Free trade then - free trade now.

[kentuck]

We have always been a country that has believed in free trade. We have forever been on the hunt for more markets for our products. Because we made more products than anyone in the world. We wanted everyone to be the consumers that we are.

So we gave incentives to corporations and to different nations that agreed to buy our products and let our busniesses operate in their countries. On balance, we came out ahead. But that was then and this is now.

The pendulum has swung to an unacceptable and unpredictable level. Some of the largest corporations in America have cut their American workforces by 2.9 million people over the last decade. At the same time, they have hired 2.4 million new workers overseas. ( http://thinkprogress.org/2011/04/19/us-corporations-outsourced-americans/ ) Even as they drain our Treasury of taxcuts under the premise of creating more jobs. Even as our President was bailing out General Motors, they were making record profits overseas. They were losing money in America.

This problem should no longer be ignored by the politicians. Free trade is no longer the same free trade that we used to know. It changed in the last decade. We can no longer afford it. We can no longer afford the taxcuts for the corporations and neither can we afford the military protection they all want to protect their foreign interests.

It is time to look at this issue in a new light.

[goodnews]

1. Rec. We need to start making things that will help us

become energy independent. Just think of how that would ease so many other problems. The problem with trying to keep these traditional industries in the US is that you have to resort to protectionism, etc. What's needed is an end run around these industries and start new ones. Like the Public Works projects of the 1930s, only this time we have additional goals like energy independence, clean energy. Just those two things would reduce the need for foreign entanglements, improve overall health and environmental quality. Heck if we banned smoking in public buildings why not extend it to ALL the air we breathe.

[bahrbearian]

2. Where do you come up with "we have always been a free trade country'

Tariffs in United States history have played different roles in trade policy and the nation's economic history. Tariffs were the largest source of federal revenue from the 1790s to the eve of World War I, until it was surpassed by income taxes.





The Tariff Act of 1789 imposed the first national source of revenue for the newly formed United States. The new Constitution allowed only the federal government to levy tariffs, so the old system of state rates disappeared. The new law taxed all imports at rates from 5 to 15 percent. These rates were primarily designed to generate revenue to pay the national debt and annual expenses of the federal government. In his Report on Manufactures Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton proposed a far-reaching plan to use protective tariffs as a lever for rapid industrialization. His tariff proposals were adopted (but not his schemes to subsidize factories.)<1>

The high protectionism Hamilton called for was not adopted until after the War of 1812 when nationalists like Henry Clay and John C. Calhoun wanted more industry so the nation would have a balanced economy. In wartime, they declared, having a home industry was a necessity. Likewise owners of the small new factories that were springing up in the northeast to produce boots, hats, candles, nails and other common items failed to obtain higher tariffs that would significantly protect them from more efficient British producers. A 10% discount on the tax was offered on items imported in American ships, so that the American merchant marine would be supported.<2>

Once industrialization started, the demand for higher and higher tariffs came from manufacturers and factory workers. They believed that Americans should be protected from the low wages of Europe. Every Congressman was eager to logroll a higher rate for his local industry. Senator Daniel Webster, formerly a spokesperson for Boston's merchants who imported goods (and wanted low tariffs), switched dramatically to represent the manufacturing interests in the Tariff of 1824. Rates were especially high for bolts of cloth and for bar iron, of which Britain was a low-cost producer. The culmination came in the Tariff of 1828, ridiculed by free traders as the "Tariff of Abominations", with duties averaging over 50 percent. Intense political reaction came from South Carolinians, who concluded that they would pay more for imports and sell less cotton abroad, so their economic interest was being unfairly injured. They attempted to "nullify" the federal tariff and spoke of secession (see the Nullification Crisis). The compromise that ended the crisis included a lowering of the tariff over ten years to a uniform 20% in 1842.<3>


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariffs_in_United_States_history

[bvar22]

3. Unpredictable?

No.
Many predicted this exact results.
One of them even ran for President in 1992,
Ross Perot.

One of the worst things ever to happen to the American Working Class
was when the "Centrist" Democrats agreed with their Republican allies that
Free Trade and Deregulation would be Good for America.

[freshwest]

4. Yes, and they made fun of his accent and his ears. Shallow, stupid criticisms.