I don't support the democrats on protectionism. Do you?

Tariffs and isolationist policies set off a chain of similar actions by other nations worldwide that ultimately do more harm than good. The reason that corporations are fleeing are as much due to our weakness as other's strenghts. "The government needs to improve its regulatory policy, reduce healthcare costs, discourage frivolous lawsuits, assure affordable and reliable supplies of energy, and create a stable tax environment." Lets work on these areas instead.

Besides, if people in India and other Asian nations are working so hard to educate themselves and embrace free market economics, why shouldn't they who represent well over a third of the entires world population be given a chance to strengthen their economies as well? I will not defend china's sweat shops. But India doesn't have sweat shops. The progress they are achieving, they are achieving with hard work, perseverance and dedication.

Wouldn't the world be better off once half it's population is almost as well off as what so far only a tenth of it (representing North America and parts of Europe) bear the fruits of free markets.

Nations throughout Asia representing close to a half of the world's population now have an exploding middle class as a result of free trade policies. These are huge markets that American goods can be sold in as well (American goods are considered relatively high quality throughout the world even though they migh not be here.) If we are failing to market our goods properly to these markets, it's our fault, not theirs. But corporations like coca cola, pepsi, McDonalads, ford have shown a great deal of sucess. Walmart is planning to break into these markets shorts. And the American economy is strenghten by this. Why should we defy the WTO and start back the cycles of protectionism and tariffs when we shoved it down everyone elses throats for so long. Do you expect the rest of the world to not respond in kind if we start to close off our markets and implement protectionist policies?

Lets decrease unemployment here. Lets decrease our trade defecit. But lets do so by positive means. Lets do so with tax incentives and help funding health plans for workers. Lets use some of the tax money to make it cheaper to manufacture goods here, to ease the burdens upon small to mid size businesses. This will increase jobs here without decreasing them elsewhere.

How much longer can we who represent only 5% of the world's population expect to recieve most if not all of the fruits of free market economics?



Bush defends outsourcing of jobs
IANS Friday, March 12, 2004

WASHINGTON: US President George W. Bush has defended the phenomenon of outsourcing of jobs, dismissing isolationism as a recipe for economic disaster.

The US "has moved beyond that tired, defeatist mindset and we're not going back", he said speaking at a Women's Entrepreneurship Forum in Cleveland, Ohio, Wednesday.

"The United States and other countries need to pursue global economic growth by breaking down trade barriers rather than building a wall around themselves."

Senator John Kerry, Bush's likely Democratic challenger in the 2004 presidential elections, and some congressmen, mostly Democrats, want to make outsourcing of US jobs more difficult.

Bush, however, warned that economic isolationism would lead to "retaliation from abroad", and put many of jobs at risk.

"America has got five percent of the world's population. That means 95 percent of potential customers are in other countries. We cannot expect to sell our goods and services and create jobs, if America and our partners, trading partners, start raising barriers and closing off markets," he said.

When politicians in Washington attacked trade for political reasons, he said, they ignored the fact that some 6.4 million Americans drew their pay cheques from foreign companies.

In order to create jobs in the US and prevent them from going overseas, the president said: "The government needs to improve its regulatory policy, reduce healthcare costs, discourage frivolous lawsuits, assure affordable and reliable supplies of energy, and create a stable tax environment."

Later, at a conference on job outsourcing hosted here by the Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), a panel of experts said: "US job security is better served by expanding domestic training and education opportunities than by employing protectionist measures to prevent companies from transferring work to lower-wage markets."

Assistant US Trade Representative Chris Padilla, addressing the conference, said "isolating America from the world is not the answer".

The panellists at the CSIS conference, including Democratic Congressman Adam Smith of Washington state and representatives from business and academia, generally agreed that protectionism is the least advisable path to securing US job growth.

The US Senate last week passed an amendment, seeking to restrict outsourcing of federal contracts to foreign workers. Some US states have moved to prohibit the outsourcing of state government work to India and other countries.

"There is intense anxiety about jobs, and the anxiety is real," said former Clinton administration official Lael Brainard. "The feeling among US workers is that nobody is safe in the international economy."

She predicted, however, that outsourcing is likely to increase, as overseas labour markets become more competitive. "We need to accept that we won't maintain an advantage in every single industry," she said.

Congressman Smith said that much of the current outcry on outsourcing was based on "anecdotal" evidence and that the General Accounting Office (GAO) of Congress is in the process of compiling more reliable data.

Smith called on the administration to crack down on countries that fail to live up to their commitments to open their markets. He cited India and China as examples of countries that are reaping the benefits of global trade but have not reciprocated by opening their own markets. "We need to use trade rules to our advantage," Smith said.

US Trade Representative Robert Zoellick, in his testimony before the Senate Finance Committee Tuesday, had spoken in the same vein.

Recalling a meeting with Indian officials, Zoellick said he had acknowledged that outsourcing was a "complicated" issue but also that India must accept its responsibilities under global trade rules.

"If countries around the world that are emerging economic powers want to get the benefits of the system, they're going to have to contribute to the system," he said.