Comments on: The troubled trade deal with South Korea Sat, 23 Mar 2013 13:49:31 +0000 hourly 1 By: jah627 Fri, 10 Aug 2012 14:59:00 +0000 Nations have used trade tariffs to balance trade and protect their citizens since the dawn of the nation-state. For thirty years we have been told that we live in a new era, in which the old certainties no longer apply. The result — the hollowing-out of our country: countless towns whose major industry is now demolition of their once-proud factories, the rubble to be separated and sold as scrap, shipped abroad to countries whose workers live on a tiny fraction of what it costs to survive here. A Japanese acquaintance recently remarked, “In America, everything is broken, and nobody cares.”

By: Bronco2012 Thu, 09 Aug 2012 13:39:29 +0000 I agree with depolkun. Data is sparsely used at best in this article and when it does use data, it’s only to back his already decided views. For example, he sites the U.S. trade deficit with Korea but fails to mention that this is only on industrial goods and doesn’t include the surplus in services trade. He also mentions the the $295 billion deficit with China but assumes that we have already fully liberalized trade with China, which we certainly have not. Overall, this is just “par for the course” rhetoric from the anti-trade camp.

By: DavidCayJ Thu, 09 Aug 2012 04:30:07 +0000 @depolkun,

Did you actually READ my column, which is chock full of data from official sources, contrary to your assertions, including official car sales data?

@ Cassippian,

As the video notes, the US used to have a trade deficit equal to about 1% of its economy, while now it is approaching 4%. And if NAFTA is such a great deal why isn’t Northern Mexico flourishing? Just what would you blame for America’s trade deficit?

By: Cassiopian Sun, 05 Aug 2012 21:13:14 +0000 It would be foolish for the U.S. to cede the S Korean market to our European competitors; they signed a free trade agreement with the Koreans prior to us. Boeing, pharmaceutical firms, medical equipment manufacturers need access to this market, the 7th largest economy in the world.
Also, over 80 % of the U.S. trade deficit is with countries that do not have bilateral agreements with the U.S., which includes China, Germany, Japan, and Ireland.
As for NAFTA, it is tiresome to see the old discredited arguments trotted out, about how we had a trade surplus with Mexico in 1994 and look at us now, etc. The U.S. imports large quantities of oil from Mexico, which adds to the U.S. deficit. And the U.S. trade relationship with Mexico is more balanced than it is with Germany, Japan,Ireland (in terms of import/export ratios)and many other countries.
Blaming bilateral trade agreements for America’s trade deficit is completely off the mark. The U.S. had a slight trade surplus with Ireland in 1994 when NAFTA was inked – and now the U.S. has a deficit of $26 billion.

By: depolkun Sat, 04 Aug 2012 17:42:52 +0000 This article cites 0 official figures, studies, or cases. And the author is only talking about the Auto sector, and that’s also based on his ‘observation’ or a few cars on the streets of Seoul. The auto industry will benefit, because it will bring down korean tarriffs and will make US autos more attractive. He author also didn’t mention the agriculture sector, especially that of beef, which South korea is the second largest buyer of US beef after Japan. THe US will reap in hundreds of billions with the FTA.

This is clearly a paper on the author’s poorly-supported biased opinions, not a well researched argument.

By: Beobachter Sat, 04 Aug 2012 13:22:53 +0000 @Fixthedebtnow aug3 7.06
I think there is also a big hitch in the way (modern) capitalism works in this and other Western is basically unpatriotic and based on greed..

I think the new treaty between the U.S and South Korea can not work, because American (as well as European) businessmen find it much more profitable to export work and import goods than to keep jobs and export goods.

The difference in cost level is too high, that’s why, That difference should be eliminated and the only way to do that is by means of (heavy, ..fully compensating..) import duties (Lost Jobs tax)on luxury non food/cultural products.

By: fixthedebtnow Fri, 03 Aug 2012 11:06:42 +0000 As a American Korean Citizen,
This trade deal was sure loser for American worker.

Without true understanding of policy of Korean
Gov. and Korean peoples devotion to their country , standing of the world .

What a shame!

By: ALLSOLUTIONS Thu, 02 Aug 2012 18:52:09 +0000 u-bam-a wrong again or maybe he lied again or both. Situation normal.

loser u-bam-a trying everything he can to claim credit. When will he claim credit for trashing the economy?

The facts no one wants to read.

Learn to think for yourself.

Censorship is evil.

By: Beobachter Thu, 02 Aug 2012 16:38:12 +0000 When do politicians finally realize that in a globalized laissez-faire supply side economy, it is only the money that is free (to do what it wants)…not the people…and…should not they represent the people?

@Leedap aug1 3.44

I would go much further than that, I would rather also balance the cost of living out with an annually to be revieuwed import tax (lost jobs tax)on luxury goods imported from low wage countries. compare the “shopping basket” (“Big Mac index”) each year and determine the percentage on the basis of that.

By: LEEDAP Wed, 01 Aug 2012 19:44:19 +0000 It does seem striking how the data does not support the conventional wisdom that free-trade is a jobs creator for the US. However, that conventional wisdom fails to acknowledge that removing barriers to trade means that production SHOULD go to the country with the lowest production costs. The data DOES support that theory.

One way to balance this out would be to introduce environmental and social tariffs on goods from countries with environmental and social regulations that are weaker than ours. I don’t think the WTO would go for that. But it is an economically fair trade since our regulations are meant to control externalities such as pollution and workplace safety. Not doing this is paramount to our exporting our pollution right along with our jobs. Neither is good and neither is just.