|
|
 |
|
|
|
#1
03-10-2009, 05:33 PM
|
||||
|
||||
Foreign Trade Policy
I don't usually contribute to this section as I make a point not to be on one side or another which contributes to most of the discussion here. To be honest, I'm not on either side as a direct result to seeing what our trade policies have been the last 20 years. This grandeos idea of world trade and quickly dismantled our manufacturing base has left us weakened in so many ways. From the world political standpoint it's about the only area I have studied and kept abreast with and I believe it holds a significant place for a lot of our troubles.
For example our trade deficet with our two top trading partners China and Canada is as follows: 1988 1998 2008 (Billions of $) China 3.5 56.9 266 Canada 9.8 16.6 74.2 Now, this was all our choice (our government) in making policy to allow this trade. What it means to me as someone in the textile industry is that the apparel manufactures left (sewing is labor intensive), then the fabric producers left, then the yarn producers left. I have seen hundreds of mills close down from LA to Miami to Maine and everywhere in between. Right now the military is most likely the largest customer of our manufacturing. But what if peace happens or spending is cut? What these numbers don't reveal is the supporting industries that these jobs sustained, the food industry, repair people, health insurance, taxes to the government, office supplies, and on and on and on. Just as there are many industries that support horse racing behind the scenes, the same goes for manufacturing. What troubles me is we basically gave away these industies to many counties that have cival rights issues, no pollution policy, and a history of treating workers unfairly and they don't like us. (No, I'm not talking about Canada). Did you know that Viet Nam is the new place to go...why? Because their labor rates are lower than China. China's middle class is replacing our middle class. It's easy to see. We need to rework these trade policies to bring manufacturing back. Maybe not all, but a great deal of what we have given away. The power of he retail giants (Walmart, etc.) has tremendous political clout. As manufactures have been fragmented, they have had little say. This will create first line jobs, taxes, and a whole array of secondary jobs to support these industries. No one talkes about this, either party, til now. It's a voice that's starting and will get louder as time goes on. I say to death with Globalization. No free trade, only fair trade
__________________
Don't sweat the petty things and don't pet the sweaty things. 
|
|
#2
03-10-2009, 05:37 PM
|
|||
|
|||
__________________
Quote:
|
|
#3
03-10-2009, 09:22 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
good post! they branded ross perot as a quack when he said all the trade pacts would cause a giant sucking sound of jobs leaving the country. i love how they always dirty-up the guy that tells the truth, no corruption here, LOL. i also agree both sides are not worth belonging to.
|
|
#4
03-11-2009, 07:25 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
It's a start:
Members Of Congress Seek Sweeping Changes In Trade Policies James A. Morrissey, Washington Correspondent A high-powered group of 54 members of the House of Representatives has written to President Barack Obama calling for new directions in international trade that would correct what the say are past mistakes and open doors to new opportunities. The letter was signed by six committee chairmen; 17 sub-committee chairmen and members of the Democratic and Republican Caucuses; and the Black Caucus, Hispanic Caucus, Progressive Caucus, Populist Caucus and Blue Dog Coalition of conservative Democrats. The congressmen are highly critical of what they say is considerable damage that past trade and globalization policies have brought about, and they outline eight areas in which they believe trade policies can do a better job of serving US workers, consumers, farmers and firms. They cover trade with China, improving product safety, renegotiating the North America Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the Central America-Dominican Republic Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA-DR), the pending Colombia, Panama and South Korea free trade agreements (FTAs) and a "transformed agenda" for the Doha Round of trade negotiations. With respect to China, they mention addressing the "pervasive China currency manipulation problem" and the "immense" trade imbalance with China. They call for targets and deadlines for addressing that issue, which they say has "serious economic and security implications." They also are opposed to the US-China Bilateral Investment Treaty negotiations launched by the Bush administration. The congressmen call for new import safety policies that will ensure that food and goods coming from China and other countries meet US safety and inspection requirements as a condition for entering the US market. They want to see NAFTA and CAFTA-DR renegotiated following an "inclusive policy review" in order to determine what trade pacts must and must not include. They also call for a reversal of the Bush administration's "unilateral declaration" that the United States will join in negotiation of a Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership with Singapore, Chile, New Zealand, Brunei Darussalam, Australia, Peru and Vietnam. Claiming that the FTAs with Colombia, Panama and South Korea are "more of the same trade agreement model promoted by the previous administration," the congressmen expressed their opposition to all three for different reasons: Colombia because of human rights abuses; Panama because it provides a tax haven; and South Korea because of what they say are "lopsided auto provisions" and problems with "major financial service-sector deregulation and liberalization provisions that contradict global efforts to regulate that sector." The congressmen said they want the United States to follow a new path that can help the nation face its considerable economic challenges. March 10, 2009
__________________
Don't sweat the petty things and don't pet the sweaty things.
|
|
#5
03-11-2009, 02:18 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
It helps a bit that China keeps putting
cheap protein substitutes and other toxic compounds in their products. As alway there is a fine balance between protectionism and free trade. France has provided a good example of what happens when a country tries too hard to protect. Dont think we want this. Our Unions have not helped the situation at all.
|
|
#6
03-11-2009, 02:30 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
??? Dog meat?
__________________
Quote:
|
|
#7
03-11-2009, 02:58 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
The main problem is China not fairly pegging their currency, along with them subsudising their manufacturers. They sell some of their products less than people here can source the raw materials. It's not even close to a fair battle field. Unions are far below our political landscape that encourages these unfair rules with retail lobbyist spending millions to keep things that way.
We made Columbia a free trade partner to help combat the drugs they import. How's that going? It's never ending. And as retailers push these off shore manufacturers to move into new, lower labor cost countries, they get the rules changed to suite them. We've turned a blind eye to all of this and people here lose decent jobs ony to work at McDonalds or Walmart. Quote:
__________________
Don't sweat the petty things and don't pet the sweaty things.
|
|
#8
03-10-2009, 05:47 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
how are the book sales? you're correct the demChiComCrimocrat party nor the (R)inos give a damn.
__________________
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
|
Hybrid Mode
