Making the Case for Trade

March 17, 2016


There is no doubt that the Wall Street Journal is desperate to go back to the utopian thought of "free trade" agreements. Let's face it, the damage is done, people are up in arms about it, and there is no going back. They posted an article about how Reagan's protectionism is destructionism and how that idea would be derided in the 2016 race. Our own Dan DiMicco shared his thoughts on the article and wrote this:

The cumulative effect of "FTA's since 1990 has been a goods trade deficit of $13 Trillon. The era of free trade has been a huge bust for America! Why?

Because the FTA's have been  badly negotiated, had the rules badly enforced or allowed to be circumvented as tariffs were replaced by VAT taxes,or massive subsidies by Governments like China, including currency manipulation 

The last American administration and Congress to get it right on trade was that of President Reagan/ Tip O'Neil, and their actions/policies of the mid 80's. Reagan was quite clear on this! He was for free trade BUT only if it did not result in undermining Americans businesses at home and American workers. Republicans need to really study the true Reagan legacy on trade not what has been distorted to extremes by special interest groups. Please, as a Reagan Republican, I challenge you to go back to "Rules based and Enforced" Free Trade for the future of our Country, and the World.

President Reagan gave a speech that established the principle of “free and fair trade with free and fair traders.” More specifically, he established the 3 R’s: Rules, Reciprocity and Results.

“Rules” mean that the trade must be rules based and every nation should follow them. “Reciprocity” meant that there will be a reciprocal reduction in tariffs, quotas and other barriers rather than one-sized reduction. “Results,” the point forgotten most, meant that America must gain a net benefit from trade arrangements rather than being taken advantage of.

You can read the full article here

Showing 4 reactions

Please check your e-mail for a link to activate your account.
  • William Ryan, I have been trying to reach that one candidate and convince him he can win the Presidency and then restore our manufacturing and prosperity with a Balanced Trade policy. Here is my latest attempt, the article includes a link to a pdf presentation I’ve been sending to Bernie’s legislative aides. http://www.balancedtrade.us/#!America-and-Bernie-Sanders-Needs-a-Balanced-Trade-Policy/c193z/56eeee770cf276e9de24a8b0
  • A big part of bringing back our manufacturing economy will depend on the success we will have as pro Balanced Traders is what is best for America. We do need to be on all social media formats to get our word out to as many as possible. In the past the oligarchs have been very successful at mis informing and dividing to conquer. They love to see the government at war with the two parties over social issues but we must stay focused to the larger economic issues of jobs, trade where we have been exploited the most. In other words the 1%ers love it when we continually fight amongst our selves. They control the government and the house and senate and judiciary. They (the 1%ers) pay super pacs a paultry $200M to control and buy the house and senate votes. What a fantastic return on investment to be able to ship all our jobs over seas…We must bring Balanced Trade to America so more get livable wage jobs, so more payroll taxes get paid that will reduce the federal debt and keep the SSA solvent for our children. There is only one candidate who has the ability and fortitude to do this and it aint HRC.
  • “Making the case for trade” is the typically misleading headline and strawman argument language that we who oppose the TPP or who generally oppose a Free Trade policy are “anti-trade.” NOBODY in the trade policy debate is “anti-trade.” Consider how even under a Balanced Trade policy that uses Import Certificates to limit our imports to the same value as our exports, the USA would still be the 3rd largest importer in the world (behind China and the EU, which itself is 28 countries!). Those of us who want a Balanced Trade policy, like those who want some other form of a protectionist or nationalist trade policy, are not at all “anti-trade” but rather want a trade policy that strengthens American domestic industries and employment and that does not undermine our sovereignty and democracy with global governance by treaty law and international tribunals unaccountable to the citizens of the USA.
  • In case you missed it there was a rather important debate on “free trade” cost-benefits in the NYT (3-17-16) opinion pages. Jeffrey Schott, from the Peterson Institute and Robert Scott with the Economic Policy Institute give very differing views. I choose to side on the American people and view Mr. Scott’s view as most correct in cost-benefit analysis…