Free Trade is Good. Protectionism is bad.

The Club for Growth sponsored 1,028 economists from all 50 states to pressure congress not to enact protectionist policies against China.  Democrats have been rattling their sabers for months now with any number of suicidal thoughts on trade.  Not only is the trade helpful to both countries, but China buys billions of dollars of low interest treasuries with their American dollars, keeping rates low.  Who in their right mind would want to stop either of those things?   Here’s the 2007 petition (PDF) as it ran in the Wall Street Journal this morning.  It is deliberately reminiscent of the 1930 petition (PDF) also signed by 1,028 economists as it ran in the New York Times, in hopes of dissuading the government from signing the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act.  The 1930’s petition was not successful and the resulting tariffs drove the nation into depression. 

PETITION

 Concerning Protectionist Policies Against China

We, the undersigned, have serious concerns about the recent protectionist sentiments coming from Congress, especially with regards to China. By the end of this year, China will most likely be the United States’ second largest trading partner. Over the past six years, total trade between the two countries has soared, growing from $116 billion in 2000 to almost $343 billion in 2006. That’s an average growth rate of almost 20% a year. This marvelous growth has led to more affordable goods, higher productivity, strong job growth, and a higher standard of living for both countries. These economic benefits were made possible in large part because both China and the United States embraced freer trade. As economists, we understand the vital and beneficial role that free trade plays in the world economy. Conversely, we believe that barriers to free trade destroy wealth and benefit no one in the long run. Because of these fundamental economic principles, we sign this letter to advise Congress against imposing retaliatory trade measures against China. There is no foundation in economics that supports punitive tariffs. China currently supplies American consumers with inexpensive goods and low-interest rate loans. Retaliatory tariffs on China are tantamount to taxing ourselves as a punishment. Worse, such a move will likely encourage China to impose its own tariffs, increasing the possibility of a futile and harmful trade war. American consumers and businesses would pay the price for this senseless war through higher prices, worse jobs, and reduced economic growth. We urge Congress to discard any plans for increased protectionism, and instead urge lawmakers to work towards fostering stronger global economic ties through free trade.

I love it.  Congress would be beyond silly to go ahead now.  And I wonder what the reaction will be in The New York Times, after this incredibly silly article of a few days ago.  This story will be fun to watch.  Reason backed up by statistics and logic vs. alternate reality claptrap always provides great theater.  It’s like watching Hitchens debate Michael Moore.

Stay tuned.

Tags: Free trade, Economics, China, Politics, Sanctions

Powered by Qumana

Pettiness In and Out of Government

For many us who must successfully get things accomplished in this world, following are the kinds of stories that makes it so difficult to remain positive and hopeful about our government these days.

Because it matters not a whit what you thought of the country entering the war in Iraq.  It matters not a whit what you think of Bush, or your own chances of becoming President.  If you are an elected official, it matters not a whit whether your vocal minority back home wants our military to turn tail and run.  The fact of the matter is that we are in a war, right now and right here.  And people from all over the world, especially Iraqis and Americans, are dying.  And we must figure out a way to end that war and resolve the conflict without millions of people dying.  We are truly and well in it now.  And if you can not make rational judgments about that, and can not even bare to hear the real facts on the ground to better make up your mind on future strategy and tactics, then you should absent yourself from all discussion.  Because you are a whining child, and your thoughts only frustrate and obfuscate the situation, and generally distract the rest of the folks who must work towards the solution.

This reported from Kansas City:

Washington — Kansas Rep. Nancy Boyda is defending her decision to step out of a hearing room last week while a retired Army general testified about U.S. progress in Iraq…

Boyda, a freshman Democrat from Topeka, said she left the House Armed Services Committee hearing on Friday for about 10 minutes during the testimony of retired Gen. Jack Keane…

“There was only so much that you could take until we in fact had to leave the room for a while,” Boyda said after she returned, according to a transcript of the hearing. “So I think I am back and maybe can articulate some things — after so much of the frustration of having to listen to what we listened to.”

Keane had testified that since the troop surge began, U.S. forces “are on the offensive and we have the momentum.” He also said that security has improved in every neighborhood and district in and around Baghdad, and that “cafés, pool halls, coffee houses that I visited are full of people.”

When Boyda returned to the hearing, she ridiculed Keane’s description of Iraq “as in some way or another that it’s a place that I might take the family for a vacation–things are going so well–those kinds of comments will in fact show up in the media and further divide this country instead of saying, ‘Here’s the reality of the problem.’ ”

By the way, if you are actually interested in exactly what Keane said, here’s an interview with him at NRO.  He seems fairly realistic and is both positive and negative.  In fact, two scholars from The Brookings Institute are also surprised with the change in Iraq, and say so in The New York Times.

The Wall Street Journal has more, commenting on the fact that a major party in Washington is actually invested in us losing the war.  They cite this story in the Washington Post in which House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.) said Monday:

“that a strongly positive report on progress on Iraq by Army Gen. David Petraeus likely would split Democrats in the House and impede his party’s efforts to press for a timetable to end the war…

Many Democrats have anticipated that, at best, Petraeus and U.S. ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker would present a mixed analysis of the success of the current troop surge strategy, given continued violence in Baghdad. But of late there have been signs that the commander of U.S. forces might be preparing something more generally positive. Clyburn said that would be “a real big problem for us.”

The Claremont Institute recounts even more instances of politicians “exulting in misfortune.”  Hugh Hewitt has gone so far as to commemorate ‘The Nancy Boyda Award’ for everyone who denies good news about Iraq or twists it to their negative end.  I like this portion of his article best, when recounting his interview with Andrew Sullivan:

“ODDLY ENOUGH, ANDREW SULLIVAN provides the perfect coda to our debut of the Nancy Boyda Award. Earlier today, Andrew was slightly miffled that I suggested that “the left and other anti-war figures like Andrew Sullivan have a lot invested in this war failing and failing miserably.” Andrew took delight when someone took my logic and inverted it, writing, “The right and other pro-war figures like Dean Barnett have a lot invested in this war succeeding and succeeding well.” Andrew commented with a portentous and approving “Hmmmmm.”

Probably unwittingly, Andrew has confirmed my theory that this war’s opponents have forgotten something basic and elemental: Every American, regardless of his party affiliation or political philosophy, has “a lot invested in this war succeeding and succeeding well.” Andrew Sullivan used to know that. Best to ask him why he’s forgotten it.”

Well said Hugh.  But it goes far beyond all of this now.  To see a war through the prism of partisan politics is to be party to a perspective of the most aggregious and petty.  To walk out on briefings of your government that are meant to aid you in making some of the most important decisions of a lifetime, much less a generation, is to back childishly away from your duty and responsibility as a representative of the United States and its people.  And you should be ashamed, and are not emotionally fit to lead our country.