Trajan Octavian Titus said:
O.K. fair enough, however, when you're dealing with highly socialist style corporatist goverments in Europe and Latin America then isn't some government subsidization in our own country necessary to even out the playing field, I mean it's like obeying the rules of soccer when you're playing football you'll get your ass kicked. I mean there's no way that we'll get these foriegn governments to go the road of total deregulation I mean they already see the FTA's as attempts at neo-imperialism by the U.S. so isn't it best to play devils advocate and hope that these countries come to their senses? I mean do you think it would be better to not trade with these countries at all if they have socialist aspects?
To me some of the most important aspects of the foriegn trade agreements are to get the developing nations out of their shitty conditions so they don't have the temptation to revert back to pure socialism like that ****er Chavez is doing in Venezuela because if that happens then the FTA will be a moot point anyways.
You do support neo-liberalist economic theory right?
No, think about it. FOriegn government taxes their citzens to provide subsidy (WTO and Trade agreements limit or negate tariffs), and these countries in turn sell their goods to the US at lower price. When is in effect happeneing is a transfer of wealth from foriegn tax payers, to American citizens. We get more goods, at cheaper price, a high standard of living, and they get more taxes, fewer goods, and a lower standard of living.
If both groups subsized, all that really happens is just some paper pushing, and American tax payers and foriegn tax payers are generally WORSE off, some producers benefit (at the expense of everyone else, which in turn put demands on the state to subsidize their industries until all are subsidized, which make everyone worse off anyway), and the state benefits becuase with subsidy comes control and power.
The poeple that tell you they NEED subsidy to compete, generally aren't that good as producers anyway. What they need is subsidy to continue to compete inefficiently. Just because AN industry benefits, at the expense of every other industry, tax payer, and consumer, DOES NOT make it a good thing.
the recent US steel tariffs are an example. The constitutes a "kind of" subsidy (because they can adjust their prices to the level of subsidy, and make consumers pay for the value added, instead of the tax payers via state). Ok, so producers of US steel benefited, but for every one person making steel in the USA, there are 40 (FORTY, FOUR-ZERO) people making things out of steel. For every one steel producer benefited, 40 other people were hurt (auto parts manufacturers, dinner ware producers, airplane, naval, military and machine producers, and the list is virtually endless). For every one steel makers job, 40 people were hurt, decent paying jobs too. Not to mention now, all consumer were hurt, becuase of lower supply (as steel product producers could not supply as much as before, with the higher costs of steel) and higher consumer prices that resulted from the Supply curve.
Forgien governments will follow suit, once they realize Americans are eating up the benefits of THEIR TAXES.
The "national security" concerns are somewhat valid, but only somewhat. It's a poor idea not to have reserves of food, or some people around to produce steel in times of crisis, but they are largely overplayed to benefit the subsidized industry and state. Not to mention, it's not a coincidence that the extensive agricultural subsidies have also played a significant role in rising US obesitiy, colorectal cancers, tooth decay, and general health problems.
I am an Austrian School economist; Mises, Hayek, Rothbard, Sowell, etc., with some Chicago school flavor.
