(Click title above.)
Free Trade that is Fair vs. Globalization:
SEE:
http://www.fairtraderesource.org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_trade
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Most_favored_nation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Organization
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariff
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax,_tariff_and_trade
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-globalization_movement
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globalization
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_trade
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_of_living
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizenship
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_corporations
******
Fair Trade:
http://www.loudobbsradio.com/forum/forum_topics.asp?FID=7&SID=3zc28ad65dac529ee34b4341bc672z9f
War on Middle Class:
http://www.loudobbsradio.com/forum/forum_topics.asp?FID=3
*****
Snippets from http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=E290C93C-28A8-402A-8E1C-9715DE0CA654 :
Brave Old World
By Victor Davis HansonThe Washington Times Monday, August 18, 2008
So, what a richer but more critical world has forgotten is that America largely was the model, not the villain - and that postwar globalization was always a form of engaged Americanization that enriched and protected billions.
Yet globalization, in all its manifestations, will run out of steam the moment we tire of fueling it, as the world returns instead to the mindset of the 1930s - with protectionist tariffs; weak, disarmed democracies; an isolationist America; predatory dictatorships; and a demoralized gloom-and-doom Western elite.
If America adopts the protectionist trade policies of Japan or China, global profits plummet. If our armed forces follow the European lead of demilitarization and inaction, rogue states advance. If we treat the environment as do China and India, the world quickly becomes a lost cause.
If we flee Iraq and call off the war on terror, Islamic jihadists will regroup, not disband. And when the Russians attack the next democracy, they won't listen to the United Nations, the European Union or Michael Moore.
Brace yourself -we may be on our way back to an old world, where the strong do as they will, and the weak suffer as they must.
****
(Continue to "Managing Volatility with Sales Taxes and Tariffs," above.)
4 comments:
Butting Heads at the Border
by Chuck Norris
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
Snippets from http://townhall.com/columnists/ChuckNorris/2008/08/19/butting_heads_at_the_border:
"Let's ask ourselves, why is Congress not securing our borders? Could it be they have greater global goals that will ultimately dissolve this Union? Whether intentionally or not, government has failed for decades to secure the borders. It is up to us to make sure it gets done, by taking several points of action that I'll be outlining in this chapter. The time is now. And if we don't do our part, America as we know it will dissolve like a sugar cube in coffee. From the coastland to the heartland, we will lose our distinctions and no longer even recognize our country. As President Ronald Reagan said, 'A nation without borders is not a nation.'"
Democrat Regulations:
August 28, 2008
In Denver, the End of Capitalism
By David Harsanyi
Snippets from http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/08/in_denver_the_end_of_capitalis.html:
DENVER -- Well, it's no wonder that Democrats didn't want former President Bill Clinton to speak on the economy; some delegates might have had the temerity to ask: Hey, why did we experience all that prosperity in the '90s?
It certainly wasn't because of populism or isolationism or more government dependency or any of the hard-left economic policies being preached nightly by speakers at the Democratic National Convention.
No, it was capitalism -- more of it, not less of it.
Naturally, every political convention features its share of demagoguery. But buried beneath the idealistic policy talk in Denver is an ugly detail: It's about coercion.
Those who had the inner fortitude to remain conscious through speeches by Bob Casey and Mark Warner surely were entertained by the theatrics of populist Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer (a man who represents the possibility of America, a place where even a former cast member of "Hee-Haw" can become governor of Montana).
When Schweitzer claims "we must invest" in projects he likes, he means government will take it and invest it for you.
You see, you must.
Then Schweitzer claimed (in a half-truth) that Republican nominee John McCain voted "against" solar energy, biofuels and wind energy.
Which is weird because I could swear my neighbor has solar panels, so they must be legal. I've seen windmills. So I suppose that Schweitzer meant that McCain voted against some federal boondoggle for wind and/or solar energy.
FAIR TRADE:
See http://townhall.com/news/politics-elections/2008/11/19/obama_to_usher_in_major_shift_in_trade_policy:
“Obama's win marks the first time in modern American history "that a candidate advocating a shift in our trade policies in a decisively pro-worker, pro-consumer, pro-environment direction has been elected president," Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch, an advocacy group that is critical of free trade agreements, said in a report.”
Comment by Dlanor:
Most policies of both Dems and Repubs have been calculated to advance ninny globalism while undermining national integrity.
But, most of the world is not ready for American style freedom. So, in pursuit of globalism, both major parties have been: undermining American style freedom; sacrificing freedom to political correctness; relieving Mexico from worker despair and internal corruption; and advancing feminine desires for seeking good will from Euros.
These sort of policies are recipe for worldwide gulag. I despair about who is worse for leading us to worldwide gulag, Dems or Repubs. But, if Obama takes on fair trade, that may be OBAMA'S ONE SAVING GRACE.
We need either to kick godforsaken bluebloods out of the Republican party or to start a new, American Voyager Party (or Barracuda Party).
We have submitted to ignorant leadership for so long that things may have to get a far sight worse before they get better.
****
Mainly, Blueblood Republican men fear Palin because she has bigger balls.
RAPIDLY DIMINISHING RETURNS ON DISPROPORTIONATE INCOME:
See http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/20/opinion/20ariely.html?th&emc=th.
BALANCED TRADE:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/12/stop_the_borrowing_theres_an_a.html:
The American Thinker
December 04, 2008
By Raymond Richman, Howard Richman, and Jesse Richman
Keynesian borrowing won't solve our economic problems
....
The central idea of monetarism is that governments are too short-term in their thinking unless they are bound by sensible long-term rules. Monetarists have always advocated the first two rules below. We would add the third:
1. Balanced Monetary Growth. Governments should maintain a steadily growing money supply, sufficient to prevent deflation, but not so fast as to cause inflation.
2. Balanced Budgets. Governments should maintain relatively balanced budgets so as not crowd-out private investment or leave a huge government debt to future generations.
3. Balanced Trade. Governments should insure that foreign trade is relatively balanced so as not to lose production jobs or leave a huge national debt to future generations.
Monetarism, even without the balanced trade rule, has been a successful economic philosophy. The Federal Reserve applied the balanced monetary growth rule during the 1980s and 1990s, keeping the U.S. economy relatively free from inflation. Similarly, President Clinton and the Republican Congress applied the balanced budget rule in the mid 1990s, producing a long period of steady economic growth.
The new balanced trade rule is necessary in order to respond to modern mercantilism, the economic policy that maximizes exports and minimizes imports in order to gain market share from trading partners. The latest evidence is the increase in China's subsidies to exporters which has not yet evoked a response from the U.S. government even though China exports four times as much as it imports from the United States and promised to forego export subsidies when it joined the WTO.
China and the other mercantilist governments have been perpetuating and increasing the U.S. trade deficits by buying U.S. financial assets with the dollars earned from their trade surpluses with the United States. For over a decade, American banks passed along the flow of foreign savings to American consumers, offering ever-riskier loans in order to get a high return. But when American consumers could no longer afford the payments, banks went bankrupt and the resulting hole in worldwide demand is causing the worldwide recession.
If the U.S. government switched to balanced trade monetarism, the U.S. could quickly recover since there would be plenty of demand for American products if foreigners bought as much from the U.S. as the U.S. buys from them.
One definition of insanity is trying the same thing again and again, but expecting a different result. Washington seems to be stuck on borrowing foreign savings. But borrowing from abroad exacerbated this recession, has already bankrupted many U.S. banks, and is starting to bankrupt U.S. manufacturers, including Detroit automakers. It's time to stop the borrowing by bringing trade into balance!
*****
Raymond L. Richman is a professor emeritus of public and international affairs at the University of Pittsburgh. The three Dr. Richmans are three generations of economists from the same family and co-authors of the 2008 book, Trading Away Our Future published by Ideal Taxes Association. They blog at tradeandtaxes.blogspot.com.
Post a Comment