Republicans turned on free trade, turning on tax rates.

If the methodology of the poll holds up, I'm going to go beat the tar out of Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan with a lead pipe (preferably made of imported Australian lead).

Republicans Grow Skeptical On Free Trade - WSJ.com

*sighs* Giuliani and Thompson leading, too? Where's my G.O.P. gone?

Jam it back in, in the dark.

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

There's nowhere I can't reach.

I noticed that some of the old sentiments that I learned about in history are still there. "Stop imports because it takes away from home economy". Only that's a pretty dumb thought. If anything, it provides new opportunities. New product to sell and a broader market to sell to. Americans are just gonna screw themselves over if they vote against free trade.

How ya doing, buddy?

Quote:

a threat to our independence as a nation

How is free trade a threat to our independence as a nation?

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

Originally Posted by Token

How is free trade a threat to our independence as a nation?

Well, the argument Paul is giving there is not that free trade in itself is a threat to independence, but "free trade deals," which are essentially supra-governmental regulating bodies that control international trade, with little to no oversight by the general populaces that they affect. They threaten national sovereignty or independence because they affect national policies, without being voted or agreed upon by any representation of the people of the nation.

I was speaking idiomatically.

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.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Originally Posted by Bradylama

but don't expect the Wall Street Journal to try and note the difference between free trade and Free Trade Deals.

Is the aforementioned differentiation your only substantial problem with free trade agreements? (Just curious.)

FELIPE NO

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.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Yeah, I got redirected to that from National Review, but I didn't buy the latter argument. Anecdotally, the people with whom I work and those we help have had both views thrown at them. Since the overwhelming majority are G.O.P. boosters (and likely haven't had the class warfare rhetoric that Democrats can use), I'm not sure that his argument is "common sense." You?

Jam it back in, in the dark.

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.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

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.

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

Quote:

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.

But they won't. Why? Because it's their lack of American standards that is the precise reason that makes them competitive.

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.

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?

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

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.

FELIPE NO

Well, it seems my suspicions are confirmed. Rudy Giuliani is the least disgusting of all presidential candidates Republican or Democrat and is the only rational choice I have left.

Oh yeah, and Ron Paul is an authentic nutjob. I wonder if he honestly believes half the nonsense that spews out of his mouth?

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

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.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by Bradylama

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.

He's represents the direction I'd like to see the GOP go. He's pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, appears to be fiscally sound, tough on crime, and supports the war, which I support. I see little to dislike of him other than his questionable approach to illegal immigration and his support of for gun control.

I'd prefer to see the GOP dispose of its affiliation with the bible bangers and get back to establishing its identity of responsible economic/fiscal policy if that is still possible in this day in age or at the very least dismantle our welfare state and mixed economy.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by Bradylama

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.

Everyone in New York hates Giulani. He always made a habit of kissing babies right in front of the action to make himself look better...New Yorkers may be a lot of things, but they are not stupid. Its not difficult to see why they don't like the man. He is not above putting himself before tragedy to strengthen his case...which he really doesn't really seem to have as far as economic policy is concerned.

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

Who was the last mayor that New Yorkers liked?

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

The Dutch?

How ya doing, buddy?

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

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.

FELIPE NO

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.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

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.

Jam it back in, in the dark.