United States and Free Trade

[ag]

Free Trade is junk.  We should leave NAFTA, the WTO, TPP, World Bank, and other similar groups.

The World Bank has little to nothing to due with trade.

I mean, the guy, probably, thinks black helicopters sent by UNICEF are about to take over.

[ag]

Free Trade is junk.  We should leave NAFTA, the WTO, TPP, World Bank, and other similar groups.

The World Bank has little to nothing to due with trade.

I mean, the guy, probably, thinks black helicopters sent by UNICEF are about to take over.

No, just that free trade is horrible and has basically destroyed our economy.

Well, you are wrong. As wrong, at least, as climate change deniers and anti-GMO activists.

[ag]

I don't think all free trade is bad by any means, but I'm 100% opposed to NAFTA, CAFTA, PNTR, and the TPP.  If our competitors weren't dumping undervalued goods and manipulating their currency, free trade would be fine; but in the status quo, we need some more protections for American workers.

China is not a member of NAFTA, CAFTA or TPP. I can imagine what the Chinese have against those treaties, but it is much harder for me to understand why you would prefer the goods you buy in a supermarket to come from China (as would, likely, to a substantial extent be the case if these treaties did not exist), rather than from, say, the Dominican Republic.

"Permanent normal trade relations" is pretty much a designation of no formal trade war between countries. It is not, generally, a treaty obligation, just a unilateral agreement by the US to trade using some basic non-discrimination rules. Saying you are against it, "but not against trade" is almost like saying that you do not consider so-and-so a criminal, and would be absolutely fine with him as long as he stayed in prison for the rest of his life, though, of course, yo would rather have him sent to an electric chair.  So, no, not only you are against "any free trade", you are, pretty much, on record as being against any foreign trade, except, perhaps, some ad hoc transactions, such as could, on occasion, occur between countries at war with each other.

For the future, I suggest you try to learn at least a little bit about what you post on, before doing so.

[ag]

Free Trade is junk.  We should leave NAFTA, the WTO, TPP, World Bank, and other similar groups.

The World Bank has little to nothing to due with trade.

I mean, the guy, probably, thinks black helicopters sent by UNICEF are about to take over.

No, just that free trade is horrible and has basically destroyed our economy.

Well, you are wrong. As wrong, at least, as climate change deniers and anti-GMO activists.

I resent the fact that you are lumping me in with those groups.  I want to be well reasoned in my defense of protectionism.  The fact is, higher tariffs would protect our workers and companies from our and foreign companies that manufacture products in countries where they can do it for much cheaper and then import it and make great profits.  The fact is, if we had high tariffs and protectionism, our country would have more blue-collar jobs and be stronger economically.

Higher tariffs will start trade wars, which will result in many Americans, currently working for export, losing their jobs. These newly unemployed Americans will have to buy their necessities at higher prices (since these goods will no longer be imported). However, they will still not find jobs producing no-longer-imported goods, because modern technological developments mean that in many cases it would be cheaper to replace them with machines than to pay them wages, which would allow them to survive in the US. Furhteremore, with trade flows sharply reduced, US dollar will lose much of its attraction as an international currency. Foreign governments and residents, no longer flush with dollars, will find fewer reasons-opportunities to lend to the US government, necessitating sharp reduction in public expenditure (or else, an equally sharp increas in tax collection). Should I continue?

You might resent whatever you like. But the fact is, that you are neither reasoned, nor reasonable.

[ag]

Why not use free trade agreements to force through proper labour regulations, though?

You realize that homogenizing labor regulations between the US and Mexico would imply either sharp relaxation/abolition of much of Mexican labor law, or the sorts of regulations in the US that would make Bernie Sanders blush? Mexican labor law is incredibly stringent on labor protections. For instance, it is pretty much impossible to fire a worker (not even paying a fine), unless he deliberately assaults his supervisor (there is an exception for the so called "confidence employees": these can be fired, but have to be paid a lot of money - 90 days wages + 20 more days wages for every year of service). Downsizing, BTW, is not a legal ground for firing an employee - unless the company goes bankrupt, it cannot fire anyone. Add to this unions, that are, in many industries, much stronger than in the US. If Mexico insisted on applying Mexican labor law to the US, nothing would ever be produced North of the border. If the US insisted, as a condition of concluding trade agreements, remodeling Mexican law on US pattern (something I would wholeheartedly support), producing in Mexico would become much cheaper than it is now.

[ag]

Why not use free trade agreements to force through proper labour regulations, though?


You are letting American business owners off the hook. Their greed and incompetence is the enemy, not workers in other countries.

That would be better than what we have now, because cheap labor is basically what has destroyed our industry.

Labor in Mexico is cheap, because it is not very productive. Imposing the US minimal wage (approximately 125 pesos an hour at the current exchange rate) would completely kill formal sector employment in Mexico. It is not much more realistic than forcing McDonalds to pay USD$100 an hour to its lowliest employees. At that point, the only thing that would stand between Mexicans and famine would be informal employment. And, of course, since people are not willing to starve to death when they do not have to, informal emloyment it would be: all labor law would simply be ignored.

Most other labor regulations in Mexico, though, are much more stringent than in the US. Imposing their analogs in the US would make production in the US much more expensive than it is now.

[ag]

Free Trade is junk.  We should leave NAFTA, the WTO, TPP, World Bank, and other similar groups.

The World Bank has little to nothing to due with trade.

I mean, the guy, probably, thinks black helicopters sent by UNICEF are about to take over.

No, just that free trade is horrible and has basically destroyed our economy.

Well, you are wrong. As wrong, at least, as climate change deniers and anti-GMO activists.

I resent the fact that you are lumping me in with those groups.  I want to be well reasoned in my defense of protectionism.  The fact is, higher tariffs would protect our workers and companies from our and foreign companies that manufacture products in countries where they can do it for much cheaper and then import it and make great profits.  The fact is, if we had high tariffs and protectionism, our country would have more blue-collar jobs and be stronger economically.

Higher tariffs will start trade wars, which will result in many Americans, currently working for export, losing their jobs. These newly unemployed Americans will have to buy their necessities at higher prices (since these goods will no longer be imported). However, they will still not find jobs producing no-longer-imported goods, because modern technological developments mean that in many cases it would be cheaper to replace them with machines than to pay them wages, which would allow them to survive in the US. Furhteremore, with trade flows sharply reduced, US dollar will lose much of its attraction as an international currency. Foreign governments and residents, no longer flush with dollars, will find fewer reasons-opportunities to lend to the US government, necessitating sharp reduction in public expenditure (or else, an equally sharp increas in tax collection). Should I continue?

You might resent whatever you like. But the fact is, that you are neither reasoned, nor reasonable.

Let me be clear that I do not oppose all trade,

In the same way Donald Trump is not a racist and loves Hispanics and Muslims.

[ag]

Why not use free trade agreements to force through proper labour regulations, though?

You realize that homogenizing labor regulations between the US and Mexico would imply either sharp relaxation/abolition of much of Mexican labor law, or the sorts of regulations in the US that would make Bernie Sanders blush? Mexican labor law is incredibly stringent on labor protections. For instance, it is pretty much impossible to fire a worker (not even paying a fine), unless he deliberately assaults his supervisor (there is an exception for the so called "confidence employees": these can be fired, but have to be paid a lot of money - 90 days wages + 20 more days wages for every year of service). Downsizing, BTW, is not a legal ground for firing an employee - unless the company goes bankrupt, it cannot fire anyone. Add to this unions, that are, in many industries, much stronger than in the US. If Mexico insisted on applying Mexican labor law to the US, nothing would ever be produced North of the border. If the US insisted, as a condition of concluding trade agreements, remodeling Mexican law on US pattern (something I would wholeheartedly support), producing in Mexico would become much cheaper than it is now.

well, I suppose the important thing is the promotion of unions that are independent from the PRI aligned ones, no? As I understand it, the major issue with Mexican unions is that they're a) mostly undemocratic protection contracts dominated by employers b) corrupt and aligned with the PRI; and perhaps more crucially they give a privileged platform for the lucky formal workers, while leaving workers in informal sector in the cold? Could be wrong though.

Yes, the unions tend to be corrupt. However, as far as you are concerned, they do "admirable" job raising production costs. And, of course, the unions are an important reason for the informal sector persistence: though, naturally, further strengthening of the unions would make the problem worse, not better.

And, of course, the unions that went from PRI to PRD (or became independent) in the post-PRI era are not at all any better.

[ag]

Upton Sinclair, the famed socialist and author of The Jungle:


"The eloquent senator was explaining the system of protection; an ingenious device whereby the workingman permitted the manufacturer to charge him higher prices, in order that he might receive higher wages; thus taking his money out of his pocket with one hand, and putting a part of it back with the other. To the senator this unique arrangement had somehow become identified with the higher verities of the universe."

Of course, this was back in the days when organized labor felt secure in their capital advantage over the poor countries of the world, and supported free trade. 

It is a funny quirk of contemporary America, that most of the, so called leftists in 2016 would have found themselves much more at home in McKinley's Republican party than among Bryan's Democrats back in 1896