Comments on: Trump and Bernie are both right: ‘Free trade’ is killing us Thu, 21 Jul 2016 07:57:19 +0000 hourly 1 By: Jeff9207 Mon, 18 Apr 2016 02:45:31 +0000 Best article/column on the trade issue I have read yet. Thank you.

By: DemandSider Mon, 18 Apr 2016 00:50:55 +0000 “Free trade” with state owned economies like The PRC or South Korea is mutually exclusive. “Free trade” and “state owned” will never, ever, work.

By: wayout Sun, 17 Apr 2016 18:50:12 +0000 As we have seen, global labor arbitrage and comparative advantage does not work, and does not make sense. As just one example, in the US a typical worker with family needs at least $1000 per month just to pay rent or mortgage, how can he or she possibly be expected to compete in wages with someone who only pays $150? Also, in almost every country the majority of workers will always be less than highly skilled through formal education, we need to take care of our own. In China, every patent and copyright that can possibly be illegally copied, faked or pirated is, thereby eliminating almost every trade advantage of our supposed high-tech economy. Since China was granted admission to the WTO in 2001, the US has lost on average over 50,000 manufacturing jobs PER MONTH, and nearly 60,000 major industrial facilities. This is all the more significant when realizing that each manufacturing job supports between 3 and 6 additional jobs in services, not to mention implications for the tax base and vastly increased outlays on social welfare programs for the unemployed. An accurate analysis of economic history will show that nations prosper and thrive, not due to unlimited free trade, but when trade is intelligently and responsibly managed by government that places the interests of its own citizens first.

By: SamuelReich Thu, 14 Apr 2016 22:43:07 +0000 The aim should be to benefit the employment and health of of long term US citizens. Negotiations in p[asst deals where held up by protecting farmers an industry that does not have many jobs most US workers want. Also protected in negotiations was patent rights of firms many producing overseas and with their high level US jobs going specially imported workers. In short special interests. The industries who should be looked after in such negotiations i are those providing the type jobs citizens want to citizens in large numbers.

By: ngc121629 Thu, 14 Apr 2016 22:04:44 +0000 In the 1930’s Churchill warned the panzers were coming and we all know what happend!
Today there are economic panzers that are already here! Some not all,listed below.
1.economic concentration of wealth (=power*) in top 1%
2 meltdown of capitalist financial systems e.g.TARP
3 confusion/ignorance of free trade versus fair trade=job loss -social security underfunded
4 =power* laws protect the wealthy; most of their stealing is legalized.
That is why there are almost no jail times only financial penalties
Madoff was an easy conviction ;an exceptionally greedy man
Now let Trump and Sanders and Hillary tell us: of what are their panzer divisions are composed?
Frank Lipsky

By: ericguizzetti Thu, 14 Apr 2016 18:17:53 +0000 I am starting to ponder whether Obama’s exit plan is dealt in the Pacific Trade deal? I have always liked the way Obama kept himself, his style as president and most of the law’s he pushed for. But I feel like trade deals with other countries call his last year as president into question… I am sure HITLARY gave him exit advice on get rich after presidency.

By: cheeze Thu, 14 Apr 2016 16:24:15 +0000 Most associate middle class job loss with factories ,however, thousands of highly educated computer jobs go overseas too. All middle class work, out to cheap higher educated Asian and India work forces. The middle class American worker is on his leg.

By: LibertyIsGood Wed, 13 Apr 2016 19:28:11 +0000 “accomplish in fact what free traders argue for in theory: That the winners from global trade compensate the losers.”

Borosage is not only not persuasive, he’s not factual. Free traders don’t argue for this at all. When people are free to trade with each other, they both win when they trade (otherwise why would they voluntarily do so?). When they aren’t free to trade, they both suffer the opportunity cost of the inability to trade. The winners with protectionist trade, are the companies/industries that no longer have to compete on a level playing field with overseas producers.

The last time the US implemented higher tariffs via the Smoot Hawley Tariff Act in 1930, US GDP fell by nearly half within 3 years, and the law was repealed. ey_Tariff_Act

What’s killing the US are high corporate taxes, which is leading companies to flee the US, and high tariffs. The reason Oreo manufacturing moved outside the US was to flee the highest corporate tax rate in the world, and the high US sugar tariffs which make producing Oreos much higher than elsewhere.

Instead of less government (which would have kept Oreo manufacturing here along with the jobs) Borosage argues for more government. Not only would we have to pay more in taxes for the bureaucracy, more taxes for imports, but we’d also lose the benefits of sending fiat money abroad for real products.

By: UgoneHearMe Wed, 13 Apr 2016 17:46:49 +0000 Trade is controlled by the rich and their idea of trade is paying Chinese and other Asians, Mexicans etc. $1 an hour to make their cell phones and TV’s etc. while the rich get richer.

By: kjazza Wed, 13 Apr 2016 16:04:54 +0000 Excellent article.

I hope that soon the American government can become for the people and by the people.