"Free Trade" OR "Protectionism"

Kandahar said:

Also I'd like to point out that in the last 50 years, far more American jobs have been "lost" to robots than to Chinese or Indians or Mexicans or anyone else. Yet there aren't many luddites arguing that we should ban technological progress and go back to 1950s-style assembly lines. Society has been perfectly willing to trade a few jobs in unproductive sectors, in exchange for cheaper products and more jobs in productive sectors. The fact that people are OK with making this trade when the new worker is a robot, but not when it's a Chinese person, is both cruel and xenophobic.

Click to expand...

AMEN.

Also, I recommend Pop Internationalism by Paul Krugman for those of you who haven't read it, because it's a great book on trade. Although it's a bit dated (it was written in the late 90s) it's still relevant.

Anyways, for my opinion on this issue, just check out my sig and you'll get the idea.

It depends on the economic situation, sometimes it makes sense sometimes it doesn't.

Free trade is a name for outsoursing IMO. There should be tarifs on countries which artificially set a low price on export goods, while paying below a living wage & don't have safety regulation to protect workers & the enviorment. Whatever will create oppertunities in the U.S. for both "Job Creators" & Workers both. eace

Bigfoot 88 said:

Do you prefer a policy of "Free Trade", which means no tariffs on imports, or "Protectionism", which means tariffs are placed on imports.

Click to expand...

jpevans said:

Free trade is a name for outsoursing IMO. There should be tarifs on countries which artificially set a low price on export goods,

Click to expand...

Unless they're actually dumping (i.e. selling merchandise abroad at a loss), countries don't "artificially set a low price on export goods." If they did they wouldn't be able to make any money. They sell their goods for as much as they can and no more, just like US businesses do.

while paying below a living wage & don't have safety regulation to protect workers & the enviorment.

Click to expand...

These things are luxuries for wealthy nations. It's patronizing to assume that YOU know the wages and conditions a Chinese worker should have, better than he does.

Whatever will create oppertunities in the U.S. for both "Job Creators" & Workers both. eace

Click to expand...

I could create opportunities for "job creators" and workers if I robbed you blind, and then used your money to start a business. That doesn't mean I would be justified in doing so. Your desire to steal from foreign workers in developing countries (who are much worse off than US workers) is sad. And in any case, it doesn't even work. Even if you don't care about the world outside of your own borders, free trade is STILL better. It increases the purchasing power of Americans by lowering the price of goods, and it creates jobs in more productive sectors.

Kandahar said:

And as they trade more with other nations, the demand for their labor will start to exceed the supply, and wages will rise. Which is exactly what we're seeing in China, and other nations which have opened up their economies and started trading. China has been growing at about a 9% clip annually, ever since it started reforming its economy in 1979.

Click to expand...

China is a country of 1.3 billion people.It will be a long long long time before the demand for labor far exceeds the supply. And when it does those companies will pack their **** up and outsource to countries where they can still pay **** wages and exploit the fact there is little to no worker and environmental protection laws. Companies don't outsource to uplift other nations. They outsource in order to exploit the fact they can a worker next to nothing and not have to worry about any environmental and worker safety regulations.

jamesrage said:

China is a country of 1.3 billion people.It will be a long long long time before the demand for labor far exceeds the supply.

Click to expand...

Wages have already risen dramatically in China. Hundreds of millions of people have been lifted out of poverty in the last 30 years, mostly due to China opening up its economy and trading with the rest of the world.

And when it does those companies will pack their **** up and outsource to countries where they can still pay **** wages and exploit the fact there is little to no worker and environmental protection laws.

Click to expand...

Good. Then those countries can be lifted out of poverty too.

Companies don't outsource to uplift other nations. They outsource in order to exploit the fact they can a worker next to nothing and not have to worry about any environmental and worker safety regulations.

Click to expand...

It doesn't matter why companies do it, the end result is positive. Higher wages in the exporting country, lower prices and more purchasing power in the importing country.

You know what's a good way of getting other countries to enforce environmental protections, worker safety regulations, and other luxuries of rich countries? Turn them into a rich country too. You know what's NOT a good way of getting them to do those things? Keeping them poor by refusing to trade with them.

I am for free trade INSIDE our national borders and Protectionism at worst and Isolationism at best when dealing with trade outside of our borders.

Kandahar said:

It doesn't matter why companies do it, the end result is positive. Higher wages in the exporting country, lower prices and more purchasing power in the importing country.

Click to expand...

It's only positive for the workers in the country that work has been outsourced to. 5,000 jobs in China or India probably means 3,500 less jobs here in the USA. THAT is my biggest problem with all of this.

Tigger said:

I am for free trade INSIDE our national borders and Protectionism at worst and Isolationism at best when dealing with trade outside of our borders.

Click to expand...

That's never been the way things were done here. Even back to colonial times, the primary purpose of the Colonies was to increase revenue for English companies. Things like tobacco would come to England, who would then sell it all over Europe.

rocket88 said:

That's never been the way things were done here. Even back to colonial times, the primary purpose of the Colonies was to increase revenue for English companies. Things like tobacco would come to England, who would then sell it all over Europe.

Click to expand...

Did I say that it ever was. I am simply pointing out the way I believe it SHOULD be. Nothing more. We are no longer a British colony. We no longer need anything from Great Britian, or anywhere else.

Tigger said:

It's only positive for the workers in the country that work has been outsourced to. 5,000 jobs in China or India probably means 3,500 less jobs here in the USA. THAT is my biggest problem with all of this.

Click to expand...

That's not true at all. There aren't a fixed amount of jobs. First of all, free trade means that Americans have access to cheaper products and more purchasing power than they otherwise would. This, in turn, puts more money and their pockets, which gives customers more cash to spend and businesses more capital to invest. For every job that the US loses in an industry where it isn't competitive (e.g. call centers), it more than makes up the loss through the increased purchasing power and from investments in industries where it *is* competitive (e.g. product research/development).

Kandahar said:

That's not true at all. There aren't a fixed amount of jobs. First of all, free trade means that Americans have access to cheaper products and more purchasing power than they otherwise would. This, in turn, puts more money and their pockets, which gives customers more cash to spend and businesses more capital to invest. For every job that the US loses in an industry where it isn't competitive (e.g. call centers), it more than makes up the loss through the increased purchasing power and from investments in industries where it *is* competitive (e.g. product research/development).

Click to expand...

Please explain to me how the roughly 750 call center and IS/IT people my company has laid off in the last 9 months are going to be purchasing ANYTHING when they don't have an income? It doesn't matter whether the item costs $79.95 or $19.95 when all you have is $1.95 in your pocket.

Tigger said:

Please explain to me how the roughly 750 call center and IS/IT people my company has laid off in the last 9 months are going to be purchasing ANYTHING when they don't have an income? It doesn't matter whether the item costs $79.95 or $19.95 when all you have is $1.95 in your pocket.

Click to expand...

The money that American consumers and businesses save on call center costs by outsourcing the work to India will put more cash in their pockets. This, in turn, will enable them to buy more products and spend more capital on PRODUCTIVE lines of business.

Kandahar said:

The money that American consumers and businesses save on call center costs by outsourcing the work to India will put more cash in their pockets. This, in turn, will enable them to buy more products and spend more capital on PRODUCTIVE lines of business.

Click to expand...

You have still avoided the main point of my comment. Let me see if I can re-phrase it in a way that you'll understand.....

When YOU lose YOUR job to oursourcing, what are YOU going to use to purchase all of those less expensive products, Kandahar?

The cost of a product is immaterial when you don't have the money to buy it, regardless of how expensive or cheap it is. 5,000 jobs going overseas in our current economy likely means a whole lot more mouths to feed from the Goverment trough. Thoste 5,000 people are not just walking in somewhere else and getting jobs the next day. They're out of work. What is your plan for THEM?

Kandahar said:

Wages have already risen dramatically in China. Hundreds of millions of people have been lifted out of poverty in the last 30 years, mostly due to China opening up its economy and trading with the rest of the world.

Click to expand...

Are any of those people working for outsourced factories? I serious doubt seeing how wages are 23-37 cents an hour for a worker working in a outsourced factory.

It doesn't matter why companies do it, the end result is positive. Higher wages in the exporting country, lower prices and more purchasing power in the importing country.

Click to expand...

Lower prices are not good if you lose your job to outsourcing and as a result have to take a lower paying job.Because poor people in the US will still buy used,stuff on layaway and rent to own. So the idea that the end result is positive is totally absurd.

You know what's a good way of getting other countries to enforce environmental protections, worker safety regulations, and other luxuries of rich countries? Turn them into a rich country too. You know what's NOT a good way of getting them to do those things? Keeping them poor by refusing to trade with them.

Click to expand...

Again China is a country of 1.3 billion people. They will not have any reason to raise the wages of factory workers or to improve worker safety and environmental laws.

Tigger said:

It's only positive for the workers in the country that work has been outsourced to. 5,000 jobs in China or India probably means 3,500 less jobs here in the USA. THAT is my biggest problem with all of this.

Click to expand...

Considering the wages Chinese workers make.23-37 cents an hour and 80 hour work weeks,about 75-110 a month, that number is way higher than 5000 jobs in China. If these workers in American were making at least minimum wage that would be 10-17 Chinese workers gaining jobs per American that lost his or her job due to outsourcing.

Tigger said:

You have still avoided the main point of my comment. Let me see if I can re-phrase it in a way that you'll understand.....

When YOU lose YOUR job to oursourcing, what are YOU going to use to purchase all of those less expensive products, Kandahar?

Click to expand...

I would get another job, as outsourcing would create more jobs in productive niches. In any case, public economic policy should be focused on the aggregate effects on people, not how it affects some particular individual. That's an emotional and illogical way to handle public policy.

The cost of a product is immaterial when you don't have the money to buy it, regardless of how expensive or cheap it is. 5,000 jobs going overseas in our current economy likely means a whole lot more mouths to feed from the Goverment trough.

Click to expand...

Even if that were true (which it's not), unemployment insurance is far less costly than creating protectionist barriers to trade.
In reality, the US wouldn't have any jobs at all if free trade destroyed jobs. We've been engaging in international commerce for most of our nation's history.

Thoste 5,000 people are not just walking in somewhere else and getting jobs the next day. They're out of work. What is your plan for THEM?

Click to expand...

If they don't get new jobs, then they'll sit on unemployment for a while. Meanwhile, 5,000 people who are already on unemployment will get jobs at some new business that owes its existence to international trade. :roll:

Kandahar said:

I would get another job, as outsourcing would create more jobs in productive niches. In any case, public economic policy should be focused on the aggregate effects on people, not how it affects some particular individual. That's an emotional and illogical way to handle public policy.

Click to expand...

How many of these people who are being outsourced can just walk into another job, Kandahar? Especially in the economy we're dealing with right now? I'm sorry but the benefit to AMERICAN WORKERS needs to be considered before anything else. It's definitely one of the things I look at when making a great deal of my purchases. It took me an extra three weeks to buy my new Chevy HHR in 2008 because almost none of them were manufactured in the US. It took that long to find one that had been, and I wasn't able to get the exact vehicle I really wanted; but it was worth it to ensure it was an AMERICAN CAR.

Kandahar said:

Even if that were true (which it's not), unemployment insurance is far less costly than creating protectionist barriers to trade. In reality, the US wouldn't have any jobs at all if free trade destroyed jobs. We've been engaging in international commerce for most of our nation's history.

Click to expand...

Unemployment insurance is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. We would have plenty of jobs without free trade. They'd just be different jobs than what many of us are doing now, and I'm totally fine with that.

Kandahar said:

If they don't get new jobs, then they'll sit on unemployment for a while. Meanwhile, 5,000 people who are already on unemployment will get jobs at some new business that owes its existence to international trade. :roll:

Click to expand...

You and I both know that's a load of crap. We are not gaining back jobs at anywhere near the rate that we are losing them; regardless of whether they're skilled or unskilled positions. This outsourcing is putting people in the poorhouse because there are not sufficient opportunities for them to replace their jobs.

Bigfoot 88 said:

Do you prefer a policy of "Free Trade", which means no tariffs on imports, or "Protectionism", which means tariffs are placed on imports.

Click to expand...

I believe that in countries of equivalent law, free trade should rule. However, those whom subvert the laws of the industrialized world may have levies placed against them in order to account for the environmental and labor laws present in the industrialized nations (i.e. the West).

Tigger said:

Please explain to me how the roughly 750 call center and IS/IT people my company has laid off in the last 9 months are going to be purchasing ANYTHING when they don't have an income? It doesn't matter whether the item costs $79.95 or $19.95 when all you have is $1.95 in your pocket.

Click to expand...

if high costs forced the company out of business and all of you were fired, would you as a group be buying more? or less?

It's way cheeper & we can keep an eye on them. eace

cpwill said:

Reminds me of the story about milton friedman touring a mass-line project in China. He asked why they weren't using bulldozers and modern equipment, instead of all those people with shovels. The guide, promptly proudly told him that in China they cared about the workers, and wanted to maximize jobs. Friedman thought for a minute and then asked "So why don't you use spoons?"

Click to expand...

That's exactly what they are doing with solar colectors, Dumping. They have decimated the U.S. solar industry, which makes the R's cheer I suppose, because President Obama loses face when U.S. companies that he subsidized, can't compete.
One could be temped to think that there was some colution beteen the R's & Chinese. Because I could never figure out why they would attack the pesident & not the Dumping of colectors? Coinsidence, better alert Issa!!! eace

Kandahar said:

Unless they're actually dumping (i.e. selling merchandise abroad at a loss), countries don't "artificially set a low price on export goods." If they did they wouldn't be able to make any money. They sell their goods for as much as they can and no more, just like US businesses do.



These things are luxuries for wealthy nations. It's patronizing to assume that YOU know the wages and conditions a Chinese worker should have, better than he does.



I could create opportunities for "job creators" and workers if I robbed you blind, and then used your money to start a business. That doesn't mean I would be justified in doing so. Your desire to steal from foreign workers in developing countries (who are much worse off than US workers) is sad. And in any case, it doesn't even work. Even if you don't care about the world outside of your own borders, free trade is STILL better. It increases the purchasing power of Americans by lowering the price of goods, and it creates jobs in more productive sectors.

Click to expand...

Or be Nationalized. eace

jamesrage said:

China is a country of 1.3 billion people.It will be a long long long time before the demand for labor far exceeds the supply. And when it does those companies will pack their **** up and outsource to countries where they can still pay **** wages and exploit the fact there is little to no worker and environmental protection laws. Companies don't outsource to uplift other nations. They outsource in order to exploit the fact they can a worker next to nothing and not have to worry about any environmental and worker safety regulations.

Click to expand...

cpwill said:

if high costs forced the company out of business and all of you were fired, would you as a group be buying more? or less?

Click to expand...

I work in a regulated industry. If this company goes out of business, we're ALL in a lot of trouble.... when's the last time you saw an electric utility company go out of business?

I understand that a company has to maintain profitability; but at what point does that mean you need to run 1700 hard-working, long-term employees out the door? The company I work for did exactly that last year. You know why?.... Because they'd promised a certain profit level/dividend to their stock holders and when they LOST the vast majority of their rate cases (which the promise had been based on winning all of), they couldn't make that level. So, instead of telling the investors they'd screwed up, they cut 1/5th of the non-union workforce to reach that profit level. Nevermind whether they could continue to run the business without those people.

Helix said:

i prefer free trade with partner nations which adopt OSHA-type worker protections and the environmental standards that US companies must comply with. those that don't should be subject to tariffs proportional to level of noncompliance.

Click to expand...

That looks good on paper, but ALWAYS leads to nonsense. On need only look at U.S. agricultural policy to see this in action. We subsidize corn, so HFCS gets very cheap, so we then must subsidize sugar cane/beets to keep them "viable" and so on. It also means that ANY U.S. compnay that makes a product will become the "standard", creating tariffs to FORCE foreign goods to that price level.

We see this with U.S. cars, as we PRETEND that union labor rates (and their rediculous pension benefits) are needed, so we apply tariffs to make that the "standard" even going so far as to bail them out when they fail to compete. The best approach is to allow free (but fair) competition. The only time competition is really "unfair" is when gov'ts subsidize production, as the U.S. is want to do.

When we give an industry a "tax break" for example, that lowers their cost of production, relative to any competition that does not receive that same tax break, the major problem with "enterprize" zones and other goofy market force tinkering. While it may seem unfair that Mexico or China can undercut U.S. prices, it does NO good to prop up a U.S. business that ONLY has a U.S. market (the rest of the world is going to buy the cheaper foreign product anyway); that usually just makes that product a "U.S. only" added expense, simply to protect that ONE maker.

Paying more for the same product is not patriotic, it is idiotic, forcing ONLY U.S. consumers to waste money just to prop up an industry. Manufacturing is only 12% of U.S. GDP and only supplies 9% of the U.S. workforce with jobs. Trying to "grow" that is foolish, since the real way to make money, as a nation, is to EXPORT not to simply consume more internally.