37 thoughts on “Some very good news”

1. Geoff, is there any item on the Bush administration agenda, no matter how small, whose enactment you would not regard as very good news? Are there any that, in your opinion, have nothing whatsoever to do with the Gospel?

2. Agreed. As a former missionary to the DR, I’m pleased that this will open more economic development there.

   I often ponder how LDS “liberals” who are opposed to free trade square their opposition with the stark reality that free trade brings better paying jobs to our fellow Saints in these countries. They can argue all they want about the need to allow Unions, the need for a living wage, protect the environment, etc…

   But I would think they would have, esp. those who have served in such countries, a more sympathetic view towards their often unemployed and poor fellow Saints.

   Of course, I often wonder what would happen if Free Trade agreements required all countries involved to offer the same minimum wage. While I’m happy that the DR Saints can earn double to triple the regular wage working in Zone Francas (export free zones) [which will now include the entire country rather than just isolate areas], I wonder how much better off they would be if they were paid the US minimum wage.

   (Disclaimer: I’m against minimum wage laws; it seems clear, theoreticallya nd statistically that they just decrease the number of available jobs and speed up the movement towards mechanized labor which further reduces jobs. The simple answer to my question is that the US minimum wage paying jobs would be far fewer in number and/or require more training than possessed by most workers).

3. Jonathan, how nice to hear from you. I hope you feel at home here at M*. I’m glad to see I’m giving you interesting material to read.

   The subject at hand appears to be free trade, not ad hominem attacks on Geoff B. But Geoff B can take it, so if it makes you feel better, flail away! It might be more interesting for our readers for you to try to take on the subject based on its merits, rather than trying to insult the writer, but people with little to add in terms of actual information and facts often do this. I’m not sure if you are one of those or not because you have avoided actually addressing how you feel about free trade. But we certainly know how you feel about Geoff B!

   OK, is there anything on the Bush administration agenda with which I disagree? Hmmm. Well, I opposed the steel tariffs and hope they get repealed. I opposed the prescription drug entitlement. I’m divided about the No Child Left Behind — I see some benefits but also some potential problems. It’s not on the administration’s agenda but I oppose the death penalty and think the president should be ashamed for supporting it avidly when he was a governor in Texas.

   As for the second question, I suppose there are a lot of things that don’t have to do with the Gospel. But prosperity in Central America and the DR is certainly not one of them. Hey, but that’s just my opinion.

   Again, thanks for dropping by, and have a nice day!

4. But will it get me Coke without HFCS? I don’t think so. I wish somebody would go after ADM…

5. is there any item on the Bush administration agenda, no matter how small, whose enactment you would not regard as very good news?

   As a Mormon “liberal,” this is one of the few items on the Bush agenda whose enactment I regard as very good news.

   But it bears noting that (as with the Medicare bill) the House leadership bent the rules to get it passed. Please do not confuse my approval of CAFTA-DR with approval for such tactics.

6. random: They have gone after ADM, repeatedly.

   last: is it a rule, or just SOP, that voting is 15 minutes? Even if its a rule, House Rules are set by Majority vote; hence, if the House _Leadership_ wants to hold open the vote, it seems they have the power to do so, as they are the majority. Sometimes, it does seem like having a more parliamentary system would be useful.

7. John (no. 4): It is not clear that CAFTA will affect the flow of Coke from Central to North America. Free trade is only free up to a certain point!

   [[Of course, I know John is talking about his desire for cane sugar in his soda—I remember the kosher Coke posts. I just couldn’t resist taking the drug angle.]]

8. Ah, Geoff B. His blog entries are so very, very predictable.

9. Hm. My understanding was that the explosion of growth in the Church in Central America was due to my missionary service in Guatemala in 1996-1998.

10. Stref, yet another fan! Well, just as long as you keep on reading my posts! Interesting to note yet another attack on the writer without addressing the subject at hand. Do you have opinions on free trade or just on me?

11. Lyle, (#2), I think you answer your own question in the post. Increasing the minimum wage in the DR would simply cause higher unemployment. So, if you want higher wages you’ve gotta accept that they would only be for a few, select people. I’m not sure that’s the solution. The real solution is to encourage economic growth, which will bring more employment and, through supply and demand, higher wages. That’s the reason that the average Chinese person is earning 10 times what he did 15 years ago — because the economy exploded.

12. I heard this on the news, and was surprised that it wasn’t getting more publicity. As an Economics major, I was taught the value of free trade and comparative advantage (David Ricardo’s Portugese wine traded for English wool still sticks in my mind), but I’ve also seen the wrenching dislocation of older workers from jobs they have held their entire lives, because their wages aren’t competitive with workers in other countries. In the long run, free trade is the better choice, but it’s a tough road for many American workers.

    Geoff, you may be interested in the book The End of Poverty by Jeffrey Sachs. He’s a flaming liberal, but has some interesting insights into these sort of issues. Also, I was surprised to read your very well written critique of the death penalty. I had you pegged as a supporter for some reason.

13. lyle,

    Is that why there are massive corn subsidies in the USA, a great deal of which go directly into the pockets of ADM?

14. Elisabeth, I disagree with Jeffrey Sachs in many areas, but he has also done some great work opening up underdeveloped economies. Poland is a huge success story, thanks in part to him, and many of Russia’s successes can be attributed to him. He is way off in proposing more and more aid to the Third World (unless the aid is tied to specific targets and very carefully monitored). See this New Yorker article, which discusses him at length. This is my favorite part:

    “By now the anti-globalization movement should see that globalization, more than anything else, has reduced the numbers of extreme poor in India by two hundred million and in China by three hundred million since 1990,” he (Sachs) writes. “Far from being exploited by multinational companies, these countries and many others like them have achieved unprecedented rates of economic growth on the basis of foreign direct investment (FDI) and the export-led growth that followed.”

    The facts support Sachs: between 1990 and 2001, G.D.P. per capita rose by 5.5 per cent a year in East Asia and by 3.2 per cent a year in South Asia, and poverty fell sharply in both regions. Despite the claims of some analysts on the left, economic growth really is the best antipoverty strategy. If the rest of the developing world had matched the growth rates of China and India, victory over poverty would be in sight. Unfortunately, in sub-Saharan Africa, between 1990 and 2002, per-capita income didn’t rise at all, and the number of people living on less than a dollar a day increased by a third, to more than three hundred and thirty million.

15. Random John, I am opposed to all agricultural subsidies in the United States and elsewhere (Hey, there’s another area where I disagree with the Bush administration!).

16. random: ah…i was referring to antitrust price-fixing suits against ADM. I didn’t know they were part of the agra-farming movement that gets farm subsidies. They are probably thrilled by today’s Energy Bill passage with its ethanol subsidies!

17. I’ll have to disagree with you on this. Is it America’s responsibility to remove poverty in parts of the world where the learders’ corruption is a key part in that poverty? I would submit that CAFTA and NAFTA were not as good as others would have say.

    Consider the opening of free trade with China. Like China, Mexico and Central America, these are countries which cannot afford US services and products but their labor is far cheaper than ours. Therfore we hire them and buy their products but do not sell back to them. Outsourcing to India is an example how high tech jobs and other opportunities are going over seas. We once thought these would be secured jobs because of US education and infrastructure. That is now not the case.

    NAFTA was supposed to reduce immigration to the US by removing poverty in Mexico, but it didn’t. Immigration is up, and corruption still permeates the culture. Essentially, free trade with a corrupt government does not guarantee that it will make it to the masses, just put more money in the corrupt leaders.

    If the US wants to put economic pressure on countries (specifically leaders) won’t CAFTA and NAFTA remove the ability to do so without going through UN channels? It ties our hands.

    One instance I did hear mentioned is that US subsidized farms can produce food cheaper than some of those companies, so that may be helpful to us in agriculture, but like you said, you don’t support subsidized agrigulture. I’ve heard the highest poverty in Central America is the farmers. So if we can produce cheaper than them don’t we in a sense run the poorest of the poor out of a job?

    I wish there was a greater public debate on this and a revote. It could work to either sides advantage.

18. Charles:

    1. There is no free trade agreement with China. It’s probably one of the least “free trade” regimes the U.S. has.

    2. China, Mexico & S. America actually do buy alot of U.S. services and exports. While China sells us _more_ than we do to them; that doesn’t mean they, or the others, can’t _afford_ and/or _do not _buy_ our goods/services.

    3. Yes, U.S. farms, in some cases, can produce cheaper food…but _only_ because they are subsidized; i.e. they actually _DO NOT_ produce cheaper food. You have the argument mixed up. Farm subsidies in the U.S. and the “West” actually hurt the poorest of the poor, i.e. 3rd world farmers. This is easiest seen in CAFTA and sugar. U.S. Sugar prices are much higher than in the Dominican Republic. Why? Because U.S. sugar growers are inefficient and enjoy tarriffs, which are taxes imposed on sugar imported from the DR. Sadly, CAFTA hardly touches the sugar tariffs, but to the extent that it does reduce them, it will mean more money for sugar farmers in foreign countries.

19. Charles, thanks for your comments. Let’s look at a few of your points.

    Is it America’s responsibility to remove poverty in parts of the world where the learders’ corruption is a key part in that poverty?

    No. It is America’s responsibility to provide jobs for its citizens and protect Americans first. Secondarily, it is America’s responsibility to help other countries if it can. But sometimes by helping other countries, we help ourselves. The Marshall Plan is a good example. Was it our responsibility to give money and aid to Germany after all that Hitler did? No way, but in so doing, we helped ourselves because as Germany grew, we did more business with Germany (providing jobs to Americans AND to Germans). As for corruption, this is a cultural issue that can only be addressed through continued engagement. The only solution to corruption is to convince people in a country to get so fed up with it that they do something about it on their own. And the only way to do that is to create some pockets of prosperity (through economic growth) so that people participate in the political process because they have a stake in changing the situation for the better. Free trade helps do that.

    Consider the opening of free trade with China. Like China, Mexico and Central America, these are countries which cannot afford US services and products but their labor is far cheaper than ours. Therfore we hire them and buy their products but do not sell back to them. Outsourcing to India is an example how high tech jobs and other opportunities are going over seas. We once thought these would be secured jobs because of US education and infrastructure. That is now not the case

    We actually sell a lot of things back to Mexico and Central America. Our trade is roughly in balance. We get coffee, cotton, oil, textiles, etc. and we sell them electronics, computers, telecom equipment. Sounds like a good trade to me. I want Americans to keep higher paying jobs. You are correct our trade is horribly out of balance with China. I remember everybody was completely freaked out because of our trade imbalance with Japan in the 1980s. Yet Japan has been in a long slump (almost a decade) and our economy is booming. At some point, the same thing will happen with China. I have confidence in the American people’s ability to create jobs and opportunity. I’m not afraid of competing with anybody.

    On immigration, we have to recognize this was not the primary purpose of NAFTA but there was an expectation that fewer Mexicans would move to the US as their economy grew. This has happened in some areas but in other it hasn’t. The primary reason is that there is so much opportunity in the United States compared to Mexico. That is a good thing, it seems to me. Why should I work for $20 a day in Mexico when I can work for $100 a day in the U.S.? Free trade is the only possible way to solve this because it will increase pay and opportunity in Mexico — eventually. It took 30 to 40 years for Asian economies to raise their standards of living. It may take more in Latin America.

    I don’t see any connection to trade and the UN. They are separate issues.

    You have exactly captured my point on subsidized agriculture. We need to stop all subsidies so that the countries that can produce the cheapest can employ their people and stop sending them here! There are many areas where US agriculture is the cheapest and most efficient (wheat and soybeans come to mind) but there are others where they are not (cane sugar, peanuts). Let’s stop subsidizing the areas where we can’t compete.

20. I cannot see how opening up trade with countries will benefit many people in the USA except for the owners of companies that outsource their labor.

    Many Most countries can produce products for less than what it would cost to produce the US. That’s great for us to buy their stuff, sure. Someone please explain to me how the the people of those countries can afford to buy the stuff we produce and have it balanced monetarily to what we’re buying from them?

    Where did all the US factory workers go when their employers shut down the facilities and moved to other countries? They may be employed. Perhaps at multiple jobs to make ends meet.

    Where will I and my coworkers go when all technical jobs are outsourced?

    We can look at the cheap goods we get and love it. Does the gospel not look after the person who has to buy those goods, too? When more and more things are produced and outsourced beyond our borders, will US consumers have an income to buy these cheap things?

    I don’t care for subsidies and I think in theory trade is nice – but as far as I can tell the people it’s nicest for are those providing goods to the US. It looks greatly imbalanced in favor of other nations. Please tell me how reducing trade barriers helps the workers in the US who have lost jobs?

21. Adeline, you ask some good questions, and I have some answers for you.

    First, take a look at this article. U.S. manufacturing activity increased in June and has increased for 25 straight months! Why is this? Aren’t the Chinese and Indians taking all our jobs? Well, the reality is that the Chinese and Indians get all the attention from our short-sighted media, but the reality is that U.S. manufacturers are doing great. Steel companies are booming because they’re selling steel to China, which is booming. US car makers, who have serious long-term problems, by the way, had their best sales months ever in June and July since 2001. Boeing is doing great making airplanes. So, lots of cars and airplanes are being built and sold. But there are literally thousands upon thousands of small manufacturers who are doing great. These people make everything from belts to saddles for horses to Cisco routers to Intel processors to Motorola cell phones. And, for the most part, US quality is always better.

    There is zero chance that “all technical jobs” will be outsourced. Zero. Yes, some people may lose their jobs and have to find new ones. This happens all the time. If supermarket A is more expensive and is dirty and has poor service compared to supermarket B, then supermarket A will go out of business. We can’t say, “keep supermarket A in business even though it is worse.” The reality is that it is good for the economy when supermarket A goes out of business because supermarket B grows and hires new people and then supermarket C comes along and provides new competition to supermarket B. Supermarket C probably hires some of the people who were fired by supermarket A. And then supermarket B has to become an even better store or it will go out of business. The exact same thing happens in the U.S. economy. Sometimes companies need to go elsewhere to cut their costs temporarily, but this is good for them because it makes them stronger and more competitive. But new companies always come along and hire the people that are fired when companies outsource. It always happens. The U.S. buggy whip business used to be huge. But then the automobile came along and suddenly people were not driving in carts drawn by horses anymore and nobody wanted to buy buggy whips. So, buggy whip makers were out of work. But, boy, those car factories sure produced a lot of jobs, in fact, many more jobs than buggy whip factories.

    The reality is that today the United States economy is incredibly robust, providing more jobs at good wages than ever in history. I would say this if a Democrat were president (and by the way, the same thing was the case when Clinton was the president). We have nothing to fear from China and India. In fact, right now, Chinese and Indian companies are hiring tens of thousands of people in the United States.

    And here’s a prime example. I used to work with a guy who didn’t like his job at my company. He looked around at U.S. companies and couldn’t find a job. Then, he decided to apply at China Telecom. It turns out that Chinese telecom companies are hiring like crazy in the United States, and he got a job. He is ecstatic. Meanwhile, I know several other people who are working at VSNL, an Indian telecom company that is hiring like crazy in the United States.

    So, to answer your question directly, lowering trade barriers has directly led to employing tens of thousands of Americans in the United States because Chinese and Indian companies have come in and offered them jobs, high-paying jobs that they love. Not to mention all of the steel workers employed making steel to send to China or the airplane workers at Boeing making airplanes that get shipped to China or the Cisco and Intel and Motorola workers who are employed making electronics that get shipped to China.

22. I feel that while jobs going overseas might make things a little harder here in the US, it benefits the world long term. I feel bad that we are so much, when people in other countries do not have opportunities for jobs, education and a chance to better their lifestyle.
    I’d rather send jobs overseas, than cash. I realize we don’t really send jobs to starving people, but it does have a far reaching effect.

23. Hrm… at first blush, it looks like an all around good deal (and I’m a VRWC lifetime member… [vast right wing conspiracy])
    But then… Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO) brings up some interesting, and in my opinion underreported, parts of the agreement:
    “…What those provisions mean is that a foreign company would be empowered under CAFTA to challenge the validity of our immigration laws. If an international tribunal rules against us, Congress would then be forced to change our immigration laws or face international trade sanctions. These tribunals have the authority to rule that U.S. immigration limits, visa requirements, or even licensing requirements and zoning rules are “unnecessary burdens to trade” that act as “restrictions on the supply of a service.”

    This hidden legislation to open the U.S. border is only the beginning..”
    (Via the Immigration Blog)

24. George: With all due respect, Rep. Tancredo is flat wrong. And even if he wasn’t, the U.S. govt would simply ignore an international court that tried to do so. We’ve done it before; i’m sure we will ignore international courts in the future.

    And again, frankly, I don’t care about a possible threat to U.S. sovereignty, sometime in the mythical future of possibility while the people I taught the gospel to are struggling to provide food for their families today.

25. Geoff,

    I appreciate your input, but I still think there are several misguided points.

    The Marshall Plan was good for everyone involved, but it came at the end of a very expensive war, a war that the US had great involvement in causing the damage that needed to be repaired via the Marshall Plan. Also that plan did not just provide blanket funding it specifically called for US companies to have contracts to do the rebuilding. That boosted US economy while helping to rebuild Germany. Germany also flourished because of the W. Germanys move to a more democratic state.

    I’m glad we agree about the imbalance in China, the problem is that comparing it to the imbalance with Japan is faulty because Japan is a free nation while China is still communist. This is a greater disadvantage as it makes economic freedom and opportunity more difficult in their country.

    As for corruption, free trade and the UN; I believe the challenge will be providing opportunities in a country where the only way to get success is through corrupt officials. Once successful and with those same officials in power it will be easy to propogate corruption by imposing government restrictions on competitors. Free trade and the UN are mutually exclusive, but if the US wants to impose high tarrifs, taxes, or fees on countries where there is a greater imballance (or even to protect the made in America label and American workers) CAFTA and NAFTA remove those abilities because of the “free trade”. Those same options can also be used to influence political structure of those countries. Now that option is removed unless you talk about UN sanctions which then needs to be agreed upon by the body of the UN. That is the connection.

    A couple of thought provoking questions, marginally related to the topic. When a country’s primary export is drugs (looking to central America), what happened to the stance of dealing harshly and opposing those governments so they can clean up their act to where we now will freely trade with them? I think its good that we can export electronics but when you consider those things that we are exporting doesn’t it look suspiciously like exporting the very infrastructure that is required for a high tech industry. I’m not against companies building themselves up, but lets look at India and the Phillipines.

    Off shore job outsourcing used to be thought of as manufacturing jobs, but now it is looking more and more that mid to high range tech jobs will be lost to those overseas.

    If the US raised minimum wage and required companies to compete with the rise in standard of living increase yearly, more people would take the jobs that are going to illegals. If we had stronger border control that would impact immigration of illegal immigrants, homeland security and a reduction in drug trafficing. Give the companies a reason to invest in US workers and then once our problems are being resolved turn to our neighbors.

26. Geoff, thanks for your response. I hate to sound simplistic but how can this statement below work in our favor?

    “Not to mention all of the steel workers employed making steel to send to China or the airplane workers at Boeing making airplanes that get shipped to China or the Cisco and Intel and Motorola workers who are employed making electronics that get shipped to China.”

    You know what an American worker needs to be paid at a minimum. You know that China workers make far less. How can the Chinese afford electronics made in the US at a price that would cover the salary of the US worker who made it and still make a profit for the company in the US?

    If I could understand how this is possible, for other countries to buy goods made in the US at a monetary rate that would make it worth companies staying in the US, maybe I would understand how this bill won’t further hurt the trade deficit.

    As for the supermarket comparison, who is coming along who can compete with WalMart? This is a company who has told other companies to cut costs (and recommended they move overseas to do it) or they won’t sell their products. Their prices are great but what is the long term impact to American workers?

    There will always be industries that go defunct, like buggy whip makers. This isn’t about and industry going defunct, this is about more goods and services going overseas and making it even easier for them to do so.

    “I would say this if a Democrat were president (and by the way, the same thing was the case when Clinton was the president).”

    Sure, yet was the moral cost of having him in office worth it? 😉 I sometimes have my doubts.

27. Oh, btw, Geoff, that was me, Adeline. My email is Avalon. LOL

28. Charles and Adeline, you make a lot of points. Let me try to address a few of them.

    1)On the issue of drugs, this is an extremely complex issue that cannot be addressed simply by punishing governments. One of the first problems is that drugs is also a demand-side issue, meaning that the biggest market for drugs is the United States, and if anybody should be punished it’s the country that has the demand for the drugs. So, Latin Americans will tell us they will stop shipping us drugs as long as we stop buying them, and to a certain degree they are correct. But the other point is that there are governments or parts of governments that are sincerely trying to stop the flow of drugs. Yes, there are many who are corrupt, but the Colombian government, for example, is sincerely trying to crack down on the drug trade. Should we punish Colombia by not doing trade with it (thereby hurting the institutions that may actually change the problem in Colombia) or should we increase trade and help build up businesses, which will offer an alternative form of employment to the peasants who produce drugs? It seems to me, the best solution is free trade and employment. (Colombia is not part of CAFTA-DR, but it is part of other potential trade pacts, and the same principle applies to Central American countries).

    2)Raising the minium wage only increases unemployment. The minimum wage is not a magic solution — employers cannot automatically and magically come up with more money. If you have 20 people at a McDonalds working for $6 an hour and you raise the minimum wage to $10 an hour, the owner doesn’t keep the same 20 people. He fires eight of them. This is basic common sense. How much do you think you would need to raise the minimum wage to for people who are US citizens to go out and pick strawberries all day in the hot Florida sun? Probably $20 an hour. But let’s say it’s $15 an hour. (Strawberry pickers in Florida usually make about $8 an hour today, and all of them are immigrants). Who pays the extra minimum wage? Not the strawberry farmer. He can’t afford it. You can’t deal with illegal immigration by raising the minimum wage. You can only deal with it by raising the standard of living in Mexico and Central America so people want to stay there. That’s what CAFTA and NAFTA are trying to do.

    3)Adeline, most Chinese individuals don’t buy high-tech equipment. Chinese companies do. And they buy a lot of it. They have a lot of cash today. But again the bottom line is this: if China and India are stealing our jobs, why is unemployment going down and manufacturing going up in the U.S.? The reality is that China and India are booming and they are buying more stuff from the U.S., which is also booming. Both of them are booming!! It’s a win-win situation. That’s what free trade is about.

    4)The buggy whip comparison was purposeful. As CAFTA cranks up, you will read articles about textile workers in South Carolina losing their jobs as textile factories close. Well, textile factories in South Carolina are the buggy whip factories of 2005. How can we possibly think we should prop up an industry that can’t be competitive in the global economy to make shirts and pants when people in Honduras and Mexico and China can do it for half or a third of the price? Well, why didn’t we prop up buggy whip factories 100 years ago? Because, by closing them, the people who worked there went and got jobs elsewhere at factories that were going to remain open and be viable. People at textile factories that are not viable need to get jobs elsewhere. I think we need to re-train people and offer them other assistance. I don’t want them thrown in the streets and see their children starve. But I also don’t want us to maintain a factory making textiles when that factory shouldn’t be open in the first place because it’s not competitive. Let the Chinese dominate the textile business. I’d rather dominate the high-tech industries that have high-paying jobs, which we are definitely doing today.

    I hope this answers your primary questions.

29. lyle,

    Yeah, they did get them with the price fixing, but we still give them massive amounts of money that doesn’t go to good use as far as I can tell.

30. Geoff,

    A couple of things here as well. Minimum wage is not the only solution but it can be a big part of the overall solution. Lowering taxes, possibly a flat tax rate, limiting what government is repsonsible for and streamlining such will leave more spendable cash in the pockets of American workers. These are all things the government should be doing as they impact our country directly.

    Perhaps cost of goods would go up but if we continued to have tarriffs and trade fees for foreign products that would provide the government with more funds as well as levelling the cost of goods, then consumers can choose based on equal fair price where to buy their products from.

    Your example of the buggywhip is only valid as the buggywhip became obsolete with automobiles and other forms of transportation. Another industry took its place. We will always need to wear clothes and thereby leaving the textiles industry necessary. A Global economy is only truly fair when the cost of living and standards of living are equal throughout the world. As long as the cost of living in a third world country is a fourth of what it is here, no US company will ever be able to compete.

    Workers gaining employment in other industries may be possible for now. The manufacturing jobs are low to moderate skill level. But when the tech jobs that require 4+ years of college and experience are outsourced where will those people go.

    Consider this blog.

    It cites a study that shows the most likely jobs for outsourcing are the ones that the workforce cannot simply find something else so easily.

31. Charles: Actually, we might not always wear clothes. It seems equally plausible that we will master genetics and be able to manipulate our DNA to instantly create different colored skin growths to serve as clothing.

    Ok, maybe not, but then again…I’m sure fire-driven mechanical beasts seemed far fetched to horse-buggy drivers also.

32. Ok, olive branch time (this one goes out to Jonathan Green [REM pun intended, see article below]).

    To those that think that free trade/getting rid of agricultural subsidies is a bad thing…

    Why do such noted liberals & Bush Haters as Michael Stipe disagree?

    Stipe, et al. recently did some ads about how agro subsidies are hurting the poor in 3rd world countries.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/29/business/29adco.html?8hpib

    Sum: All trade subsidies & tariffs should be banned. Equal playing field will increase the wealth, and health/nutrition, of all of our sisters and brothers.

33. Geoff,

    “But I also don’t want us to maintain a factory making textiles when that factory shouldn’t be open in the first place because it’s not competitive. Let the Chinese dominate the textile business. I’d rather dominate the high-tech industries that have high-paying jobs, which we are definitely doing today.”

    I’m sure you realize that a lot of people who worked in textile factories do not have the same skills or abilities to get a high tech job.

    There are many, many high tech jobs that are either being outsourced overseas or filled by foreign contractors who work for less here in the USA.

    “How can we possibly think we should prop up an industry that can’t be competitive in the global economy to make shirts and pants when people in Honduras and Mexico and China can do it for half or a third of the price?”

    How can we possibly keep most businesses functioning with US employees when people in Honduras and Mexico and Chinda can do it for half or a third of the price? Honestly, why would any company keep a factory, call center, IT dept open here when it can be done for less elsewhere? This is the crux of my question. What is the incentive for companies to keep their businesses here?

    Even factories that moved from the US to Mexico are now closing to move to China where the wage is less. The direction things are headed doesn’t make the global economy look like a plus for everyone, just the owners of corporations who are seeing an increase in profits. True, this will allow them to provide more jobs – overseas.

    I don’t dispute unemployment rates are low. If you lose your factory job and don’t have the skills for a comparable paying job and don’t have the money for schooling, you’ll likely either have to get 2 low paying jobs or your spouse will have to go to work. Of course the unemployment rate is low. Are there numbers showing what industries employement has went up in? What parts of the country?

    I don’t consider it a plus if we lost a million factory jobs to China and Central America, a 100,000 tech jobs to India and gained 3 million burger flipping jobs. No one can dispute that jobs have went overseas. What are those people who lost their doing now? If the unemployment rate increases by 10% in the southern states and decreases by 15% in new england, there’s still a problem for workers.

    I don’t know how many people here have had family and friends impacted by layoffs in the tech industry or how many of you have family who grew up with blue collar factory jobs but these are real concerns to those who have.

    About the only things we cannot outsource are service industry related such as medical care, car maintenance, janitorial, restaurant, and cashier. Construction I suppose, too. If a company can make a bigger profit elsewhere, why keep jobs here?

    I can’t see this as a level playing field benefiting workers around the world, just owners.

34. Adeline: Construction can be outsourced…the consumers simply have to move to another country. 🙂

    Note, perhaps you could answer as to why you dislike jobs going overseas that have the potential to help your sisters & brothers; some of whom are LDS, but all of whom are family? What makes America so special? [putting aside Geoff’s points that free trade benefits all involved; even if it does hurt the U.S., somewhat, in the long run…isn’t it a net benefit for the human family?]

35. Lyle thanks for bringing up that point. With the overwhelming majority of convervatives in the U.S. church (please dont take this to mean Im the L word either…I just happen to think that politics and morality are more complex than 2 polar opposites), I have always wondered how they justify their views on immigration, free trade, and welfare with their knowledge of the gospel. It is absolutly amazing to me how greedy american members of the church can be.

36. There ain’t no such thing as a free market. Think about it.

37. Everyone is worried about jobs going overseas, but I think should they should be more optimistic. America is great for generating new jobs and dealing with change. My grandfather said railroads once lost a lot of business when electric companies switched from burning coal to nuclear power. Railroads also needed less workers when trains stopped using cabooses. Yet while the railroad jobs may have disappeared, new jobs like webpage designers and video store clerks have appeared. Horse buggy manufacturers became car manufacturers and typewriter companies now make computers. Many industries that were supposed to disappear like movie theatres due to VCR’s and accounting because of computers have never been stronger.

    While manufacturing jobs may go overseas to cheaper locations, the United States still manufactures more than any other country.

    http://investing.curiouscatblog.net/2009/10/13/data-on-the-largest-manufacturing-countries-in-2008/

    Even if more jobs go overseas, America will always have factories. I highly doubt that the United States will buy fighter jets from China. The price of labor may be cheaper in Asia now, but as oil and shipping prices rise, buying American products will not seem to be so expensive. Chinese products also have a reputation for poor quality and counterfeiting. BMW does not worry that Chinese car companies will steal their customers.

    Many jobs cannot be outsourced, either. You are not likely to call a doctor, lawyer, mechanic, mover, driver, electrician, real estate agent, or plumber in China to fix a problem you have in the USA. Are all the farms, restaurants, churches, government workers, and athletes in the US going to be shipped overseas, too?

    Even if all the manufacturing jobs in the United States went to China, wouldn’t the Chinese need American skills? You could move there and teach English. Most of those container ships returning to Asia are EMPTY. Why not think of something the Chinese would like to buy? Americans are creative. Do you think China will be known as the new Disney and Hollywood? Will China become famous for
    apple pies, hamburgers, hot dogs, baseball,
    gun rights, democracy, free speech, and religious freedom?

    While change is sometimes scary and being cautious is good, hysteria is not. Think for yourself and don’t be a Chicken Little.

Comments are closed.