Issue: Economic: "Free Trade" and import quotas

[jon_perez]

Ron paul has said that he is for "free trade" and not "managed trade" (ala NAFTA, etc...)

Does this mean he plans to completely lift any and all import quotas and other such protectionist measures (as classical liberal economics generally prescribes)?

It would only be right to do so (another question is should it be done gradually or immediately?) in principle, but how would Americans feel about this issue.

Ron Paul has convinced me that he is a straight shooter on just about all the issues so far and does not pander to politics, so it would be interesting to hear about his beliefs on this issue.

[Brandybuck]

Why are so many jobs going overseas? One basic reason is that it makes sense for them to go there. Comparative advantage means that it is advantageous for us to concentrate on the jobs we are best at. That's basic Ricardian economics.

But there's another argument for freedom that may be easier for the general public to understand: It will be a heck of a lot easier to complete with India and China for jobs, if we don't saddle our domestic employers with mountains of taxes and regulations. That's the free market answer: get the government out of the way!

No issue stands alone, all are related to each other. That's the biggest hurdle in getting the freedom message out. That's no less true with free trade. While a large part of the expense of a domestic worker is caused by taxes and regulatory burdens, the story is bigger than that. Small private employers are much less likely to outsource, but it's very popular among huge public corporations. What encourages large corporations at the expense of smaller private business? The SEC, Anti-Trust, etc. These programs were meant to "correct" market shortcomings, but their unintended consequence was to create business landscape where companies with legions of lawyers are able to game the system to their advantage. Here's another factor: Excessive intellectual property terms are also stifling innovations that would otherwise create new jobs. Copyrights and patents are allowed by the constitution, but they are a *compromise* with the free market. That's why the constitution also says they need to have limited terms. Another factor: our broken health care system is a major hindrance for self-employment, which in turns stifles the creation of new jobs.

[jon_perez]

^ Brandybuck, your answer ABSOLUTELY does not address the question at all. That was a politician's answer and so far, I have never seen Ron Paul make such an evasive answer like the one above.

Ron Paul has said that he is against NAFTA and NAFTA-like treaties. If NAFTA were not around, then trade barriers, by default, will be put up again.

The United States has import quotas on so many goods. Treaties like NAFTA seek to greatly increase these quotas and/or abolish some of them - allowing more foreign goods to enter the United States with some kind of reciprocal agreement on the other end.

However, this is still considered to be a managed way of doing so. The alternative is what classical liberal economics (which Ron Paul seems to espouse) prescribes, which means NO quotas or barriers at all, allowing as many foreign goods into the US as the market can bear (and vice versa).

The thorny problem there is unilaterally removing trade barriers would be greatly disadvantageous for the United States, hence, the rationale for trade agreements (or, in other words, managed trade) like NAFTA.

So, if we go beyond the rhetoric, we see that while "managed trade" is a violation of free market tenets, it seems wise to engage in it first before going to totally free trade. The question becomes what the characteristics and implementation of that managed trade will be - whether it is subject to vested interests and eventually becomes entrenched or if it is done in an enlightened manner leading to totally free trade (which is supposed to be for the ultimate good of all IF you believe in libertarian economics - see the writings over at www.mises.org many of which are also against fiat money).

In the case of NAFTA implementation, for example, one of the main objections we have heard is that the government might assert the right of eminent domain unfairly, and these are valid concerns that Ron Paul seems to have successfully raised.

[angelatc]

I thought he was a proponent of Fair Trade, and not Free Trade.

[Gee]

I don't think he'd try to lift the tariffs all at once, but yeah, he's for free trade. Economists disagree on when free trade is desirable, but you can be sure politians applying trade tarrifs for political reasons is not desirable.

The tariffs Bush placed on steel were horrible. Yes, they probably slowed the decline of our steel industry. But they increased the price of every other product made out of steel in the United States. I can't imagine this could have possibly saved more jobs than it cost.

Some of the arguments I've seen for managed trade are things like ultra-cheap foreign goods (possibly subsidized) destroying industries with large barriers to entry which might be highly successfull if given time to mature. An example of this could be the tariffs placed on automobile imports in Japan which allowed their automobile industry to start up. Some assumptions behind this are, 1) The politians know the protected industry could start up and be a good thing, and 2) Japan's automobile industry turned out more successfull than whatever else might have sprung up in its place. The first point I think is a definite "no", and the second is most likely a "we don't know". There are probably more reasons, but these are what I picked up watching Milton Friedman's shows.

Proponents of free trade usually point to huge success stories when trade tariffs were lifted, such as rapid growth of Hong Kong, or Britain's growth in the 19th century.

[megiddo]

There is nothing intrinsically wrong with unilaterally dropping import taxes and quotas. The American *economy* cannot be damaged overall by this. Some particular business might be hurt, but I assure you that foreign economies will be punished much more severely.

Consider an import quota set on our products. First off, our products will still make it to the intended market, but the price will rise for foreign consumers. In effect, this will be a tax on the product in question that is redistributed to foreign manufacturers as a subsidy.

Consider a tariff on our products. Now the same thing as the first is happening, except foreign manufacturers will not receive the subsidy (unless a particular attempt is made), which is even *worse*.

Either way, taxes inhibit growth, and stagnate industry (esp. if it's targeted). If China wants a nation of assembly line workers, I'm fine with that. We'll make a nation of high-paid accounting and management consultants to Chinese industry. Trade barriers are a losing proposition for any country engaging in them. Just because a foreign economy shoots itself in the foot, doesn't mean we need to as well.

Trade barriers shouldn't be a tit-for-tat political device, we should lead by example here.

[DrKevorkian]

^
Ron Paul has said that he is against NAFTA and NAFTA-like treaties. If NAFTA were not around, then trade barriers, by default, will be put up again.
...

The thorny problem there is unilaterally removing trade barriers would be greatly disadvantageous for the United States, hence, the rationale for trade agreements (or, in other words, managed trade) like NAFTA.

That's a false dichotomy. Trade barriers aren't built up "by default" in absence of managed trade. The presence of trade barriers in other country's is more harmful to them than it is to us and by that they will eventually come around to removing those barriers. Its not intrinsically disadvntageous for the U.S. to lack trade barriers while others possess them.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

I think that Ron Paul believes that individuals and companies should be free to trade in the way that they see fit freely with other nations, but he rejects things like NAFTA that cater to these Fascist-like corporations.

[jon_perez]

That's a false dichotomy. Trade barriers aren't built up "by default" in absence of managed trade.

I thought that the whole rationale of NAFTA was so there would be a framework for slowly dropping the existing tariffs and import quotas for trading that's going on between the North American countries?

If NAFTA had not been ratified, then these tariffs and import quotas would be much more prevalent than otherwise, wouldn't they?

[DrKevorkian]

It may have been the rationale for NAFTA but we could have easily lowered tariff's ourself. Other countries would inevitably follow our lead and we could have free trade without managed trade.

[PaleoForPaul]

Other countries would inevitably follow our lead and we could have free trade without managed trade.

I doubt that. I do not think other countries have enough goodwill twards us to drop their protectionist measures.

Take China for example. They artificially keep their currency low vs the dollar, and enforce incredible trade restrictions. For example, they put a 25% tariff on our cars imported into their country, we put a 2% tariff on theirs.

I agree with Dr. Paul on most issues, so I overlook that I disagree with him on trade on a few points. If everyone played by the rules, free trade would be great. I wouldn't even mind giving it a go to see if nations would be overcome with a feeling of goodwill and play by the rules.

I do agree that things like NAFTA, the WTO, etc are bad for American sovereignty, and they are typically managed trade agreements, which "manage" to rip off the American people.

[RonPaul4President]

Free trade is good for the countries that produce and horrific for those that buy. We are a country of consumers. We're screwed. Americans have to buy American like the "good old days". Buying American does not mean buying a product such as a car from a company that is owned buy an American but produced in a third world country. When you buy a product made in a foreign country you are supporting that country's Gross Domestic Product more than America's. The labor revenues stay there and the American company owner does not pay taxes in America for revenues/profits earned on foreign soil.

I hate to say this but I think some unions are to blame for labor being outsourced. Look at the auto industry for example. The high wages force up the price and consumers go for the cheaper foreign product, not based on choice, but economics. High labor costs equate to higher product pricing, which leads to decreased sales.

[Carl]

Free trade is good for the countries that produce and horrific for those that buy. We are a country of consumers. We're screwed. Americans have to buy American like the "good old days". Buying American does not mean buying a product such as a car from a company that is owned buy an American but produced in a third world country. When you buy a product made in a foreign country you are supporting that country's Gross Domestic Product more than America's. The labor revenues stay there and the American company owner does not pay taxes in America for revenues/profits earned on foreign soil.

I hate to say this but I think some unions are to blame for labor being outsourced. Look at the auto industry for example. The high wages force up the price and consumers go for the cheaper foreign product, not based on choice, but economics. High labor costs equate to higher product pricing, which leads to decreased sales.

Labor cost had absolutely nothing to do with the off shoring of our auto industry, they moved their production to Mexico because the government paid them to move to Mexico, just as they paid manufacturers to move to China and India. Our industrial and technological base were moved offshore as subsidies to other countries to garner their cooperation with our State Department Foreign Policies. American corporations moving their production offshore to cheap labor markets has absolute nothing to do with trade, free or otherwise.

[DrKevorkian]

Take China for example. They artificially keep their currency low vs the dollar, and enforce incredible trade restrictions. For example, they put a 25% tariff on our cars imported into their country, we put a 2% tariff on theirs.

China has only really industrialized in the last decade. Much as America was dominated by Industrial intrests during its industrial revolution, China is completely controlled by its desire to sate industry at all costs. However this will ultimately subside regardless of whether we create an agreement as tariffs inevitably cause more harm as they raise prices for everyone while they only benefit those protected from competition.

[literatim]

The more jobs that go overseas, the larger the gap will be between the poor and the wealthy in this country. How does one expect someone that cannot afford college to rise above their status when all the manual labor jobs are shipped overseas? What jobs will the lower class be able to work hard on to rise to the middle class?

What is going to happen when the technology companies start moving overseas? What will stop them? They, afterall, can move to a country that would normally cost alot of money to import to and export to the United States for free.

Tariffs are 100% Constitutional, there is no reason to lift any tariffs. I am a proponent for more tariffs to balance off the slave labor and the banning of international companies from working within the United States.

[Brandybuck]

^ Brandybuck, your answer ABSOLUTELY does not address the question at all. That was a politician's answer and so far, I have never seen Ron Paul make such an evasive answer like the one above.

No it didn't address the question. I'm was only trying to point out a basic fundamental economic principle. Comparative advantage comes from David Ricardo, and explains why two nations trading with each other can both become wealthier. Even if the trade isn't "fair". We shouldn't be worried about our jobs going over seas, instead we should be worried about government meddling in the economy. Protectionism is just one more form of government intervention.

That was my only point, that the we shouldn't be fearful of free trade.

[Carl]

China has only really industrialized in the last decade. Much as America was dominated by Industrial intrests during its industrial revolution, China is completely controlled by its desire to sate industry at all costs. However this will ultimately subside regardless of whether we create an agreement as tariffs inevitably cause more harm as they raise prices for everyone while they only benefit those protected from competition.

American economic history would beg to differ from that point of view. Our Federal Government lived off the revenues generated by tariffs during the first 100 years of our existence, our economy thrived and people actually afforded the products that had tariffs applied. Yes tariffs protected industries and rightly so, industries employ American workers and that is what an economy is all about. It's not about prices, prices are relative to the purchaser's economic well being and that is an economic fact that is given little attention today because it doesn't fit with the mantra of "every day low prices" free trade, aka economic rape, that has been perpetrated against America.

[DrKevorkian]

Our Federal Government lived off the revenues generated by tariffs during the first 100 years of our existence, our economy thrived and people actually afforded the products that had tariffs applied
...
It's not about prices, prices are relative to the purchaser's economic well being

First: Yes the U.S. government did live off of protective tariffs for that period but it was far from creating a thriving or universally beneficial economy. The tarriff system nearly caused a civil war. The tarriff of 1828 (tariff of abombinations) was so detrimental to the southern/non-industrial interests that it spawned the nullification crisis which saw the first talk of southern separtism.

Second: The purchasers economic well being, as i've stated, is only affected by the tariff if he is part of the industry being protected. GWB's tariff on steel may have helped steel industry workers but it certainly has not aided the economic position of anyone else.

[angelatc]

we shouldn't be fearful of free trade.

I'm not fearful of it - I'm practically a globalist when it comes to that. But it has to be managed, or it will be chaos.

I don't care if we trade freely with Canada, because they have an economy that is similiar to ours.

Mexico, on the other hand, has no minimum wage laws, minimal pullution controls, and a government that is more corrupt than ours.

I wcertainly want to work towards making the entire world wealthy and sucessful through trade, but we can't do it all at once without suffering dire economic consequences. If we don't phase into free trade, the economic legacy of a Conservative president will be worse than the Carter administration's was.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

The citizens should be the one's deciding to trade or not, not the government. Leave it to the citizens.

[Carl]

First: Yes the U.S. government did live off of protective tariffs for that period but it was far from creating a thriving or universally beneficial economy. The tarriff system nearly caused a civil war. The tarriff of 1828 (tariff of abombinations) was so detrimental to the southern/non-industrial interests that it spawned the nullification crisis which saw the first talk of southern separtism.

Second: The purchasers economic well being, as i've stated, is only affected by the tariff if he is part of the industry being protected. GWB's tariff on steel may have helped steel industry workers but it certainly has not aided the economic position of anyone else.

No, the government didn't live off PROTECTIVE tariffs, they lived off tariffs, some were protective most weren't. The Political Tariff of 1828 was intended to hurt the south; it had nothing to do with revenue generation or protecting industries.

GWB's steel tariffs were Political and the situation was politically and media manipulated to achieved the desired effect of bolstering the Neocon/Neoliberal mantra of "tariffs bad, free trade good" so they could continue the economic rape of America unabated.

Also I find this statement: "The purchasers economic well being, as i've stated, is only affected by the tariff if he is part of the industry being protected" somewhat propagandist in nature in that it reinforces the false notion that Americans and America is all about shopping and what's best for the shopper, the "purchasers" economic well being, please.

Allow me to reiterate; prices are relative to the purchaser's economic well being and let me add; relative to the economic well being of the society as a whole. Yes the steel workers benefited from the tariffs protecting their jobs but that's not the be all and end all of the subject, businesses around the steel mills benefited, truck drivers benefited, the community and state benefited from the taxes, and America's national interests benefited by keeping the production of steel in country.

And least we forget, the tariffs were supposedly enacted as punishment for the government subsidized steel that was being dumped into our markets from Europe, which was real enough, but were actually used as an object lesson against evil tariffs.


.

[Carl]

Why are so many jobs going overseas? One basic reason is that it makes sense for them to go there. Comparative advantage means that it is advantageous for us to concentrate on the jobs we are best at. That's basic Ricardian economics.

Ricardian economics never covered the transplanting, or offshoring, of industries from one economy to another especially for the sole benefit of the industry against the laborer and the economy, it's antithetical to the entire concept of economy. The notion that entire industries are free to roam the planet in search of the best labor and environmental advantages is entirely new to economic theory and has nothing to do with comparative advantage as this practice is little more than corporate colonialism. The only things that make this corporate colonialism possible is the federal government's tax subsidies to the corporations and payola to the receiving countries.

American industries sharecropping American labor to foreign countries to build products for American markets is obscene and it is, most certainly, not trade.

Another factor: our broken health care system is a major hindrance for self-employment, which in turns stifles the creation of new jobs.

Dump Medicare and Medicade, return healthcare to the free markets and the system will fix itself.

.

[DrKevorkian]

No, the government didn't live off PROTECTIVE tariffs, they lived off tariffs, some were protective most weren't. The Political Tariff of 1828 was intended to hurt the south; it had nothing to do with revenue generation or protecting industries.

GWB's steel tariffs were Political and the situation was politically and media manipulated to achieved the desired effect of bolstering the Neocon/Neoliberal mantra of "tariffs bad, free trade good" so they could continue the economic rape of America unabated.

Also I find this statement: "The purchasers economic well being, as i've stated, is only affected by the tariff if he is part of the industry being protected" somewhat propagandist in nature in that it reinforces the false notion that Americans and America is all about shopping and what's best for the shopper, the "purchasers" economic well being, please.

Allow me to reiterate; prices are relative to the purchaser's economic well being and let me add; relative to the economic well being of the society as a whole. Yes the steel workers benefited from the tariffs protecting their jobs but that's not the be all and end all of the subject, businesses around the steel mills benefited, truck drivers benefited, the community and state benefited from the taxes, and America's national interests benefited by keeping the production of steel in country.

And least we forget, the tariffs were supposedly enacted as punishment for the government subsidized steel that was being dumped into our markets from Europe, which was real enough, but were actually used as an object lesson against evil tariffs.

Well i think protective tarriffs here are the issue. We have revenue tariffs now and we still consider ourselves free trade (I still believe these could be eliminated). If your goal is to 'protect domestic industry' by definition you need a protective tariff. And by no means was the tariff of 1828 the only horribly detrimental protective tariff ever enacted. Fordney-McCumber was one of the biggest contributing factors to the Great Depression and Hawley-Smoot only made it more evident that high tariffs harm the 'economic well being of society as a whole' as you put it.

I'll try to avoid pseudoargument but to claim that the steel tariffs were a political ploy to disparage tariffs in public opinion is rather far fetched. I hardly think the neo cons intended for their president to look like a complete idiot. Most in the press aren't exactly the biggest proponents of free trade either.

I hate to contradict but America is about 'shopping.' Every economic interaction involves buying and selling. To me the most disturbing notion being perpetuated is that which intends to demonize consumerism (i can't tell if you take this position so ignore it if you don't). Everybody is a shopper therefore everybody benefits from a reduction in prices.

While other industries tangentially connected to steel may benefit, nearly every other industry is harmed. Think about construction or automobile. And as you implied industries are interconnected. Nearly every industry has ties to construction. They are all harmed by this as well.

If other countries are convinced that by subsidizing export industries that they will benefit I say let them. The result is a funneling of funds from Europe to here which hardly hurts us. While again it may be destructive toward our own steel industry, the industry could easily recover if europe eventually decided to discontinue the process.

[Carl]

Well i think protective tarriffs here are the issue. We have revenue tariffs now and we still consider ourselves free trade (I still believe these could be eliminated). If your goal is to 'protect domestic industry' by definition you need a protective tariff. And by no means was the tariff of 1828 the only horribly detrimental protective tariff ever enacted. Fordney-McCumber was one of the biggest contributing factors to the Great Depression and Hawley-Smoot only made it more evident that high tariffs harm the 'economic well being of society as a whole' as you put it.

I believe, and the data indicates, that the politically motivated tariffs you speak of were incidental and not a factor to the depression, they are being used to cover up the real culprit, Federal Reserve Monetary Policy. And if you were to sit back and really think about it, logic and common sense will tell you that there is absolutely no way that a couple of tariff acts could possibly bring a virtually self sufficient economy to its knees, it's truly an asinine proposition.

Federal Reserve Monetary Policy caused the Great Depression, just as Federal Reserve Monetary Policy will cause the next great economic disaster.

I'll try to avoid pseudoargument but to claim that the steel tariffs were a political ploy to disparage tariffs in public opinion is rather far fetched. I hardly think the neo cons intended for their president to look like a complete idiot. Most in the press aren't exactly the biggest proponents of free trade either.

Just may considered opinion based upon the agenda based track record of the Federal Government over the past 60+ years.

The only people that made a big stink about the tariffs were the media parading a few whiners before us, grandstanding politicians and pseudo-economist ideologues.

I hate to contradict but America is about 'shopping.' Every economic interaction involves buying and selling. To me the most disturbing notion being perpetuated is that which intends to demonize consumerism (i can't tell if you take this position so ignore it if you don't). Everybody is a shopper therefore everybody benefits from a reduction in prices.

Yes, you can say that America is all about consumerism now, but America's economic history goes back a little further than just 15 or so years.

Over one hundred and eighty plus years of tariffs applied, creating the world's greatest industrial economic power of all time didn't actually occur because an asinine idology says tariffs don't work.

Can you tell me the name of the last nation that imported and consumed its way to wealth and prosperity by writing checks that it couldn't cash?

Macro economics, combined with dollar hegemony backed by force and turning a blind eye to global politics, makes consumerism appear as if it is working, all the while America is going trillions upon trillions of dollars in debt financing the illusion. And least we forget, every single dollar (check) we spend into another country's economy must be redeemed by us at some point in time.

While other industries tangentially connected to steel may benefit, nearly every other industry is harmed. Think about construction or automobile. And as you implied industries are interconnected. Nearly every industry has ties to construction. They are all harmed by this as well.

I guess that if you cast a large enough net you're bound to snag just enough reality to make your assertion appear plausible. Aside for some rebar, the majority of the construction industry doesn’t use steel and the ones that do have been importing a large portion of it from Japan. The U.S. automobile industry uses mostly Mexican steel.

I can see that you don't quite comprehend the concept of "prices are relative". People will pay for what thay want if they believe they can afford it, regardless. That's how capitalism works.

Again, the only people that made a big stink about the tariffs were the media parading a few whiners before us, grandstanding politicians and pseudo-economist ideologues.

If other countries are convinced that by subsidizing export industries that they will benefit I say let them. The result is a funneling of funds from Europe to here which hardly hurts us. While again it may be destructive toward our own steel industry, the industry could easily recover if europe eventually decided to discontinue the process.

They are convinced that they must maintain their socialist welfare state at all costs; this includes subsidizing industries to keep the workers employed and dumping the excess production into our economy at below production costs decimating local industries, jobs, communities, towns and states.

And excuse me but I believe you've got that backwards, by buying their subsidized steel we're funneling funds to them effectively subsidizing their welfare state with the added bonus of having the responsibility to redeem every single dollar we've spent into their economy, it's a win - win for them and we're left the poorer for it.

It would really help this conversation if you understood the dollar, what backs it and what it becomes when it is spent out of our economy.

[Carl]

I have a free trade open markets question for you; what do you think would happen to me if I were to go over to Korea and pick up a container full of those Nike shoes that sell for $80 to $200 bucks a pop over here but costs $4.00 to $7.00 there, and try to ship them here to sell at around $20.00 net?


.

[kelldor]

The thorny problem there is unilaterally removing trade barriers would be greatly disadvantageous for the United States, hence, the rationale for trade agreements (or, in other words, managed trade) like NAFTA.

You get around that problem by having little to no income taxes for the corporations. All of a sudden you now have an environment where companies will want to move back to the US because we'll have an environment that is very business friendly from a tax liability standpoint.

Like the good doctor says though, you can't do that unless you decide what the role of government ought to be. If we want government to continue endless wars with military occupation spanning 737 bases across 180 of the 190 countries of the globe, then reducing tax liability for corporations to almost 0 is not feasible. If we stop the war for empire, and all of the military welfare handouts we give to other countries every year, then this becomes very doable, and you'll have companies begging to come back here.

[Carl]

You get around that problem by having little to no income taxes for the corporations. All of a sudden you now have an environment where companies will want to move back to the US because we'll have an environment that is very business friendly from a tax liability standpoint.

Like the good doctor says though, you can't do that unless you decide what the role of government ought to be. If we want government to continue endless wars with military occupation spanning 737 bases across 180 of the 190 countries of the globe, then reducing tax liability for corporations to almost 0 is not feasible. If we stop the war for empire, and all of the military welfare handouts we give to other countries every year, then this becomes very doable, and you'll have companies begging to come back here.

I could understand your point if it were high taxes and or wages that drove them out. Look at western Europe, they have some of the highest taxes and wages in the world yet their industries are still there, they didn't flee, why is that? No, there has to be something else in play here.

[Brandybuck]

Look at western Europe, they have some of the highest taxes and wages in the world yet their industries are still there, they didn't flee, why is that?

I am a recently ex-employee of a major German corporation. It did more outsourcing to India and China than most US companies I know.

p.s. When policemen with guns tell me I can't hire someone in Mumbai, or otherwise regulates my private economic affairs between myself and others, that is statism. Borders are important for culture and sovereignty, but they must never be a barrier to trade.

[Carl]

I am a recently ex-employee of a major German corporation. It did more outsourcing to India and China than most US companies I know.

p.s. When policemen with guns tell me I can't hire someone in Mumbai, or otherwise regulates my private economic affairs between myself and others, that is statism. Borders are important for culture and sovereignty, but they must never be a barrier to trade.

Please name the corporation and please define outsource.

And I somewhat doubt that policemen with guns regulates your economic affairs and if they really do then you are probably in the wrong place trying to do business. But it is as you suggest then all I can say is India is their country, not yours. They decide how business is conducted in their country not you.

Without Economy, borders, sovereignty and culture wouldn't exist.

[kelldor]

The position I articulated above is not an original one by me. This is just some of what I have learned from listening to Ron Paul and reading his writings. High taxes and wages is what is driving US companies out, or rather, lower taxes and lower wages in other countries is what is attracting them. Lack of regulatory controls in other countries as well. We gave Haliburton billions, maybe even trillions, in no bid contracts, and the screwed us! Moved out of the US to the UAE.

Ron talks a bit about Tax Reform in this article. Short version is, replacing the Income Tax with some other tax isn't the way to go. Real tax reform is eliminating tax burden, but government spending is the real problem.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul237.html

I didn't see anything on trade though that stuck out. here's his archives though.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul-arch.html

I'll try to find something on Trade later if I can. I read an article once where he talked about a a way to mke it so companies will want to flock back to us, I wish I could find it. Take care.