Free trade begins at home

Earlier this month Democrats in the United States House of Representatives managed to delay the establishment of a free trade agreement between the United States and Colombia. This protectionist stance reflects the positions taken by Hilary Clinton and Barack Obama, the two contenders for the Democratic nomination. This is despite the fact that both countries would clearly benefit from the agreement. Robert J Samuelson articulates this well, pointing out the blindingly obvious (though clearly not to many democrats): that this agreement would increase trade, helping U.S. manufacturers.

The decision for the Democrat led house to delay President Bush’s agreement with President Álvaro Uribe Vélez is mired in cheap political opportunism with little thought as to the consequences. The free trade agreement would benefit people in the United States by stripping out Colombia’s tariffs that are as high 35% on cars, 15% on tractors and 10% on computers. This will obviously give U.S. businesses a fairer chance of competing with imports from elsewhere.

The principal benefit for Colombians is different. Colombia's exports already enter the U.S. market duty-free under the 1991 Andean Trade Preference Act. For the people of Columbia, the Free Trade agreement offers the permanency that the 1991 Andean Trade Preference Act lacks, as the latter has to be renewed leaving businesses uncertain on the future.

Although the Democrats lead the delay on the Trade agreement, there is a split in Democratic Party ideology between Lou Dobbs-style populism and Bill Clinton-style free trade. As such, prominent Democrats have written an open letter to Congress in support of the U.S.-Colombia free trade agreement.

Whether Clinton or Obama are true advocates of protectionism or just posturing for popular appeal, they are undoubtedly damaging the economic prospects of their country. In contrast, straight talking John McCain has the guts and integrity to stand up in Ohio and make the case for free trade to the people. He seems wise enough to know that free trade begins at home.

typo
written by John B. Chilton, April 27, 2008

The spelling is Colombia, not Columbia.

Ed. - Thanks for pointing that out, John. I've fixed it now!

Not a partisan issue.
written by Steve Hunt, April 28, 2008

This isn't a partisan issue, and it isn't just non-partisan with regards to boobs like Bill Clinton and Lou Dobbs. Bush and the Heritage Foundation types are the only ones making this into a "partisan issue" and pretending that Pelosi is doing what she does becuase of donations from big labor is pure non-sense. Bill Clinton received big donations from them as well.
Why is there NO Discussion on how much of the "potential trade" that will occur as a result of this thing passing will be inter-corporate? The numbers are high with NAFTA, and as a result my home town of Oklahoma City lost our 3,000 job Dayton Tire plant to MX becauase shipping the goods to produce tires from the U.S to MX qualifies as "trade" under NAFTA. This isn't some conspiracy, these are facts and they are being ignored by the propaganda outlets.
Bush was foolish enough to say this thing not passing would hurt U.S small business. Give me break! What % of small business exports comprise NAFTA trade? It has to be WELL below 5%, probably lower (just an estimate, I'd be shocked if I am not right on this)....also, Bush is trying to create a new cold war with VZ. to help this thing pass. It is a damn shame our media isn't as free as theres, or the truth would be told on these matters.

Written by Philip Salter
Saturday, 26 April 2008
Earlier this month Democrats in the United States House of Representatives managed to delay the establishment of a free trade agreement between the United States and Colombia. This protectionist stance reflects the positions taken by Hilary Clinton and Barack Obama, the two contenders for the Democratic nomination. This is despite the fact that both countries would clearly benefit from the agreement. Robert J Samuelson articulates this well, pointing out the blindingly obvious (though clearly not to many democrats): that this agreement would increase trade, helping U.S. manufacturers. The decision for the Democrat led house to delay President Bush’s agreement with President Álvaro Uribe Vélez is mired in cheap political opportunism with little thought as to the consequences. The free trade agreement would benefit people in the United States by stripping out Colombia’s tariffs that are as high 35% on cars, 15% on tractors and 10% on computers. This will obviously give U.S. businesses a fairer chance of competing with imports from elsewhere. The principal benefit for Colombians is different. Colombia's exports already enter the U.S. market duty-free under the 1991 Andean Trade Preference Act. For the people of Columbia, the Free Trade agreement offers the permanency that the 1991 Andean Trade Preference Act lacks, as the latter has to be renewed leaving businesses uncertain on the future. Although the Democrats lead the delay on the Trade agreement, there is a split in Democratic Party ideology between Lou Dobbs-style populism and Bill Clinton-style free trade. As such, prominent Democrats have written an open letter to Congress in support of the U.S.-Colombia free trade agreement. Whether Clinton or Obama are true advocates of protectionism or just posturing for popular appeal, they are undoubtedly damaging the economic prospects of their country. In contrast, straight talking John McCain has the guts and integrity to stand up in Ohio and make the case for free trade to the people. He seems wise enough to know that free trade begins at home. Bookmark Comments (2) Subscribe to this comment's feed typo written by John B. Chilton, April 27, 2008 The spelling is Colombia, not Columbia. Ed. - Thanks for pointing that out, John. I've fixed it now! Not a partisan issue. written by Steve Hunt, April 28, 2008 This isn't a partisan issue, and it isn't just non-partisan with regards to boobs like Bill Clinton and Lou Dobbs. Bush and the Heritage Foundation types are the only ones making this into a "partisan issue" and pretending that Pelosi is doing what she does becuase of donations from big labor is pure non-sense. Bill Clinton received big donations from them as well. Why is there NO Discussion on how much of the "potential trade" that will occur as a result of this thing passing will be inter-corporate? The numbers are high with NAFTA, and as a result my home town of Oklahoma City lost our 3,000 job Dayton Tire plant to MX becauase shipping the goods to produce tires from the U.S to MX qualifies as "trade" under NAFTA. This isn't some conspiracy, these are facts and they are being ignored by the propaganda outlets. Bush was foolish enough to say this thing not passing would hurt U.S small business. Give me break! What % of small business exports comprise NAFTA trade? It has to be WELL below 5%, probably lower (just an estimate, I'd be shocked if I am not right on this)....also, Bush is trying to create a new cold war with VZ. to help this thing pass. It is a damn shame our media isn't as free as theres, or the truth would be told on these matters. Write comment This content has been locked. You can no longer post any comment. Powered by Azrul's Jom Comment for Joomla!