New Stossel Ep.! "Is Free Trade Good?"

[BuddyRey]

I'm itchin' to watch this one, but I figured I'd go ahead and post it for the forums before I did. I hear tell that John went up against Lou Dobbs himself this time!

YouTube - Stossel Show - Is Free Trade Good ? (Part 1/6) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3gkcJ3onI5E&playnext_from=TL&videos=JeKeK73WklI&feature=sub)

YouTube - Stossel Show - Is Free Trade Good ? (Part 2/6) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZWprOwbwVw&playnext_from=TL&videos=hHGekRH2Y4I&feature=sub)

YouTube - Stossel Show - Is Free Trade Good ? (Part 3/6) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjafvZMwaAk&playnext_from=TL&videos=N8AZY9rGdFM&feature=sub)

YouTube - Stossel Show - Is Free Trade Good ? (Part 4/6) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bSruloRcrDg&playnext_from=TL&videos=SRvy3JQ2zRo&feature=sub)

YouTube - Stossel Show - Is Free Trade Good ? (Part 5/6) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZAMg5rAIyLg&playnext_from=TL&videos=iMwEZ_1ABN4&feature=sub)

YouTube - Stossel Show - Is Free Trade Good ? (Part 6/6) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=icUFHPqMVEw&playnext_from=TL&videos=lkiy5RiFjNE&feature=sub)

[BuddyRey]

I disagree with Lou Dobbs on trade issues, but I do have to hand it to the guy; he's a brilliant polemicist and a remarkably able debater. On most political shows, the host will bring on some intellectual-flyweight Caspar Milquetoast to present the oppositional arguments. Stossel always honors the intelligence of his viewers by bringing on people who really know their stuff, leading to some hard-hitting and genuinely thought-provoking television. It's one of the major reasons I so adore his show!

[BuddyRey]

Wow, I'm surprised this hasn't picked up many views yet.

Don't worry, gang. The Stoss is safe for work! :D

[BenIsForRon]

I don't have time to watch the videos, but is Stossel in favor of "free-trade" organization like the WTO and IMF? When a lot of people talk about free trade, that's what they're referring to.

[BuddyRey]

I don't have time to watch the videos, but is Stossel in favor of "free-trade" organization like the WTO and IMF? When a lot of people talk about free trade, that's what they're referring to.

He did say something toward the tail-end of the episode indicating that the trade situation has improved since NAFTA, but I'm pretty sure he would repeal that too, since he's always harping on public-private partnerships and crony capitalism.

[jabf2006]

I think when it comes to the trade deficit Stossel and his buddies are completely wrong. Trade deficits are a transfer of wealth from one nation to another.

[yongrel]

I think when it comes to the trade deficit Stossel and his buddies are completely wrong. Trade deficits are a transfer of wealth from one nation to another.

David Ricardo disproved this hundreds of years ago. It's irritating to see that people still believe this nonsense.

[sratiug]

If you tax American production but don't tax imports you are distorting the market in favor of imports which is very very stupid and destructive to our economy.

[jabf2006]

David Ricardo disproved this hundreds of years ago. It's irritating to see that people still believe this nonsense.

Well, I'm in the process of reading The Principles of Political Economy and Taxation, so maybe I'll learn something.

[ClayTrainor]

If you tax American production but don't tax imports you are distorting the market in favor of imports which is very very stupid and destructive to our economy.

By taxing imports you simply raise the prices for American consumers, and help the government collect more revenue. It doesn't help out the Chinese or the Americans, It merely helps grow the size, scope and influence of the state.

[mtj458]

I don't understand Dobbs' argument. He backs off every time someone asks him how to fix the problem. He says he's not a protectionist but the only way to solve his "problem" is protectionism.

[BuddyRey]

I don't understand Dobbs' argument. He backs off every time someone asks him how to fix the problem. He says he's not a protectionist but the only way to solve his "problem" is protectionism.

Yeah, he did seem to give way when pressed on the details of his favored alternative. Even with Dobbs' undeniable talent for sophistry, it just took a few pointed questions from The Stoss to make the sweat pop off his brow!

[SWATH]

It sounds like Dobbs is describing fair trade ala Duncan Hunter's "hold up a mirror" analogy and calling it free trade.

[sratiug]

By taxing imports you simply raise the prices for American consumers, and help the government collect more revenue. It doesn't help out the Chinese or the Americans, It merely helps grow the size, scope and influence of the state.

By taxing only American production you raise prices of American products and put American manufacturers out of business while protecting foreigners who pay no American taxes. Replacing those taxes with a flat tariff would make far more sense.

[mtj458]

Which is why the right solution is to tax Americans less, not foreigners more.

[0zzy]

why are we putting these on youtube if they are already being spread on Hulu? Why not support Stossel by watching it there?

[sratiug]

Which is why the right solution is to tax Americans less, not foreigners more.

A flat tariff does not tax foreigners, it taxes Americans. Replacing internal taxes with a flat tariff would merely end the subsidy we are effectively paying foreign producers. It would not subsidize American producers with foreign money.

[ivflight]

I think Dobbs walked away looking very stupid. He came across as a flip flopper in discussion, and the audience member sunk the nail flush. The only types I know of that can put up with that type of ambiguous rhetoric are liberals.

I wish the Kenyan woman got more talking time. Actually hearing voices from these so called 'exploited' countries speak in favor of free trade makes liberals grind their teeth bloody.

[Fox McCloud]

A flat tariff does not tax foreigners, it taxes Americans. Replacing internal taxes with a flat tariff would merely end the subsidy we are effectively paying foreign producers. It would not subsidize American producers with foreign money.

how many times are you going to ignore the Mises article I keep posting?

http://mises.org/daily/1768

all taxes are ultimately taxes on income; you enact subsidies by direct subsidization, quotas, taxing one and not the other.

We tax domestic and foreign goods via sales tax---I would also add that companies that produce goods overseas and ship them here pay income taxes too.


I really don't understand your illogical rant against free trade.

[BuddyRey]

which is why the right solution is to tax americans less, not foreigners more.

+1000!

[sratiug]

how many times are you going to ignore the Mises article I keep posting?

http://mises.org/daily/1768

all taxes are ultimately taxes on income; you enact subsidies by direct subsidization, quotas, taxing one and not the other.

We tax domestic and foreign goods via sales tax---I would also add that companies that produce goods overseas and ship them here pay income taxes too.


I really don't understand your illogical rant against free trade.

Replacing internal taxes with a flat tariff would be less detrimental to free trade than the current system.

Foreign workers are not paying American taxes, so foreign companies can pay them much less for their labor. American companies have to pay American workers enough to pay their income taxes which forces American prices much higher.

What is the national sales tax rate then??? I didn't know we had one.

[AlexMerced]

Replacing internal taxes with a flat tariff would be less detrimental to free trade than the current system.

Foreign workers are not paying American taxes, so foreign companies can pay them much less for their labor. American companies have to pay American workers enough to pay their income taxes which forces American prices much higher.

What is the national sales tax rate then??? I didn't know we had one.

no goods should be taxed, there shouldn't be quotas, tariffs, no minimum... fixing supply and demand just yields economic miscalculations which over the long term will always shrink the productive capacity of a country...

this is why we're lacking jobs, our productive capacity has shrank shrank shrank due to a public sector eating away at the private sector with it's prices fixing and logic that for some reason, higher prices are good.

[PeacePlan]

Replacing internal taxes with a flat tariff would be less detrimental to free trade than the current system.

Foreign workers are not paying American taxes, so foreign companies can pay them much less for their labor. American companies have to pay American workers enough to pay their income taxes which forces American prices much higher.

What is the national sales tax rate then??? I didn't know we had one.

What stossel and many people do not look at and it is most important is:

We trade debt for goods because we have a fiat currency. Now if we bought all these foreign goods with gold and not debt it would be a good thing. We print dollars and that is our major export so we send out IOU's for our goods we import. We are getting more and more into debt.

Fiat currency enslaves us all as the only way it enters the economy is by issuing debt. At some point all fiat fails, or at least that is what history has shown to be the case.

If you really want to have liberty you need a currency like Gold or Silver - something you own outright - trade with that and you will be free.

[chadhb]

Complete non-sense anything that comes from Faux News and this is no different. I watched a little beginning and caught some of the end. Stossel makes absolutey no sense, something about we are able to buy cheap TV's and that is improving our economy, because we can buy more cheap stuff. F this moron.

He says exporting our jobs, produces more American jobs, I would like to see some facts. Does he mean by the unfair labor cost savings, corporations are able to expand and under cut conpetetion, all why firing all the American workers and re-hiring H1B indian workers?

The fact that economy is based on boom and bust cycles, a service economy that is become is joke, the fact that the economy is completey F-ed. Free trade has worked great for some that is no doubt.

[Stop Making Cents]

I am completely opposed to free trade, which has wreaked havoc on our nation, and it is a major issue in which i can not come to grips with "libertarianism". I agree with most views of Libertarians but free trade is not one of them. Ross Perot was proven right.

[BuddyRey]

Night-time bump!

[mtj458]

Free trade isn't just a libertarian position. It's supported by pretty much all economists because their arent many logical arguments against it. Even Paul Krugman's Nobel work for international trade supported free trade across countries.

Nobody against free trade ever explains the fundamental difference between trading within political borders, which are basically imaginary lines, and trading outside of them. If Michigan suddenly seceded from the USA would I suddenly be worse off by buying a GM car even though nothing has actually changed other than the country of my car? Exactly how far away do you have to be for trade to hurt you? Out of the country? The state? My neighborhood? If my house becomes its own country will I be hurt if I trade with you even though I place no restrictions on my labor and you have to deal with minimum wages and other regulations? There's absolutely no evidence that political borders are relevant to trade.

[ClayTrainor]

Free trade isn't just a libertarian position. It's supported by pretty much all economists because their arent many logical arguments against it. Even Paul Krugman's Nobel work for international trade supported free trade across countries.

Nobody against free trade ever explains the fundamental difference between trading within political borders, which are basically imaginary lines, and trading outside of them. If Michigan suddenly seceded from the USA would I suddenly be worse off by buying a GM car even though nothing has actually changed other than the country of my car? Exactly how far away do you have to be for trade to hurt you? Out of the country? The state? My neighborhood? If my house becomes its own country will I be hurt if I trade with you even though I place no restrictions on my labor and you have to deal with minimum wages and other regulations? There's absolutely no evidence that political borders are relevant to trade.

Excellent post!

[BenIsForRon]

Free trade isn't just a libertarian position. It's supported by pretty much all economists because their arent many logical arguments against it. Even Paul Krugman's Nobel work for international trade supported free trade across countries.

Nobody against free trade ever explains the fundamental difference between trading within political borders, which are basically imaginary lines, and trading outside of them. If Michigan suddenly seceded from the USA would I suddenly be worse off by buying a GM car even though nothing has actually changed other than the country of my car? Exactly how far away do you have to be for trade to hurt you? Out of the country? The state? My neighborhood? If my house becomes its own country will I be hurt if I trade with you even though I place no restrictions on my labor and you have to deal with minimum wages and other regulations? There's absolutely no evidence that political borders are relevant to trade.

It's about scale. Corporations manipulate foreign economies make them majority exporters. Once these countries become completely invested in a mop-handle exporting economy (for example), the citizens have little opportunity for upward mobility. They become reliant on the income from the factories (they can't afford to buy their own land or start their own business)

Of course, the corporations do this with the help of oppressive governments, which keep any possible profits that might find their way to the workers.

There is no opportunity for the people to become self sufficient. If they want to eat and have a bed to sleep in, they have to work for a multinational corporation.

[mtj458]

What evidence do you have for that? It sort of makes sense in theory but the statistics show that people in these sweatshop based exporting countries like China and even India, which I'm pretty sure actually runs a trade deficit, have been getting richer over the past few decades despite their supposed corporate manipulation of the economy. They obviously have a long way to go towards free markets but they're certainly not getting poorer over time like you seem to suggest.

Besides, that's an argument against the policies of other countries so I don't see why it should affect our own trade policies.

[Danke]

If you tax American production but don't tax imports you are distorting the market in favor of imports which is very very stupid and destructive to our economy.

If one agrees that the government needs revenue through some sort of taxation, it seems what you propose to be one of the best ways to go about it.

[BenIsForRon]

What evidence do you have for that? It sort of makes sense in theory but the statistics show that people in these sweatshop based exporting countries like China and even India, which I'm pretty sure actually runs a trade deficit, have been getting richer over the past few decades despite their supposed corporate manipulation of the economy. They obviously have a long way to go towards free markets but they're certainly not getting poorer over time like you seem to suggest.

Besides, that's an argument against the policies of other countries so I don't see why it should affect our own trade policies.

Just read about the WTO, NAFTA, CAFTA and the like. Of course, they involve government intervention, but they also shows how tariff -fee, morality-free global free trade can lead to incredible inequities.

For example, chiquita and dole own most of the northern land in Honduras. If you're a Honduran in that area, you have the option to either work on dole's farms or starve. For the fruit companies and their customers (us), that's a great deal. For the Hondurans, not so much.

[chadhb]

Just read about the WTO, NAFTA, CAFTA and the like. Of course, they involve government intervention, but they also shows how tariff -fee, morality-free global free trade can lead to incredible inequities.

For example, chiquita and dole own most of the northern land in Honduras. If you're a Honduran in that area, you have the option to either work on dole's farms or starve. For the fruit companies and their customers (us), that's a great deal. For the Hondurans, not so much.

It baffles my mind, that this even needs debate. I fing give up on this country, it is just so pointless anymore. I didn't even realize until this Arizona thing ,Libertarians are for open borders and for Child Sweat Shops.

[BenIsForRon]

It baffles my mind, that this even needs debate. I fing give up on this country, it is just so pointless anymore. I didn't even realize until this Arizona thing ,Libertarians are for open borders and for Child Sweat Shops.

Libertarians have logical reasons for having open borders, and the Arizona Law is way over the top.

And libertarians aren't for child sweat shops, its just that some people on this forum think its ok to continue to support child labor in China, because they're getting money they wouldn't otherwise be getting, and will be able to afford a better standard of living some time in the future. Of course, that simplistic view ignores all kinds of other factors.

So I would actually say you're worldview is a little out of whack. You're rightfully angry about sweatshops, but you think racial profiling is ok, as long as it's Mexican people. Rights are universal

[mtj458]

You don't exactly seem willing to debate it either. The reason we're for child sweat shops is because the alternative is worse. In Bangladesh they tried to get rid of child labor and what happened is all the kids who got "freed" from their sweatshop went into prostitution. Great job. They were voluntarily working at the sweatshop because it was the best of a bunch of bad alternatives. Telling them that they are not allowed to work at a place that they voluntarily would choose to is not making their lives any better, its just pushing them further into poverty. The reason kids don't work in the USA is because parents are so productive that they can produce enough to take care of their kids with no child labor, but in poorer countries, not to mention throughout most of human history, parents were not that productive, which is why you never saw anyone complain about child labor until the last few hundred years. Passing a law against it won't magically make the parents productive enough to feed their kids on their own.

[BenIsForRon]

Those kids wouldn't be working in those sweatshops if their parents had political freedoms and owned actual property. When the state owns all the farms, and foreign multinationals own all the factories, the people are left with no other option but to submit.

Why would a person support this kind of system when they could buy their products from places like Europe, Japan, or the United States, where child labor has been eliminated? America didn't eliminate child labor because we got a lot of money from producing goods for consumption in other countries, we got rid of child labor because we were free and self sufficient.

[mtj458]

I agree with you on that point- if they had free markets they would be much more prosperous. I just don't see the connection between us not buying their products and them getting out of poverty. What reason do you have to think that us not buying their products will cause their governments to rethink their economic policies? I think its more likely that the sweatshops would just become less profitable and either the wages would get further depressed or they'd start laying off workers. If you look at the most communist countries in the world, like Cuba or North Korea, they aren't enacting these stupid policies because we buy their products- they won't even let us buy their products. If we stopped buying things from China or India, I'd bet they react with less economic freedom. No government is willing to say free markets are the way out of poverty.

[BenIsForRon]

But that's not changing when we trade with them. So why trade with them at all? It seems like American corporations are just taking advantage of the shitty situation.

If we give our business instead to workers that have personal freedoms, like workers in Europe, Japan, and North America, then it will send a clear message to the authoritarian governments that American consumers don't care about getting the lowest price, they care about the workers who made the product.

[.Tom]

I can't be the only one who noticed how Dobbs didn't name a single thing he'd actually do during his eloquent flow of populist bullshit.

Seriously, I've never EVER heard anyone say absolutely nothing whatsoever in so many words.

[nobody's_hero]

If one agrees that the government needs revenue through some sort of taxation, it seems what you propose to be one of the best ways to go about it.

Once upon a time, it was. :(

[jkr]

soooo why is it i cant find a job john?


there is so much wrong with this i dont know where to begin.

have fun shoping at walmart stossel. save that money you rich prick.
you traded MY/OUR jobs for low low prices... maybe i should find a way to sponge off a good for nothing nonprodctive shit talker like you... but, i aint your shoeshine boy.

I build shit.

[BuddyRey]

soooo why is it i cant find a job john?

Because the government is taxing and regulating employers out of existence. This same phenomenon is what has driven most outsourced jobs out of the U.S., but politicians will turn this around and try to blame it all on free-market capitalism instead of the bloated, red-tape choked morass they created.

[ClayTrainor]

soooo why is it i cant find a job john?


there is so much wrong with this i dont know where to begin.

have fun shoping at walmart stossel. save that money you rich prick.
you traded MY/OUR jobs for low low prices... maybe i should find a way to sponge off a good for nothing nonprodctive shit talker like you... but, i aint your shoeshine boy.

I build shit.

YouTube - south park-they took our jobs!!! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLni3wbndls)

[BenIsForRon]

Because the government is taxing and regulating employers out of existence. This same phenomenon is what has driven most outsourced jobs out of the U.S., but politicians will turn this around and try to blame it all on free-market capitalism instead of the bloated, red-tape choked morass they created.

That's only half the picture, and you know it. These multinationals would still be going for the bottom dollar even if the regulation/tax situation were better here.

It's simply how they work. When a corporation gets big enough, the simply forget that they have actual people making their products.

[ClayTrainor]

That's only half the picture, and you know it. These multinationals would still be going for the bottom dollar even if the regulation/tax situation were better here.

And as a business owner, I go after bottom dollar as well. Buy low, sell high. To do otherwise means you'll be begging for a bailout or going out of business sometime down the road.



It's simply how they work. When a corporation gets big enough, the simply forget that they have actual people making their products.

Which is why free-markets are the answer, not more state controls and regulations on trade.


A free market is a market without economic intervention and regulation by government except to outlaw and prosecute force or fraud

[mtj458]

soooo why is it i cant find a job john?


there is so much wrong with this i dont know where to begin.

have fun shoping at walmart stossel. save that money you rich prick.
you traded MY/OUR jobs for low low prices... maybe i should find a way to sponge off a good for nothing nonprodctive shit talker like you... but, i aint your shoeshine boy.

I build shit.

Maybe you can't find a job because we're in a recession? And no, this recession wasn't caused by free trade. If you can't find a job in your profession than it means you have to switch professions. People shouldn't be forced to pay higher prices because you think you're job is more important than someone in Asia. America has been buying things from Asia for a very long time and it never showed up in the unemployment numbers besides the recession. We've lost jobs in manufacturing but we've more than replaced them with other jobs, not to mention our manufacturing output was at an all time high before the recession. Saying that there is no jobs left because foreigners steal them is basically saying that everyone in the world has absolutely everything they want and there is an absolutely nothing that you can contribute. As long as people want more things, there are always more jobs as long as you are willing to adjust your wage demands.

[sratiug]

Free trade isn't just a libertarian position. It's supported by pretty much all economists because their arent many logical arguments against it. Even Paul Krugman's Nobel work for international trade supported free trade across countries.

...


Well let's see if you are for free trade. Do you support replacing all internal federal taxes with a flat tariff? If not, why so protectionist of foreign interests? The distortion to free trade would be much less.

[ClayTrainor]

Well let's see if you are for free trade. Do you support replacing all internal federal taxes with a flat tariff? If not, why so protectionist of foreign interests? The distortion to free trade would be much less.

To suggest that libertarians support protectionist policies is dishonest. Heres the difference,

Libertarians tend to accept taxation as extortion and want to abolish the tax code...

Conservatives tend to want to replace it with another one, to their own liking...

[BenIsForRon]

And as a business owner, I go after bottom dollar as well. Buy low, sell high. To do otherwise means you'll be begging for a bailout or going out of business sometime down the road.



So you're a proponent of the "race to the bottom" philosophy? Get the cheapest, least hassle labor, no matter what kind of political oppression made that labor available.


You have to admit there's a line. Let's find it real quick:

If North Korea had labor camps, and allowed foreign companies to rent part of the camp to make their products, would you invest in that. Would you buy rent part of labor in that camp, knowing that any of your money sent that way goes strait to the North Korean government?

[ClayTrainor]

So you're a proponent of the "race to the bottom" philosophy? Get the cheapest, least hassle labor, no matter what kind of political oppression made that labor available.

No, for the same reasons I wouldn't do business with the Mafia just because they might make me rich.



You have to admit there's a line. Let's find it real quick:


Free-markets are the line. If there is coercion, fraud or violence involved in the trade, than it is wrong. Those committing the acts of coercion should be held accountable, not the entire marketplace.



If North Korea had labor camps, and allowed foreign companies to rent part of the camp to make their products, would you invest in that. Would you buy rent part of labor in that camp, knowing that any of your money sent that way goes strait to the North Korean government?

No.

[sratiug]

To suggest that libertarians support protectionist policies is dishonest. Heres the difference,

Libertarians tend to accept taxation as extortion and want to abolish the tax code...

Conservatives tend to want to replace it with another one, to their own liking...

I say that internal taxes distort free trade far more than a flat tariff. Do you disagree?

Switching to a flat tariff by implementing a constitutional amendment that eliminates all internal federal taxes with a 10 year phaze over would cause drastic cuts to government spending because people would simply never buy enough foreign goods for the tariff to keep up.

[ClayTrainor]

I say that internal taxes distort free trade far more than a flat tariff. Do you disagree?

I really don't know. It sounds reasonable and you might very well be right. I simply do not support replacing internal taxes with any form of tax.

[BenIsForRon]

Free-markets are the line. If there is coercion, fraud or violence involved in the trade, than it is wrong. Those committing the acts of coercion should be held accountable, not the entire marketplace.



Here's the thing, in many third world countries, the violence was carried out against the generation before, or two generations before. So even though a worker on a modern farm or in a modern factory doesn't have a gun held to their head, their parents did. Now they are stuck in a situation where they own no property, they work 80 hours a week, and they only make enough money to eat and rent a 3 bedroom apartment split with 30 other people. Upward mobility and self sufficiency are near impossible.

Would you hire this labor? Keep in mind, this is the situation in China and many other developing countries, and is the reason their labor is so cheap.

[Brett]

We watched this in my Econ class at my public high school last week.

My liberal teacher said it was the only public broadcast he knew of that would have both sides represented.

plus I got extra credit for knowing who Stossel was.

[Fox McCloud]

Here's the thing, in many third world countries, the violence was carried out against the generation before, or two generations before. So even though a worker on a modern farm or in a modern factory doesn't have a gun held to their head, their parents did. Now they are stuck in a situation where they own no property, they work 80 hours a week, and they only make enough money to eat and rent a 3 bedroom apartment split with 30 other people. Upward mobility and self sufficiency are near impossible.

Would you hire this labor? Keep in mind, this is the situation in China and many other developing countries, and is the reason their labor is so cheap.

YouTube - John Stossel - Sweatshops (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0VaHmgoB10E&fmt=18)

[Vessol]

NAFTA and other 'Free Trade Agreements' are about as much about Free Trade as they are about Free Candy.

[BenIsForRon]

YouTube - John Stossel - Sweatshops (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0VaHmgoB10E&fmt=18)

Hey dude, why don't YOU actually respond to my post. Stossel's segment did not tackle the issue in my post: they are forced to work there, indirectly, by the force that was exerted on past generations that created the current socio-economic conditions.

There is no upward mobility. Stossel said these factory workers make enough money to go off and start their own business down the road. Do you actually believe that shit?

[chadhb]

Hey dude, why don't YOU actually respond to my post. Stossel's segment did not tackle the issue in my post: they are forced to work there, indirectly, by the force that was exerted on past generations that created the current socio-economic conditions.

There is no upward mobility. Stossel said these factory workers make enough money to go off and start their own business down the road. Do you actually believe that shit?


This Stossel guy is a complete joke, Americans have to compete with these companies who use child labor or just 3rd world slave labor wages in general. It is too the point in this country, that this is this is the extent is starting a manufacturing business. You go to a 3rd world country, where factories are already producing said item, you order the product slap your label on and wallhaa.

This is the case in China, where Americans started these factories, showed the chinese how to manufacture the products , now they just do it themselves. Stupid Americans.

[Fox McCloud]

Hey dude, why don't YOU actually respond to my post. Stossel's segment did not tackle the issue in my post: they are forced to work there, indirectly, by the force that was exerted on past generations that created the current socio-economic conditions.

There is no upward mobility. Stossel said these factory workers make enough money to go off and start their own business down the road. Do you actually believe that shit?

If the past generations were forced to work there, that is, indeed, quite tragic--that said, what do you do now? There's nothing you can do now; if you pull the business out then they won't have any decent jobs to work at an zero "upward mobility" as you call it--where as now, they have a small minor prospect.

the past is done and over with, you can't do much about it; you can only change current policy. Also, did you watch the video I provided? It's a completely different segment from a number of years back--it has 2 foreign economists in it that have talked about the benefits of free trade to their own countries and how much the locals want foreign companies to move in because it means foreign investment.

Need I point out the American Samoa? They'd still be dirt-floor poor if it wasn't for free trade; they'd have no canning industry period (it's currently shrinking, but that's due to the minimum wage).

Is the majority here, on Ron Paul forums that seriously opposed to free trade these days?

[mtj458]

If you think we need tariffs because our labor can't compete with cheaper labor from countries with fewer regulations, ask yourself this question. Should the USA pass a law requiring that shades be pull down during the day because its unfair that sun is able to provide light at such a cheaper expense than domestic light producers? How can our regulated light producers compete with the Sun who's unregulated work force produces light with no cost? Replace "light" with "manufactured goods" and "the sun" with "China" and you'll find yourself in the same economic situation. Regardless of why they have the advantage, it doesn't make sense for us to restrict our access to the good.


Well let's see if you are for free trade. Do you support replacing all internal federal taxes with a flat tariff? If not, why so protectionist of foreign interests? The distortion to free trade would be much less.

I don't support any taxes or tariffs on economic grounds because they can never make us better off. That's not to say I don't support any taxes- I'm not an anarchist and I think we need some sort of revenue to pay for basic government services. A tariff might be preferable to an income tax, I haven't really looked into that at all. But the point of the tariff or tax should not be to change incentives, its should just be a way to get revenue. In a perfect world, I would like completely free trade but we need some way to get a little government revenue (I know people here will disagree with that statement, but that's another discussion).

[ivflight]

One of the problems with a video like this is if a liberal sees it they will immediately claim that the Indian and Kenyan economists have been bought or don't know what the poor people want. Is anyone here aware of any videos, or preferably raw data, that show what the poor people working in sweatshops are actually in favor of? If polling data showed that they were greatly in favor of foreign companies moving in, then that would be a show stopper for anyone claiming the moral high ground.

Also, I'm curious if anyone knows of sources for claims that American factories pay 2-3x what domestic factories pay. It seems obvious that is has to be more to attract any workers, but without data to back it up it isn't a fact we can use.

For those who are against free trade for economic reasons, please read a book. If you still aren't convinced, build a giant wall around your house to protect yourself from trading with others.

[BenIsForRon]

If the past generations were forced to work there, that is, indeed, quite tragic--that said, what do you do now? There's nothing you can do now; if you pull the business out then they won't have any decent jobs to work at an zero "upward mobility" as you call it--where as now, they have a small minor prospect.

the past is done and over with, you can't do much about it; you can only change current policy. Also, did you watch the video I provided? It's a completely different segment from a number of years back--it has 2 foreign economists in it that have talked about the benefits of free trade to their own countries and how much the locals want foreign companies to move in because it means foreign investment.

Need I point out the American Samoa? They'd still be dirt-floor poor if it wasn't for free trade; they'd have no canning industry period (it's currently shrinking, but that's due to the minimum wage).

Is the majority here, on Ron Paul forums that seriously opposed to free trade these days?

Those were two economists, and John Stossel called them "pro-globalization". So take from that what you will.

And I have two main points to make, I think we've taken this debate about as far as we can:

Much of the money from trade with the Chinese is going directly to the state, the bankers, the factory owners, and the corporations. The more trade with China, the more powerful the elites become. I see that taking away part of their revenue stream, for example, through a boycott that a majority of Americans participate in, would take away some of their power, and they may be forced to cede some of the power back to the people (see what happened to Cuba after the Soviet Union collapsed, the government started to allow individuals to own property again, because that was the only way to keep them from starving and uprising.)

Second point: You do realize that your positions on global trade are very similar to the neoliberals, right? Specifically, the part about more global trade being good for the common man. Neoliberals in the republican party are called neocons, just so you know.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberal

[Fox McCloud]

Those were two economists, and John Stossel called them "pro-globalization". So take from that what you will.

And I have two main points to make, I think we've taken this debate about as far as we can:

Much of the money from trade with the Chinese is going directly to the state, the bankers, the factory owners, and the corporations. The more trade with China, the more powerful the elites become. I see that taking away part of their revenue stream, for example, through a boycott that a majority of Americans participate in, would take away some of their power, and they may be forced to cede some of the power back to the people (see what happened to Cuba after the Soviet Union collapsed, the government started to allow individuals to own property again, because that was the only way to keep them from starving and uprising.)

Second point: You do realize that your positions on global trade are very similar to the neoliberals, right? Neoliberals in the republican party are called neocons, just so you know.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberal

If you're opposed to free trade you're about as anachronistic, backwards, and opposed to economy freedom as they come (which isn't surprising, given your other posts). Your point on them being "pro-globalization" is a moot point---if you're for free trade then you're automatically pro-globalization. Sure, there's people for globalization who see free trade as a tool to accomplish those means, but there are many economists who support free trade because it increase the net wealth of society; if you don't understand this most basic point, then, by all means, please, watch Milton Friedman's series "free to choose" particularly the one on free trade. For an even better (and more humorous) lecture, then watch Walter Block's lectures on www.mises.org (I suspect you won't do either of these).

Your associating me with neoliberal positions are silly, at best, and ad-hominem, at worst; I hold the position that all free-traders do---which, I'd point out, almost 88% of economist also agree (and 90% agree that restricting trade is a bad idea). Even the extremely left-wing Paul Krugman (no friend to liberty or economic freedom) agrees that free trade is the only way to go---as a matter of fact that's how he won his nobel prize. My point being, when even Paul Krugman agrees with the Austrians, you know it's a policy that's blatantly correct.

[BenIsForRon]

//

[tjeffersonsghost]

Before I go on my rant I ask people to think reasonably. Think real world and not all theory. Theory is one thing and real world is the other.

So for our government to get income where would you rather them get it taxing foreign production or taxing our production?

Is it ok that one country allows legalized slavery with crap work conditions and pollution galore while the other actually values life and liberty?

Me personally I'd rather see our government get its income from taxing imports than taxing my labor. Oh I know I know we shouldn't have any taxes and no government because that works well in places like Somalia.

People our government needs a means of income. We all agree that government needs to shrink but even a shrunken government needs an income to do its constitutional duties. I'm glad we live in an America where the food is for the most part safe because of regulations. I'm glad we live in an America where we don't have child labor and slave labor (although some would argue the wage disparity of today has lead us to slavery), Im glad I live in an America where people arent dying on the job daily because management wants to exploit someones labor to earn them a few more bricks on their Biltmore Style home.

Free trade is not good for America as long as we actually value life here and let others get away with crapping on their own people. We are not on a balanced playing field what so ever in our trading relationships. This is why our wealth has been transferred all over the world and what used to be our middle class is no more than a midwestern welfare victim. I urge everyone to rethink their free trade stance not only because our government needs some sort of means of income but also because also because the game is rigged against our workers because we value life and liberty.

[BenIsForRon]

I'm not saying I'm anti-free trade, I'm saying that trade with China isn't free trade, because those people aren't free. Their labor isn't given under conditions that resemble freedom. I don't see a person who puts plastic toys together for McDonald's happy meals going anywhere else anytime soon. I don't see them owning property, I don't see them having any free time, except to eat and sleep.

And more trade isn't going to make them free, as far as I can see.