http://blogcritics.org/ A sinister cabal of superior bloggers on music, books, film, popular culture, politics, and technology - updated continuously. en Copyright 2005 by the authors Fri, 9 Jan 2004 17:11:47 EST http://backend.userland.com/rss Blogcritics.org custom software http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/01/09/130335.php#comment-35993 Many people confuse protectionist policies with state socialist policies. When the government is shielding an unproductive economy, protectionism only adds to the mess. But when protectionism is used on behalf of a dynamic economic sector--such as the Japanese and German auto industries--it is extremely effective. The proof of this is in the garages of the yuppie free traders. They're all driving BMWs and Hondas on their way to the pro-NAFTA symposiums. What a laff riot! 35993@blogcritics.org Fri, 9 Jan 2004 17:11:47 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/01/09/130335.php#comment-35989 Free trade is good, as long as the trade policies allow more of our goods to be exported to foreign markets, allowing American-based companies to profit from such policies, allowing the result of a greater number of Americans being hired to work in America. However, when free trade includes human capital (i.e., employees), American workers suffer, and therefore should not be permitted without a price to ensure that American workers aren't eliminated from the job rolls (Unemployment claims were up today, by the way - jobless recovery - jobs leaving America for India, etc.). Trade deals are just that: deals. A good deal requires a good negotiator, but we often give too much away and receive too little in return. Corporations win, but common working class, or even middle class Americans lose under the current deficient policies. America was built by immigrants, and many of these immigrants worked at American factories. When free trade exports jobs overseas, America undergoes a process of deconstruction because immigrants stay in their country to work for an American company. Free trade is a wonderful thing as long as it is fair to both trading parties. The current practice is not fair trade, nor is it free, as the cost of high unemployment does not benefit the United States of America. It does, however, make it easier to create a global government and strengthen the argument for a one-world village and currency, but if you are a true globalist, that may be exactly what you're hoping for. Cheers. 35989@blogcritics.org Fri, 9 Jan 2004 16:24:13 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/01/09/130335.php#comment-35956 I forgot to mention Thailand, another country that has been thriving recently, since jettisoning IMF laizzes-faire for a more South Korean model. Ah, facts! The enemy of ideologues everywhere. 35956@blogcritics.org Fri, 9 Jan 2004 13:30:44 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/01/09/130335.php#comment-35954 Well, no. Latin American followed strict free trade policies in the 80s and 90s, and collapsed. Asia--South Korea, Singapore, China--followed a mix of free trade and nationalist-protectionist policies, and thrived. Open capital borders are important but only within systems that temper them intelligently (panicky steel tariffs are not intelligent). The best car companies in the world--BMW, Audi,Toyota, Honda--are all in countries that subsidize these companies and protect them from foreign competition. This is an amazing little fact that completely discredits the free trade myth. The United States rose to economic power in large part through the intelligent and strategic use of restrictive tariffs. Had it pursued strict free trade policies in anything but rhetoric, it never would have prospered. U.S. prosperity has also relied historically on the defense industry, the mother of all protected markets. In short, the "free trade" line is nothing but an ideological fantasy, similar in some ways to the socialist fundamentalism of decades past. Same ruinous result to those who follow it. 35954@blogcritics.org Fri, 9 Jan 2004 13:27:56 EST