Made in the USA

[vladimir]

I do not think China is doing this out of altruism at all, most likely the opposite. I am just trying to illustrate that U.S's prosperity so far has often been the result of borrowing from others.

Lately--for a very short piece of American history, yes. Not "often," and not "so far."

Well it is hard to say for sure but I think trade is welfare increasing and given such a small percentage of the world has any kind of decent living conditions I think that if it hurts this small proportion and they are brought down in wages, but more people are better off, this is preferable to me than a small, rich elite.

It's not hard to say--you are correct. That is exactly what will happen--the welfare of the globe in general will increase slightly, the welfare of the desperately poor will increase greatly, and the welfare of the relatively wealthy will decrease dramatically. So why should the workers (not capitalists) of Australia, America, and Western Europe support it? They shouldn't, is the answer--it is against their best interests. Most aren't sophisticated enough to realize that, though.

 

[Sas]

Vlad the prosperity of the West is already suffering and free trade is not even widespread. So I'm not so sure if the West can sustain their economies in the long term with continuing protectionism.

 

[gcbryan]

Well it is hard to say for sure but I think trade is welfare increasing and given such a small percentage of the world has any kind of decent living conditions I think that if it hurts this small proportion and they are brought down in wages, but more people are better off, this is preferable to me than a small, rich elite.

There is no reason for it to be welfare increasing. Change may be welfare increasing temporarily but there is no reason for trade to be singled out there.

Someone mentioned reading X-rays being outsourced to India. If that works and the resulting interpretation in correct that may be a step in the right direction. Our medical care can't stand on it's own without being propped up by insurance as it's too expensive for anyone to afford it if insurance was not there to hide the true costs

That means that we can't really afford to pay a doctor $300,000 a year to read an X-ray.

When costs come back in line with peoples wages then that X-ray will be read by someone locally. You have to consider the whole picture.

 

[vladimir]

Vlad the prosperity of the West is already suffering and free trade is not even widespread. So I'm not so sure if the West can sustain their economies in the long term with continuing protectionism.

I don't advocate protectionism--as I said earlier, I have capital. Capitalism works well for capitalists, not so much for workers. I just get a kick out of people who constantly extol the virtues of free trade without mention of the cost it will have to the wealthier workers who frequently make up their enthusiastic audience.

 

[jswantek]

Why do people buy these products if they are so inferior then? The market if left alone sorts out issues such as these. Protectionism = government handouts. How else will failing industries keep employing people if not for handouts? These handouts also include people paying grossly inflated prices compared to the rest of the world just to 'buy Americna'

Because 'Free' trade took away the market options. I no longer have an American-made baseball cap, t-shirt or running shoe that I can buy INSTEAD of the cheaply-made garbage that comes from other countries.

American industries would NOT be failing if it weren't for free trade.

Yes protectionism works to keep jobs in the short term. But not in the long term. It is now the long term.

Well then if protectionism means that everyone I know will be able to work and support themselves, I'm all for it. That means, in the long term, we'll be much happier. I like the sound of that long term.

Again that depends on a lot of things. Free trade equals higher welfare and lower welfare cases. But countries that are so-called free trade supporters are often not, and end up lowering overall welfare.

So which is it? Are we (the United States) or are we not supporting free trade? Judging by the amount of imported goods sold here compared to the amount of American-made exports, I'd say we're getting the short end of this stick. What other things does it depend upon? What areas of the United States are benefitting from free trade?

Those are the effects of trade protectionism. Free trade really hasn't been tried out well yet.

Well then let's call an early end to this experiment. While the notion of 'free trade' may look good on paper and may benefit a (very) few members of the global economy, it's just not working out well at all for the United States, at least as far as I can see.

 

[Eric Sedletzky]

FINALLY!!! An actual response to the original post! Where can one purchase a Freedom Plate?

From me directly. Click on my avatar and you will see my contact number in my personal profile, or PM me.

You can't get a Freedom Plate at an LDS because their too bust selling poodle jackets made in China.

 

[jswantek]

It's not hard to say--you are correct. That is exactly what will happen--the welfare of the globe in general will increase slightly, the welfare of the desperately poor will increase greatly, and the welfare of the relatively wealthy will decrease dramatically. So why should the workers (not capitalists) of Australia, America, and Western Europe support it? They shouldn't, is the answer--it is against their best interests. Most aren't sophisticated enough to realize that, though.

Actually, most Americans I know ARE sophisticated enough to realize that. I've actually heard one friend say that 'the only thing that free trade will do to this country is turn us into a third-world country.'

Why should we support it? Why should we have to drastically reduce our income and standard of living? Why should we give up what we have? We shouldn't, and we don't want to, we're being forced to.

 

[Sas]

Actually, most Americans I know ARE sophisticated enough to realize that. I've actually heard one friend say that 'the only thing that free trade will do to this country is turn us into a third-world country.'

Why should we support it? Why should we have to drastically reduce our income and standard of living? Why should we give up what we have? We shouldn't, and we don't want to, we're being forced to.

You are being forced to have lower living standards because a lot of your economy has been propped up by borrowing a lot of money from other countries (and other things that don't involve free trade but I'll keep it simple). Or on an individual level thinking that it is ok to borrow money you won't ever be able to pay back to buy houses and so on. Now the country is enslaved by debt. So it is not China's fault really, that is the fault of people thinking they could indefinitely be prosperous in the face of dwindling resources and mounting debt.

If the US had spent time and money developing industries that were more innovative and more efficient rather than time on money on industries where they don't have an advantage and wars they will never win, they would be in better shape today.

 

[vladimir]

You are being forced to have lower living standards because a lot of your economy has been propped up by borrowing a lot of money from other countries (and other things that don't involve free trade but I'll keep it simple). Or on an individual level thinking that it is ok to borrow money you won't ever be able to pay back to buy houses and so on. Now the country is enslaved by debt. So it is not China's fault really, that is the fault of people thinking they could indefinitely be prosperous in the face of dwindling resources and mounting debt.

The United States' net borrowing (which is only about 20 years old) represents a delaying of the lowering of living standards that was inevitable once trade became freer. The borrowing didn't cause lower living standards, it was a result of it. Freer trade caused the lower living standards, and will continue to among wealthier workers. It also caused the growing gap in wealth between the wealthy and the rest. If you have capital, you will benefit from lower wages, wherever you are.

If the US had spent time and money developing industries that were more innovative and more efficient rather than time on money on industries where they don't have an advantage and wars they will never win, they would be in better shape today.

Industries like semiconductors? We developed them here--and outsourced them to Malaysia and Taiwan. Aerospace? We developed it here--and had to transfer the technology to China to get them to buy some Boeings. Hollywood movies? A huge industry developed here--the Chinese watch them for free by pirating the disks with a wink and a nod from the government.

 

[Sas]

It's not hard to say--you are correct. That is exactly what will happen--the welfare of the globe in general will increase slightly, the welfare of the desperately poor will increase greatly, and the welfare of the relatively wealthy will decrease dramatically. So why should the workers (not capitalists) of Australia, America, and Western Europe support it? They shouldn't, is the answer--it is against their best interests. Most aren't sophisticated enough to realize that, though.

I think given what is happening now, they have little choice about supporting it or not. Calling for their industry to be supported is only going to work in the short term. So people are going to have to put up with lower wages or they need to get ahead of the game and gcbryan already mentioned that.

There is no reason for it to be welfare increasing. Change may be welfare increasing temporarily but there is no reason for trade to be singled out there.

I believe trade to be nearly always welfare increasing for the overall population.

Someone mentioned reading X-rays being outsourced to India. If that works and the resulting interpretation in correct that may be a step in the right direction. Our medical care can't stand on it's own without being propped up by insurance as it's too expensive for anyone to afford it if insurance was not there to hide the true costs

That means that we can't really afford to pay a doctor $300,000 a year to read an X-ray.

When costs come back in line with peoples wages then that X-ray will be read by someone locally. You have to consider the whole picture.

Well I agree. So the doctor loses out but the rest of the population wins because they no longer have to pay such high medical bills.

I don't advocate protectionism--as I said earlier, I have capital. Capitalism works well for capitalists, not so much for workers. I just get a kick out of people who constantly extol the virtues of free trade without mention of the cost it will have to the wealthier workers who frequently make up their enthusiastic audience.

It will have costs. I don't think many free trade proponents would argue against that. It will have costs on an individual level but not overall. The alternative will be worse for all I believe.