I am only posting twice, because I am watching the election results come in and NAFTA is turning out to be one of the main issues for the Democrats. So, I am linking to two articles. The first article is a "conservative" article explaining how NAFTA is not the problem
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/rescuing_the_rust_belt.html
The second article is for you "liberals". It is about why Obama is a better pick for people who believe in free trade. I don't know if I believe it, but it is interesting.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/f24fa1c4-e92b-11dc-8365-0000779fd2ac.html
By the way, the articles are written by two of the most respected economists. Let me know what you think.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I only read the second, but agree that protectionism is incompatible with most liberal views. If we believe in a "one world" it is hard to justify protectionism. I also agree that unions are not in themself protectist and certainly not all to the same extent. The AFL-CIO is the most danderous. I think this is partly because they are losing the battle here and are clutching at straws.
That said, the problem I see with NAFTA and with "free trade" is that it just isn't. Countries can find all types of reasons to protect their own. From my own experience, I think i can point to a perfect example. Mexico uses the reason that they cannot trust the sanitary consitions in the USA so they restrict the eggs going south. This coming from a nation that doesn't wash their eggs prior to packaging and doesn't refrigerate tehm in the store. Free trade is kind of like socialism, it may sound good in theory, but never quite exists as the theory would suggest.
There was a story the other day on NPR about the shrinking dollar. At the end, the announcer said that there were manufacturers in Europe who were thinking of relocating to the US because the dollar makes things cheap to buld. Another good thing W. has done for us. We are the new China.
Free trade is another issue that needs the American public to see past the soundbites and attack the problem realistically. As I learned a long time ago at ASU, each country should produce that which it can do most economically and efficiently. Free trade is compatible with with liberalism. If we open up trade, we can develop countries like Mexico and improve their standard of living. We can do this without harming American business as long as Mexico or Canada or Europe do not place subverting restrictions disguised as whatever.
Finally, I find it humorous when people point out how one belief contradicts a persons stated beliefs. Anti-gay marriage supported by those who think government plays too big a part in our lives. Anti-gun held by people who say that government needs to get out of our personal lives.
Our core beliefs are not always compatible with our core beliefs.
This topic as you well know is very dear to my heart. Let's plan on a proper discussion venue in CT. One little snippet, oh how free trade will be the death of the enviroment. Capitalism and it's evolution is destroying the enviroment....how many KM of roads is China building, how nmany coal fired plants are coming online each day in China, how many new airports are planned prior to the Olympics? All for the race to be cost competitive.
Next blog should be more uplifting. Sorry. It was great to see a picture of you and makes me miss you even more.
Hi Steve,
Thank you for linking to the two articles. I really like the way Mr. Sowell thinks. I try to read any article of his that I can find. I had in fact read the one you linked to. I generally agree with his slant on free trade. I am glad that you are still active in your studies of economics. I hope that you are beginning to recover from your treatments. As I have said before, keep on blogging. I do look at them. All of my love and prayers.
Aunt Diane
Moke: I miss you. Hope to see you soon.
What's your take on Obama's promise to bring jobs back to America or giving tax breaks to companies who don't ship jobs overseas? From what I've read, it seems that carried to its conclusion this would weaken the dollar since the US's corporate tax rate is maybe the highest, if not highest, in the world. Bring jobs back to the United States-- okay, I get the appeal to that message. But doesn't this mean that US companies abroad will be paying more taxes than our international competitors? Put another way, if the US didn't have such a high corporate income tax compared to the rest of the world, US companies would have less incentive to move jobs overseas. As an Obama supporter, I have an issue with this -- I'm stuck. I believe that we need to localize jobs as opposed to sending them overseas. But at the risk of increasing the US trade deficient? It's place in as a worldwide leader in the market? At the risk of a weaker dollar? More foreign investments having more control over American companies?
I'm hoping you can sort this out for me.
Much love cousin.
Billy
Post a Comment