Republicans turned on free trade, turning on tax rates.

I beg to differ tommyt.
I think the biggest problem with free trade is the fact that trading with nations like China where corporations can sell products at low prices and still attain a much higher profit margin than American companies (obviously because of the cheap labor).
That's why more and more American companies that still try their best to stay in America (and are essentially keeping the middle class alive) are filing Anti-Dumping Petitions all over the place. (like this one filed in June)

It's really just that the large international corporations are trying to improve their profit per share, which increases their stock value, which in turn lets them absorb more of the world's wealth. They're just milking the hell out of the market because profit is #1 in their business plan and anything goes.
And while I think that an almost-free market can work, it really has to be regulated in some fashion, doesn't it?

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by Bradylama

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.

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.

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.

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.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by Bradylama

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


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.

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.
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?

Quote:

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.

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?
As for the WB and IMF suffering without US credit, it's obviously debatable. The WB and IMF participate in currency swaps and reinvestments in large amounts daily. The United States has money invested through them, but because the US doesn't control them directly, they're pretty much independent financial organizations. The United States could try to recall all of its investments if it so chose (which it never will), but the actual availability of the funds probably wouldn't be there at all. It's like when you buy a bond, it has conditions (interest and debt repayment schedules). Why piss off the debtor when there's a possibility that your bond could become worthless depending on your actions?

Originally Posted by Evil_J_McNasty

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?

Exactly.
There is another example of the WTO superseding a California law but I can't seem to find it on the internet. However, your example proves the point that the WTO is by no means powerless.

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