quote:

ORIGINAL: slaveboyforyou

No we wouldn't make more.  The companies that do manufacture goods wouldn't be able to compete globally, and they would ultimately fail.  Economic isolationism does not work; it's been done before.  When you place tarriffs on goods, the countries you're penalizing will follow suit.  Do you want us to do that with countries like China?  We can go back to the good ol' days of them being isolated and impoverished.  We can forget having a market of over a billion people to sell our own products to.  If you want to see protectionism at it's worst in this country, look no further than agriculture.  It's a big reason why fruits and vegetables are so expensive.  I blame our country's obesity epidemic partly on agricultural subsidies.  The consumer (the people as many of you like to call it) are the ones that lose in a protectionist economy. 

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59





Fuck free trade!

That`s another way of saying ,sell our futures to the Chinese so that Walmart can meet it`s monthly earnings goals.

I`m for "fair trade".  Sounds similar but the polar opposite in affect.

I`m for trade deals that benefit the middle class workers(who make the goods traded) ,not corporate America,who have basically sold the US down the river for a quick buck.The rats.

If a guy makes shoes for 50 cents a pair,with slave labor and no environmental controls,we`ll say fine,you can sell your shoes here with a 30 dollar tariff per pair(or what ever amount makes those shoes priced fairly compared to other shoes).

We`ve seen what "free trade" has brought us.Our jobs shipped out and poverty shiped in.

That`s going to change in less than 30 days.It couldn`t come sooner.

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250

quote:

ORIGINAL: corysub

I see your point.  Obama is not a free trade guy....already the winds of protectionism are starting to stir.  Columbia, a friend of the United States, is being denied favored status by Pelosi...more to come in 2009. 

Colombia is our "friend?"
Mexico claims to be our "friend" too.
With those two as "friends" who needs enemies?
As for "most favored nation status" I thought that was singular!
But, there's a bunch of them.
Only  "Washington" could come up with shit like that.
"Nation" means "one."
Pick one!

A status granted to one country by another; the granting country then accords the recipient's imports and exports the most favorable treatment that it accords any country.

quote:

ORIGINAL: awmslave

I am for free trade with one condition: trade volumes must be approximately equal between countries. It is simple math the trade deficit US is running eventually will crash the system. 

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen

quote:

ORIGINAL: bestbabync



and if we pay more, then that means we all get pay raises, Lady Ellen?

Yes, each according to the value of his work as relative to others - rather than according to the value of his work when done by a slave labourer in a sweatshop.

There is more money in the economy if the toaster man and millions like him are being paid well, as he can be when his work is fifty bucks a go at retail. After that it is up to the toaster guy and the rest to negotiate wages and in an economy where there are many well paid jobs, he can go elsewhere if he needs to.

The situation we are in has certainly proved the converse to be correct; lower numbers of well paid jobs has reduced the money in the economy so that it becomes necessary to buy in the toaster from China as no one can afford a domestic product.

E

quote:

ORIGINAL: MzMia

quote:

ORIGINAL: slaveboyforyou

No we wouldn't make more.  The companies that do manufacture goods wouldn't be able to compete globally, and they would ultimately fail.  Economic isolationism does not work; it's been done before.  When you place tarriffs on goods, the countries you're penalizing will follow suit.  Do you want us to do that with countries like China?  We can go back to the good ol' days of them being isolated and impoverished.  We can forget having a market of over a billion people to sell our own products to.  If you want to see protectionism at it's worst in this country, look no further than agriculture.  It's a big reason why fruits and vegetables are so expensive.  I blame our country's obesity epidemic partly on agricultural subsidies.  The consumer (the people as many of you like to call it) are the ones that lose in a protectionist economy. 

I never said I think there should be NO free trade.
If you read my post above, I said that it should be done in moderation,
and I hope we can find a middle of the road solution.
No free trade would be absurd.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

 

You`re jumping to conclusions, using extreme examples and putting words in other people`s mouths.


Put it this way.Simply,we`ve been doing it one way for to long and we need a change.The downward spiral we`re in isn`t inevitable.


We can make better deals.One`s the outsourcing crooked types won`t want,but screw them.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

 

Did you hear the righties freak-out when Hillary suggested(during the debates)that we should re-negotiate NAFTA?

Omg ,you`d think the wall were tumbling down around us at the thought of re-visiting those agreements.

We have leverage and the trading power to make deals that are fair to working people,the environment and our partners too.

NAFTA is one of my big problems with Bill Clinton,besides fibbing about the bj.

quote:

ORIGINAL: MmeGigs

quote:

ORIGINAL: variation30
what is a trade deficit?

It's when we're buying more from other countries than we're selling to them.  More money's going out than coming in.

quote:

ORIGINAL: celticlord2112

Protectionist dominoes are beginning to tumble across the world

The last paragraph is the most interesting.

quote:

The last great era of globalisation peaked just before 1914. You know the rest of the story.

So how will we repeat history?