http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/01/cnn.poll/index.html?eref=rss_latest

They somehow have gotten the idea that "foreign trade" is a "threat to the economy".





I thought protectionists generally were simply OK with doing harm to the greater good in exchange for preserving some specific interests. It appears that most people just flat out don't understand this basic concept, though.

[Edited on July 2, 2008 at 4:14 AM. Reason : asdfasd]

7/2/2008 4:11:16 AM

I'm not remotely surprised. Frankly, the number of people opposed to immigration ("legal" or otherwise) should have been enough to point you to this sad fact.

7/2/2008 4:28:42 AM

The pole and the heading lead you to believe that the majority feel this way......the majority being 51%. Since the error is +/- 3.5%, the heading, "majority of americans" is misleading.

7/2/2008 7:39:53 AM

the headline should read "Majority of Americans don't know anything about trade or economic theory and are therefore unqualified to answer questions on such topics, and the answers they do give are irrelevant"

[Edited on July 2, 2008 at 8:30 AM. Reason : .]

7/2/2008 8:29:33 AM

^yep.

7/2/2008 8:31:28 AM

^^
Headline: "Gov't Schools Have Turned Our Citizens Into Economic Dunces."

7/2/2008 9:58:55 AM

Free without Fair is not Free.

7/2/2008 11:09:51 AM

[Edited on July 2, 2008 at 11:54 AM. Reason : .]

7/2/2008 11:53:38 AM

Quote :

"51 percent of Americans view foreign trade as a threat to the economy -- the first time in a CNN poll that a majority of Americans report holding negative views on free trade. That compares with only 35 percent of Americans who felt free trade posed a threat to the economy in 2000, and 48 percent who felt it was a threat in 2006."

That's horrendously vague.

Foreign trade or free trade? Which is it-- one is impossibly stupid; the other is somewhat understandable.

7/2/2008 12:04:19 PM

Fareed Zakaria mentioned this in a speech I heard him give on FORA.com He pointed out that just as we'd gotten around to convincing the world that free trade was a good idea, we're giving up on it ourselves.

7/2/2008 12:05:04 PM

^^ it is somewhat vague

but the conclusions drawn by the respondants are stupid any way you cut it

Quote :

"the headline should read "Majority of Americans don't know anything about trade or economic theory and are therefore unqualified to answer questions on such topics, and the answers they do give are irrelevant" "

the only problem is that it IS relevent, because they're going to be voting on their dumbass misconceptions.

7/2/2008 2:13:56 PM

headline should read "majority of americans dont even have a clue what its really like to be an american now a days"

i always hated and still do hate edwards but there are definitely 2 americas

[Edited on July 2, 2008 at 2:18 PM. Reason : rabble]

7/2/2008 2:16:17 PM

I don't read this as anything more than Americans being pissed off at a sagging economy...

OMF MADE IN JAPAN CHINA!!!

7/2/2008 7:17:11 PM

Signed.

7/2/2008 8:48:18 PM

These are the people that Obama is courting when he rants about NAFTA and other free trade agreements.

7/2/2008 10:28:14 PM

The CTPA comes to mind. I have no idea how anyone could think of that as a bad thing.

7/2/2008 10:34:44 PM

I'm not sure I'm against "free trade," but I certainly am against us getting the shaft in trade, such as where we have no tariffs on country A's products but country A taxes the shit out of our products. That's just straight up bullshit.

7/3/2008 1:06:14 AM

If only there were some international institution to which we could appeal that would enforce fairer standards...

[Edited on July 3, 2008 at 2:34 AM. Reason : fucking crybabies]

7/3/2008 2:34:02 AM

Quote :

"I'm not sure I'm against "free trade," but I certainly am against us getting the shaft in trade, such as where we have no tariffs on country A's products but country A taxes the shit out of our products. That's just straight up bullshit."

so what you are saying is that it is bullshit when we get to take advantage of country A's cheap goods and the american citizen now has more money in his pocket because of the cheaper good from country A and that country A is not getting that benefit because their government is shooting themselves in the foot by enacting these tariffs?

/runon

7/3/2008 11:02:18 AM

just heard an anchor on CNN say:

McCain wants to bill himself as the biggest free-trader ever, despite evidence that free trade has destroyed millions of jobs in this country.

7/5/2008 7:11:01 PM

anchor shoulda mentioned that all those jobs were for the dumbfucks of this country so its not really a bad thing that we got rid of the industries

[Edited on July 5, 2008 at 7:20 PM. Reason : \/ textile jobs and shit?? fuck man i could care less about the dumbasses that do that]

7/5/2008 7:13:30 PM

^^ It's true. Millions of jobs have been destroyed by free trade. Of course, millions of jobs have also been created by free trade.

^ Even for you DNL, that's a stupid think to say.

7/5/2008 7:18:34 PM

"now"?

7/5/2008 7:19:02 PM

Quote :

"It's true. Millions of jobs have been destroyed by free trade. Of course, millions of jobs have also been created by free trade. "

well, yeah...but that's not what she implied, and there are too many simple-minded dunces who won't understand that it's actually a net gain.

7/5/2008 7:23:53 PM

oh, no wonder. it's some dumb bitch sitting in for Lou Dobbs on his show.

7/5/2008 7:31:07 PM

kitty pilgrim? or whatever her name is? kitty something

[Edited on July 5, 2008 at 7:32 PM. Reason : she does the weekend lou dobbs recap basically]

7/5/2008 7:32:09 PM

^^^ I know. Don't forget that the shift is painful for those involved, though.

Quote :

"textile jobs and shit?? fuck man i could care less about the dumbasses that do that"

We can't all work in 2 Progress Plaza like you.

7/5/2008 7:37:31 PM

This reminds me of how one columnist put it concerning Obama's position(s) on free trade (I'm paraphrasing): He supports free trade in the abstract, but he is against every single free-trade agreement--kind of like how socialists love humanity but hate the individual.

7/5/2008 7:45:10 PM

Doesn't China have like hundreds of billions of US dollars from our imbalanced trade?

When are they going to start spending that and what are they going to buy?

7/5/2008 7:48:45 PM

Let's be real: The benefit of free trade is not something the overwhelming majority of americans understand. It's very easy to argue demonstrate how a protectionist policy will lead to tangible benefits for a specific group. It's very hard to do the same for a free trade policy because lay-arguments for free trade are unintuitive and nebulous.

Who actually develops an intellectual understanding of free trade? Of the 30% of US residents who go to college, a fraction of that takes a macroeconomics class, of whom a fraction ever understands the theories for free trade, and of that a fraction of whom actually believe the theories. Thus, you have a very small percent of the population who can actually show the dead weight loss from protectionist policies.

At best, most people inherit a belief in free trade. When not forced to choose between free trade and a personally beneficial protectionist policy, people will support the free trade policy by default (For example, someone might say they support free trade because they hate communism). But when they are forced to choose, these people will gladly cast aside this belief in favor of a more easily-graspable protectionist policy (The same 'free trade' supporter then supports farm subsidies, immigration quotas, tariffs, etc).

The real solution to this quandary is to indoctrinate people about the benefits of free trade from an earlier age because people won't so easily cast aside free trade if they understand it.

[Edited on July 5, 2008 at 8:24 PM. Reason : .]

7/5/2008 8:21:37 PM

Quote :

"The real solution to this quandary is to indoctrinate people about the benefits of free trade"

That, and give people the tools to deal with free trade.

Community college (and the means to attend), Bio-network, etc

7/5/2008 8:31:17 PM

^^, and to an extent, ^

7/5/2008 8:35:14 PM

Quote :

"When are they going to start spending that and what are they going to buy?"

They already spent it - on securitized U.S. debt - i.e., T-bills, etc. In other words, they plowed their surplus into financing our national debt. Which they are now earning interest on.

[Edited on July 5, 2008 at 8:46 PM. Reason : .]

7/5/2008 8:45:56 PM

Wow, are we talking about the same free-trade here?

When I think of Free-Trade i think of UNELECTED people from our government meeting with probably unelected or unfairly elected officials from another country, and of course the multi-national corporation lawyers are there too.

They sign business deals that can affect the american economy but dont have to report what they did to congress or the public.

Fair trade on the other hand, Where markets decide where goods are made without the tampering of government agreements, I can get behind.

[Edited on July 6, 2008 at 4:38 PM. Reason : I thought more people on here were lassiez faire (sp?)]

7/6/2008 4:37:14 PM

no, free-trade is the market solution.

"fair-trade" is a euphamism for protectionism and regulation.

7/6/2008 4:48:16 PM

^^post so stupid it has to be a troll

7/6/2008 5:06:45 PM

Still The people negotiating the contracts are making decisions without congress interfering which according to the constitution it has the right to do.

From the WTO Website

Quote :

"Promoting fair competition back to top The WTO is sometimes described as a “free trade” institution, but that is not entirely accurate. The system does allow tariffs and, in limited circumstances, other forms of protection. More accurately, it is a system of rules dedicated to open, fair and undistorted competition. The rules on non-discrimination — MFN and national treatment — are designed to secure fair conditions of trade. So too are those on dumping (exporting at below cost to gain market share) and subsidies. The issues are complex, and the rules try to establish what is fair or unfair, and how governments can respond, in particular by charging additional import duties calculated to compensate for damage caused by unfair trade. Many of the other WTO agreements aim to support fair competition: in agriculture, intellectual property, services, for example. The agreement on government procurement (a “plurilateral” agreement because it is signed by only a few WTO members) extends competition rules to purchases by thousands of government entities in many countries. And so on. "

http://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/whatis_e/tif_e/fact2_e.htm

The "non discrimination" rules could block congress from ending trade with a country even though the consitution gives them that right

Quote :

"Section 8 - Powers of Congress To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;"

7/6/2008 5:08:45 PM

Congress agreed to that limitation, dumbass. A ratified treaty is the same as a law. IOW, Congress made it the law to obey WTO rules.

7/6/2008 5:20:43 PM

Right, so they gave up there ability to restrict trade with foreign nations, a major change in the constitution. That should take an amendment to the constitution to change not just passing a law (a 2/3 majority needed vs a simple majority)

7/6/2008 5:31:24 PM

the constitution doesn't state that they HAVE to regulate/restrict foreign commerce, simply that they CAN

And they're electing not to.

Plus if congress changes their mind, do you really think they'll be all like

"well we have to adhere to what this internaional organization says"

i mean really.

7/6/2008 5:41:27 PM

^^ I'm confused. Do you think that all contracts between US companies and foreign companies should be approved by Congress?

7/6/2008 5:48:55 PM

No, but i do think congress should be able to block those goods from entering the US if they choose or if they so feel be able to levy a tariff on that good. (because the constitution says they can)

7/6/2008 5:52:10 PM

They can and do apply import/export restrictions, and levy tariffs.

7/6/2008 5:57:35 PM

True, But sometimes . . . . .

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9906EEDB1130F934A15750C0A9659C8B63

Quote :

"The World Trade Organization ruled today that the steel tariffs imposed by President Bush last year were illegal. "

7/6/2008 6:08:27 PM

Quote :

""fair-trade" is a euphamism for protectionism and regulation."

Interesting, you complain about people not knowing what free-trade is, yet you have no idea what fair trade means.

Fair trade means, lose the incentives, have comparable health, work and environmental standards.

7/6/2008 6:12:36 PM

I think TF is saying that he doesn't like that the WTO has say about our foreign trade, because they're not accountable to US citizens through election processes and what-not.

It's a fair and common criticism, though not one I agree with.

7/6/2008 7:21:53 PM

Most Americans watch American Idol too

Doesn't make it a good show or anything that concerns me

7/6/2008 11:07:58 PM

^ but this does, or at least should, concern you.

^^^ that's pretty much the same thing as what I'm saying. You just prefer the benefits of fair-trade, whereas I prefer the greater benefits of free-trade.

7/7/2008 1:04:39 AM

If only there were some solution...

...like wanting less shit.

7/7/2008 1:12:58 AM

What's wrong, in and of itself, with wanting more shit?

7/7/2008 1:19:49 AM