Bush: I will CONTINUE to push "Free trade"!

[Bluebear]

WASHINGTON - Contending that Americans benefit from free trade, President Bush said Thursday he would keep pursuing liberalization agreements around the world, even as critics say his policies have resulted in record trade deficits and millions of lost jobs.

Bush's pledge came in his annual economic report to Congress, a 438-page document that argued that his economic policies, ranging from making his first-term tax cuts permanent to overhauling Social Security, will lead to greater prosperity.

"I believe that Americans benefit from open markets and free and fair trade and I am working to open up markets around the world and make sure that the playing field is level for our workers, farmers, manufacturers and other job creators," Bush said in his message to Congress.

The administration devoted an entire chapter to extolling the benefits of free trade and seeking to answer critics who contend the country's soaring trade deficits, which last year hit a record of $617.7 billion, were costing millions of jobs.

However, the report did not repeat an argument made last year that critics viewed as endorsing the idea that the "outsourcing" of American jobs to lower-wage countries represented a benefit to the U.S. economy.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=4&u=/ap/20050217/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_economy

[EVDebs]

1. Free Trade is suicide. Read Pat Buchanan's article in Amer Conservative

www.amconmag.com/2004_04_12/buchanan.html

""Indeed, if the issue is jobs, Republicans ought to be thrown out. For not only are they not creating them, they have no idea how to stop exporting them. In their hearts, some of them think it a good thing. They are like the doctors of old who sincerely believed bleeding the patient was the way to get rid of the disease because that is what their textbooks and wise men told them.""

We need fair trade, not free trade !

[brokensymmetry]

17. Exactly!

Let's see now.

He says "free trade is good." Is there any reason I should believe ANYTHING he says?

[Ironpost]

26. I personally can't read pat

but hes right this time. there is a bloodletting going on in the form of jobs. And as the job goes so goes our way of life.

[mhr]

2. Bush: "I Don't Care If Americans Lose Jobs I Only Care About ...

... Corporate Profits"

[coloradodem2005]

3. Fuck you BUsh!!!!

You'd have to be pretty dumb to repeat that line about outsourcing. Oh wait, you are.

[tuvor]

4. Believes in fair trade???? Tell that to

our softwood lumber industry.

Oh, and return the $4 billion in softwood tariffs while you're at it, you duplicitous sonofabitch.

[elare]

5. Softwood tariffs

Has there been any more news about Canada's application to the WTO to impose $4 billion in tariffs on US products?

[tuvor]

7. I know there were discussions a few days ago to

determine whether both countries could resume negotiations. I don't know what the outcome was, though.

[applegrove]

6. Actually free trade results in more wealtth to go around. It means

less growth in the USA in the next 70 years because like all Western nations the USA is a mature economy. That means it has a strong middle class. Most of the areas where growth is available are in emerging markets with growing Middle Classes like India, China, Russia & Brazil.

That is why all leaders, even Kennedy are for world markets. It is a win-win situation. Except for the slowed growth in the USA and the loss of jobs right now.

That is why the third way is the thing being pushed all over the West (except Bush White House). With the third way you are for world markets (and all of those poor becoming middle class which means lots & lots of wealth will be created and lots and lots of the poor will not be poor). But - you don't do it on the backs of your own population without preparing them and educating them and encouraging people to take advantage of the right things. For instance, why can't medical insurance plans be international? Medicine in India gets up to peak levels (and is in many ways) - why wouldn't you buy an international medical policy. So if you need certain operations that can be done at a more reasonable cost... you fly over there for a kidney transplant. Perhaps only emergency stuff is done in the USA. That way - the cost of medical procedures in the USA comes down.

That is the good thing about the internet. It isn't just the cheap goods that consumers can get access to. You can get access to the intellectual important stuff too like 'medicine' and more competition insures. So for those of you that do not have a control Government medical plan (that keeps costs down) you can shove it to those expensive & profit making HMOs by going international.

Already the decorators, psychologists, and all peddlers of expertise in the West are screaming at the competition they face. Cheaper drugs are just the start!!

So yes competition has been very harsh on the working man or woman. And it is just about to be harsh on the 'educated elites' (a progressive thing). And all this change takes place and you encourage new ways of thinking and teach your people how to adapt.

Liberals have always been for open markets and internationalism. They just do it in a way that doesn't have the corporation's needs first. They do it in a way that tries to get people ready and better off. As opposed to Bush who shows his 'corporate hand' by refusing to allow anyone to negotiate as a block where prescriptions are concerned.

Now how to make sure that the 'rich' participate in this 'third way' and actually go through some 'needed change' themselves.

[idlisambar]

9. The "Third Way" is a resounding failure

The idea that all we need to do is educate people to succeed in new industries once we can't compete in old industries is a loser. Take a glance at the trade figures for the United States and other Anglophone nations to see the results of such policies.

[applegrove]

11. It isn't over yet. The whole point is that you either close your economy

down like Argentina did in the 20th Century, or you remain open and able to participate in economies where the growth is taking place.

Argentina didn't do too well in the 20th Century. Not until they cleaned up their act.

The fact is that all the wealth in the next century will be created where the new middle classes emerge. You either leave yourself open to participate in world growth that will see India, Russia, China & Brazil become together an economy that is 10 times the size of the present combined economy of today's Western nations ... or you don't.

[idlisambar]

15. A false dichotomy

Autarky is only one of many alternatives to free trade, and certainly not the best one. Managed trade as a part of an overall industrial policy in support of manufacturing has historically proven more effective. Recall that the United States during the 19th and early 20th century maintained tariffs on manufactured goods in excess of 30% and often more than 40%, and this is an era in which the US took over the mantle of economic leadership. More recently, East Asian nations have made use of tariff and non-tariff measures (targeted subsidies, policy lending, etc.) to manage their trade environment, and now this region is rising to ascendency.

By contrast free trade, as practiced in Britain from the mid-19th century to the 1930s and the U.S. from the mid-20th onward is historically a recipe for decline. It pays short-term dividends in low consumer prices, but it gradually depletes a nation's industrial base as foreign competitors are able to eat into the domestic market.

[applegrove]

20. What declined was the British Empire at the time. Open trade saved England

The war is what did her in. Now that she is just recovering from.

[idlisambar]

21. Not sure I understand your point

Britain had already been passed by the U.S. and Germany in industrial production by WWI (Germany of course then experienced a dropoff after its defeat in that conflict).

Not exactly sure what you mean by "open trade saved England". Britain's "free trade" era began in the mid-1800's when its tariff rates steadily dropped from >30% in 1840 to <10% in 1870, and it dispensed with the Navigation Acts. Not coincidentally that was the time when the British Empire was at its peak -- British manufacturers had a large technological edge and had every reason to be confident. Nevertheless, as mentioned above, during the post-1870 laissez-faire period Britain went into relative decline and it then experienced large trade deficits as the U.S. does now.

[applegrove]

23. And if England had closed its doors and not ventured out into the world

then it would have hit rock bottom much sooner. Instead it suffered the end of its empire and still had a headlock over places in Africa & such. But it morphed into the Commonwealth and tried to develop 'special' relationships with certain emirs (the British love to do business rule from the top down). Britain didn't do an Argentina. They stayed open and involved in the world. And though every single year brought less control of huge chunks of the world - all of the British did not end up eating dirt until after WWII (and they had just finished two wars in a row at that point so you can imagine why it happened then). And that is the point.

As middle classes evolved in Canada, Australia, the USA, & England itself ..there was money to be made on this growth the world over. England specialized in things like (insurance, oil, tourism, I actually don't know enough to tell you what it specialized in).For sure the study of economics was in its infancy and recessions & depressions went on and off and lasted longer than we would accept today (or until neocons got into power)... the British survived and kept on trucking. The point being that ruling the world is great (it makes you very wealthy). The next best thing is being open to the world that is growing.

America should follow the model of France and England and other old empires (Egypt & China) who when the sheen came off the empire (a corporate one for the USA) - they stayed involved and open to trade (open for their day) and didn't end up in the dark ages.

All the growth of this new century will take place in India, China, Russia & Brazil. That is where the middle classes have quite a bit of way to go till they consume like a suburbanite. They will have a combined economy 10 times that of all the Western nations today. You don't want to miss that boat and close your doors. Yes wages are falling and that may make you shop at Walmart - but you do get access to cheaper goods. And the internet will keep lowering wages for psychologists, journalists, decorators, cooks, book stores, etc. etc.

So several revolutions are going on at one. And you would no more want to put up protectionist walls as you would want to unplug your computer for the next 50 years. A time of huge changes but the USA has no choice. The areas of the world that have not reached maturity and will have huge growth are outside the US. Just like they were outside of Britain 100 years ago. But it wasn't like Britain did not participate or see growth within its own boarders. Now if the USA can just avoid the wars caused by such rapid changes and national prides.

[idlisambar]

25. Once again you are suggesting a false dichotomy

You are suggesting a choice between two alternatives. On the one hand there is the "open to the world" option, in which America remains "open to trade". The other option is "closed to the world", and though I am not sure specifically what that option would be it seems to suggest economic isolationism. This is how the CATO Institute likes to frame the argument - a choice between passive embrace of "globalization" or withdrawal into a protectionist shell. I would suggest that neither option is desirable.

Returning back to Britain, the doors were never "closed" to Britain's economy before, during, or after its free trade era. Britain actively engaged in trade throughout each period, the difference is that before the free trade era it exercised control over the conditions of trade in pursuit of national interests.

In truth, the doctrine of free trade similarly evolved in Britain as a way in which to keep foreign competitors in check. Britain in the mid-1800's was unchalleged technologically and its manufacturers could outcompete anyone in a free market. By adopting the mantra of free trade and pressuring for its adoption elsewhere it hoped to keep its competition down. The irony is that by adopting free trade wholesale you leave your industries open to upstarts who refuse to adopt the mantra. Even once it became clear that the Britain's industrial capacity was being drained, the free trade arrangement still benefited a narrow capitalist class who continue to thrive for a time based on their investments abroad. This parallels with the U.S. today are very striking.

[applegrove]

27. Are we both supporters of the thrid way? And I thought Cato was

a Liberal organization? Perhaps we really agree.

And yes investments abroad will grow a great amount while investment in the USA will not increase very much. So of course the elites want to be invested abroad. And so do the corporations (who I say should serve the people like the corporation was invented to do just that). And so does the middle class and so do the workers (if they can participate in the global economy through the internet - great). As always, you want to make sure the market functions for all.

But you cannot hide from the fact that the days of America being the biggest or the richest kid on the block is over. Even if the birth rate mysteriously resulted in 12 kids families all of a sudden all over the USA, it would still loose its place. But that doesn't mean it has to not participate in all the growth and markets going on across the planet. And Technology improvements like the internet will continue to help things even out and hopefully one day will stop us from hurting the environment. That is an area where the USA should specialize. You do what you are good at when faced with competition. And you get together with other countries and make sure there are good tough laws to monitor corporations, push democracy, transfer wealth, etc.

[idlisambar]

28. Cato is libertarian

I suspect we have some agreement. I am not arguing that the U.S. can or should try to be the biggest, richest kid on the block, I am arguing that it should be able to stand on its own two feet instead of being dependent on goods and capital from abroad.

This line is the essence of our disagreement...

You do what you are good at when faced with competition.

...I don't agree that retreat is usually the best response to competition. This strategy has resulted in withdrawal from industry after industry (autos, electronics, steel, aerospace, etc.), as others gain technological advantage. Pretty soon you become dependent on a narrow set of industries with this strategy and eventually you find you are good at nothing -- software, for example, was supposed to be something we are good at, but even in this field we now are losing ground to India and China.

It is this strategy of withdrawal in the face of competition instead of redoubling to develop our capacities that is responsible for our trade problems.

[applegrove]

29. I agree that you redouble your efforts and improve school & social

safety nets for the poor, you get rid of guns (3000 people a month die by guns in the USA - as many people as died on 9/11). Yes that is also how you face competition. I agree very much with that. And Cato - I have never read anything of theirs, I just saw it on a list of Liberal Think Tanks.

I am afraid that you are too late. Most of your deficit & current account debts are already held by the outside world. Yes - an adjustment should take place. Yes some things should happen to reorder your economy so it is ready for the next century. And most important, you have to kick the Utopians out of office.

So we agree in many ways. Here is to great math & science classes throughout the USA. And don't give me some voucher ****. You put money towards science teaching. And to getting rid of the ******* guns. If erasing grafitti will improve the thinking in the poor neighborhood think what NOT BEING AFRAID WILL DO!

[applegrove]

24. I do not take British "Third Way" as a model of anything. It is just one

attempt. We all know they are drinking the Kool-Aid. So they cannot claim to represent anything except for the hysterical American attempt to never loose empire.

[sandnsea]

22. Trade Justice

"Free" trade isn't working for anybody right now except the corporations. Which is exactly how Bush wants it. There's a difference between trade policy that lifts people out of poverty and pure exploitation. We're just going to have to get out of their arena altogether and promote a completely different approach to trade. Or the world world is fucked.

http://www.tjm.org.uk/

[DefenseLawyer]

8. Free trade is out

rough trade is in. See hotmilitarystud.com for details

[robcon]

10. Free trade adds thousands of jobs annually.

The growth of imports from China in the 90's was at least as important to the U.S. economic growth as the internet bubble, IMO.

[idlisambar]

12. Upon what is this opinion based?

What is your reasoning?

[applegrove]

13. Bush is pushing 'free trade' with protection & war for my friends

The Third way doesn't do that!!

As someone said on another post, the EEC resulted in Spain and Portugal getting wealthier than they had been for - well since they raped and pillaged the world. This new wealth didn't hurt the British or the French.

The fact is that the USA has matured as an economy. It isn't going to be finding a huge 100 million extra people to turn middle class like it did in the past 50 years. There is nowhere for it to go. But in the rest of the nonwestern world - there is great chance for middle classes to grow and this will create wealth. How it is distributed is another thing.

Distributing the wealth and helping people with the changes is the their way.

It is also a very Liberal thing to be an internationalist and to be open to the World.

[Elwood P Dowd]

14. Like Clinton before him, Bush isn't pushing free trade

He is pushing "rigged trade". NAFTA, GATT/WTO, CAFTA, FTAA, etc. are not free trade. They are money-making investment and protection schemes for a privileged few.

Edit to Add: Also, some insist these trade deals are just one of the steps toward the elite's goal of a world government - a government they will own and control.

[two gun sid]

16. "..and I will continue to enjoy Rough Trade with ...

my Bulldog".

[Bluebear]

18. Bang!!!

High five!

[paineinthearse]

19. Fuck free trade.....support FAIR trade. nt