>SNIP
>
>Our trade agreements which due exist, are NOT equal. Study any of them. They are one-sided benefiting the other country. This is as it should be according to many here on the UT and elsewhere who feel that more advanced nations need to give a helping hand to the other countries. I disagree. We have dug ourselves a hole that is difficult if not impossible to get out of. The new trade agreement with Columbia, which may have to led to others, would have been a start in the right direction.
>

I want to be on record as saying emphatically that I believe that trade agreements MUST be to the benefit of all signatories.
I don't think the U.S. has a "trade agreement" with China (other than GATT), yet it is China that is the real problem, and not just for the U.S., but all western countries.
The U.S. suffers more than most countries mainly because it had much much more manufacturing than the rest of us and business was/is all too anxious to exploit the gap in costs. Of course including profits of offshore ventures in the GNP only helps them. And acording to both Hilary and Barak (sp?) the government even rewards offshored work through tax breaks.

>There is also the problem of self-sustainment. Say what you want, if for any reason, supplies entering this country stopped, imagine the mess. This country could come crumbling to its knees.

I assume you are saying that the U.S. is no longer in a position to sustain itself (using domestically-produced goods) and so is now dependant on China (and a few other countries) just to keep going.

>
SNIP