demonstrated.

Point 5:See also: US credit and beneficial WTO policies.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by Matt

As for that report from the CATO Institute, that's interesting, but nothing worth getting excited over. Imports didn't increase much during that period because of 9-11 and the economic recession it caused in the US.

That doesn't exactly explain the slump in US exports, though.

Quote:

And I've read elsewhere that management jobs were expected to be one of the top 10 highest-growth jobs in the nation, along with nursing and cashiers. Which is pretty natural considering both the number of aging baby boomers and the growth of the retail sector. And I actually have a friend who, upon graduating high-school, got a job in a management position. He works at a Dairy Queen and he makes $42,000 a year or so because he works 60 hours a week. So I guess that that is better than having a good job that pays near $50,000 a year with minimal overtime at a manufacturing plant like GM, General Electric or Rubbermaid?

Yeah, that's a damn good job, and I wish I was making that kind of money, even with the hours. Does he have the opportunity to manage a franchise? Because there's a lot of money in that. Certainly more than the opportunities one had to become a foreman, considering that factory work was supposed to be a lifetime job (big reason why people bitched about losing them).

Quote:

Soften them up via indebtedness?
These foreign nations have to spend more money on repaying their loans (that in some cases were spent mainly on weapons by a dictator) than on public services such as health care and education.
What good does that do the United States? Is Uncle Sam going to swoop in there and give them the American Dream in exchange for their compliance to democracy and the USA's interests?

That's exactly what we've been doing. Did you not read the Malawi thread? We're indebting third world governments in order to force them to liberalize their economies, and make them accept the dumping of Western goods.

Why do you think the South Americans are setting up the Bank of the South? They need an alternative source of credit so they're not getting fucked in the ass by the IMF and Western corporate interests.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.