>> Eliminating trade restrictions does indeed eliminate some jobs and lower wages in others, but at the same time it is increasing jobs in some areas and increasing wages in others <<
you just argued that it essentially balances itself out in the jobs area. so i guess that would leave us to the unpatriotic aspect of it.
>> Also it helps contain inflation so that even if average nominal wages where the same overall real wages would be higher <<
the way to contain inflation is to run a sound currency by not printing too much money. protectionism is not inflationary.
>> Yes some people lose out when restrictions on trade are eliminated but typically the cost to the rest of the economy is greater then the benefit that a few people get from these restrictions <<
one of the standard arguments by free-traitors is that free trade benefits gdp growth. well we can argue back and forth like economists do until we are blue in the face and we will probably never convince each other that one policy is more beneficial to the overall economy than the other. in truth, america has prospered through much of our history whether we pursued protectionism or free trade.
the point i would like to make is just who in the economy benefits? america is a country, not a corporation. it is not enough to just look at the bottom line and say the economy did well under free trade. did well for whom? for large multinationals and cultural elites? what about the average blue collar american who has to labor to feed his family? maybe if you were to ask him he would say he hasn't seen the benefits of free trade. the simple fact is, free trade benefits large multinationals. they can extort wage concessions to american workers or they will simply pack up and ship out. after all someone in mexico or china will work for 50 cents an hour. why should GM pay some union worker here in america $25/hr when they can get desperate mexicans to do the same work much cheaper? why would GM build a new plant here in america where they have to provide health care and they have to respect the environment? just pack up and ship out to other countries where you can exploit cheap labor and save a buck by skirting environmental laws.
this is common sense. if americans enjoy one of the highest standards of living in the world, and free trade makes it easier to export jobs out of the country, and open borders makes it easier for cheap labor to enter, what is the result? you have american companies packing up production and moving outside the country to exploit cheap labor, as well as to avoid costly environmental regulations. then our open border policy allows cheap, exploitable labor to come here and enjoy all the benefits of our country. simple supply and demand. the supply of available workers increases as immigrants spill over the border looking to compete with americans for jobs. the demand for workers here declines as companies pack up and ship out to exploit cheap labor in third world countries.
if you have fewer well paying jobs here in america, and more people pouring in to fill them, wages will suffer. and of course if you look at a chart of real wages over the last several decades that is exactly what has happened. real wages have plummeted. this has incredibly destructive effects on the two parent family structure as women are forced to enter the workforce to provide for families what one wage earner could provide a few decades ago.
>> When trade is heavily restricted then resources are used less efficiently. When the restrictions are removed then total output (and thus total wealth) is increased. <<
labor is a resource correct? to use resources the most efficiently you need to use the cheapest labor possible. you can see how this might present a problem for average american blue collar workers? how can they compete with a mexican or an indonesian making 50 cents an hour or even 50 cents a day? that is why you don't run a country like a corporation, only trying to increase the bottom line at any and all cost.
Bush takes a stand for America first
worldnetdaily.com
Though threatened with a trade war, the president did not buckle or back down. Good for him. Economic patriotism may just be back in style. And if the European Union decides to haul us before the World Trade Organization for a caning, the president should tell the WTO to take a hike. If Europe wants a trade war with the United States, let it begin here.
For, no matter the pain, these annual $300 billion trade deficits in manufactured goods must stop. We cannot sustain them; we cannot survive them. They will sap our dynamism, gut all of our industries, put an end to our economic independence and undermine the foundations of our military power. As Holland, Spain and Britain can all testify, Great Powers that chronically import more than they export soon cease to be Great Powers. |
