Harold Meyerson: Second Thoughts on Trade

[SnakeBoy]

Or at least there should be a strong--nearly conclusive--presumption that nothing deserves protection. agribusiness, the big three automakers, the airlines, steel manufacturers . . . 'em. If they can't cut it in the market, they need to wither away and die.

So do you think american companies should be able to pay their workers $5 for a 14hr work shift, employ 12 year olds, etc.?

[Winehole23]

Nothing.

Or at least there should be a strong--nearly conclusive--presumption that nothing deserves protection. agribusiness, the big three automakers, the airlines, steel manufacturers . . . 'em. If they can't cut it in the market, they need to wither away and die.

Even if the playing field isn't level? Even if it makes us dependent on countries we don't like? Even if it transforms us into a super-Mexico or super-Brazil?

It seems to me there's a prima facie case that globalism has hollowed out America's productive core and self-sufficiency, without conferring any corresponding benefit. The wealth of our country increasingly flows to China, Japan and oil producing states. How is that in the national interest? If Asia and the middle east start to shun the USD as a reserve currency, and stop repatriating our dollars, we're cooked. Globalism has made us more vulnerable as a country, not less. Our standard of living is going sideways, not up.

And if in fact economic trends are harmful to the national estate, you're saying it is the job of our government to stand aside and let us go down the tubes? That makes no sense at all. The national interest has to include domestic enterprise, self-sufficiency and the national standard of living. If it does not, then we're all just fodder for global capitalism.

Why have a government at all if its job is to feed us to the stateless Moloch of profit?

[DarkReign]

Nothing.

Or at least there should be a strong--nearly conclusive--presumption that nothing deserves protection. agribusiness, the big three automakers, the airlines, steel manufacturers . . . 'em. If they can't cut it in the market, they need to wither away and die.

A country's means to produce is of far more import than you are giving it here.

America will have its collective neck stepped on if we become the service-industry exclusive, college-educated lawyers you seem to think everyone should be.

[Nbadan]

Nothing.

Or at least there should be a strong--nearly conclusive--presumption that nothing deserves protection. agribusiness, the big three automakers, the airlines, steel manufacturers . . . 'em. If they can't cut it in the market, they need to wither away and die.

...and any jobs that pay a living wage...let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater...domestic auto jobs deserve to be protected, the Post Office does not...

[doobs]

So do you think american companies should be able to pay their workers $5 for a 14hr work shift, employ 12 year olds, etc.?

I'm talking about protectionism. Not labor laws.

I think I know where you're going with this. I'll bite.

I can understand why people want to attach labor and environmental standards to trade agreements. I can also understand why many people, mistaken about their own economic self-interest, want the government to erect trade barriers and provide subsidies. It's just bad economics.

Should American companies be allowed to pay workers $5 for a 14 hour shift? If we can pretend that there's no minimum wage--then yes, any American company stupid enough to offer such paltry wages should be allowed to do so. That company would have no American employees, guaranteed.

Should American companies be allowed to employ 12 year olds? I support child labor laws.

So, yes, I believe in labor laws to protect workers and children. But that wasn't the question. We're discussing protectionism--subsidies, tariffs, bailouts, etc. And, no, I don't stay up at night worrying about whether my Nikes were made my 12 year olds.

[Wild Cobra]

Who's in the picture, please?

wiki: Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act

[Winehole23]

wiki: Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act

Um, thanks. I've been over this already with doobs.

Welcome to the thread, WC. Please please read all the way through before you say word one.

[Wild Cobra]

Um, thanks. I've been over this already with doobs.

Welcome to the thread, WC. Please please read all the way through before you say word one.

I have only scanned a few threads today, that's why I'm already saying very little. I've been very busy these last few days.

I saw the name reference, but I didn't see the Act linked. Maybe I missed it.

[baseline bum]

The thought of us ever exporting to China was lunacy; of course Chinese weren't going to be able to afford any of our exports. The standard of living is there. Anyone who said free trade with China was about expanding the American economy was either lying or ing re ed.

[Wild Cobra]

The thought of us ever exporting to China was lunacy; of course Chinese weren't going to be able to afford any of our exports. The standard of living is there. Anyone who said free trade with China was about expanding the American economy was either lying or ing re ed.

We actually agree on a topic.

[Winehole23]

We actually agree on a topic.

I bet you got there a different way.

How did you deduce it?

[Wild Cobra]

I bet you got there a different way.

How did you deduce it?

I don't think you care how I decide things. I think you just want to find something to attack me with.

I am a free trade believer, but only with countries that have similar end product costs. What irks me the most is our end sale cost differences. Generally, shipping costs help compensate for products that can be made cheaper. My major problem is the different tax structures. We tax production. Most other countries tax consumption. This effectively means products we import have little added costs in taxes, but products we export are effectively taxed twice. Taxes paid become part of the product costs. Rather hard to have a fair exchange of products that way. Even though our labor costs are higher than most countries, when you look at the product values vs. the pay and compensations to employees, it's a small percentage for most products. Then with liberals wanting to raise taxes, that means even more decrease in our exports!

[Winehole23]

I don't think you care how I decide things. I think you just want to find something to attack me with.

Tempting, but I'll take a pass this time.

I am a free trade believer, but only with countries that have similar end product costs. What irks me the most is our end sale cost differences. Generally, shipping costs help compensate for products that can be made cheaper. My major problem is the different tax structures. We tax production. Most other countries tax consumption. This effectively means products we import have little added costs in taxes, but products we export are effectively taxed twice. Taxes paid become part of the product costs. Rather hard to have a fair exchange of products that way. Even though our labor costs are higher than most countries, when you look at the product values vs. the pay and compensations to employees, it's a small percentage for most products. Then with liberals wanting to raise taxes, that means even more decrease in our exports!

Instead of finding a way to blame it all on liberals at the very last second, you might consider leaving it out entirely. Why insult your adversary gratuitously when you've already made your case?

You think we should trade when there's a relative parity of end product cost, whatever that is. You wonder whether it is wiser to tax consumption than production. Both totally reasonable gambits.

Maybe you really were very close to agreement with baseline bum, WC. I certainly wouldn't rule it out at this point.