It's not a scapegoat, it's a part of the problem, and a part that could be fixed. Do you think it is preferable to charge a 35% tariff on goods entering Columbia from our country let allow 95% of Columbian goods into this country without any tariff? Is that fair?


>Free trade puts all sides to the same trading rules, but trade is just a part of economy. Free trade and capital flow means that economic opportunities, not dependent anymore on tariffs, will still depend on other local conditions: laws, regulations, taxes, labor skills, etc. It is easy to scapegoat free trade when, actually, other conditions are not favorable for economic development.
>
>>Because so far, free trade has been anything but. It always seems to favor the other countries. Granted there are those proponents who feel that it should be that way (remember the many articles and speeches on the West's responsibilities to give the other countries a helping hand?), but I think it should really be fair to both sides, if not, it destroys the economies of the other side.
>>
>>
>>>I'd say, Perry, that the article is right on the mark.
>>>
>>>The few unions that remain have been decimated and have lost a whole lot of power.
>>>But the telling thing is that the UAW (and the CAW here in Canada) have agreed in their latest contracts that new employees will start at a much lower hourly rate than existing employees.
>>>
>>>They say that free trade is a rising tide that raises all boats. Why is it then that wages for new employees are being lowered???
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> >I am thinking of the much bigger picture. While I haven't read all the terms of this deal, I would expect that anything labled "Free trade" as in the past means cheaper goods coming into the US.
>>>>
>>>>In the bigger picture, this means our nation gets an even bigger percentage of its economy generated by money suffling. I forget the economic term for it. But it basically means an economy that is generated by service type jobs, like what you and I do on a daily basis. But the amount of goods produced each day is less.
>>>>
>>>>History has shown that nations that have that type of economy don't last.
>>>>
>>>>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/09/AR2008040903401.html?nav=rss_opinion/columns
>>>>
>>>>I need to see the bigger effects of what this agreement entails. Free trade is not the panacea some make it out to be.
>>>>
>>>>>Think of the bigger picture Perry. There are many important issues and each one can have repercussions long term for this country - not just our economy but much much more. Granted Iraq is the most important issue today, but that does not mean the others should be disregarded. Don't criticize the current administration on the economy if you don't care when the opportunity to help improve it was shot down.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>I still don't get you. You're worried about repercussions over 1 little trade act.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>We got this war going on now. And I think you've seen, based on posts from people like Walter, what effect it has caused on world opinion of the US.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>That's what worries me - there could be repercussions on other treaty negotiations going forward because it makes us look untrustworthy.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>This was a good treaty - it's unbelievable that Pelosi and others played politics with it. I'm getting a little sick and tired of the current Congress changing rules as it fits them.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Changing the rules after the fact seems to be a trend with this bunch. However, this time it is not simply affecting a house vote's timing or the Democratic primary, this time they're damaging the ability of the President (office not current occupant) to engage in good-faith treaty negotiations.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>"The Democratic Party's protectionist make-over was completed yesterday, when Nancy Pelosi decided to kill the Colombia free trade agreement. Her objections had nothing to do with the evidence and everything to do with politics, but this was an act of particular bad faith. It will damage the economic and security interests of the U.S. while trashing our best ally in Latin America."
>>>>>>>>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120778566399303309.html