Republican International Trade Platform
February 2nd 2010 03:07
Republicans are generally regarded as the more “free market” party of the two major U.S. political parties; however, they are also seen as more xenophobic. This leads to potentially conflicting forces on endorsing free trade. According to the Republican Parties’ 2008 Platform:
From this opening paragraph, the Republican’s have a mish-mash of accurate statements about free trade, along with the Liberal notion of a level playing field and the neoconservative ideas of national security and democracy promotion via trade policy. Whoever wrote this should have just said, “Greater international trade will mean higher wages and a better standard of living, while promoting democracy and civil society in developing nations.” The shortcomings of the rest of this paragraph are:
1. A “truly level playing field” sounds great, but it diminishes the gains from trade and is merely a shielded form of protection. It would be great for Americans to have the choice of cheaper goods from China, but if they have to pay their workers the same, abide by expensive labor and environmental regulations, and allow unionization, then those goods are no longer so cheap. 99% of Americans lose out, while the 1% of people in America that actually compete with China is protected. One may want to argue that these enforcements are meant to help the Chinese workers. In response, I have some news for you: they do not need that kind of help. Forcing a poor country to follow costly rules will result in larger unemployment, and slower economic growth, which both hurt the poor more than these regulations may help. When a country like China can afford to choose such regulations, they probably will. In the meantime, having these regulations forced on them will harm both Chinese and Americans.
2. I am a huge, huge advocate of free trade, but it will not mean more American jobs. The number of jobs in the economy is determined by stronger factors (i.e. Fed policy, flexible labor markets). Trade most certainly does lead to higher wages and a better standard of living, but creating more jobs it does not.
3. I am not sure in what sense the Republican Party means that trade is a matter of national security. I suppose since having trade relations with another country reduces the probability of going to war with that country, it could be said that free trade is a matter of national security. However, I have a feeling this is meant in a totally different (neo-con) sort of way.
4. Ditto on the “instrument to promote democracy” phrase. Yes, by increasing the standard of living in developing nations, they will likely move toward democracy. However, if “instrument” means something like the use of trade sanctions, then no, I will have to disagree.
More mercantilist and “level playing field” fallacies going on here. Although, I strongly agree with the last sentence. There are free trade agreements just waiting around to be voted on. Let’s vote already!
You will be hearing much more from me on agricultural trade policy in the future, but for now I ask (somewhat rhetorically), why do farmers get such special treatment?
Intellectual property rights and safety standards are a legitimate concern, in a proper scope. As for subsidies tilting the playing field, why should we as U.S. consumers care that the Chinese government, for example, is having their taxpayers foot the bill so that we can buy cheaper goods? The whole point of exporting is to receive money to buy goods (i.e. imports). If other governments make it so we have to sell less to buy the same value of goods, then which way is the playing field really being tilted?
I have never heard of “port safety” as a variable for the amount of trade.
Overall, the Republican’s stance on trade is predictably too export-focused, placing the needs of producers over consumers.
Follow me on Twitter: @AGoldenDoor
Greater international trade, aggressively advanced on a truly level playing field, will mean more American jobs, higher wages, and a better standard of living. It is also a matter of national security and an instrument to promote democracy and civil society in developing nations.
1. A “truly level playing field” sounds great, but it diminishes the gains from trade and is merely a shielded form of protection. It would be great for Americans to have the choice of cheaper goods from China, but if they have to pay their workers the same, abide by expensive labor and environmental regulations, and allow unionization, then those goods are no longer so cheap. 99% of Americans lose out, while the 1% of people in America that actually compete with China is protected. One may want to argue that these enforcements are meant to help the Chinese workers. In response, I have some news for you: they do not need that kind of help. Forcing a poor country to follow costly rules will result in larger unemployment, and slower economic growth, which both hurt the poor more than these regulations may help. When a country like China can afford to choose such regulations, they probably will. In the meantime, having these regulations forced on them will harm both Chinese and Americans.
2. I am a huge, huge advocate of free trade, but it will not mean more American jobs. The number of jobs in the economy is determined by stronger factors (i.e. Fed policy, flexible labor markets). Trade most certainly does lead to higher wages and a better standard of living, but creating more jobs it does not.
3. I am not sure in what sense the Republican Party means that trade is a matter of national security. I suppose since having trade relations with another country reduces the probability of going to war with that country, it could be said that free trade is a matter of national security. However, I have a feeling this is meant in a totally different (neo-con) sort of way.
4. Ditto on the “instrument to promote democracy” phrase. Yes, by increasing the standard of living in developing nations, they will likely move toward democracy. However, if “instrument” means something like the use of trade sanctions, then no, I will have to disagree.
With 95 percent of the world’s customers outside our borders, we need to be at the table when trade rules are written to make sure that free trade is indeed a two-way street. We encourage multilateral, regional, and bilateral agreements to reduce trade barriers that limit market access for U.S. products, commodities and services. To achieve that goal, Congress should reinstate the trade promotion authority every president should have in dealing with foreign governments. Trade agreements that have already been signed and are pending before Congress should be debated and voted on immediately.
More mercantilist and “level playing field” fallacies going on here. Although, I strongly agree with the last sentence. There are free trade agreements just waiting around to be voted on. Let’s vote already!
An aggressive trade strategy is especially important with regard to agriculture. Our farm economy produces for the world; its prosperity depends, more than ever before, on open markets. U.S. agricultural exports will top $100 billion this year. We will contest any restrictions upon our farm products within the World Trade Organization and will work to make the WTO’s decision-making process more receptive to the arguments of American producers.
You will be hearing much more from me on agricultural trade policy in the future, but for now I ask (somewhat rhetorically), why do farmers get such special treatment?
We pledge stronger action to protect intellectual property rights against pirating and will aggressively oppose the direct and indirect subsidies by which some governments tilt the world playing field against American producers. To protect American consumers, we call for greater vigilance and more resources to guard against the importation of tainted food, poisonous products, and dangerous toys.
Intellectual property rights and safety standards are a legitimate concern, in a proper scope. As for subsidies tilting the playing field, why should we as U.S. consumers care that the Chinese government, for example, is having their taxpayers foot the bill so that we can buy cheaper goods? The whole point of exporting is to receive money to buy goods (i.e. imports). If other governments make it so we have to sell less to buy the same value of goods, then which way is the playing field really being tilted?
Additionally, we recognize the need to support our growth in trade through appropriate development and support of our ports in order to ensure safe, efficient and timely handling of all goods.
I have never heard of “port safety” as a variable for the amount of trade.
Overall, the Republican’s stance on trade is predictably too export-focused, placing the needs of producers over consumers.
Follow me on Twitter: @AGoldenDoor
| 38 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
subscribe to this blog
