It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Jon Huntsman's Job Plan - MORE Free Trade...

page: 1
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 04:42 PM
link   
Jon Huntsman's Job Plan - MORE Free Trade...

GOP 2012 Hopeful Jon Huntsman Vows to Fight for Free Trade

Jon Huntsman unveiled his 2012 job's plan, in which he calls for a massive expansion of Free Trade Agreements with multiple nations including South Korea, Colombia, Panama, and especially India.


“The president has failed to act on three trade agreements, with South Korea, Colombia and Panama – I’d make them a top priority,” said Huntsman. "Washington must also immediately start discussions with India to end in a bilateral free-trade agreement strengthening our relationship with a friend who will prove to be critical to America’s success in the 21st century.”


So how well has NAFTA worked out for us? Cafta? The only export that increased under those have been JOBS. Entire factories have uprooted for south of the border, and this guy wants to expand free trade with countries like India and South Korea?

Free Trade is what's been driving a stake through the heart of the American economy. Huntsman is another clueless CEO who thinks "profit" matters more than a sound economy with jobs and a livable income. He's not thinking of America, he's thinking of Globalism.

The high price of ‘free’ trade


Since the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was signed in 1993, the rise in the U.S. trade deficit with Canada and Mexico through 2002 has caused the displacement of production that supported 879,280 U.S. jobs. Most of those lost jobs were high-wage positions in manufacturing industries. The loss of these jobs is just the most visible tip of NAFTA's impact on the U.S. economy. In fact, NAFTA has also contributed to rising income inequality, suppressed real wages for production workers, weakened workers' collective bargaining powers and ability to organize unions, and reduced fringe benefits.

NAFTA is a free trade and investment agreement that provided investors with a unique set of guarantees designed to stimulate foreign direct investment and the movement of factories within the hemisphere, especially from the United States to Canada and Mexico. Furthermore, no protections were contained in the core of the agreement to maintain labor or environmental standards. As a result, NAFTA tilted the economic playing field in favor of investors, and against workers and the environment, resulting in a hemispheric "race to the bottom" in wages and environmental quality.


Of the 17 FTA's the USA has now, we run a piddling surplus with 3 nations (Austria and Singapore primarily) but run heavily in the negative with our two largest trading partners, Mexico and Canada. Adding a FTA with nations like Colombia won't affect our trade surplus just as none of our existing FTA's with several South American countries has, but a FTA with India will seriously undermine manufacturing in the US. Huntsman's job's plan will add jobs alright, except they'll all be in India, while the CEO's of manufacturer's that can cash in on India's cheap labor will have one more reason to laugh all the way to the bank.


The issue with Free Trade Agreements is one area I think many liberals will agree with Ron Paul on:
Ron Paul: Free trade agreements threaten national sovereignty


I opposed both the North American Free Trade Agreement and the World Trade Organization, both of which were heavily favored by the political establishment. Many supporters of the free trade market supported these agreements. Nearly six decades ago when the International Trade Organization was up for debate, conservatives and libertarians agreed that supranational trade bureaucracies with the power to infringe upon American sovereignty were undesirable.




posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 04:48 PM
link   
Unbelievable. I think if they could find a country that actually enslaved its population with brutality that they'd dump trillions of dollars in to the master-class and end every non-slave job on the planet in the process. They'd 'revise' the unemployment calculations once more and bask in the glory of a 0% unemployment rate... and we'd probably sit around in the gutters arguing about abortion, same-sex rights, and so on.



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 04:52 PM
link   
If you consider free trade between nations with artificial borders as harmful, then you also consider free trade between states, towns and individuals equally as harmful, right?

While I agree that ``free trade agreements`` are bad, free trade itself is not. Free trade is one of the main reasons the U.S became a rich nation in the first place. I don't see why people on this site hate other countries so much. While I agree ``free trade agreements`` are bad, free trade itself is not.
edit on 1-9-2011 by Rockdisjoint because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 04:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rockdisjoint
Free trade is one of the main reasons the U.S became a rich nation in the first place.


I recall the first free-trade agreement made with another country by the US was in the 1980s… are you referring to post 1980 as the period of expanding wealth? Because the time in American history with the greatest expansion of the American economy occurred during the peak of economic protectionism in the 19th century, specifically the golden age of Capitalism during the last three decades of that century.

Prior to the 1980s we had always used a high import tariff for a reason. It was the United Kingdom which advocated free-trade while we advocated protectionism. We surpassed them economically during the late 19th century, for many reasons, but obviously protectionism was a key ingredient.



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 04:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rockdisjoint
If you consider free trade between nations with artificial borders as harmful, then you also consider free trade between states, towns and individuals equally as harmful, right?

Free trade is one of the main reasons the U.S became a rich nation in the first place. I don't see why people on this site hate other countries so much.


There is a massive difference. The states are regulated by Federal Law, one of those being the minimum wage law. Free trade is wonderful on an emotional level, I get it. It sucks in practice when the person you are trading with is paying their 'employees' less than $0.80 a day. To bottom-line corporatists the jobs instantly fly overseas to soak up the margin.



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 04:59 PM
link   
Free trade should require a level playing field. We don't have that, so our jobs are going overseas.



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 05:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Rockdisjoint
 


We were a rich nation long before free trade agreements came into being, and since they've come into vogue 20 years ago our economy has been declining.

You're using a bad argument comparing FTA between nations as similar to between states, even if one state "steals" jobs from another state, the jobs still remain within our borders. The taxes paid still go to our government and not some foreign nation. Trade between states does not lead to trade imbalances. An FTA with a nation like India with it's massive poverty-level workforce will result in a similar trade imbalance and exodus of jobs as it has with Mexico.



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 05:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Misoir
 



Prior to the 1980s we had always used a high import tariff for a reason. It was the United Kingdom which advocated free-trade while we advocated protectionism. We surpassed them economically during the late 19th century, for many reasons, but obviously protectionism was a key ingredient.

I don't believe you, I find it very hard to believe that we tariffed the rest of the world and other countries still allowed us to sell them our goods. Do you have a source for this?



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 05:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blackmarketeer
Trade between states does not lead to trade imbalances. An FTA with a nation like India with it's massive poverty-level workforce will result in a similar trade imbalance and exodus of jobs as it has with Mexico.


I agree. I would debate using the word 'poverty' in describing it though. People hear poverty and they think 'government-welfare', housing, one or more TVs, perhaps a car, air-conditioning and heating, a cell-phone, etc. Poverty in these other countries is worse than anything any group of Americans has had to deal with -- ever.



If we were compassionate we would demand that these countries enforce a minimum wage just as we have done here in the United States but we all seem to think that there should be an acceptable period of time where slavery is permissible in all of these countries and that eventually are good-heartedness will rub off on them but it appears to me to be the opposite - our elected officials seem enamored at the success of using slave-wage labor to get things done. I don't want jobs - I want good jobs.



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 05:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rockdisjoint
I don't believe you, I find it very hard to believe that we tariffed the rest of the world and other countries still allowed us to sell them our goods. Do you have a source for this?


Try searching 'United States Tariff History' - it wasn't difficult at all to find.



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 05:23 PM
link   
reply to post by ararisq
 



Free trade is wonderful on an emotional level, I get it. It sucks in practice when the person you are trading with is paying their 'employees' less than $0.80 a day. To bottom-line corporatists the jobs instantly fly overseas to soak up the margin.

You do realize Americans use to work for 20 cents a hour right? China is in a transitory period, it isn't pretty, but even Marx admitted it was necessary. China is getting richer and in my opinion Americans should stop being haters but instead use this opportunity to start manufacturing again and sell stuff to the Chinese.



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 05:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by sonofliberty1776
Free trade should require a level playing field. We don't have that, so our jobs are going overseas.

The sun doesn't play fair either, why not block it out?

Doing that will make the demand for light bulbs go up, creating a ton of jobs.



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 05:27 PM
link   
I want to add that tariffs are old-school. I don't see the need for tariffs with billions of people online and every business on earth having access to technology. We need to ensure that people are paid a fair living wage and not abused for the profit of others. PERIOD. I don't care where a product is made so long as a person was not taken advantage of to do it. These countries CAN do something about it. India is a perfect case - where they have an accepted class system and massive wealth in one part and massive 'poverty' in others. That model is going to be rolled out across the world if we don't stop it.



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 05:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rockdisjoint
reply to post by Misoir
 



Prior to the 1980s we had always used a high import tariff for a reason. It was the United Kingdom which advocated free-trade while we advocated protectionism. We surpassed them economically during the late 19th century, for many reasons, but obviously protectionism was a key ingredient.

I don't believe you, I find it very hard to believe that we tariffed the rest of the world and other countries still allowed us to sell them our goods. Do you have a source for this?


Before the civil war period...90% of our nations revenue came from tariffs.
www.freerepublic.com...



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 05:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rockdisjoint
You do realize Americans use to work for 20 cents a hour right? China is in a transitory period, it isn't pretty, but even Marx admitted it was necessary. China is getting richer and in my opinion Americans should stop being haters but instead use this opportunity to start manufacturing again and sell stuff to the Chinese.


See, there is that meme - its a transitory period so slave wage is fine. I guess that period of time we enslaved people was transitory and fine as well? Its not. There is massive wealth in these nations. This is not transitory. Its a model. They have no intention of allowing certain classes of people to break away and they have a military power to make sure they don't and we're OK with that. If they don't like their wages, kill 'em. I just want my iPad 3!! Whee!



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 05:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rockdisjoint

Originally posted by sonofliberty1776
Free trade should require a level playing field. We don't have that, so our jobs are going overseas.

The sun doesn't play fair either, why not block it out?

Doing that will make the demand for light bulbs go up, creating a ton of jobs.


and... I am done debating you with that statement. I am adopting the zero-tolerance policy on illogical statements.



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 05:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rockdisjoint

Originally posted by sonofliberty1776
Free trade should require a level playing field. We don't have that, so our jobs are going overseas.

The sun doesn't play fair either, why not block it out?

Doing that will make the demand for light bulbs go up, creating a ton of jobs.
What a dumb remark. How does that make any sense at all? There is no more need for me to discuss anything else with you.



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 05:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Blackmarketeer
 



We were a rich nation long before free trade agreements came into being, and since they've come into vogue 20 years ago our economy has been declining.

If other countries tariffed us, lets say Europe after WWII the U.S would have never became rich....



ou're using a bad argument comparing FTA between nations as similar to between states, even if one state "steals" jobs from another state, the jobs still remain within our borders.

How does a country steal a job? Do they sneak in and take them?



The taxes paid still go to our government and not some foreign nation. Trade between states does not lead to trade imbalances.

The Fed has created our current trade deficits.



An FTA with a nation like India with it's massive poverty-level workforce will result in a similar trade imbalance and exodus of jobs as it has with Mexico.

You act like trade is a zero sum game, but it's not when two countries trade they both benefit.



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 05:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by sonofliberty1776

Originally posted by Rockdisjoint

Originally posted by sonofliberty1776
Free trade should require a level playing field. We don't have that, so our jobs are going overseas.

The sun doesn't play fair either, why not block it out?

Doing that will make the demand for light bulbs go up, creating a ton of jobs.
What a dumb remark. How does that make any sense at all? There is no more need for me to discuss anything else with you.

Really? The sun is our biggest competitor when it comes to providing light. China is our biggest competitor when it comes to manufacturing. You simply want to crush the competition.



posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 05:42 PM
link   
reply to post by Rockdisjoint
 


They allowed us to place a tariff on them and trade because they had also placed a tariff on us. We were not the only country using import tariffs, almost every country in the world except Britain and perhaps a few others I am not aware of used tariffs.

Yes, you can trust this Wikipedia article because every important detail has a trustworthy source it was quoted from.

en.wikipedia.org...



new topics

top topics



 
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join