Quote:
Originally Posted by Clocker
Where in the Constitution does it say that the president should decide what Americans should or shouldn't be making? Where does it say that he should decide what I am or am not able to buy, or how much I should pay for things? Where does it say that he should decide what is or isn't a "better deal" for American companies engaged in international trade?
As I remember, we got rid of a king that was trying to make those kinds of decisions for us.
|
Trade agreements have always been negotiated between countries because they have different environmental laws, different regulations, different levels of government involvement in business, different salary/benefit structures, different tax structures, and there are opportunities to take advantage without rules.
I certainly don't want a global government ensuring we all have the same laws.
If deals aren't negotiated with trade agreements, one side could dump products in the short term to win market share and put you out of business before raising prices again, one could manipulate its currency to win market share and jobs, one could close it's own markets to you etc...
The idea behind free trade is that it be mutually beneficial. That means the trade is at least roughly balanced with both side benefiting from the specialties of the other.
When one side is kicking ass (as in having a huge and growing trade surplus) there's something wrong with the arrangement. You are losing jobs, market share, and wealth in exchange for cheap depreciating goods.
You can either go back to the drawing board to try to balance things out better or you can allow the other country to suck wealth and jobs out of your country as we have for the last decades.
I'll take the former.
