• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Has free trade been good for the United States?

Has free trade been good for the United States

  • Yes

    Votes: 10 37.0%
  • No

    Votes: 17 63.0%

  • Total voters
    27

MildSteel

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 5, 2014
Messages
4,974
Reaction score
1,047
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Economists have advocated the notion of comparative advantage to advance the cause of free trade. The idea is that group A can produce a commodity B more efficiently than group C. C can produce commodity D more efficiently than A. Therefore A and C should trade B and D instead of trying to produce it themselves. It sounds good in theory, but when applied on a global level between nations, problems can arise.

Today we see the United States runs a huge trade deficit with China as a result of the implementation of such ideas. In fact the United States does not have sufficient commodities or manufactured goods to trade with China. The deficit is only maintained because China is willing to accept US dollars as payment for it's goods.

This arrangement has resulted in the loss of US jobs to other countries which has hurt many Americans. Not only that but it has increased the debt of individual Americans and the US government.

So the question is, has free trade been good for the United States?
 
So I was a protectionist until some time ago and I still am to some degree but I shall elaborate.

Free trade is good if you trade with nations that will not screw you over by being unfair participants in the trade. However, the USA has no such free trading partners. Contrary to a lot of rhetoric, the USA has no free trade agreements with China. It has no FTAs with most of asia and with most of Africa and with most of south america.

The FTAs that the USA has is with Canada, Mexico, Israel, Aussieland and a few more latin american and south american countries.
You don't even have an FTA with Japan, a longtime ally. You don't even have a FTA with the EU or hell, even the UK, a longer time ally and former master :p

What the USA doesn't have, and really no nation that is part of the WTO, is unresponsible tariffs. So tariffs that are of such a nature that would be against WTO rules. It's a grey area and each nation makes its case on where it hurts the most. For instance, Japan had to give up rice tariffs on US rice to be accepted in the WTO.

So.

if by Free Trade you mean FTAs that the USA has, that's not the case. You don't have FTAs with the countries that steal the jobs in manufacturing.
If you mean that the USA doesn't put huge protectionist tariffs on stuffs from other places... well overall I think it's a good thing. After all, who wants low wage manufacturing jobs in your country? this is a failure in policies and unions. If automatization were allowed to happen, the country that develops the best automatization robots and technology will become the new industrial capital of the world or have a chance at least to compete with low cost labor in countries like India and China.
And free trade has mostly been beneficial. Cheaper goods is a good way to stimulate the economy. What you don't realize is that Walmart makes the most money, not China. Walmart buys the goods from China for cheap, puts a huge sales markup on them and sells them at an amazing profit.
 
The idea of free economic trading zones arose from Neoliberalist theory that once two nations were economically entangled, the chances of those nations engaging in war with each other would be dramatically reduced. Such policies were pursued by Nixon, Reagan, both Bush's, Clinton and now to some degree Obama.

Now while it is obvious that trading partners have not went to war with each other, it is obvious as well that they do not have to. China has taken advantage of US corporate greed and used it to position itself to eclipse the US as the largest world economy. American presidents have refused to do anything to counter the unfair trading practices of the Chinese due to corporate lobbying and the cries of "you'll hurt job creators and the economy." Thus, the US economy suffers trade deficits and the lack of manufacturing jobs at home.

So no, I do not think that free-trade agreements have been good for the US. It has been good for US businesses and Wall Street, but not so much for the nation as a whole.
 
I don't like the false dichotomy of the poll. It's hurt us in some ways and helped us in others.
 
i'm for free trade with nations which enact OSHA-type worker protections and pollution controls similar to the laws our corporations are expected to observe. if not, an appropriate tariff should be put on the exports of non-compliant nations.
 
I don't like the false dichotomy of the poll. It's hurt us in some ways and helped us in others.

Let's get at it this way. What exactly are the ways it has hurt and what exactly are the ways that it has helped?
 
i'm for free trade with nations which enact OSHA-type worker protections and pollution controls similar to the laws our corporations are expected to observe. if not, an appropriate tariff should be put on the exports of non-compliant nations.

So you don't have a problem with US workers being put at a wage disadvantage?
 
The idea of free economic trading zones arose from Neoliberalist theory that once two nations were economically entangled, the chances of those nations engaging in war with each other would be dramatically reduced. Such policies were pursued by Nixon, Reagan, both Bush's, Clinton and now to some degree Obama.

Now while it is obvious that trading partners have not went to war with each other, it is obvious as well that they do not have to. China has taken advantage of US corporate greed and used it to position itself to eclipse the US as the largest world economy. American presidents have refused to do anything to counter the unfair trading practices of the Chinese due to corporate lobbying and the cries of "you'll hurt job creators and the economy." Thus, the US economy suffers trade deficits and the lack of manufacturing jobs at home.

So no, I do not think that free-trade agreements have been good for the US. It has been good for US businesses and Wall Street, but not so much for the nation as a whole.

I agree with you. Do you have a reference to support your assertion with regards to trading nations being less likely to war? That's very interesting. Actually, I think their is some merit to that idea.
 
If you mean that the USA doesn't put huge protectionist tariffs on stuffs from other places... well overall I think it's a good thing. After all, who wants low wage manufacturing jobs in your country? this is a failure in policies and unions. If automatization were allowed to happen, the country that develops the best automatization robots and technology will become the new industrial capital of the world or have a chance at least to compete with low cost labor in countries like India and China.

First of all, many of the jobs that were sent overseas were good paying manufacturing jobs. Not only that, but those types of jobs are necessary because not everyone has the capacity to be an aerospace engineer. That is a big flaw with comparative advantage. It assumes that everyone will be able to engage in the production of the goods that are produced most efficiently in a particular area.

And free trade has mostly been beneficial. Cheaper goods is a good way to stimulate the economy. What you don't realize is that Walmart makes the most money, not China. Walmart buys the goods from China for cheap, puts a huge sales markup on them and sells them at an amazing profit.

I don't think it's been mostly beneficial. What's the point in having cheaper goods if it means a loss of jobs and the resultant income inequality? The economy can't work with extreme income distribution at the top. Yeah, the Walton family is doing great. I hear that five of them are worth over 120 billion dollars. A worker at Walmart would have to work 8 million years tax free and save every penny to have that type of money.
 
So you don't have a problem with US workers being put at a wage disadvantage?


That part is pretty much unavoidable. If you demand equal wages worldwide, manufacturing will just go all tech, and many of not most of the jobs will dissappear.
 
First of all, many of the jobs that were sent overseas were good paying manufacturing jobs. Not only that, but those types of jobs are necessary because not everyone has the capacity to be an aerospace engineer. That is a big flaw with comparative advantage. It assumes that everyone will be able to engage in the production of the goods that are produced most efficiently in a particular area.

I don't think it's been mostly beneficial. What's the point in having cheaper goods if it means a loss of jobs and the resultant income inequality? The economy can't work with extreme income distribution at the top. Yeah, the Walton family is doing great. I hear that five of them are worth over 120 billion dollars. A worker at Walmart would have to work 8 million years tax free and save every penny to have that type of money.

...

In the 1920s the USA was the greatest manufacturing country in the world. It made more than a third of the worlds goods. Who was the USA's biggest customers? After Europe, it was China. Tons of goods were being sold to China, mainly to the aristocrats.
This was because the USA was good at manufacturing. There were ideas on how to manufacture, like the assembly line and specialized work and so and so forth that made work efficient.
Today that efficiency means automation. No amount of assembly line specialized work will help that. That's just the reality. And when it comes to costs, it's cheaper to get 1000 people working in a factory in China than it is in the USA. And nobody will come back, even if you raise tariffs to all hell (and not get kicked out of the WTO), to hire 1000 people to make Adidas shoes in the USA on an assembly line. That's an economic reality. If someone will open up a factory it'll be at the highest levels of automation possible to cut down costs and increase productivity.

You want to know why VW is still making most manufacturing in Europe, like in Germany? because innovation. There is an assembly factory in Dortmund i think where there is a train line coming into the factory with supplies and and whatever you need to build a car and the assembly line is public viewing. A customer can go in and look at how his car is assemblied by specialists in the final parts and screw in the final screws. PR + ingenuity and automation wherever it is possible as much as it is possible.

Retail is steadily and surely going to start employing less and less people. Walmart will start employing less and less people as machines will become smart enough to replace cashiers. It's just the reality of it. There already is a technology that by picture you can identify the product as long as you can see the bar code. So you don't need to precisely drag it in front of that scanner like it is now where you get fustrated that someone is too slow or has to do it more than once. The future of cashier work will be a line where you dump all the stuff you have, it goes through a machine and comes out on the other side already intelligently placed in bags and you just have either pay by card or put a money in one of those machines not unlike the ATMs that can count money like there are when you put money on the card. that's the future. You may not like it, but its' coming.

The reality is a lot of jobs are going to go away. And if you don't keep up with technology, they're still going to go away no matter what. The times of big industry that employs thousands of people is over. Next up, large retailers who employ thousands of people. And you know what? That'll be good if it is handled properly. Keep up with the times or else you lose because the times wait for no one.
 
That part is pretty much unavoidable. If you demand equal wages worldwide, manufacturing will just go all tech, and many of not most of the jobs will dissappear.

This is a dangerous concept. Karl Marx predicted that once capitalism conquered the entire globe, raising wages around the world would lead to mass unemployment and of course the breaking down of barriers creating the working class and the owners. We are ever creeping closer to this reality.

Once owners move to have machines replace people, the world will be a very dangerous place as global wariness of the super rich is ever growing. While I am a firm believer in capitalism, I am afraid that the system has become too stacked to really call the global market free and competitive. At some point, if changes are not made, the whole house will come crashing down.
 
Economists have advocated the notion of comparative advantage to advance the cause of free trade. The idea is that group A can produce a commodity B more efficiently than group C. C can produce commodity D more efficiently than A. Therefore A and C should trade B and D instead of trying to produce it themselves. It sounds good in theory, but when applied on a global level between nations, problems can arise.

Today we see the United States runs a huge trade deficit with China as a result of the implementation of such ideas. In fact the United States does not have sufficient commodities or manufactured goods to trade with China. The deficit is only maintained because China is willing to accept US dollars as payment for it's goods.

This arrangement has resulted in the loss of US jobs to other countries which has hurt many Americans. Not only that but it has increased the debt of individual Americans and the US government.

So the question is, has free trade been good for the United States?
Besides the jobs going to those countries and Americans having to rely on and be at the mercy for other countries to produce goods we need, those American dollars are going towards increasing and strengthening that country's military..Look at China for example their military is growing stronger everyday because of sell out companies outsourcing to China.What the **** did the traitors in office think China was going to do with all that extra revenue,give it to the poor in their country?
 
Last edited:
"Free trade" has been nothing but trouble to the USA.
 
Besides the jobs those countries and Americans having to rely and be at the mercy for other countries to produce goods we need those American dollars are going towards increasing and strengthening that country's military..Look at China for example their military is growing stronger everyday because of sell out companies outsourcing to China.What the **** did the traitors in office think China was going to do with all that extra revenue,give it to the poor in their country?

What is more disturbing than the actual money is that corporations have given technology transfers to the Chinese just to take advantage of the cheap labor and low environmental regulations. For example, GE provided the Chinese government with their jet engine technology in order that they could produce appliances in China and have access to the Chinese market.

I consider such acts by American corporations to be treason.
 
What is more disturbing than the actual money is that corporations have given technology transfers to the Chinese just to take advantage of the cheap labor and low environmental regulations. For example, GE provided the Chinese government with their jet engine technology in order that they could produce appliances in China and have access to the Chinese market.

I consider such acts by American corporations to be treason.

the reality is that they are NOT American corporations
they are shareholder-owned corporations with an international reach, many of which happen to be located/headquartered in the USA

and the board members have a fiduciary obligation to that corporation, NOT to the USA
they will direct the company in whatever way maximizes shareholder value. they have a legal obligation to do so
if their decisions benefit America, good thing. if their corporate policies are detrimental to America, too bad
again, because their focus is PROPERLY to enhance shareholder value. if they made decisions beneficial to America but detrimental to the corporation, they should be fired ... because they would have failed to uphold their fiduciary obligation to the corporation and its owners/shareholders
 
Economists have advocated the notion of comparative advantage to advance the cause of free trade. The idea is that group A can produce a commodity B more efficiently than group C. C can produce commodity D more efficiently than A. Therefore A and C should trade B and D instead of trying to produce it themselves. It sounds good in theory, but when applied on a global level between nations, problems can arise.

Today we see the United States runs a huge trade deficit with China as a result of the implementation of such ideas. In fact the United States does not have sufficient commodities or manufactured goods to trade with China. The deficit is only maintained because China is willing to accept US dollars as payment for it's goods.

This arrangement has resulted in the loss of US jobs to other countries which has hurt many Americans. Not only that but it has increased the debt of individual Americans and the US government.

So the question is, has free trade been good for the United States?

The only thing it has been good for is multinationals and shareholders. It has not been good for most stakeholders including workers and this country's economy as a whole. I suppose it could be argued that it has been good for consumers because they get to buy cheap stuff but since they live in this country and have to feel the pain of the nation's trade deficit, the effects of poor worker's pay, unemployment etc....it really doesn't pay off.
 
This is a dangerous concept. Karl Marx predicted that once capitalism conquered the entire globe, raising wages around the world would lead to mass unemployment and of course the breaking down of barriers creating the working class and the owners. We are ever creeping closer to this reality.

Once owners move to have machines replace people, the world will be a very dangerous place as global wariness of the super rich is ever growing. While I am a firm believer in capitalism, I am afraid that the system has become too stacked to really call the global market free and competitive. At some point, if changes are not made, the whole house will come crashing down.

well, if the jobs disappear and there is no new industry to pick up the slack, there will be real problems. i've been arguing for a couple years that we're entering the first stages of the post labor economy. it actually sort of started when agriculture became mechanized, but there was manufacturing then to hire the displaced workers. if they mechanize manufacturing too quickly, it will be really rough on the developing world, and pretty bad for the first world, too. i'm not arguing against the tractor by any means; i think it would be awesome if everyone didn't have to work, and i can see a time when that might be the case. however, we'll definitely have to take a look at our resource distribution model, because it doesn't work if there aren't enough jobs. a good first step would probably be to reconsider the forty hour / every week of the year definition of "full time employment."

as for the OP, though, i think that we should only have tariff free trade with partner nations who play by the same ruleset. some of those countries have extremely dangerous working conditions, so if we're going to export jobs, we can at least export first world working conditions with them.
 
Let's get at it this way. What exactly are the ways it has hurt and what exactly are the ways that it has helped?

Helped: Opened doors with other nations, increased economic opportunities.

Hurt: Placed American workers at a disadvantage.
 
well overall I think it's a good thing. After all, who wants low wage manufacturing jobs in your country? this is a failure in policies and unions. If automatization were allowed to happen, the country that develops the best automatization robots and technology will become the new industrial capital of the world or have a chance at least to compete with low cost labor in countries like India and China.
And free trade has mostly been beneficial. Cheaper goods is a good way to stimulate the economy. What you don't realize is that Walmart makes the most money, not China. Walmart buys the goods from China for cheap, puts a huge sales markup on them and sells them at an amazing profit.

Exactly! Why pay a man 15 bucks/hour in America when you can make some kid in China do it for 35 cents/day. Why pay for environmental protection when you can get some country that has no quarrels polluting the earth and dumping toxic chemicals in the water. It's a lot cheaper when you don't have to pay your workers or clean up after yourself.
 
Economists have advocated the notion of comparative advantage to advance the cause of free trade. The idea is that group A can produce a commodity B more efficiently than group C. C can produce commodity D more efficiently than A. Therefore A and C should trade B and D instead of trying to produce it themselves. It sounds good in theory, but when applied on a global level between nations, problems can arise.

Today we see the United States runs a huge trade deficit with China as a result of the implementation of such ideas. In fact the United States does not have sufficient commodities or manufactured goods to trade with China. The deficit is only maintained because China is willing to accept US dollars as payment for it's goods.

This arrangement has resulted in the loss of US jobs to other countries which has hurt many Americans. Not only that but it has increased the debt of individual Americans and the US government.

So the question is, has free trade been good for the United States?

Economists do NOT believe that free trade between all nations is good for everyone. Economists regularly recognize that free trade can be good for a small group of society's members, while harming the vast majority. I wish people wouldn't misrepresent what economists believe, because it wouldn't lead to policies that benefit only the few at the expense of the many.

Free trade is most likely to be good for the majority of society when the middle classes in the economies involved are on a fairly equal footing.
 
Economists do NOT believe that free trade between all nations is good for everyone. Economists regularly recognize that free trade can be good for a small group of society's members, while harming the vast majority. I wish people wouldn't misrepresent what economists believe, because it wouldn't lead to policies that benefit only the few at the expense of the many.

Free trade is most likely to be good for the majority of society when the middle classes in the economies involved are on a fairly equal footing.

Can you point to some reference that supports your assertion that economists regularly recognize that free trade benefits only a few?
 
That part is pretty much unavoidable. If you demand equal wages worldwide, manufacturing will just go all tech, and many of not most of the jobs will dissappear.

The manufacturing jobs will be automatized regardless. It's not unavoidable, you can require that the manufacturing be done here when possible or impose tariffs to take away the incentive to outsource.
 
...

In the 1920s the USA was the greatest manufacturing country in the world. It made more than a third of the worlds goods. Who was the USA's biggest customers? After Europe, it was China. Tons of goods were being sold to China, mainly to the aristocrats.
This was because the USA was good at manufacturing. There were ideas on how to manufacture, like the assembly line and specialized work and so and so forth that made work efficient.
Today that efficiency means automation. No amount of assembly line specialized work will help that. That's just the reality. And when it comes to costs, it's cheaper to get 1000 people working in a factory in China than it is in the USA. And nobody will come back, even if you raise tariffs to all hell (and not get kicked out of the WTO), to hire 1000 people to make Adidas shoes in the USA on an assembly line. That's an economic reality. If someone will open up a factory it'll be at the highest levels of automation possible to cut down costs and increase productivity.

You want to know why VW is still making most manufacturing in Europe, like in Germany? because innovation. There is an assembly factory in Dortmund i think where there is a train line coming into the factory with supplies and and whatever you need to build a car and the assembly line is public viewing. A customer can go in and look at how his car is assemblied by specialists in the final parts and screw in the final screws. PR + ingenuity and automation wherever it is possible as much as it is possible.

Retail is steadily and surely going to start employing less and less people. Walmart will start employing less and less people as machines will become smart enough to replace cashiers. It's just the reality of it. There already is a technology that by picture you can identify the product as long as you can see the bar code. So you don't need to precisely drag it in front of that scanner like it is now where you get fustrated that someone is too slow or has to do it more than once. The future of cashier work will be a line where you dump all the stuff you have, it goes through a machine and comes out on the other side already intelligently placed in bags and you just have either pay by card or put a money in one of those machines not unlike the ATMs that can count money like there are when you put money on the card. that's the future. You may not like it, but its' coming.

The reality is a lot of jobs are going to go away. And if you don't keep up with technology, they're still going to go away no matter what. The times of big industry that employs thousands of people is over. Next up, large retailers who employ thousands of people. And you know what? That'll be good if it is handled properly. Keep up with the times or else you lose because the times wait for no one.

I think the days of economies based on mechanized technology are numbered. The environment will simply not support it. Either we will run the environment in the ground and people will start to die off in large numbers and it will stop, or humans will realize it's simply not sustainable and return to a sustainable, agrarian based economy. That's what's coming.
 
Back
Top Bottom