Republicans turned on free trade, turning on tax rates.

If the methodology of the poll holds up, I'm going to go beat the tar out of Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan with a lead pipe (preferably made of imported Australian lead).

Republicans Grow Skeptical On Free Trade - WSJ.com

*sighs* Giuliani and Thompson leading, too? Where's my G.O.P. gone?

Yeah, we'll just restrict imports into a service economy. That'll solve our problems...

I noticed that some of the old sentiments that I learned about in history are still there. "Stop imports because it takes away from home economy". Only that's a pretty dumb thought. If anything, it provides new opportunities. New product to sell and a broader market to sell to. Americans are just gonna screw themselves over if they vote against free trade.

Quote:

a threat to our independence as a nation

How is free trade a threat to our independence as a nation?

Originally Posted by Token

How is free trade a threat to our independence as a nation?

Well, the argument Paul is giving there is not that free trade in itself is a threat to independence, but "free trade deals," which are essentially supra-governmental regulating bodies that control international trade, with little to no oversight by the general populaces that they affect. They threaten national sovereignty or independence because they affect national policies, without being voted or agreed upon by any representation of the people of the nation.

It was the same position Perot took in '92, but don't expect the Wall Street Journal to try and note the difference between free trade and Free Trade Deals.

Originally Posted by Bradylama

but don't expect the Wall Street Journal to try and note the difference between free trade and Free Trade Deals.

Is the aforementioned differentiation your only substantial problem with free trade agreements? (Just curious.)

Not really, but implying that Perot and Paul are part of the problem is factually inaccurate, because neither of them were or are opposed to free trade.

In other WSJ reporting news:
Cato-at-liberty » Lies, Damn Lies, Statistics, and a Media Happy to Abuse Them

Quote:

he Wall Street Journal reports ($) today that support for free trade is fading among Americans who are likely to vote Republican. Perhaps that’s true. It certainly wouldn’t be surprising given the way most Americans are misled by their political representatives and the mainstream media about how to measure trade’s impact on the economy.

But something really smells about today’s lead article in the WSJ. The WSJ/NBC News poll upon which the article is based simply doesn’t support the author’s conclusions. In fact, the article is misleading in ways I find inexcusable for a newspaper of that caliber. If you weren’t already, you should be highly skeptical of polling results (at least as reported second hand).

The third paragraph in the article reads: “Six in 10 Republicans in the poll agreed with a statement that free trade has been bad for the U.S. and said they would agree with a Republican candidate who favored tougher regulations to limit foreign imports.” Next to that paragraph is a graphic box with a bar chart showing responses to the question: “Is foreign trade good or bad for the U.S. economy?” The “Good” bar showed 32%; the “Bad” bar showed 59%.

Here’s the first problem. That question (“Is foreign trade good or bad for the U.S. economy?”) was not asked in the poll. The second problem: no questions were asked about whether the respondents would agree with a Republican candidate who favors tougher regulations to limit foreign imports. But that didn’t stop the author from reporting that phantom result in paragraph three.

Here is a link to the subject WSJ/NBC poll. Question 10 is the only question about trade, which gives two statements and asks the respondent to reveal which statement comes closer to his/her point of view.

Statement A: “Foreign trade has been good for the U.S. economy, because demand for U.S. products abroad has resulted in economic growth and jobs for Americans here at home and provided more choices for consumers.” (32% of Republicans agree)

Statement B: “Foreign trade has been bad for the U.S. economy, because imports from abroad have reduced U.S. demand for American-made goods, cost jobs here at home, and produced potentially unsafe products.” (59% of Republicans agree)

From these results, John Harwood concludes that “six in 10 Republicans in the poll agreed with a statement that free trade has been bad for the U.S. and said they would agree with a Republican candidate who favored tougher regulations to limit foreign imports.”

But as you can see, there is a clear bias in the manner of phrasing the questions. You’re not agreeing that foreign trade is good or bad, but that it’s good or bad because… And respondents are more likely to be familiar with one of the offered consequences of trade. Certainly, the issue of “potentially unsafe products” is fresh on our minds, thus respondents are basically escorted to that answer.

What bugs me most about this is that the competing statements: foreign trade has been good for the U.S. economy vs. foreign trade has been bad for the U.S. economy would have been perfectly objective phraseology. Why introduce subjective perspectives?

That a professional polling agency would introduce such obvious bias into its polls and a major newspaper would ignore the obvious problems with the results is troubling. For all we know, Ron Paul and Mike Gravel are the leading candidates for their respective parties’ nominations.

Yeah, I got redirected to that from National Review, but I didn't buy the latter argument. Anecdotally, the people with whom I work and those we help have had both views thrown at them. Since the overwhelming majority are G.O.P. boosters (and likely haven't had the class warfare rhetoric that Democrats can use), I'm not sure that his argument is "common sense." You?

It doesn't mean that there isn't a significant problem, but I do think the phraseology in the poll is troubling. He also has a point about poll results being skewed because of the lead toys fiasco.

The biggest problem with free trade today is that it fails to take into account the labor and product testing policies that we observe in America compared to those of other nations. That's why we've gone, in the last twenty or so years, from a manufacturing giant to an almost purely service/import-resale economy. Between a lack of import tariffs, and the looser labor/testing laws in nations such as China and other large producers of goods, it's infinitely less expensive to simply import. I believe that we should stop allowing the free flow of outside goods into America and promote American manufacturing, until other nations fall in line with America with testing and labor laws that protect both the consumers and the workers producing the products.

Quote:

I believe that we should stop allowing the free flow of outside goods into America and promote American manufacturing, until other nations fall in line with America with testing and labor laws that protect both the consumers and the workers producing the products.

But they won't. Why? Because it's their lack of American standards that is the precise reason that makes them competitive.

Originally Posted by tommyt

The biggest problem with free trade today is that it fails to take into account the labor and product testing policies that we observe in America compared to those of other nations. That's why we've gone, in the last twenty or so years, from a manufacturing giant to an almost purely service/import-resale economy. Between a lack of import tariffs, and the looser labor/testing laws in nations such as China and other large producers of goods, it's infinitely less expensive to simply import. I believe that we should stop allowing the free flow of outside goods into America and promote American manufacturing, until other nations fall in line with America with testing and labor laws that protect both the consumers and the workers producing the products.

Holy shit! A pure service/import-resale economy!? Everybody would have to work in environmentally controlled spaces! What'll we do without black lung?

the horror

I beg to differ tommyt.
I think the biggest problem with free trade is the fact that trading with nations like China where corporations can sell products at low prices and still attain a much higher profit margin than American companies (obviously because of the cheap labor).
That's why more and more American companies that still try their best to stay in America (and are essentially keeping the middle class alive) are filing Anti-Dumping Petitions all over the place. (like this one filed in June)

It's really just that the large international corporations are trying to improve their profit per share, which increases their stock value, which in turn lets them absorb more of the world's wealth. They're just milking the hell out of the market because profit is #1 in their business plan and anything goes.
And while I think that an almost-free market can work, it really has to be regulated in some fashion, doesn't it?

Goods should flow freely without intrusion, excepting of course when those goods are made with poison.

Manufacturers in China making high profit margins is fine, because it also means that consumers save millions compared to the kind of goods that are manufactured in America.

The danger isn't a want of work but rising food and energy prices. Especially since they've been taken off the CPI.

To solve these problems we have to consider why they're getting so expensive. A good place to start would be ending farm subsidies and the growing of energy on arable land as opposed to food.

Well, it seems my suspicions are confirmed. Rudy Giuliani is the least disgusting of all presidential candidates Republican or Democrat and is the only rational choice I have left.

Oh yeah, and Ron Paul is an authentic nutjob. I wonder if he honestly believes half the nonsense that spews out of his mouth?

The problem isn't what he's spewing out of his mouth. (mostly)

Giuliani is still a terrible choice, though. Somebody who's built their entire political career on fighting crime/terrorism isn't going to put much effort into sound economic policy. I also can't fathom how he manages to be the least disgusting when he's built his candidacy on 9/11 Never Forget I Was There.

I'd say vote for Richardson, but he probably won't win either.

Originally Posted by Bradylama

I also can't fathom how he manages to be the least disgusting when he's built his candidacy on 9/11 Never Forget I Was There.

He's represents the direction I'd like to see the GOP go. He's pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, appears to be fiscally sound, tough on crime, and supports the war, which I support. I see little to dislike of him other than his questionable approach to illegal immigration and his support of for gun control.

I'd prefer to see the GOP dispose of its affiliation with the bible bangers and get back to establishing its identity of responsible economic/fiscal policy if that is still possible in this day in age or at the very least dismantle our welfare state and mixed economy.