Free trade or protectionism(see below)

[Guest]

Free trade or protectionism?

When I say free trade agreements I'm talking about things like NAFTA and not the EU's complicated rules and potential violation of other countries jurisdiction.

This is a a general rule not a 100% always free trade or protectionist

 

[Patine 469]

4 minutes ago, NYrepublican said:

Free trade or protectionism?

When I say free trade agreements I'm talking about things like NAFTA and not the EU's complicated rules and potential violation of other countries jurisdiction.

 

Why not case-by-case, judged by each individual trading partner and commodity market? I forgot, the political world today is just not a rational, practical, sane place anymore. Everyone is expected to be all or nothing on most issues, or they're just not committed, respectable, and, most of all, partisan enough. I'd almost forgotten what kind of world and age we live in again. :S

[Guest]

Just now, Patine said:

Why not case-by-case, judged by each individual trading partner and commodity market? I forgot, the political world today is just not a rational, practical, sane place anymore. Everyone is expected to be all or nothing on most issues, or they're just not committed, respectable, and, most of all, partisan enough. I'd almost forgotten what kind of world and age we live in again. :S

It was just easier than making a million polls and spamming the general forum with these polls.I'm speaking as a general matter.

[Patine 469]

Just now, NYrepublican said:

It was just easier than making a million polls and spamming the general forum with these polls.I'm speaking as a general matter.

Then I can't answer, in all good conscience. I firmly believe the only realistic answer is a circumstancial approach to each possible trade deal. I apologize.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Patine said:

Then I can't answer, in all good conscience. I firmly believe the only realistic answer is a circumstancial approach to each possible trade deal. I apologize.

I add in a choice for you.

[pilight 237]

Ask Smoot and Hawley

[vcczar 1,224]

I can't see how anyone can be all one way or all the other, not just for the present, but also historically. The US was way more protectionist before Woodrow Wilson, and then again under Harding-Coolidge-Hoover. Prior to Wilson, America often benefited from setting high tariffs, since American industry really had to compete with European countries, especially Britain. Yet, under Wilson, when the financial center of the world shifted to the US, and we became a creditor nation (maintained until Reagan, when we became a debtor), we had less need to be protectionist. The Harding-Coolidge-Hoover economic plans; although, beneficial in the short run, are one of the causes of the Great Depression in America. Since FDR we haven't had a need to revert to protectionism, and most economists would argue that it would be bad economics to do so. So historically, you can't be one or the other either. For the present, I think it should be case by case, but on the whole, I would probably support free trade almost every time, but I picked option 3.  

[Guest]

it is not a nothing or all question.

[Guest]

Did no one read what I posted below it specifically said as a general rule not always.

[RI Democrat 39]

Free trade probably makes more sense with countries that have a somewhat similar structure in terms of labor standards, business regulation, and consumer protection. I'm not sure it's a good idea between two countries where workers have much higher standards of pay, hours, and safety protections in one compared to the other - seems like that could easily turn into an incentive to shift operations to the country with lower standards as a way to exploit the workers. Though I wouldn't object to an agreement between two such countries where the one with lower standards is required to improve them as part of the deal.