|
The New York Times Editorial Board must be co-ordinating with the
U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Constant editorials are penned, going
into detail on why trade is good, and blaming the problems on something
else.
Today's Sunday Times editorial goes deeper than before, and reveals the thin reeds to which they cling.
There is no question that trade can disrupt lives. Just ask the
nearly 500 workers who lost their jobs four years ago when Sanmina-SCI
closed its plant in Wilmington, Mass., to move its production of
circuit boards to Asia. An investigation by the Government
Accountability Office found that eight months later only about 175 of
Sanmina’s employees had found new jobs, with most of those taking a pay
cut.
Yes. Trade disrupts lives. Too bad.
That's
a technique of the free traders. If they admit a problem, they
minimize it. Millions lose jobs, its a disruption.
Thousands of businesses close, another disruption. A world record
trade deficit, darn... another disruption. But trade is good
because:
While trade can hurt some workers, most economists believe it
plays a modest role compared with other forces in the economy,
including advances in technology, the decline of trade unions and
mushrooming executive pay. Many Americans benefit from freer trade,
whether they are buying cheaper imports or exporting products.
Do you see now? "Most economists" believe. Thus the NYT
Editorial Board, all of whom have a job, believes. No mention of
trade deficits, or record foreign debt. These are fundamental
folks. Fundamental to running a country successfully.
Their
naivete is appalling. They believe free trade agreements, just
because they are named thus, are "free trade." The naming of those
documents was brilliant. "Free trade agreement." Critics
and supporters alike use the labels. The label, Free Trade
Agreement, frames the debate. Critics lose before they start.
Free
trade is free when currency is not manipulated. When tariffs are
not replaced - in equal measure - by other border taxes. When the
U.S. trades but keeps its sovereignty. When food and product
standards are sound, and improving. When labor and environmental
standards are solid.
The NYT likes relative income
equality, and environmental standards, and food safety. Its
strange how trade trumps it all. Strange.
 |
