Pat Buchanan: How Free Trade Destroys America and Promotes Globalism

bobbyw24

Banned
Joined
Sep 10, 2007
Messages
14,097
Dismantling America

Nations rise on economic nationalism; they descend on free trade
____________

Though Bush 41 and Bush 43 often disagreed, one issue did unite them both with Bill Clinton: protectionism.

Globalists all, they rejected any federal measure to protect America’s industrial base, economic independence or the wages of U.S. workers.

Together they rammed through NAFTA, brought America under the World Trade Organization, abolished tariffs and granted Chinese-made goods unrestricted access to the immense U.S. market.

Charles McMillion of MBG Information Services has compiled, in 44 pages of charts and graphs, the results of two decades of this Bush-Clinton experiment in globalization. His compilation might be titled, “Indices of the Industrial Decline and Fall of the United States.”

From 2000 to 2009, industrial production declined here for the first time since the 1930s. Gross domestic product also fell, and we actually lost jobs.

In traded goods alone, we ran up $6.2 trillion in deficits — $3.8 trillion of that in manufactured goods.

Things that we once made in America—indeed, we made everything—we now buy from abroad with money that we borrow from abroad.

Over this Lost Decade, 5.8 million manufacturing jobs, one of every three we had in Y2K, disappeared. That unprecedented job loss was partly made up by adding 1.9 million government workers.

The last decade was the first in history where government employed more workers than manufacturing, a stunning development to those of us who remember an America where nearly one-third of the U.S. labor force was producing almost all of our goods and much of the world’s, as well.

Not to worry, we hear, the foreign products we buy are toys and low-tech goods. We keep the high-tech jobs here in the U.S.A.

Sorry. U.S. trade surpluses in advanced technology products ended in Bush’s first term. The last three years we have run annual trade deficits in ATP of nearly $70 billion with China alone.

About our dependency on Mideast oil we hear endless wailing.

Yet most of our imported oil comes from Canada, Mexico, Venezuela, Nigeria and Angola. And for every dollar we send abroad for oil or gas, we send $4.20 abroad for manufactured goods. Why is a dependency on the Persian Gulf for a fraction of the oil we consume more of a danger than a huge growing dependency on China for the necessities of our national life?

How great is that dependency?

Continue

http://buchanan.org/blog/dismantling-america-3714
 
Ron paul agrees and wants to repeal nafta

Finally – A Bill To Get The US Out Of NAFTA

By Devvy Kidd

WebNote: Ron Paul has already signed on to this bill.

“Free” trade has all but destroyed our most important and productive jobs sectors: manufacturing, agriculture and industrial. Not to mention stomping on our sovereignty.

On February 15, 2010, I wrote a column titled, Congress refuses to bring home millions of jobs.[1] For all the talk about unemployment and no jobs, why won’t Congress get us out of the major, unconstitutional trade treaties that have killed MILLIONS of good paying jobs and bring them home?

Back in 2007, Rep. Marcy Kaptur introduced a Band Aid bill titled the NAFTA Accountability Act, H.R. 4329[2]

Former Congressman Virgil Goode (R-VA) also introduced a bill back in January 2007: H. Con. Res. 22.[3] However, it went no where because the Republicans still controlled Congress with Bush in the White House.

HOWEVER, we now have a new bill and if Americans don’t fight like warriors to get it passed, we will never take the first step in bringing home jobs. If we can get this passed and sent to the usurper, he will veto it, no question. Congress can over ride Comrade Obama, but it will not happen without massive and consistent pressure on Congress.

I know, we’re all worn out trying to stop the unconstitutional take over of the health care system. The usurper is hell bent on passing another unconstitutional and phony “climate change” bill aka cap and trade. [4]

http://buchanan.org/blog/finally-a-bill-to-get-the-us-out-of-nafta-3722
 
no help in sight

great article, thanks for posting. will Americans wake up in time to do something about this? only time will tell. in the meantime, many just twist in the wind.....

edit: since I first posted this another post appeared about the bill to get us out of NAFTA -- ha, fat chance!

lynn
 
Last edited:
Dismantling America

Nations rise on economic nationalism; they descend on free trade
____________

Though Bush 41 and Bush 43 often disagreed, one issue did unite them both with Bill Clinton: protectionism.

Globalists all, they rejected any federal measure to protect America’s industrial base, economic independence or the wages of U.S. workers.

Together they rammed through NAFTA, brought America under the World Trade Organization, abolished tariffs and granted Chinese-made goods unrestricted access to the immense U.S. market.

Charles McMillion of MBG Information Services has compiled, in 44 pages of charts and graphs, the results of two decades of this Bush-Clinton experiment in globalization. His compilation might be titled, “Indices of the Industrial Decline and Fall of the United States.”

From 2000 to 2009, industrial production declined here for the first time since the 1930s. Gross domestic product also fell, and we actually lost jobs.

In traded goods alone, we ran up $6.2 trillion in deficits — $3.8 trillion of that in manufactured goods.

Things that we once made in America—indeed, we made everything—we now buy from abroad with money that we borrow from abroad.

Over this Lost Decade, 5.8 million manufacturing jobs, one of every three we had in Y2K, disappeared. That unprecedented job loss was partly made up by adding 1.9 million government workers.

The last decade was the first in history where government employed more workers than manufacturing, a stunning development to those of us who remember an America where nearly one-third of the U.S. labor force was producing almost all of our goods and much of the world’s, as well.

Not to worry, we hear, the foreign products we buy are toys and low-tech goods. We keep the high-tech jobs here in the U.S.A.

Sorry. U.S. trade surpluses in advanced technology products ended in Bush’s first term. The last three years we have run annual trade deficits in ATP of nearly $70 billion with China alone.

About our dependency on Mideast oil we hear endless wailing.

Yet most of our imported oil comes from Canada, Mexico, Venezuela, Nigeria and Angola. And for every dollar we send abroad for oil or gas, we send $4.20 abroad for manufactured goods. Why is a dependency on the Persian Gulf for a fraction of the oil we consume more of a danger than a huge growing dependency on China for the necessities of our national life?

How great is that dependency?

Continue

http://buchanan.org/blog/dismantling-america-3714

The primary U.S. product for export these days are federal reserve notes backed by little or no goods at all. Debasing a currency to artificially boost trade and prices simply priced the market in U.S. Manufacturing and labor out of country . These are self imposed effects of Inflationionisim. It has destroyed your countries production ability to producing real goods in exchange for others and exporting those goods.This combined with the fact that the government classes have consumed or destroyed all of the capital in real savings; placing a strong reliance on credit has made it very difficult to return to producing real in demand goods .

Get rid of NAFTA, but the replacement will not be and open border policy. It will more than likely be a closing the borders by force policy and will only starve your country at this point. It is a politically popular choice; a seemingly easy button that isn't one. And to Blame China for getting the U.S. in this mess is a demagogic tactic to pave the way for partial default on the owing credit.
 
Switching from internal taxes to a flat tariff by constitutional amendment will put us back on a prosperous path. Internal taxes subsidize foreign production. The only way to ensure free trade is to eliminate internal taxes and enact a flat tariff.
 
Switching from internal taxes to a flat tariff by constitutional amendment will put us back on a prosperous path. Internal taxes subsidize foreign production. The only way to ensure free trade is to eliminate internal taxes and enact a flat tariff.

I think free trade is a good think (and NAFTA is not free trade at all, anyone should opose it) but I agree with this. A flat tariff would be a proper way for the goverment to get some revenue. It is important that it is completely flat, because otherwise there would be problem of interests and corruption.
 
Yup, thanks for the links . . .
http://buchanan.org/blog/finally-a-bill-to-get-the-us-out-of-nafta-3722

H. R. 4759

To provide for the withdrawal of the United States from the North American Free Trade Agreement.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

March 4, 2010

Mr. TAYLOR (for himself, Mr. JONES, Mr. DEFAZIO, Mr. STUPAK, Mr. ARCURI, Mr. BACA, Mr. BARTLETT,
Mr. BRALEY of Iowa, Mr. CAPUANO, Mr. COSTELLO, Mr. FILNER, Mr. GRIJALVA, Mr. HARE, Mr. HINCHEY,
Mr. KAGEN, Ms. KAPTUR, Mr. KILDEE, Mr. KISSELL, Mr. KUCINICH, Mr. MASSA, Mr. MCINTYRE, Mr. MICHAUD,
Mr. PAUL, Mr. SCHAUER, Mr. VISCLOSKY, Mr. WILSON of Ohio, Ms. WOOLSEY, and Mr. STARK)
introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

SECTION 1. WITHDRAWAL OF THE UNITED STATES FROM THE NAFTA.
 
Ron Paul is the most thoroughgoing proponent of free trade in Congress. He's against NAFTA and such because they are, in fact, managed trade arrangements.
 
Yes, calling NAFTA a "free trade" agreement is a terrible and incongruous, self-contradictory oxymoron . . .
Ron Paul, some other Congressmen, and Pat Buchanan are among those that recognize the contradiction.

burnnafta.jpg
 
Totally Agree With Pat Buchanan

Ron Paul is the most thoroughgoing proponent of free trade in Congress. He's against NAFTA and such because they are, in fact, managed trade arrangements.

I totally agree with Pat Buchanan, but this is the one issue Ron Paul has me worried on. The reason: it's not just NAFTA and WTO we need to get rid of to level the playing field.

China pegs their currency to the U.S. dollar, which has completely destroyed our manufacturing base and caused our huge trade imbalance. This, in a sense, is a tariff on our goods.

Also, although I believe in limited government, I don't believe in anarchy and believe government can play an important role. Keeping the air clean and the water clean is, imo, a very important role. This costs our manufacturers: so, to level the playing field, I agree with tariffs.

As mentioned: Ron Paul worries me on this, and i wish that he would be more of a protectionist and believe in tariffs. Other countries protect their industries; the chinese government flat out funds alot of their industry. There's a fine line that needs to be kept in this country to ensure the protectionism doesn't coddle unproductive, low-quality U.S. manufacturers; however, the way the situation is now, the playing field is so uneven that U.S. manufacturers don't even have a shot at succeeding.

Pat Buchanan is spot on: I wish Ron Paul would follow suit.
 
China pegs their currency to the U.S. dollar, which has completely destroyed our manufacturing base and caused our huge trade imbalance. This, in a sense, is a tariff on our goods.

China's peg to the U.S. dollar is the only thing keeping the U.S. dollar afloat. The destruction of the manufacturing base has been caused by primarily artificially low interest rates and secondarily huge amounts of regulations, which has converted us to a service based economy. We borrow money to consume, and have jobs facilitating this consumption.

Also, although I believe in limited government, I don't believe in anarchy and believe government can play an important role. Keeping the air clean and the water clean is, imo, a very important role.

Pollution is a violation of your neighbor's property rights. All that's necessary is courts of arbitration to settle these disputes, and award fair restitution.

This costs our manufacturers: so, to level the playing field, I agree with tariffs.

Tarrifs do not "level the playing field", they only impoverish us. If we did not have abusive monetary policies, and growing debt, a trade deficit would be impossible. The only way to have a trade deficit is rising debt or printing money. Otherwise, goods must be traded for goods.

As mentioned: Ron Paul worries me on this, and i wish that he would be more of a protectionist and believe in tariffs. Other countries protect their industries; the chinese government flat out funds alot of their industry. There's a fine line that needs to be kept in this country to ensure the protectionism doesn't coddle unproductive, low-quality U.S. manufacturers; however, the way the situation is now, the playing field is so uneven that U.S. manufacturers don't even have a shot at succeeding.

You seem to imagine that tarrifs produce success for domestic manufacturers. That's not even close to the case, since the cost of acquiring supplies goes way up, as does the cost of living. Again, the cause of the trade deficit is increasing indebtedness and printing money.

Pat Buchanan is spot on: I wish Ron Paul would follow suit.

I like Pat, but I think he's dead wrong on this. I support localism, but it should be accomplished by strong communities and consumer choice, not tariffs, subsidies, and force. People have a right to trade goods without me threatening them or demanding a cut.
 
I don't think NAFTA has anything to do with our trade with China since, last I checked, China is in Asia and not North America.

Free trade isn't crippling our industry, the government is.
 
Again, the cause of the trade deficit is increasing indebtedness and printing money.

I'll be honest, I don't understand what you are saying. If we print more money then the value of the dollar decreases which would make foreign purchases more expensive which would mean our industry can compete.

China's peg to the U.S. dollar is the only thing keeping the U.S. dollar afloat.

how so?

Pollution is a violation of your neighbor's property rights. All that's necessary is courts of arbitration to settle these disputes, and award fair restitution.

this is a matter of opinion. Although I respect yours, I don't agree with it. Although I believe government should be limited, I see conservation as a necessary role. Bogging down the courts with personal lawsuits seems unproductive.
 
Last edited:
interesting point that we go on and on about independence from foreign oil but are free trade otherwise.

agree with others that buchanan is attacking the puppet rather than the puppeteer here. the problem is our financial state in general not the piece of the ever slimming piece of the pie being divied up wiht the unions getting the proper amount. I'm not going to pay higher prices for shit AND pay 33% of my paycheck to the govt.
 
Last edited:
As mentioned: Ron Paul worries me on this, and i wish that he would be more of a protectionist and believe in tariffs.

Actually Ron Paul does believe in Tariffs: He says, "All free trade really needs is two words: Low tariffs. " http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2007/tst090907.htm

Our Founding fathers used Tariffs because we had become too dependent on England for goods. The Tariffs were imposed on all imported goods to encourage the development of manufactured goods in the U.S. It worked.
 
Last edited:
I'll be honest, I don't understand what you are saying. If we print more money then the value of the dollar decreases which would make foreign purchases more expensive which would mean our industry can compete.

If you print and spend money, then you don't need to produce to consume. Imagine that every person had a money printing machine in their basement, and foreign suppliers were honoring this money. Who would work? Indebtedness has the same effect -- if you're borrowing thousands of dollars a month, you don't need to work. Our economy is based on governments and people borrowing to consume, and everyone else gets jobs to facilitate that consumption. The move from a manufacturing to a service economy directly corresponds to this increase in indebtedness and increase in the money supply.

If there is neither of these, then it's impossible for the nation to consume more than it produces. THAT's the way to solve trade imbalances.


We would be one step closer to out of control inflation without the China peg, and without purchases of government debt. Currently, the currency is being propped up by foreign governments. In the absence of this intervention, the federal government would be forced to choose between default and hyperinflation.

this is a matter of opinion. Although I respect yours, I don't agree with it. Although I believe government should be limited, I see conservation as a necessary role. Bogging down the courts with personal lawsuits seems unproductive.

It's better than bogging down every business with reams of paperwork. Small business in this country is literally being buried in red tape. It's not about practical measures to conserve the environment, it's about generating money and power for bureaucrats. And the big players, with teams of lawyers, as well as the federal government itself, skirts the law anyway. There are piles of horror stories stemming from interactions with the EPA, the army corps of engineers, etc.

When you give power to a few individuals, count on those individuals to abuse that power.

What's more, those who do not settle out of court, but are determined to have harmed their neighbor's property, can cover court costs. With more free choice and competition in justice, even more just and efficient approaches can be found.
 
Last edited:
Ron Paul writes:
Another NAFTA nail is about to be hammered into the coffin Washington is building for the US economy. Within the next few days our borders will be opened to the Mexican trucking industry in an unprecedented way. A "pilot" program is starting which will allow trucks from Mexico to haul goods beyond the 25 mile buffer zone to any point in the United States . Officials claim this is being done with utmost oversight, but Americans still have their legitimate concerns. Rather than securing our borders, we seem to be providing more pores for illegal aliens, drug dealers, and terrorists to permeate.



Not only that, but the anti-competitive and burdensome yoke of over-regulation of our industry at home is about to send a lot more Americans to the unemployment lines. The American Trucking industry has been heavily regulated since 1935. The express purpose of The Motor Carrier Act was to eliminate competition through permitting, regulating tariff rates, even approving routes. American trucking companies have been fighting ever since for some relief from the substantial regulatory burdens placed on them. Regulatory compliance is the single most daunting barrier to entry, and eats up huge amounts of profit. Now, to add insult to injury, Mexican trucking companies, not subject to the same onerous standards, will be allowed to roll right in and squeeze American industry further. This will severely undermine the ability of American trucking companies to remain solvent.



The fact that this is being done in the name of free trade is disturbing. Free trade is not complicated, yet NAFTA and CAFTA are comprised of thousands of pages of complicated legal jargon. All free trade really needs is two words: Low tariffs. Free trade does not require coordination with another government to benefit citizens here. Just like domestic businesses don't pay taxes, foreign businesses do not pay tariffs – consumers do, in the form of higher prices. If foreign governments want to hurt their own citizens with protectionist tariffs, let them. But let us set a good example here, and show the world an honest example of true free trade. And let us stop hurting American workers with mountains of red tape in the name of safety. Safety standards should be set privately, by the industry and by the insurance companies who have the correct motivating factors to do so.
http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2007/tst090907.htm
 
Back
Top