Raise tariffs on America

[DrSpike]

Well, if free trade means the domestic country loses jobs, and allows pesky protectionist competitors to gain a relative advantage then countries that are relatively open should perform poorly, and have really high unemployment rates.

Therefore I propose that all countries unite to stop the evil that is trade forever. The future lies with self-sufficiency.

[DanS]

Yes, but I find it pretty impressive that the US can raise tariffs towards a partner in a free trade area.

First of all, I don't support this tariff. It's plain stupid. But it's obviously an exception to the rule rather than the rule. Otherwise, Canada wouldn't be doing booming business with the States.

[Dinner]

The softwood tarrif is unfair, however, the Bush administration has proven time and again that they will break any agreement and screw any partner it takes in order for Bush to get reelected. He was losing support in wood producing states so he slapped a tarrif on Canadian wood and when he was losing support in steel producing states he slapped a tarrif on steel.

What really gets my goat is that the Republicans kept harping that Clinton was an oppurtunist who had no concrete values to guild him, yet when Bush turns out to be ten times worse those hypocrites don't say a word. Anyone remember how Bush campaigned on free trade but has instead pushed subsidies and tarrifs? Anyone remember Bush talking about balancing the budget but instead becoming the worst financial manager in US history? That's quite a feat given the competetion from Reagan. Also don't give me any nonsense that the deficit is caused by the war on terrorism. The vast majority of the deficit is caused by massive tax cuts, 90% of which went to just 10% of the population, and by out of control spending nearly all of which was requested by the Bush Administration and then rubber stamped by their lackeys in Congress.

$200 billion for farm subsidies, $400 billion for perscription drugs, $40 billion for Afghanistan, $150 billion for Iraq, big increases in just about every federal program... This guy is without a doubt the worst President in living memory if not of all time.

[St Leo]

Originally posted by HershOstropoler
NAFTA is a joke. I always was in favour of Canada joining the EU.

Only if they get rid of their copyright law requirements. EU rocks in all other respects.

[DanS]

This guy is without a doubt the worst President in living memory if not of all time.

[St Leo]

Originally posted by DanS


Don't cry for Canada. Canada benefits hugely by a free trade zone with the US. Most of its population lives within 50 miles of the US border and a very large portion of the Canadian economy is US trade related.

Yes, we all moved within 50 miles of the uS border from up North when NAFTA was instituted. That's right.

It is in the interests of Canada to trade less with the US, not more. We don't want to be dependent on any one country.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by DanS

Dan, please explain why Bush should not be considered the worst PResident in Living memory.

[DanS]

Dan, please explain why Bush should not be considered the worst PResident in Living memory.

Three words. Gasoline price controls.

If you're older, then Bush is turning out much better than average of presidents in living memory.

[DrSpike]

Originally posted by DanS

Definitely. Not "maybe, but maybe not". Dr Spike will fill you in on the details.

Hey! Don't drop me in it Mr S.

Hehe, Dan is correct though Oerdin. The effect of moving from autarky to an open economy has no effect on the employment rate other than that brought about by the overall increase in world output that the move from autarky brings about. This effect is small (in terms of employment levels) and positive.

This is not some silly abstract academic argument.........it is true, always was true, and always will be true in any real world application you care to choose.

NAFTA has been discussed, so start there. You see, the argument that the case for free trade doesn't take into account the effect on jobs is not a new one - in fact it comes up in virtually every thread on trade at any forum I have ever seen. It's still quite wrong however.

Regarding NAFTA Ross Perot famously made his comments about the 'sucking sound' as shifty Mexicans stole hardworking American's jobs. Economists told him the effect on employment of joining NAFTA would be essentially zero, or small and positive.

Fortunately, the economists were right.

[Dinner]

Please reread my arguement. I was saying that some countries are so uncompetetive that free trade with do more harm then good in the short and intermediate period. The US is very competetive so obviously this wouldn't apply to the US. The US may lose in some areas but gain in others, but, what about a country like Belarus? I bet they'd lose far more jobs then they'd gain as state owned industries are forced to close.

[DanS]

This is not some silly abstract academic argument.........it is true, always was true, and always will be true in any real world application you care to choose.

"No nation was ever ruined by trade, even seemingly the most disadvantageous." -- Benjamin Franklin

[Dinner]

Yes, I heard it claimed so but prove that it would apply to a country which would be forced to close down it's state owned industries when every industry in the country is state owned. I am willing to bet that you are talking about the long term (25+ years) while I am talking about the short to medium term (less then 20 years).

[DrSpike]

Hehe what makes you think the negative effect on the formerly protected (through autarky) state industry outweighs the positive effects?

Sure employment in the state industry could fall, but there can only be a redistribution, with a small positive impact on employment which comes from the gains from trade.

[DrSpike]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Yes, I heard it claimed so but prove that it would apply to a country which would be forced to close down it's state owned industries when every industry in the country is state owned. I am willing to bet that you are talking about the long term (25+ years) while I am talking about the short to medium term (less then 20 years).

The point about time frames is well taken........ultimately what exactly happens is the short run is an empirical question. Of course, the state run industry doesn't collapse immediately in the short run, just as the new export market might not be exploitable in the short run as you say. History suggests that the benefits can be realised quite quickly.

[DrSpike]

Originally posted by Oerdin
I was saying that some countries are so uncompetetive that free trade with do more harm then good in the short and intermediate period.

Also key to this debate is realising that the gains from trade do not require absolute advantage in production. Almost 200 years ago Ricardo showed why a country that was inferior in production of all products could still benefit from trade. Sadly, this is another point that escapes many of the people that think they understand international trade.