Quote:
Originally Posted by justabubba
my view is a bit different
raising the standard of living of our competitors'/trading partners' wage earners is a by product of the actual reason we need true "FAIR" trade agreements
how FAIR is the competitive field when the trading partner has no significant environmental controls, which controls impose a direct cost on operations? the cost/price of products available in the market is then unequal because such environmental mandates are borne by our industry but those costs are not imposed on the foreign firm
how FAIR is the exchange of goods when our trading partner - colombia is an example - does not tolerate the formation of workers' unions? when the goods provider can make its product using labor achieved at serf wages, how well can our own industry compete, when our nation rightfully embraces the right to labor organization
i am for FAIR trade as opposed to free trade ... FAIR trade agreements allow goods providers to compete on a level playing field
BRAVO to the democrats for refusing to sign an agreement which is without parity
|
Regardless of what you think about the war, the debt it has incured is a problem facing everybody. In order to gain money we need to trade more, pure and simple. If the Dem's prolong the period it takes for us to sign trade deals, we incur interest on our debt thus causing us to owe more money. Maybe after we rebound the economy we can think about reviewing trade deals.
Call a Die Hard Capitalist, but I think that he best way to bring about the changes you are talking about is letting Capitalism run it's course (except where it exploits) as opposed to not trading because of ethics (for the moment).
China doesn't care for ethics......