98% of the world's population lives outside the U.S., say the free traders.  We need trade agreements to sell our stuff to them!  

Funny how the reverse is true. 99% of the world's farmers are outside the U.S., and they sell more to us.  Alan Tonelson has the numbers.

***** 

AmericanEconomicAlert.org | Fighting for American Companies, Fighting for American Jobs
 
GLOBALIZATION FACTLINE
 
Farm Product Imports from China Keep Surging

By Alan Tonelson
Wednesday, December 05, 2007

U.S.-CHINA TRADE TRENDS:

Change in U.S. farm products imports from China, fiscal 2006 - fiscal 2007: +32.89%

Change in U.S. global farm products imports, fiscal 2006 - fiscal 2007: +9.39%

China’s share of U.S. global farm products imports, fiscal 2004: 2.98 percent

China’s share of U.S. global farm products imports, fiscal 2007: 4.00 percent

The Presidential campaign is featuring trade as never before.  Ross Perot made trade a big issue in 1992 in important ways, but neither major party deviated from the binary good-bad logic. 

Aargh - trade is good.  Don't confuse me with other stuff. 

The NPR Democratic debate yesterday was without cameras and without an audience.  Three issues were pre-arranged, including China which essentially means trade policy with a focus on China.  I wrote about this yesterday.   The NPR format has been widely praised, while the CNN/YouTube format has been criticized. 

Clinton and Huckabee are reputed to be saying it's time for a free-trade debate.  Tony Blankley, Gingrich's former press secretary, writes about this in a conservative blog, townhall.com.  Blankley himself says he was a free trader without questions, but now is a free trader with questions.

Blankley cites Paul Samuelson's 2004 article in the Journal of Economic Perspectives, in which the influential Samuelson said it is wrong to assume trade is win-win and also wrong to assume that the wins exceed the losses. 

Samuelson argues: "Correct Ricardian theory does imply that worldwide real income per capita does gain so that winners' winnings will suffice worldwide to more than compensate losers' losings." But Samuelson worries that the wealthy countries (the United States, above all) may be the losers, while India, China and other developing countries may be the winners.

What the country (and the Republican Party) needs is an intelligent, nonbelligerent debate, not the mere recitation of ancient maxims that may or may not be valid in a world in which potentially 2 billion Chinese and Indian workers suddenly have been thrown into the world labor market. Maybe that won't put severe downward pressure on American wages (and salaries of many white-collar workers), but it ought to be worrying.

Blankley also cites the October 2007 Wall Street Journal poll showing Republican voters believe, by a 59-32 margin, that free trade has been bad for America.

Big money props up the free trade myth.  Max Baucus represents Montana, a state that is not populated with free traders.  Yet he is a free trader.  Why? 

Almost 91 percent of the money Baucus received from individuals, or $3.45 million, came from out of state, according to figures compiled by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics. Just over 9 percent, or $353,000, came from Montanans. ...  The single top contributor was investment banking giant Goldman Sachs, with $50,200.

Case closed.

The National Association of Manufacturers "Hails Bipartisan Passage of Peru Trade Agreement." 

Here is their argument:

Manufactured goods make up two-thirds of U.S. exports, and every new trade agreement we pass ensures increased market access and more jobs for American manufacturing workers. Following free trade opponents’ protectionist course would rob American manufacturers of the opportunity to compete in the global marketplace. We cannot remain world leaders if we shut ourselves off from the world.

There is so much wrong with that argument that it is really good.  It has worked for years.

It is smart because arguing with it is like arguing with a streetwalking schizophrenic who insists the Neptunians are speaking to him from special antennae in his shoelaces.  Its futile. 

The Senate voted upon, and passed, the Peru FTA today.  77-18.  The Presidential candidates were not voting.

The agreement allows Peru to continue 19% tariffs against U.S. goods, in the form of Value Added Taxes, while the U.S. unilaterally lowers tariffs.  A continuation of NAFTA-CAFTA.  Hundreds of pages of non-trade related items.  Precedent for more giveaways.  Tough negotiators... you bet.

The roll call vote is below the fold.  (read more).