IPcentral Weblog
  The DACA Blog

Wednesday, February 6, 2008

Trade: Free or Fair?
(previous | next)

Which presidential candidate, in this populist primary year, is best on the all-important issue of global trade? Economist David Ranson says it's John McCain.

On willingness to let the markets rather than government drive the adaptation of the economy to foreign competition, Messrs. McCain and Obama outscore Mr. Romney. On willingness to confront politically entrenched but trade-unfriendly policies such as farm subsidies, Mr. McCain beats both Messrs. Obama and Romney.

On rhetoric at least, McCain wins. One assumes that, when it comes to policy, some of Romney's mildly populist rhetoric would be heavily tempered, or indeed completely erased, by his substantial business and investment experience. McCain's soothing stance on international trade, meanwhile, is contradicted by his past unwillingness to let Americans engage in free trade within our own borders: See his proud and flagrant opposition to the Bush tax cuts and his penchant for regulating and bullying businesses. One can only hope that the economic conservatives now surrounding McCain -- Phil Gramm, Jack Kemp, Rudy Giuliani, Steve Forbes -- will steer him toward free trade at home as well as abroad.

Sen. Clinton was known to have opposed her husband's important Nafta achievement, which acted as a huge tax cut for all of North America. Ranson summarizes her view:

Mrs. Clinton believes in "smart trade." As president she would appoint an official to ensure that "provisions to protect labor and environmental standards" are enforced by international bodies like the WTO and the International Labor Organization. She proposes a "time out" on future trade agreements, and a reconsideration of existing deals -- including Nafta.

Obama mostly does not pander to the left on the issue but acknowledges reality:

"Global trade is not going away, technology is not going away, the Internet is not going away. And that means enormous opportunities, but [it] also means more dislocations." In a 2005 essay he said: "It's not whether we should protect our workers from competition, but what we can do to fully enable them to compete against workers all over the world."

On the other hand, he and Sen. Clinton supported the outrageous Schumer-Graham 27.5% tariff on China that shows its ugly head about every six months. A more self-destructive piece of legislation can hardly be imagined.

Gov. Huckabee, meanwhile, is a serial China basher and "fair" trader who wants economic and energy "independence."

Last week former UK prime minister Tony Blair urged the U.S. candidates not to submit to the protectionist temptation. At least on that point, we heartily agree.

posted by Bret Swanson @ 9:44 AM | Trade

Share |

Link to this Entry | Printer-Friendly


Free Trade hurts America in the long run bottom line. We'll become dependant on other nations and lose our clout on the economic, diplomatic and military fronts with the inability to manufacture anything. I'm all for free market, but I am for American Republic first. Any great country requires a strong manufacturing base.

Posted by: cfull at February 6, 2008 2:34 PM

Post a Comment:

Blog Main
RSS Feed  
Recent Posts
  EFF-PFF Amicus Brief in Schwarzenegger v. EMA Supreme Court Videogame Violence Case
New OECD Study Finds That Improved IPR Protections Benefit Developing Countries
Hubris, Cowardice, File-sharing, and TechDirt
iPhones, DRM, and Doom-Mongers
"Rogue Archivist" Carl Malamud On How to Fix Gov2.0
Coping with Information Overload: Thoughts on Hamlet's BlackBerry by William Powers
How Many Times Has Michael "Dr. Doom" Copps Forecast an Internet Apocalypse?
Google / Verizon Proposal May Be Important Compromise, But Regulatory Trajectory Concerns Many
Two Schools of Internet Pessimism
GAO: Wireless Prices Plummeting; Public Knowledge: We Must Regulate!
Archives by Month
  September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
  - (see all)
Archives by Topic
  - A La Carte
- Add category
- Advertising & Marketing
- Antitrust & Competition Policy
- Appleplectics
- Books & Book Reviews
- Broadband
- Cable
- Campaign Finance Law
- Capitalism
- Capitol Hill
- China
- Commons
- Communications
- Copyright
- Cutting the Video Cord
- Cyber-Security
- Digital Americas
- Digital Europe
- Digital Europe 2006
- Digital TV
- E-commerce
- e-Government & Transparency
- Economics
- Education
- Electricity
- Energy
- Events
- Exaflood
- Free Speech
- Gambling
- General
- Generic Rant
- Global Innovation
- Googlephobia
- Googlephobia
- Human Capital
- Innovation
- Intermediary Deputization & Section 230
- Internet
- Internet Governance
- Internet TV
- Interoperability
- IP
- Local Franchising
- Mass Media
- Media Regulation
- Monetary Policy
- Municipal Ownership
- Net Neutrality
- Neutrality
- Non-PFF Podcasts
- Ongoing Series
- Online Safety & Parental Controls
- Open Source
- PFF Podcasts
- Philosophy / Cyber-Libertarianism
- Privacy
- Privacy Solutions
- Regulation
- Search
- Security
- Software
- Space
- Spectrum
- Sports
- State Policy
- Supreme Court
- Taxes
- The FCC
- The FTC
- The News Frontier
- Think Tanks
- Trade
- Trademark
- Universal Service
- Video Games & Virtual Worlds
- VoIP
- What We're Reading
- Wireless
- Wireline
Archives by Author
PFF Blogosphere Archives
We welcome comments by email - look for a link to the author's email address in the byline of each post. Please let us know if we may publish your remarks.

The Progress & Freedom Foundation