> Good for the consumer, <<
this is one of the oldest arguments of free trade and i have debated it ad infinitum. for one thing, the consumer has had it too good, for too long. furthermore, workers are consumers. no job, no consumption. free trade lowers the wages of american workers. so free trade is not wholly beneficial to consumers. definitely not all consumers.
The consumer has had it too good? Well, I see. By your own logic: The worker has had it too good, for too long. Doesn't jive, does it. You present a false alternative. Protectionism and jobs, or free trade and no jobs. Economics is not a zero sum game. More on jobs later. As a consumer, I consider paying lower prices for equal quality goods a benefit. No matter where they were manufactured.
> good for the health of industry <<
hah! you mean good for powerful and corrupt multinational corporations. explain how free trade is good for the steel industry, the textile industry or farmers and other industries which have had to compete with a flood of cheap foreign imports!
Oh yes, the horrid multinational boogyman. I forgot. Powerful and corrupt... like the labor unions, you mean. You would choose the steel industry, one of, if not THE, most powerful and protected industry interests in the country. As opposed to GM, an evil multinational that employs millions and almost went under due to short sighted protectionism that sheltered it for too long against competition. The steel industry has gotten more efficient, better organized, and more competitive BECAUSE of competition, not in spite of it. I'm from Pennsylvania originally, so I need no passion play on the plight of the steel industry. It was too fat, too lazy, too corrupt, and too protected, for too long. As to American farmers, they produce TOO MUCH food - they drive their own prices down. The US and Canada export the most food on the planet. The textile industry has been in decline for decades. Those jobs are being shipped overseas because its a loss industry.
What you want is a closed system. Government mandated production and guaranteed wages. No competition. That isn't capitalism.
> Free trade and free competition <<
there is nothing competitive about americans who compete with conscript labor in mexico, china, indonesia, etc that is paid slave wages of 30 cents an hour. you will never hoodwink me into believing that is free competition!
Yep, those Mexicans just walked in the door and volunteered to be enslaved, whole families. If those wages are slave wages, what were they making previously? Again, economics is not a zero sum game. That Mexican family, like my Irish ancestors, will gladly work a "slave wage" which is more than they were making before, and gladly work 16 hour days, to better their families. That Mexican family can now afford things above mere subsistance, like Pepsi and Fords. And cell phones. And computers. And computer software. And internet services, powered by Cisco, and Ascend, and 3COM, and Juniper... Things that create American jobs.
The pattern with NAFTA, for example, has been parts manufacture in Mexico, and high end finishing in the US. The job loss is not equivelant. Unskilled and menial labor is draining to the Third World. Leaving high end, high skill, finishing for the US in the manufacturing sector. Why should American businesses pay more for unskilled American labor when Mexican, or Thai, labor will do as well? To preserve a low wage menial class in America?
>> ie unfettered Capitalism <<
so you believe in unfettered capitalism? i trust you're in favor of abolishing antitrust laws here in the united states. you are for the repeal of laws against price collusion. you favor repeal of child labor laws, repeal of the laws limiting the numbers of hours worked, etc. of course you are against the sherman and clayton acts. after all, the free market can sort all of this out, correct? what do we need the ftc for? we really don't need that antitrust division of the doj, now do we?
Another false alternative. No, I am not against the Sherman Antitrust Act. But lets make it a bit more even handed - let's include labor unions in the Act. After all, if its illegal for business to maximize its market share to maximize profits, it should be illegal for labor to maximize as well. Or is one greed and corruption better than the other?
Unfettered capitalism means unfettered flow of capital and labor to where it can be made the most productive. You propose the opposite - the government mandated restriction of labor and capital to protect the few and influential. Protectionism favors those who can afford to lobby for protection. The manufacturing firms that have filed for NAFTA-TAA application for trade impact have been large firms with an average of approx 300 workers, compared to the US average firm size of approx 50 workers. Big Business complains the loudest about free trade, and shouts the loudest for protection.
>> means lower prices <<
not always, but it certainly does result in lower wages!
Maybe for those too lazy to improve their skills.
>> greater selection <<
america has the capacity to make all the chopsticks and other imported goods you find down at wal-mart. just what exactly can foreigners make that americans cannot? practically nothing. furthermore, americans can still buy foreign goods. do you think when we had a tariff system for the first century and a half we didn't trade with the world?
Question is: does America want to BOTHER to make all those chopsticks? Or does it want to make something that better utilizes its strengths? Any Third World nation can make chopsticks for dirt cheap. Americans make ideas. Ideas make more money, and create BETTER jobs, than chopsticks. Greater selection, more products from which to choose, competition for better quality at a lower price. Helluva lot better than one phone and one provider with AT&T.
>> Protectionism means higher prices <<
sometimes, but not always. protectionism means higher wages to afford the higher prices.
By the same logic, free trade means, according to you, lower wages to keep in step with lower prices. Where's the benefit in your logic?
>> less choice <<
how so? if we put duties on foreign goods coming into the country what will bmw, mercedes, toyota, etc do? they will build plants right here in america and employ american workers to put those fine automobiles together. then they will escape the duties. so you will still be able to buy that fine luxurious german automobile. the only difference is it will be built by americans, not mexicans.
Wrong. The American consumer pays for your protectionism at the sticker. BMW can afford to pass on the costs and still undercut American luxury automobile makers paying $30/hr unskilled labor costs compared to their "slave wage" Mexican labor (to whom the slave wage is an opportunity to escape poverty, because that's a lot of money to him.) Beneficiary of protectionism: Mexico and BMW. Loser: American consumer and American worker - when the Big 3 nearly go out of business, just like in the 1980s.
>> and lower quality of goods and services <<
why is a car built in mexico higher quality than a car built here in the united states?
Because without competition there is no impetus for quality. When Ford can't undercut cheap Japanese vehicles, they have appeal to American consumers with better QUALITY at a comparable price. Why should Ford improve its product when the taxpayer is just going to prop them up anyway?
>> Protectionism favors the uncompetitive business and inflexible labor <<
inflexible labor? what do you mean by inflexible labor?? you mean american labor that won't compete with dollar an hour mexicans are inflexible??? obviously you are just in favor of big business which wants to abandon the american worker in favor of exploiting slave labor abroad. more profits for ford, gm, ibm, ge, etc., no job for blue collar americans.
Inflexible labor that expects the market to reward them for the same skills a dollar an hour Mexican can perform. A static workforce is a stagnant workforce. Paying someone $30 and hour to do what someone else will do for $1 a DAY is unproductive and wasteful use of capital. And its damn stupid too. Why do you think it is evil for companies to maximize what you consider undeserved profit, but the same maximization of undeserved profit by another sector of Americans, American unionized labor, is just fine? I come from a blue collar background. I don't have any romanticism about how great the old days were and how wonderful it would be if we could all just stay in the steel mills. The world has changed. Change with it.
>> and a dynamic, high skill workforce. <<
ah, finally you tell the truth. free trade favors the cultural elites. extremely well educated, highly intelligent and capable americans who aren't blue-collar and don't have to compete with mexicans and chinese.
The "cultural elites?" LOL! Who are they? Everyone but you? Yeah, free trade favors all those Indians who are using American universities to get an education and create a software engineering growth industry in India while American guys like you groan about how Americans are getting screwed by foreigners. Well, get off your ass and get some skills! It isn't like the US government and private foundations aren't GIVING AWAY money for Americans to get an education for crying out loud. Fester and rot while "those dastardly foreigners" are making use of the resources Americans are passing up.
Derek |
