i look at it another way.. despite his rhetoric, kerry has voted for every free trade initiative that's come his way. the man clearly believes in free trade. offering tax incentives to companies in order to get them to establish plants in america is not protectionism. in fact, that is what china, india, and every other developing country does - they use the term "free trade zones". kerry seeks to compete with them.
we've all heard stories about sweatshops. such things are violations of international trade laws. subsidies and dumping are more violations of international trade laws. bush has been woefully slow in bringing cases to the wto for arbitration. there's the "super 301" report that details trade violations by a whole host of countries. free
and fair trade need not be mutually exclusive, and we ought to utilize existing laws to the fullest for our national interests - rather than the interests of major corporations.
Quote:
DJR: Do you believe that if governments that is managing the economy
with its mometary and supply side policies ended--the economy would
collapse? |
monetary policy isn't controlled by the government.
but as far as government sponsored mercantalism, subsidies, barriers to free trade (ex. farmers can't sell produce to cuba), etc. - i think the economy would be much better off if it wasn't involved. i'm a fan of a free market - although not 100% (anti-dumping laws are necessary if you can't get universal worker rights).
the mission already exists in the wto.. the only thing is getting countries to choose to open their markets and end their protectionism.
supply side policies could work extremely well if they were coupled with a balanced budget policy. i won't write off any plan so simply, there are complexities that have to be taken into account. nothing's completely good or completely bad.