Total Posts:14|Showing Posts:1-14
Jump to topic:

American Trade

Jifpop09
Posts: 2,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/18/2014 9:53:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Alright, here's a forum where you can debate anything trade related. Here are some topics to get things started.....

[1] The US should reduce the tariff and globalize.

[2] The US should instigate free trade agreements in Africa.

[3] The US should be use less protectionism in our technology, to improve markets in other nations.
Leader of the DDO Revolution Party
progressivedem22
Posts: 1,304
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2014 8:37:50 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Generally I'm in free trade, but my worry is that macro policies need to complement trade liberalization, and that isn't exactly happening now, when the safety net has been and is being viciously slashed.

So, I have mixed feelings about the TPP. Tariffs and quotas are already low enough that the impact of lowering them further will be minuscule, if at all noticeable, but I do worry about worker displacement without a cushion.

I'm not a big fan of political posturing, but if I were in Congress, I'd add as a condition for approving the TPP an expansion of SNAP benefits, at the very least, or at least a full reversal of sequestration.
progressivedem22
Posts: 1,304
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2014 8:37:59 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/19/2014 8:37:50 AM, progressivedem22 wrote:
Generally I'm in free trade, but my worry is that macro policies need to complement trade liberalization, and that isn't exactly happening now, when the safety net has been and is being viciously slashed.

So, I have mixed feelings about the TPP. Tariffs and quotas are already low enough that the impact of lowering them further will be minuscule, if at all noticeable, but I do worry about worker displacement without a cushion.

I'm not a big fan of political posturing, but if I were in Congress, I'd add as a condition for approving the TPP an expansion of SNAP benefits, at the very least, or at least a full reversal of sequestration.

*favor of
Jifpop09
Posts: 2,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2014 9:19:10 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/19/2014 8:37:50 AM, progressivedem22 wrote:
Generally I'm in free trade, but my worry is that macro policies need to complement trade liberalization, and that isn't exactly happening now, when the safety net has been and is being viciously slashed.

So, I have mixed feelings about the TPP. Tariffs and quotas are already low enough that the impact of lowering them further will be minuscule, if at all noticeable, but I do worry about worker displacement without a cushion.

I'm not a big fan of political posturing, but if I were in Congress, I'd add as a condition for approving the TPP an expansion of SNAP benefits, at the very least, or at least a full reversal of sequestration.

Protectionism relies on the situation, but generally, its more harmful then good. For example, Africa, where the majority of people are starving, are forced to pay high tariffs.

This actually hinders the economy, as starving people can't work, meaning the government becomes poor, and a poor government can't pay tariffs. The world bank predicts that lowering tariffs in Africa and South America will stimulate the economy at a substantial level.

Isn't that what we want? Stimulation? Tariffs and trade barriers only hinder growth.
Leader of the DDO Revolution Party
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2014 9:42:17 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/18/2014 9:53:02 PM, Jifpop09 wrote:
Alright, here's a forum where you can debate anything trade related. Here are some topics to get things started.....

[1] The US should reduce the tariff and globalize.

US trade is already global trade. We have little need for raw materials when we are not even the ones manufacturing finished goods, so that exclude the countries that manufacturers like China import from.

Now, perhaps we can make more formal our protectorate arrangements with countries that produce raw materials, for instance, our stationing of marines in Australia, but it would be a bit much for us to commandeer an ally in order to directly profit off raw materials trade. A country like Iraq, however...we should have commandeered it...we spent $1 trillion on that country, and at the height of the war, we were importing over $600 bln of oil per year.

We will continue to be extremely protectionist when it comes to food, because events like the Arab Spring demonstrate that control over food markets is a national security concern.

[2] The US should instigate free trade agreements in Africa.

Define "free trade". I'm fairly certain a textbook definition would demonstrate that not even America engages in "free trade". If anything, currency considerations always come into play.

[3] The US should be use less protectionism in our technology, to improve markets in other nations.

"Danger to national security".

We have no reason to "improve markets in other nations" unless such improvements materially benefit us. We don't tax other nations, and it is difficult to extract compensation through other methods.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
progressivedem22
Posts: 1,304
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2014 9:46:06 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/19/2014 9:19:10 AM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 4/19/2014 8:37:50 AM, progressivedem22 wrote:
Generally I'm in free trade, but my worry is that macro policies need to complement trade liberalization, and that isn't exactly happening now, when the safety net has been and is being viciously slashed.

So, I have mixed feelings about the TPP. Tariffs and quotas are already low enough that the impact of lowering them further will be minuscule, if at all noticeable, but I do worry about worker displacement without a cushion.

I'm not a big fan of political posturing, but if I were in Congress, I'd add as a condition for approving the TPP an expansion of SNAP benefits, at the very least, or at least a full reversal of sequestration.

Protectionism relies on the situation, but generally, its more harmful then good. For example, Africa, where the majority of people are starving, are forced to pay high tariffs.

This actually hinders the economy, as starving people can't work, meaning the government becomes poor, and a poor government can't pay tariffs. The world bank predicts that lowering tariffs in Africa and South America will stimulate the economy at a substantial level.

Isn't that what we want? Stimulation? Tariffs and trade barriers only hinder growth.

First, I'm not advocating protectionism. I don't support protectionism. But the government won't become "poorer," as a result: consumers will just be significantly worse off -- fewer choices, higher prices, less innovation, etc.

My only point is, there are negative impacts of free trade which advocates of it -- myself included -- would suggest are better handled with macro policies. But those policies need to be passed in tandem with trade agreements in the sense that it's hard to have one without the other. The TPP won't kill us, but it will present a strain to unskilled workers at a time of social safety net cuts.
Jifpop09
Posts: 2,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2014 9:53:32 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/19/2014 9:46:06 AM, progressivedem22 wrote:
At 4/19/2014 9:19:10 AM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 4/19/2014 8:37:50 AM, progressivedem22 wrote:
Generally I'm in free trade, but my worry is that macro policies need to complement trade liberalization, and that isn't exactly happening now, when the safety net has been and is being viciously slashed.

So, I have mixed feelings about the TPP. Tariffs and quotas are already low enough that the impact of lowering them further will be minuscule, if at all noticeable, but I do worry about worker displacement without a cushion.

I'm not a big fan of political posturing, but if I were in Congress, I'd add as a condition for approving the TPP an expansion of SNAP benefits, at the very least, or at least a full reversal of sequestration.

Protectionism relies on the situation, but generally, its more harmful then good. For example, Africa, where the majority of people are starving, are forced to pay high tariffs.

This actually hinders the economy, as starving people can't work, meaning the government becomes poor, and a poor government can't pay tariffs. The world bank predicts that lowering tariffs in Africa and South America will stimulate the economy at a substantial level.

Isn't that what we want? Stimulation? Tariffs and trade barriers only hinder growth.


First, I'm not advocating protectionism. I don't support protectionism. But the government won't become "poorer," as a result: consumers will just be significantly worse off -- fewer choices, higher prices, less innovation, etc.

I never said you were pro-protectionism. Something conservatism favors. But protectionism hurts the market, as governments are controlling market stimulation and growth. Trade should be left up to the consumer and the buyer, and I can make a million arguments for why we need free trade. One of my favorite government sites is the ITA. I try to keep up with foreign markets as much as possible, and I draw the same conclusions they do.

Protectionism hinders stimulation, period.

My only point is, there are negative impacts of free trade which advocates of it -- myself included -- would suggest are better handled with macro policies. But those policies need to be passed in tandem with trade agreements in the sense that it's hard to have one without the other. The TPP won't kill us, but it will present a strain to unskilled workers at a time of social safety net cuts.

Not much to argue about. My main advocacy for free trade is that while are own markets flourish as a result, foreign ones wain. The philosophy of free trade, is that by allowing foreign markets to grow, the standard of living in the world will increase as a result. Free trade supporters ave argued that the US economy will be stimulated along with foreign ones. Allowing the dollar to inflate internationally and further developing the world.
Leader of the DDO Revolution Party
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2014 2:27:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/19/2014 9:53:32 AM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 4/19/2014 9:46:06 AM, progressivedem22 wrote:
At 4/19/2014 9:19:10 AM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 4/19/2014 8:37:50 AM, progressivedem22 wrote:
Generally I'm in free trade, but my worry is that macro policies need to complement trade liberalization, and that isn't exactly happening now, when the safety net has been and is being viciously slashed.

So, I have mixed feelings about the TPP. Tariffs and quotas are already low enough that the impact of lowering them further will be minuscule, if at all noticeable, but I do worry about worker displacement without a cushion.

I'm not a big fan of political posturing, but if I were in Congress, I'd add as a condition for approving the TPP an expansion of SNAP benefits, at the very least, or at least a full reversal of sequestration.

Protectionism relies on the situation, but generally, its more harmful then good. For example, Africa, where the majority of people are starving, are forced to pay high tariffs.

This actually hinders the economy, as starving people can't work, meaning the government becomes poor, and a poor government can't pay tariffs. The world bank predicts that lowering tariffs in Africa and South America will stimulate the economy at a substantial level.

Isn't that what we want? Stimulation? Tariffs and trade barriers only hinder growth.


First, I'm not advocating protectionism. I don't support protectionism. But the government won't become "poorer," as a result: consumers will just be significantly worse off -- fewer choices, higher prices, less innovation, etc.

I never said you were pro-protectionism. Something conservatism favors. But protectionism hurts the market, as governments are controlling market stimulation and growth. Trade should be left up to the consumer and the buyer, and I can make a million arguments for why we need free trade. One of my favorite government sites is the ITA. I try to keep up with foreign markets as much as possible, and I draw the same conclusions they do.

Protectionism hinders stimulation, period.

My only point is, there are negative impacts of free trade which advocates of it -- myself included -- would suggest are better handled with macro policies. But those policies need to be passed in tandem with trade agreements in the sense that it's hard to have one without the other. The TPP won't kill us, but it will present a strain to unskilled workers at a time of social safety net cuts.

Not much to argue about. My main advocacy for free trade is that while are own markets flourish as a result, foreign ones wain. The philosophy of free trade, is that by allowing foreign markets to grow, the standard of living in the world will increase as a result. Free trade supporters ave argued that the US economy will be stimulated along with foreign ones. Allowing the dollar to inflate internationally and further developing the world.

The US has little interest in having the standard of living in the world to increase. If it is not accompanied by a proportional rise in US standards of living, it creates complications in that as the world approaches the standard of living of the US, it also approaches the technological capability and economic viability of the US, both of which are prerequisites to reaching military parity. Once they can achieve a military parity, they will, and once they surpass it, America's position in the world will wane.

Such is a realist calculus, and I will debate anyone on the veracity of this ideology over any others.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2014 2:29:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
As it is, trade is not an intrinsic good, therefore "free trade" is not a morally sound position. Two words immediately come to mind:

1) Opium
2) Outsourcing
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Jifpop09
Posts: 2,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2014 4:59:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/19/2014 2:27:18 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 4/19/2014 9:53:32 AM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 4/19/2014 9:46:06 AM, progressivedem22 wrote:
At 4/19/2014 9:19:10 AM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 4/19/2014 8:37:50 AM, progressivedem22 wrote:
Generally I'm in free trade, but my worry is that macro policies need to complement trade liberalization, and that isn't exactly happening now, when the safety net has been and is being viciously slashed.

So, I have mixed feelings about the TPP. Tariffs and quotas are already low enough that the impact of lowering them further will be minuscule, if at all noticeable, but I do worry about worker displacement without a cushion.

I'm not a big fan of political posturing, but if I were in Congress, I'd add as a condition for approving the TPP an expansion of SNAP benefits, at the very least, or at least a full reversal of sequestration.

Protectionism relies on the situation, but generally, its more harmful then good. For example, Africa, where the majority of people are starving, are forced to pay high tariffs.

This actually hinders the economy, as starving people can't work, meaning the government becomes poor, and a poor government can't pay tariffs. The world bank predicts that lowering tariffs in Africa and South America will stimulate the economy at a substantial level.

Isn't that what we want? Stimulation? Tariffs and trade barriers only hinder growth.


First, I'm not advocating protectionism. I don't support protectionism. But the government won't become "poorer," as a result: consumers will just be significantly worse off -- fewer choices, higher prices, less innovation, etc.

I never said you were pro-protectionism. Something conservatism favors. But protectionism hurts the market, as governments are controlling market stimulation and growth. Trade should be left up to the consumer and the buyer, and I can make a million arguments for why we need free trade. One of my favorite government sites is the ITA. I try to keep up with foreign markets as much as possible, and I draw the same conclusions they do.

Protectionism hinders stimulation, period.

My only point is, there are negative impacts of free trade which advocates of it -- myself included -- would suggest are better handled with macro policies. But those policies need to be passed in tandem with trade agreements in the sense that it's hard to have one without the other. The TPP won't kill us, but it will present a strain to unskilled workers at a time of social safety net cuts.

Not much to argue about. My main advocacy for free trade is that while are own markets flourish as a result, foreign ones wain. The philosophy of free trade, is that by allowing foreign markets to grow, the standard of living in the world will increase as a result. Free trade supporters ave argued that the US economy will be stimulated along with foreign ones. Allowing the dollar to inflate internationally and further developing the world.

The US has little interest in having the standard of living in the world to increase. If it is not accompanied by a proportional rise in US standards of living, it creates complications in that as the world approaches the standard of living of the US, it also approaches the technological capability and economic viability of the US, both of which are prerequisites to reaching military parity. Once they can achieve a military parity, they will, and once they surpass it, America's position in the world will wane.

Such is a realist calculus, and I will debate anyone on the veracity of this ideology over any others.

This is not necessarily true. As a follower of foreign trade markets, the majority of American entrepreneurs wish to see an increase in FDI. We rely on other nations for fair trade coffee, crude oil, tech parts, and machinery (Probably the most important). Believe it or not, the US does rely heavily on Asia, South America, and Africa to provide these things.

The HDI for the US continues to grow yearly, while it falls for other developing nations. With the HDI, falls productivity, currency values, and shipping. Which severs the US economy. Following the SelectUSA campaign, the majority of entrepreneurs wished to increase the FDI to Africa, as to monopolize and capitalize many of the markets. As these markets flourish, so do the ones in the US.

The theory behind free trade vs. protectionism, is that as the dollar inflated/deflates to a constant level world wide, foreign people have more money to spend, and all markets flourish.

Now that's looking at it from the economic standpoint, which seems to be a very popular movement within the US, but you argued on grounds of ideology. I think from what I gathered, your saying that foreign markets growing threatens US hegemony. While this is partially true, most foreign markets controlled by the US produce more revenue then they do for the host nation. Which has been the United States main trade strategy for a long time.

if people are caught up in wanted american hegemony, then I would ask them to stop. What is good economically for the world is good economically for us. If they wish to strangle foreign markets just so we can be at top, then they are not thinking about the millions of people that would be uplifted from poverty within our own nation. And the US has perhaps one of the largest ECM's, so increasing the FDI will hardly effect that.
Leader of the DDO Revolution Party
Jifpop09
Posts: 2,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2014 5:01:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
You can read more about it in the ITA's National Export Strategy 2012. I also tried to find the agricultural trade collaboration between the DOC and USDA report, but it appears the site went down.

http://www.trade.gov...
Leader of the DDO Revolution Party
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/19/2014 5:41:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/19/2014 4:59:12 PM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 4/19/2014 2:27:18 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 4/19/2014 9:53:32 AM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 4/19/2014 9:46:06 AM, progressivedem22 wrote:
At 4/19/2014 9:19:10 AM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 4/19/2014 8:37:50 AM, progressivedem22 wrote:
Generally I'm in free trade, but my worry is that macro policies need to complement trade liberalization, and that isn't exactly happening now, when the safety net has been and is being viciously slashed.

So, I have mixed feelings about the TPP. Tariffs and quotas are already low enough that the impact of lowering them further will be minuscule, if at all noticeable, but I do worry about worker displacement without a cushion.

I'm not a big fan of political posturing, but if I were in Congress, I'd add as a condition for approving the TPP an expansion of SNAP benefits, at the very least, or at least a full reversal of sequestration.

Protectionism relies on the situation, but generally, its more harmful then good. For example, Africa, where the majority of people are starving, are forced to pay high tariffs.

This actually hinders the economy, as starving people can't work, meaning the government becomes poor, and a poor government can't pay tariffs. The world bank predicts that lowering tariffs in Africa and South America will stimulate the economy at a substantial level.

Isn't that what we want? Stimulation? Tariffs and trade barriers only hinder growth.


First, I'm not advocating protectionism. I don't support protectionism. But the government won't become "poorer," as a result: consumers will just be significantly worse off -- fewer choices, higher prices, less innovation, etc.

I never said you were pro-protectionism. Something conservatism favors. But protectionism hurts the market, as governments are controlling market stimulation and growth. Trade should be left up to the consumer and the buyer, and I can make a million arguments for why we need free trade. One of my favorite government sites is the ITA. I try to keep up with foreign markets as much as possible, and I draw the same conclusions they do.

Protectionism hinders stimulation, period.

My only point is, there are negative impacts of free trade which advocates of it -- myself included -- would suggest are better handled with macro policies. But those policies need to be passed in tandem with trade agreements in the sense that it's hard to have one without the other. The TPP won't kill us, but it will present a strain to unskilled workers at a time of social safety net cuts.

Not much to argue about. My main advocacy for free trade is that while are own markets flourish as a result, foreign ones wain. The philosophy of free trade, is that by allowing foreign markets to grow, the standard of living in the world will increase as a result. Free trade supporters ave argued that the US economy will be stimulated along with foreign ones. Allowing the dollar to inflate internationally and further developing the world.

The US has little interest in having the standard of living in the world to increase. If it is not accompanied by a proportional rise in US standards of living, it creates complications in that as the world approaches the standard of living of the US, it also approaches the technological capability and economic viability of the US, both of which are prerequisites to reaching military parity. Once they can achieve a military parity, they will, and once they surpass it, America's position in the world will wane.

Such is a realist calculus, and I will debate anyone on the veracity of this ideology over any others.

This is not necessarily true. As a follower of foreign trade markets, the majority of American entrepreneurs wish to see an increase in FDI. We rely on other nations for fair trade coffee, crude oil, tech parts, and machinery (Probably the most important). Believe it or not, the US does rely heavily on Asia, South America, and Africa to provide these things.

Of course we do. We're the largest importer in the world. Our trade deficit allows for other nations to grow in a manner that will one day threaten our own prosperity. It's ridiculously irresponsible, but our democracy caters to an irresponsible public.

The HDI for the US continues to grow yearly, while it falls for other developing nations. With the HDI, falls productivity, currency values, and shipping. Which severs the US economy. Following the SelectUSA campaign, the majority of entrepreneurs wished to increase the FDI to Africa, as to monopolize and capitalize many of the markets. As these markets flourish, so do the ones in the US.

I will emphasize the underlined aspect of what I said in order to frame your comments in a manner consistent with both perspectives. Here you are talking about America taking control of foreign markets which would actually lead to a disproportionate amount of US benefit at the expense of host countries. This isn't exactly "free trade"...those countries aren't exactly sovereign.

The theory behind free trade vs. protectionism, is that as the dollar inflated/deflates to a constant level world wide, foreign people have more money to spend, and all markets flourish.

This is a purely economic calculus, and politics trumps economics. The wealthier foreign economies become, the more potentially dangerous they become to the US. Economics don't matter if the country ceases to exist.

Now that's looking at it from the economic standpoint, which seems to be a very popular movement within the US, but you argued on grounds of ideology.

I'm providing a counter-ideology to your rhetoric of "free trade". I would also point out here that what you seem to be talking about is not free trade, but rather American economic domination over an ostensibly foreign entity. It's neocolonialism.

You seem to actually be arguing my position, which obviously I would not object to.

I think from what I gathered, your saying that foreign markets growing threatens US hegemony. While this is partially true, most foreign markets controlled by the US produce more revenue then they do for the host nation. Which has been the United States main trade strategy for a long time.

The underlined statement doesn't make any sense. Which countries are you talking about? I would guess their economic significance is minimal compared to the EU and Japan, where obviously their economic activity is much more self-sustaining and self-benefiting.

Once these economically insignificant countries grow, of course they will seek to chart their own course in a manner as independent of US influence as possible, like SK, Taiwan, etc...

if people are caught up in wanted american hegemony, then I would ask them to stop. What is good economically for the world is good economically for us. If they wish to strangle foreign markets just so we can be at top, then they are not thinking about the millions of people that would be uplifted from poverty within our own nation. And the US has perhaps one of the largest ECM's, so increasing the FDI will hardly effect that.

It's funny because you seem to be advocating for anything BUT free trade. You seem to be advocating for America taking monopoly interests in other economies, essentially controlling them. That's like saying that you're conducting a mutual exchange when blood flows from your brain to your hand...not really "mutual", and so not really international trade there. Your ideology is much more aligned with American hegemony than any conception of internationalism and/or free trade.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
debate_power
Posts: 726
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2014 5:00:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/19/2014 4:59:12 PM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 4/19/2014 2:27:18 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 4/19/2014 9:53:32 AM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 4/19/2014 9:46:06 AM, progressivedem22 wrote:
At 4/19/2014 9:19:10 AM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 4/19/2014 8:37:50 AM, progressivedem22 wrote:
Generally I'm in free trade, but my worry is that macro policies need to complement trade liberalization, and that isn't exactly happening now, when the safety net has been and is being viciously slashed.

So, I have mixed feelings about the TPP. Tariffs and quotas are already low enough that the impact of lowering them further will be minuscule, if at all noticeable, but I do worry about worker displacement without a cushion.

I'm not a big fan of political posturing, but if I were in Congress, I'd add as a condition for approving the TPP an expansion of SNAP benefits, at the very least, or at least a full reversal of sequestration.

Protectionism relies on the situation, but generally, its more harmful then good. For example, Africa, where the majority of people are starving, are forced to pay high tariffs.

This actually hinders the economy, as starving people can't work, meaning the government becomes poor, and a poor government can't pay tariffs. The world bank predicts that lowering tariffs in Africa and South America will stimulate the economy at a substantial level.

Isn't that what we want? Stimulation? Tariffs and trade barriers only hinder growth.


First, I'm not advocating protectionism. I don't support protectionism. But the government won't become "poorer," as a result: consumers will just be significantly worse off -- fewer choices, higher prices, less innovation, etc.

I never said you were pro-protectionism. Something conservatism favors. But protectionism hurts the market, as governments are controlling market stimulation and growth. Trade should be left up to the consumer and the buyer, and I can make a million arguments for why we need free trade. One of my favorite government sites is the ITA. I try to keep up with foreign markets as much as possible, and I draw the same conclusions they do.

Protectionism hinders stimulation, period.

My only point is, there are negative impacts of free trade which advocates of it -- myself included -- would suggest are better handled with macro policies. But those policies need to be passed in tandem with trade agreements in the sense that it's hard to have one without the other. The TPP won't kill us, but it will present a strain to unskilled workers at a time of social safety net cuts.

Not much to argue about. My main advocacy for free trade is that while are own markets flourish as a result, foreign ones wain. The philosophy of free trade, is that by allowing foreign markets to grow, the standard of living in the world will increase as a result. Free trade supporters ave argued that the US economy will be stimulated along with foreign ones. Allowing the dollar to inflate internationally and further developing the world.

The US has little interest in having the standard of living in the world to increase. If it is not accompanied by a proportional rise in US standards of living, it creates complications in that as the world approaches the standard of living of the US, it also approaches the technological capability and economic viability of the US, both of which are prerequisites to reaching military parity. Once they can achieve a military parity, they will, and once they surpass it, America's position in the world will wane.

Such is a realist calculus, and I will debate anyone on the veracity of this ideology over any others.

This is not necessarily true. As a follower of foreign trade markets, the majority of American entrepreneurs wish to see an increase in FDI. We rely on other nations for fair trade coffee, crude oil, tech parts, and machinery (Probably the most important). Believe it or not, the US does rely heavily on Asia, South America, and Africa to provide these things.

The HDI for the US continues to grow yearly, while it falls for other developing nations. With the HDI, falls productivity, currency values, and shipping. Which severs the US economy. Following the SelectUSA campaign, the majority of entrepreneurs wished to increase the FDI to Africa, as to monopolize and capitalize many of the markets. As these markets flourish, so do the ones in the US.

The theory behind free trade vs. protectionism, is that as the dollar inflated/deflates to a constant level world wide, foreign people have more money to spend, and all markets flourish.

Now that's looking at it from the economic standpoint, which seems to be a very popular movement within the US, but you argued on grounds of ideology. I think from what I gathered, your saying that foreign markets growing threatens US hegemony. While this is partially true, most foreign markets controlled by the US produce more revenue then they do for the host nation. Which has been the United States main trade strategy for a long time.

if people are caught up in wanted american hegemony, then I would ask them to stop. What is good economically for the world is good economically for us. If they wish to strangle foreign markets just so we can be at top, then they are not thinking about the millions of people that would be uplifted from poverty within our own nation. And the US has perhaps one of the largest ECM's, so increasing the FDI will hardly effect that.

The U.S.'s interests would be threatened by the enrichment of both the people of certain foreign countries and rises of the Human Development Indexes of those countries. Such is the nature of countries with predominant tertiary-sector activities and relatively high-wage proletarians with union and legal benefits.

The overall enrichment of our country corresponds to the growth of the tertiary sector- the service-providing sector where, generally, workers are paid the most. The "American Model" of business was so successful in America, it was essentially exported to Europe- workers with pensions and other benefits that are paid relatively high wages were supposed to be more productive. This system lead, in America, to the growth of a suburban middle class and caused demand for consumer goods to leap enormously. Better education and the opportunity for better wages lead to the growth of the service-providing sector. The problem is with demand- namely, with the jobs necessary to meet that demand.

I have already explained that higher demand in countries for consumer goods usually is an effect of the enrichment of the populace, namely, the growth of the middle class. The demand for consumer products creates, in turn, a demand for industrial labor. Industrial labor obviously lacks in primarily tertiary-sector countries. Thus, manufacturers in these countries are forced to outsource to poorer countries where workers will work for less. Our system is dependent on wages and standards of living, which are a consequence of wages and social services, in other countries to be lower than ours.

Equality or near-equality in standards of living and wages across the world would equate to socialism- not pure "free trade" or even, for that matter, capitalism in general. Capitalism thrives on the perpetuation of inequalities in wealth in order to insure that profits and consumer goods are available. If workers gain access to better-paying jobs, they generally desire them. Service work pays better, usually, than manufacturing work.
You can call me Mark if you like.