Republicans turned on free trade, turning on tax rates.

Howdy all, I was a member here many moons ago, but I left... and now I'm back. I know, I know, I'm a master storyteller.

Anyway... I've always felt conflicted about "Free Trade". In a perfect, utopian world where people get paid livable wages, environmental standards are worldwide, and everybody has their own personal rainbow I'm all about the free trade action. Obviously this isn't the case though.

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.

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.

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. And, yes, we should start growing alternative energies, as long as it isn't the pork of all pork: ethanol.

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...

Most amazing jew boots

Thanks for the backup Matt. I had the feeling that I might find myself in a "Dogpile on the Rabbit" situation with my little post, and I wouldn't find myself inexplicably jumping on the top of the dogpile.

Originally Posted by Bradylama

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?

Well, the thing is that we've technically been a service economy since at least the 1950's or so if you're just looking at percentage of service vs. manufacturing jobs. My focus is the extent to which we've become a service economy. So let us do a little comparing and contrasting, shall we? In the era where manufacturing was vibrant GM was our largest private employer, and virtually all workers found themselves with a nice paycheck, a pension to retire with, and great benefits. So, in our new Mega-service economy where Joe and Jane Lunchpail all create high tech intellectual properties out the wazoo surely Microsoft, Google, or maybe IBM is our largest employer, right? Oh wait, it's Walmart, and Joe and Jane can kiss benefits, good pay, pension, job security, etc... goodbye. The truth is that we'll always need real goods, and we shouldn't be beholden to any other nation.

You are correct that a service related job offers better working conditions, but it's the employer's responsibility to give the worker a safe and pleasant working condition.

Originally Posted by Bradylama

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.

You're right, America can produce like a mofo, and that's a credit to our crazy strong work ethic and ingenuity. America used to be the #1 exporter of goods, so we know our way around that arena. The one little caveat is... America isn't producing anything. Our capacity to produce can be 3000%, but it doesn't mean a lick if we just import everything from China.

I understand that you can't fight technology, there's obviously going to be job losses with increased use of technology and increased competition, I just take umbrage with the decision to take American jobs and move them overseas.

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.

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?
And the increase in production doesn't necessarily correlate with the increase of manufacturing jobs. All it means is that more goods were put together. It's cheaper and easier to build things with machines these days you know.

Absolutely correct. There isn't a massive unemployment problem in this country, there's just a lot of shitty jobs that former employees of the manufacturing sector are forced to take on. The situation we're finding ourselves in is perfectly natural and a consequence (or a boon depending on your wealth status) of less and less regulated capitalism. Laissez faire capitalism doesn't support a middle class, it supports a few mega-rich guys that look like the little Monopoly guy and then the rest can fight over the scraps. So this brings us to a fundamental choice that's based solely on beliefs. I believe that having a middle class is important to this country, so the economy should be regulated to more evenly distribute the wealth. That prior sentence probably makes me a radical in this day and age, but back when we had frothing radicals like Teddy and Franklin Roosevelt, Eisenhower, and Kennedy running this country the middle class was a priority.

Originally Posted by Bradylama

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.

Heh heh. Another disagreement on ideals. I think monopolies are a scourge on our economy, and it's the government's duty to break up monopolies in order to give people a chance to succeed in this economy, and thus encourage competition.

And hey! You Mr. Scientist researching cures for horrible diseases, if you can't turn a profit trying to cure cancer go fuck off and find a better job. How dare you lobby for our tax dollars when you can't pull yourself up by your own bootstraps. Same goes for you Mr. Artist. The free market shows the masses don't care about art, so fuck off and become an accountant. Obviously, I'm stretching your statement for some playful mocking, but there's a fundamental link between farmers and my examples. We as a society have decided that researching medicine and vaccines are so important that we give them money instead of letting them fend for themselves in the free market, same goes for the arts. So, many Americans find it important that America continues to fund small farmers growing food locally, instead of letting the country be ravaged by 1 or two gigantic corporations bucking environmental standards. It's not the most efficient choice, but some things are more important than profit.

Quote:

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.

I thought my reference to the WTO being roughly the equivalent of a James Bond villain would reveal itself to be a satire of people's exaggerated critiques of the WTO, but perhaps more heavy handedness is required. Yes the WTO can't force a country to do something, but all it takes is a country willing to eschew a few pesky environmental standards, and the WTO will rule in favor of the violator.

If the WTO is so powerless then tell me why when Mexico challenged America's dolphin-safe labeling on Tuna, and the WTO ruled in the favor of Mexico, why did the United States of Fucking America, the country that does whatever the hell it wants when it wants, backed down to what you would lead us to believe is an impotent organization?

Phew! Let me just say I'm very appreciative of the intelligent community here, it makes for some very fun and thought provoking debate.

There's nowhere I can't reach.