Jerry,

One of the notions about free trade is that the receiving conutry, while initially attracting the investments, will ultimately be caused to raise its standard of living to meet the requirements of the new technology/industry. Historically this has pretty much been the case though I suspect in the faster moving technologies like electronics this has happened faster (don't all things happen faster now? <g>). As an example, the cites memory chip manufacturing... Japan has some beaches that hold the absolutely purest sand in the world - great for silicon chips. They did indeed gain a huge market share by super agressive pricing and some help from Japan, Inc.. However, that chip manufacturing has migrated to Taiwam, Malaysia and to other parts of the world - all the while chasing lower production costs. Why is this the case? Because the free trade notion has essentially worked out in real life, not only for the raising of the standard (cost) of living but also in the notion that no one can indefinitely subsidize a loser. The world's economy doesn't tolerate inefficiencies well. Your own adherence to the Open SOurce movement is a testament to this actually.

So, will conuntries be predatory? You bet. Will they be able to be this way forever? Nope.. I just read about Cuba opening itself up to tourist dollars and that the grumbling for a better life has already started. Nothing like a few thousand 'Ugly Americans' spending lots of dollars to cause a revolution. <g>

I don't like the notion that India may hire programmers for $50 a day while I make $50 an hour but I can guarantee you that those dollars will get spent and the hue & cry for a higher standard of living will ensue.

Ever notice how dirt poor people will almost inevitably own a television set??



>>>I don't want to debate this, but what exactly is the problem? It affects more than Pennsylvania (although it may impact there more than any where else). The US steel makers having been trying to get this tariff for many years.
>>
>>My problem with this is on a couple of different levels. First, Bush's campaign promises of free trade. Second, tarrifs ultimtely hurt the consumer. I am not an economist, but from what I read, tarrifs are bad economic idea. The decision by Bush was based on politics, not economics.
>
>
>Your logic has some conflicts with reality.
>
>First, 'free trade' will mean that sooner or later your job will get shipped over seas, and the products you used to make will be made cheaper than you could make them. How good can this be for you, the 'consumer', who can no longer afford to buy what he used to make because he no longer has a job? Secondly, 'free trade' doesn't mean equal working conditions. Employers here in the USA have to conform to an almost uncountable list of OSHA restrictions, environmental restrictions, race & gender & disability and age rules-requirements-restrictions and other rules, which rasies the cost of the product. Less than a dozen miles south of the Rio Grande, or in the Phillipines and other 3rd world places such restrictions do not apply. There is no way the American worker can compete with such inequalities in working conditions. Here in Lincoln we have lost 3 big businesses and over 1,000 jobs -- all moving to Mexico. Our taxes are down over 200 Million. There is roughly a 1 to 7
>roll over. Every job lost effects 7 other works in related industries.
>
>While this version of 'free trade' is a great income bonanza for top level management and the stockholders, it is a disaster for those who are stakeholders. They get all the profits, we pay all the costs.
>
>jlk