What is Digg?49 Comments
- michaelpinto, on 03/11/2009, -1/+22Trade is so regulated by so many bodies (both international and regional) that the concept of free trade is absurd. For example another nation could claim that our bailout of the auto industry isn't free trade because it puts them at a disadvantage when they're selling cars here - and on the flip side GM could claim that health and retirement benefits that workers get in Europe and Asia are unfair to them because they have to cover those costs. International trade needs to be encouraged but you've got to be pragmatic about it (which shouldn't be mistaken for protectionism or isolationism).
- wacked, on 03/11/2009, -6/+19Interesting read. Not sure if I agree. Maybe it's time to start investing in self sufficiency as a country so that we build what we need for ourselves and the true cost comes through. This would mean less of an impact on the economy in downturns, less jobs lost, and less dependency on other countries. Of course, we still have most of Africa to turn into free trade zones, but how long will that last?
- gfryesc, on 03/12/2009, -2/+12This will be another campaign promise break obama will have to make. He swore up and down to 'renegotiate NAFTA' and to enact 'fair trade' with China. He played on protectionism fears of the lowest common denominator of the democratic blue collar base. This is one of the reasons this guy makes me sick. He promised everything to everyone and now it's revealed that he knew all these promises were empty from the start... and a total free pass from his voters and the press. His voters will be jobless and have their savings and 401ks wiped out... but hey, they have hope and change. What bs.
- redcolumbine, on 03/11/2009, -3/+9The USA could continue to run a trade deficit, thereby temporarily mitigating the effect of the American economic downturn at its own expense. Or it could restrict the exporting of its remaining wealth through the hiring of foreigners willing to work for less and rebuild its own economy, which will in turn bolster global productivity in the long term.
- Barackalypse, on 03/12/2009, -2/+7Unrestricted free trade would go against the desires of Obama's Union backers, so I wouldn't exactly hold my breath expecting no protectionist policies to happen.
- PeppermintPig, on 03/12/2009, -1/+6There are no notable famines or gluts in particular commodities which have led to the current situation. In fact, for an economic event such as is happening now to occur due to the market would have to come from some massive and heavily interdependent market actors all experiencing failures.
The widespread and simultaneous downturn as seen today arises predominantly out of currency manipulation and government protectionism.
Fractional reserve banking attempts to spread out 'credit', but such over extension through expanding the money supply (which IS fraud), leads to bubbles, and their inevitable popping. In the mean time, however, market activity falls below the productivity curve as 'easy credit' is created. - inactive, on 03/12/2009, -1/+6Your just throwing around the word "artificial" because you don't understand any of it.
- bigtoes, on 03/12/2009, -2/+5Protectionism is working just fine for China . They tariff our exports three times as much as we do theirs . Free trade is a myth . If it was really free I would support it .
- betona, on 03/12/2009, -1/+4...Then why did they insert the protectionist clauses in the stimulus bill they passed?
"None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be used for a project for the construction, alteration, maintenance, or repair of a public building or public work unless all of the iron and steel used in the project is produced in the US." [Sec. 1110(a)]
That caused the EU to send a warning to the administration. - drunkenoaf, on 03/12/2009, -0/+3Your links are 404ing for me. Presumably it's President at first definition. Subsequent contractions of President would possibly be confusef with Professoe (Pr.)
Although, since Obama has a PhD, he should be called Doctor (those medical degrees, unless they are MDs, don't give you the title Doctor, it's honorary. This confuses people!).
Finally, I'm sure he was a Professor too (at Harvard?). So really, Mr. is the least correct title! - LordRedSnake, on 03/12/2009, -0/+3How is free trade devoid of free market principles? Protectionist barriers to trade are artificial. Without government imposing barriers, i.e. free trade, the free market is allowed to operate. There is no other kind of trade in a truly free market.
- indyattic, on 03/12/2009, -0/+2Free trade artificially manufactures consumers? That has to be the dumbest thing I've read this year.
- PeppermintPig, on 03/12/2009, -1/+3Trade can be harmed by what is unseen (or rather what most people fail to observe) with the presence of protectionism within the domestic environment.
Trade deficit numbers aren't the most useful. They don't reflect the fact that all parties engaged in a trade are profiting(else they wouldn't do it). Trade deficit numbers are followed to the benefit of government foremost. Further, GDP calculations usually make no distinction between kinds of products, which can skew one's understanding of what's going on. - LordRedSnake, on 03/12/2009, -0/+2You get dug down but it's so undeniably true. There's not a single respected economist that advocates protectionism. It is well understood that free trade benefits the country as a whole, despite the possibility of there being minor localized dislocations as inefficient industries can no longer compete. The problem is that these victims, although their plight is temporary, they are highly visible and give the impression that trade is only harmful.
Unless you're an employee in a steel or textile mill, you're mostly benefiting from freer trade through lower prices for goods. But when protectionist barriers are up to protect a few, the rest of us suffer as our cost of living rises, and if you work in export industries you lose your job as a trade war ensues. - LordRedSnake, on 03/12/2009, -0/+2Oh man you couldn't be more wrong. Self sufficiency? There are some things the US just cannot do efficiently due to comparative disadvantage. If another country can make a product at half the cost, but we refuse to trade with them, we're using our resources inefficiently because we could devote those extra resources towards something that we do comparatively well. This means society has fewer jobs to offer on the whole. In a time when people are becoming much more concerned with sustainability and efficient use of resources, freer trade should be the natural course of action so that we can eliminate as much waste as we can by letting the most efficient processes prevail.
You might think we have less of a dependency on other countries, but we would also lack an entire export industry that could help pull us out of downturns. As bad as the economy is, the blow has been cushioned somewhat by our ability to sell to other countries. Yes, China does in fact consume US goods, and their economy is still growing at 6-7%. This will only be a greater factor in the future. Historically in times of freer trade the world economy has prospered, but with higher barriers to trade it has suffered. - shebaabc, on 03/12/2009, -0/+2I have said this for a long time, everything with oversea trade has killed the U.S.A already.
- arlok789, on 03/12/2009, -2/+4I studied this in school.
Gains from free trade benefit many. Losses from trade effect very very few. The government already helps those who lose from trade find new work in non import competing industries. (This is called Trade Adjustment Assistance). Free trade encourages efficiency. If America can't compete in certain industries under free trade, we need to specialize in industries which we are highly competitive. We make software, China can make cheap manufactured goods. If there was no trade, you would be paying 1000 dollars for an iphone. Trade is good.
America is a gigantic exporter. Protectionism hurts us much more than it helps us. Self sufficiency is a myth. Dependency is key. Other countries should be Dependant on us for what we do well, and we should be Dependant on them for what they do well.
Instead of bitching and moaning that "Dey Took AR JOBSS!" We should innovate and build an even better industry that is competitive on global markets.
Also, China keeps its exchange rate where it does by taking all the dollars it gets when we buy their products and reinvesting them in US treasuries. This reduces the amount of dollars in exchange markets for the Chinese to buy which drives up the price of dollars. Supply and demand. This keeps their goods cheap and keeps interest rates low here. This is a huge reason why we had a housing bubble. It also allows to government to spend money like a bunch of lunatics. - LordRedSnake, on 03/12/2009, -0/+1lol do you even follow your logic halfway through? You say the pie is getting smaller and then point to how families only had one television and one car. They now have several TV's, and several cars. I don't know about you but that seems like a slice of a bigger pie to me.
- level4, on 03/12/2009, -0/+1The solution should be somewhere between protectionism and what we have today. There is no way US workers can compete with cheap overseas slave labor. Therefore, more people will be on unemployment and welfare because corporations want their top executives to make Forbes billionaire lists. Taxpayers have to pay for everyone on unemployment and welfare, as well as an increase in criminals due to lack of any other means to support themselves.
I don't buy the argument that if other countries are better at something, that we should give up and focus on something else. The only reason they are better is their ability to produce cheaper goods by using slave labor. How does that benefit anyone? They suffer poor conditions and we suffer by higher unemployment.
I also don't buy the argument that if China didn't produce all our goods, then we wouldn't be able to afford said goods. In theory it makes sense, but you have to look at reality and the bigger picture. If manufacturing was done here, the unemployment rate would be so low. More people have more money and will not depend on the government. More people with more money = more consumers. I don't think the price of goods would go up that much. I have never seen numbers to state the difference we would be paying. The super rich fed you lies to help their bottom line.
"But I took Economics 101 in School". That's nice. Economics 101 treats people as commodities and only looks at $$. It doesn't look at cause and effect outside of what will make the most money for the rich. And if all the scholars understand economics, then why the heck is our country's economy in shambles? Not one of them stood up to teach us simple folk how to avoid it? You are just going to call Americans lazy whiners because your textbook says a+b=c? I would say you are the lazy one for not helping our economy thrive. No guidance from you. Just snide remarks about how simple math dictates we become consumers only and forget producing anything. I could have an offshore resource contribute as much as you have to society - for less money too. - LordRedSnake, on 03/12/2009, -0/+1How would a trade deficit help us? With income being Y = C + I + G + Xn
Xn being net exports, that is exports minus imports. Running a trade deficit makes Xn negative, and is an outflow of money. A trade surplus would be a boon as foreign countries buy more US goods and help GDP grow. - LordRedSnake, on 03/12/2009, -0/+1Except that tariffs are only harmful. China is harming themselves by depriving their country of goods that we can produce more cheaply (it's true, there still are some). Even if other countries have tariffs, it's still beneficial for us not to have them. The natural progression is for the other countries to gradually eliminate theirs, but there's no reason for us to harm ourselves until then just out of spite.
- etx313, on 03/12/2009, -0/+1Too bad we wont have anything to trade because people her don't want to create anything here anymore!
buy, consume, *****, die. - 1dog, on 03/12/2009, -1/+2Once we were the only game in town. Now there are more players all the time. Are piece of the pie is just going to be smaller. Remember when families only had one television, and one car.
Once upond a time you had to save before you made a large purchase. China is sending people over here to buy forclosed houses in america. - vidaliasweet, on 03/12/2009, -0/+1FTA: "Mr. Kirk testified that he would work to expand trade but also argued “that not all Americans are winning from it and that our trading partners are not always playing by the rules.”
Sounds like a rational compromise to me. I can't understand why the NYT would find this so extreme and worrisome. - inactive, on 03/12/2009, -0/+1The service economy is working just fine,any trade protectionism will harm truckers,warehouse workers and cashiers.
We all want cheap goods
Why mess with trade as its been the growth that has allowed America to build vast infrastructure projects,a sound banking system and world class heath system.
Plus with the excess cash to take care of evil dictators around the globe.
Trade has worked and never question the logic behind it... only the end result and so far its worked almost perfectly besides a few minor recession hiccups.
Now go out there and buy something! - inactive, on 03/12/2009, -1/+2Of course, many folks are only surprised he got caught..
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7535755025 ... - deema1, on 03/12/2009, -1/+2That is also the same path to world socialism, as are the concerted interest rate cuts and his call to other countries yesterday to help carry the weight by employing the same spending initiatives to save the world. Mire everyone in the same problems and then provide a single world solution. Not to mention there is a good deal of talk about the idea of a world currency controlled by a World Federal Reserve-like organization. Strange how free trade is the only thing that will save us and, at the same time, is the one thing that will financially enslave us all.
- frishackbanned, on 03/13/2009, -0/+1This is being suppressed on Digg:
http://digg.com/political_opinion/The_Obama_Decept ...
Watch the Brand New FREE full length film:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7535755025 ... - indyattic, on 03/12/2009, -0/+1Maybe, but all 4 Presidents on Mount Rushmore were protectionists.
- mrbuddy, on 08/16/2009, -0/+1Get with the real meaning of Cap and trade::Look at the state governments--at the state level they need to hold down the cost of utilities--electricity. The companies want their hands in the pot first. If this is done then we can afford cap and trade--development of green jobs and products to export before the world is ahead of us!!Get on your state legislators and governors on this one!!
- penglust, on 03/12/2009, -0/+1A staple of any stable economy is being able to employ people where they are capable and what they produce is useful. If the whole world did this then there would not be the big swings we see of boom and bust. At every level this must be true and not everybody can work at just any level. Engineering, teaching, management all takes special talents the average person is only marginally capable of. To support these there must be a load of goods produced and this is where most people fit in.
We used to be that way. The average Joe (not "the plumber") did his job producing some product or cleanup up after production, or selling it on the street corner. Their income bought healthy farm food. mom prepared it and others benefited from the purchasing cycle. Almost nobody had lots of excess but not so many were living on the absolute edge they are today.
Today the concept of creating wealth seems to stem around money and only money. This has led to a while load of basically lazy shiftless ***** that do not care to work so getting there's at cost to others is OK.
The average person does not have a concept of just how much they will give out to own a house of the lifetime of a mortgage. They just cannot conceive of amounts that large. So a banks comes along with a method to do this guaranteeing in 3 years they will not be able to afford it. But that is OK because I have my commision and I do not care if you pay me again in 3 years to refinance. And if all else fails the price of the house will increase and you will get out OK. Oh and by the way I let some other ***** charge you $50,000 for house flipping. And since 3 of my friends need some cash the house has been flipped 3 times but we'll give you a break and only make $100,000 between the three of us.
Until the point where nobody can afford to by a house even at the low introductory interest rates for the first 3 years. Then it all turns to *****. But WTF I got mine.
Now lets add in the 3 or 4 hundred credit card offers from last years. Low 6 months for 0 percent and then 16% after that. What they dont say is banks like "Bank of America" will purchase all those cards from other companies and now that they have you and all your debt, well what the hell it worked for mortgages so lets bump the interest for everybody we can find the slightest reason for up to 29 or 30 percent.
And well since everybody has to drive lest increase gas prices as high as we can since, well hey the banks are doing it and why shouldn't we.
And hell we can emply 100 people in china for 1 here. They will still be bad off but that's not my problem. The people here can get another job delivering Pizza (ask John McCain). And if they can't, well still not my problem.
Add that to a communist country with a goal to break the US.
The result is everybody keeps trying until it all falls apart. I think the whole of wall street is a ponsy scheme. Those at the top believe in ***** you I got mine. Everybody else is not relevant.
The goal of a share holder business is to make money for big investors. ***** everybody else. It is the job of government to keep economies going. Unfortunately the job of our government for a very long time has been to ***** us also.
Government needs to enforce fair trade policies. Since we where the source of wealth for so long we have let treaties be enacted favoring other countries and not us. The wealth is draining away. China is winning. We are losing. Wall street is paving the way. We should start to enact a system where a country that protects against also gets protected against. If china cannot import our goods then we should not import there's.
Fair trade should be fair trade. - inactive, on 03/13/2009, -0/+1I'll argue that reinvestment in science will give us the opportunity to create innovative products that will help our bargaining power at the negotiating table. If we can put ourselves in the position of having products that the world wants, then .... well you get it. I see Green energy products as a perfect position for both manufacturing and technology. Let's not give away that potential advantage, nor by inaction let someone else take the lead.
- zeth006, on 03/13/2009, -0/+1Self-sufficiency. What a joke.
I refuse to pay an American car and if you or some UAW redneck calls me a traitor for saying this, I've got 2 words for you:
***** YOU! - indyattic, on 03/12/2009, -0/+1"The government already helps those who lose from trade find new work in non import competing industries. (This is called Trade Adjustment Assistance)."
Uh, it isn't really "free" if the government interferes. - shig, on 03/13/2009, -0/+1I wish they were talking about free trade under the principles of a free market, but unfortunately, they are not. NAFTA, CAFTA, and the WTO, may operate under the auspices of "free trade", but that doesn't make it so.
It is, in fact, interventionism.
Any mention of abolishing sales taxes? That's an impediment to free trade. - geekee, on 03/12/2009, -0/+1You are correct, which is one of many reasons why I oppsed the bailouts under both admins.
When govt. is involved, freedom is lost, unfortunately. - level4, on 03/13/2009, -0/+1What happens when we spend years researching and developing Green Energy products like you mention? How will we benefit? All the manufacturing will be done in China and then it's their product. Only the four scientists and the venture capitalist will benefit and make tons of money. That sounds great for our future.
You have all been brainwashed and mentally abused by your rich Uncle Sam to believe that other countries are smarter than us. They tell you our school system is poor and we cannot compete mentally with the rest of the world. Think about it. Why do countries like India and China have cheaper labor? Because they are smarter than us? No. Because their masters keep most of the population poor so they can get ahead. We want to reward them by giving them all our jobs. Each country is hurt. We get hurt economically and their human rights get trounced.
I'm still waiting for real numbers of how much more good would cost if manufactured here. To be honest, do Americans really need MORE goods? If things we really need cost more, we would use our money toward those items instead of frivolous things like manicures and eyebrow waxing. - geekee, on 03/12/2009, -0/+1China doesn't care at all about their citizens. They're basically slave labor to enrich their govt. Doing the same thing as China is a big mistake. Tariffs are bad for consumers, including Chinese citizens.
- geekee, on 03/12/2009, -2/+2All the protectionist talk Hillary was spouting during the primaries was alarming. I was LMAO when Obama got caught lying about his plans for NAFTA.
- Insightful, on 03/12/2009, -7/+7Personally, I think the article is lame.
But what is with the stylistic mix of using both "Mr." and "President "when addressing an US President? Why not just stick to President?
From this article (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/11/opinion/11wed1.h ...
"President Obama’s choice for United States trade representative..."
vs
"Mr. Obama’s annual trade report to Congress is similarly worrisome."
From another article (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/03/opinion/03sat1.h ...
"It is only fair to note that President Bush can also lay claim to some signal achievements in health care "
vs
"And Mr. Bush has done almost nothing to shore up the public insurance programs" - inactive, on 03/12/2009, -1/+1I think we need to train our State and Commerce Department reps that it's actually okay to tell foreign trade delegates to "F*#K OFF!". It's obvious that we, as a nation, are being totally taken advantage of. The problem is that our government profits from selling us, as a people, out. Kind of like the African chiefs who profited from selling off their people to slave traders.
- PinkTacoDigger, on 03/12/2009, -1/+1Trade should be open and fair to all markets. With that said, buy American. *easier said than done*
- inactive, on 03/12/2009, -5/+5It's really stupid how people want the US to have a protectionist economy
- shig, on 03/12/2009, -3/+3No. I just used the word artificial to describe the economic activities devoid of free market principles.
"Robbery is an artificial transfer of goods."
Artificial - unnatural, false, or substitute. - faskill, on 03/12/2009, -2/+2International trade should be encouraged to an extent but, the system we have in place now - exporting American jobs offshore and overseas - is bad for us.
"...[P]rotectionism refers to policies or doctrines which "protect" businesses and workers within a country by restricting or regulating trade with foreign nations." Trade *should* be regulated. International trade should also be limited. Although it is a double-edged sword, with our economy in shambles, we need to increase jobs here, whether they be in manufacturing or support or what have you. - inactive, on 03/12/2009, -2/+1I kept reading in anticipation of actually encountering information that would describe said agenda. An agenda details specific things. In case we're not all clear on what "agenda" means:
"The political agenda is a set of issues and policies laid out by either the executive or cabinet in government which tries to dictate existing and near-future political news and debate. The political agenda while shaped by government can be influenced by grass-roots support from party activists at events such as a party conference and can even be shaped by non governmental activist groups which have a political aim."
FTA:
"President Obama’s choice for United States trade representative, Ron Kirk, appears ambivalent about the value of free trade."
"He suggested" and "It suggested" and "appears ambivalent" do not an agenda make.
Geez Blinker, are you all about the front page now, and not about substance or accuracy in your headlines?
Buried for a ***** headline.
Damn liberal media bias! - DouglasQ, on 03/12/2009, -4/+2Here's a jpg depicting his exact statement http://www.freewilliamsburg.com/archives/i%20got%2 ...
- shig, on 03/12/2009, -7/+4Free Trade - Artificially manufactures consumers
Protectionism - Artificially manufactures manufacturers
Pursuing either option with force of government - Artificially manufactures economies
Key word - Artificial - ElWaffleGrande, on 03/12/2009, -6/+1Trade Kobe!
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 