Phyllis Diller
Was it me?
Supporters of free trade in the United States would gain more credibility if they acknowledged the accuracy of many criticisms made about globalization.
But would a global slowdown change that if other countries blamed Chinese exports for destroying their domestic jobs? Would import quotas or tariffs follow? Already, China has turned from the world's largest steel importer to the largest exporter, says Lardy. In the United States, the present pattern of global trade is viewed with increasing hostility: U.S. deficits are seen as eroding industrial jobs while providing surplus countries with the dollars to buy large pieces of American firms.
How can making goods cheaper or more expensive via currency manipulation not be as bad as doing it with tariffs? Yet the advocates of lower tariffs rarely argue against currency manipulation. Why is that?
A rising percentage of the US population sees free trade agreements as harmful.
The 2008 presidential candidates can see that voters are in a sour mood on trade. An NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll earlier this year found that 46 percent of adults thought that free trade agreements hurt the United States, 16 points more than in 1999. Protectionist sentiment seems to be growing fastest among Republicans. In a September NBC/Wall Street Journal poll, 59 percent of Republican primary voters said trade has been bad for America.
Many of this year's major presidential candidates — nearly all Democrats and Republican populist Mike Huckabee — have responded by promising tough trade negotiations to give American workers a break and raise standards worldwide.
"We need trade without tradeoffs for America," former Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C., said in a speech at an Iowa union hall on Aug. 6. He vows, if elected, to put "regular families" ahead of the interests of multinational corporations.
The continued large US trade deficits and the currency manipulation that helps to cause them make quite a few people (myself included) skeptical of the idea that low tariffs equal free trade. How can going into hock to the world be a good development? How can large scale intellectual property theft be a good development?
Republican and Democratic Presidential candidates have gotten much more critical of aspects of globalization. This makes the elites sniff with disdain. The New York Times sees critics of large US trade deficits as supporters of protectionism.
Democrats have been most tempted by the protectionism. John Edwards likes to talk about how trade agreements like Nafta “have hurt workers and families while helping corporate insiders.” Senator Hillary Clinton has suggested that the economic theories underpinning the cause for free trade no longer hold, and has said she would review all of the United States’ trade agreements.
Even Republican candidates — normally staunch supporters of expanding trade — can sound skeptical. “I don’t want to see our food come from China, our oil come from Saudi Arabia and our manufacturing come from Europe and Asia,” complained Mike Huckabee. Mitt Romney defends globalization’s record of improving living standards, but cannot resist drawing an applause line by adding that the government should negotiate better with other countries to make sure “the American worker gets a fair shake.”
I think we need to stop going further into hock to the rest of the world. I also think that the trade agreements have created the conditions that help us go deeper into hock. But the editors of the New York Times fear that the criticisms of globalization's consequences could get translated into real policies.
It would be unfortunate for the United States if the winner of the 2008 election elevated skepticism toward trade from a red-meat sound bite on the campaign trail to a new wave of protectionist policy.
Free traders are losing the argument.
The most bellicose rhetoric has come from John Edwards, the third-placed Democrat whom polls have shown surging back into contention ahead of tomorrow's Iowa caucuses. He has called for "trade without trade-offs" that puts the interests of "regular families" ahead of multinational corporations.
His message has found a receptive audience among grassroots Democrats who worry about a decline in US manufacturing jobs, wage stagnation and the perceived economic threat posed by China and India. Free trade advocates hope the protectionist rhetoric is a temporary phenomenon as candidates pander to the party base ahead of caucuses and primaries. But there is no guarantee the successful nominee will shift back to the centre before November's election because opinion polls show concern about free trade spreading beyond Democrats. A recent Wall Street Journal/NBC poll found 58 per cent of Americans think globalisation has been bad for the US, up from 42 per cent a decade ago.
Free traders should think less dogmatically and try to look for policies that will allow a substantial amount of international trade to continue while at the same time addressing some of the objections quite reasonable people make about trade deficits, environmental harm, loss of sovereignty, and other concerns.
As Phyllis Schlafly points out globalization comes with international bureaucracies that reduce national sovereignty.
"WTO" now stands for "World Trade Outrage" rather than its original name, World Trade Organization. The World Trade Organization just ruled that the Caribbean nation of Antigua and Barbuda can freely violate American copyrights and trademarks in order to punish the United States for laws prohibiting Internet gambling.
Congress passed the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act in 2006 after finding that "Internet gambling is a growing cause of debt collection problems for insured depository institutions and the consumer credit industry." The social and financial costs of gambling would be greatly increased if the United States permits Internet gambling.
The World Trade Organization ordered this punishment because it says U.S. laws interfere with free trade in "recreational services." The foreign tribunal ranks free trade as more important than the intellectual property rights Americans have enjoyed since the U.S. Constitution was written.
I don't want to be ruled by international trade tribunals. Do you? I don't want all internal policies determined by international agencies. I think people should be able to adjust their local and national governments to allow and disallow that which they locally think should be allowed or disallowed. Give people control of their local environments.
http://www.parapundit.com/archives/004902.html
But would a global slowdown change that if other countries blamed Chinese exports for destroying their domestic jobs? Would import quotas or tariffs follow? Already, China has turned from the world's largest steel importer to the largest exporter, says Lardy. In the United States, the present pattern of global trade is viewed with increasing hostility: U.S. deficits are seen as eroding industrial jobs while providing surplus countries with the dollars to buy large pieces of American firms.
How can making goods cheaper or more expensive via currency manipulation not be as bad as doing it with tariffs? Yet the advocates of lower tariffs rarely argue against currency manipulation. Why is that?
A rising percentage of the US population sees free trade agreements as harmful.
The 2008 presidential candidates can see that voters are in a sour mood on trade. An NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll earlier this year found that 46 percent of adults thought that free trade agreements hurt the United States, 16 points more than in 1999. Protectionist sentiment seems to be growing fastest among Republicans. In a September NBC/Wall Street Journal poll, 59 percent of Republican primary voters said trade has been bad for America.
Many of this year's major presidential candidates — nearly all Democrats and Republican populist Mike Huckabee — have responded by promising tough trade negotiations to give American workers a break and raise standards worldwide.
"We need trade without tradeoffs for America," former Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C., said in a speech at an Iowa union hall on Aug. 6. He vows, if elected, to put "regular families" ahead of the interests of multinational corporations.
The continued large US trade deficits and the currency manipulation that helps to cause them make quite a few people (myself included) skeptical of the idea that low tariffs equal free trade. How can going into hock to the world be a good development? How can large scale intellectual property theft be a good development?
Republican and Democratic Presidential candidates have gotten much more critical of aspects of globalization. This makes the elites sniff with disdain. The New York Times sees critics of large US trade deficits as supporters of protectionism.
Democrats have been most tempted by the protectionism. John Edwards likes to talk about how trade agreements like Nafta “have hurt workers and families while helping corporate insiders.” Senator Hillary Clinton has suggested that the economic theories underpinning the cause for free trade no longer hold, and has said she would review all of the United States’ trade agreements.
Even Republican candidates — normally staunch supporters of expanding trade — can sound skeptical. “I don’t want to see our food come from China, our oil come from Saudi Arabia and our manufacturing come from Europe and Asia,” complained Mike Huckabee. Mitt Romney defends globalization’s record of improving living standards, but cannot resist drawing an applause line by adding that the government should negotiate better with other countries to make sure “the American worker gets a fair shake.”
I think we need to stop going further into hock to the rest of the world. I also think that the trade agreements have created the conditions that help us go deeper into hock. But the editors of the New York Times fear that the criticisms of globalization's consequences could get translated into real policies.
It would be unfortunate for the United States if the winner of the 2008 election elevated skepticism toward trade from a red-meat sound bite on the campaign trail to a new wave of protectionist policy.
Free traders are losing the argument.
The most bellicose rhetoric has come from John Edwards, the third-placed Democrat whom polls have shown surging back into contention ahead of tomorrow's Iowa caucuses. He has called for "trade without trade-offs" that puts the interests of "regular families" ahead of multinational corporations.
His message has found a receptive audience among grassroots Democrats who worry about a decline in US manufacturing jobs, wage stagnation and the perceived economic threat posed by China and India. Free trade advocates hope the protectionist rhetoric is a temporary phenomenon as candidates pander to the party base ahead of caucuses and primaries. But there is no guarantee the successful nominee will shift back to the centre before November's election because opinion polls show concern about free trade spreading beyond Democrats. A recent Wall Street Journal/NBC poll found 58 per cent of Americans think globalisation has been bad for the US, up from 42 per cent a decade ago.
Free traders should think less dogmatically and try to look for policies that will allow a substantial amount of international trade to continue while at the same time addressing some of the objections quite reasonable people make about trade deficits, environmental harm, loss of sovereignty, and other concerns.
As Phyllis Schlafly points out globalization comes with international bureaucracies that reduce national sovereignty.
"WTO" now stands for "World Trade Outrage" rather than its original name, World Trade Organization. The World Trade Organization just ruled that the Caribbean nation of Antigua and Barbuda can freely violate American copyrights and trademarks in order to punish the United States for laws prohibiting Internet gambling.
Congress passed the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act in 2006 after finding that "Internet gambling is a growing cause of debt collection problems for insured depository institutions and the consumer credit industry." The social and financial costs of gambling would be greatly increased if the United States permits Internet gambling.
The World Trade Organization ordered this punishment because it says U.S. laws interfere with free trade in "recreational services." The foreign tribunal ranks free trade as more important than the intellectual property rights Americans have enjoyed since the U.S. Constitution was written.
I don't want to be ruled by international trade tribunals. Do you? I don't want all internal policies determined by international agencies. I think people should be able to adjust their local and national governments to allow and disallow that which they locally think should be allowed or disallowed. Give people control of their local environments.
http://www.parapundit.com/archives/004902.html
