Discussion in 'Economy' started by expat_panama, Feb 1, 2012.
Exerpt; read more at KLECKNER: Obama risks trade war with China - Washington Times
Let's face it, tax'n'spending is wrong whether it's protectionism or the welfare state.
Not an American, so cut me some slack, but where's the "tax'n'spending" in this? From what I'm reading here all that was established was a "trade enforcement unit" that will investigate unfair trading practices, search for counterfeit or unsafe goods and file formal complaints...?
--let's get clear that this "trade enforcement unit" is for running a replay of what the article called "the administrations special tariff on low-priced tires from China", and let's also be clear that a tariff is a tax. In this case the tariff forces us to not only support wasteful spending, but also to pay directly into the pockets of underachieving corporate welfare queens.
Protectionism = tax'n'spending.
Okay. I'm not exactly clear on that. From the quote you've provided, it doesn't sound like there's any tariff.
Yeah I'm as pro-free trade as the next guy, you don't need to convince me. I'm just not clear on the fact that there's a tariff.
We had tariffs since this country started. It was only when those tariffs were replaced with "Free Trade Agreements" did the jobs start leaving and massive deficits begin.
Free Trade Agreements = Loss of Jobs and National Sovereignty.
"Loss of Sovereignty"? Why would a FTA equal Loss of Sovereignty?
Because written into those agreements are international complaint resolution boards that are binding. Your National Gov't should be handling those complaints NOT some unaccountable, unelected asshole in a foreign country.
Huh. Not sure what the disconnect is here. You saw the ninth and tenth paragraphs--
--and you know that a duties are tariffs are taxes? You follow how the President stated that those taxes went to benefit those that support him?
Around what year was this?
Only read the quote, not the article. Fair enough.
By that reasoning, all treaties are a "loss of soveriegnty." They are not of course, since soveriegn nations always retain the option of withdrawing from an agreement and accepting whatever consquences may follow.
And let us not forget that FTAs are not one-way arrangements. Greater and freer access to foreign markets for US goods is good for US business, including manufacturing and agriculture. US companies don't 'take jobs overseas' because of free trade, but because we make doing business less profitable and attractive here. And of course part of it is simply a matter of cost and benefit - a matter most effectively addressed via rising prosperity throughout markets.
Separate names with a comma.