Should the free trade aggrement be changed?
108727
If Americans would only wise up to the inbalence of imports vs Exports we are importing way to much and from country's that buy little in return, what kinda global benifit business plan is that? one where USA comes out short! Boycott all products for China,Japan,Indoneasia,India Etc they must buy more from us then we from them to win the economic battle! It is that simple or you get your butt kicked look at Detroit!Hell ya we need to bring back manufactoring base here and pay workers wages that are prosperous. exterminate the nay sayers who want it all for their greedy old money asses!
100888
It depends on the nation. If labor is relatively abundant in that country, then free trade would tend to increase the wages. If it is relatively scarce (as in the U.S. it is scarce relative to capital) then it will tend to decrease wages.\n\nBecause which ever factor is relatively abundant in that nation (labor or capital) then that is the factor in which the country will specialize in a free trade situation. So Since the U.S. has more capital relative to labor, we will tend to specialize in capital intensive goods, and therefore wage rates will go down.\n\nBut in a country where labor is relatively abundant, like China or India maybe, free trade will increase wages because they will tend to focus on the goods which are relatively labor intensive.\n\n\nPeople seem to get all upset about wage rates going down, when in fact we consumers are losing way more money due to tariffs and other trade barriers than labor is losing in wages. The reason we keep the barriers is because labor is much more organized than the group 'consumers' are. The costs of barriers on cosumers is higher than the benefits to workers. But the costs are spread out over a wide group of people, so we don't notice it as much.
646463
No, but an increase in wages would increase the costs of many goods and services depending on how labor intensive they are. So that would offset the increase by a good portion. I personally think that increasing it based on personal preformance is a better adjustment to make.
865902
I don't know what the protesters are protesting, but violent resistance will get them nothing except the opportunity to admire the graffiti in a jail cell.  If they are protesting globalization of trade, that's really stupid, as trade increases value.
915346
The biggest gorilla can do what it wants.  It would actually help the US economy to repeal trade agreements with developing nations that don't follow the same workers rights since the US education system is still based on an industrial economic platform.
138075
I think the international community should impose high tariffs or boycotts of exports coming from a brainwashing controlled government.  The U.S. response to its 'addicition to oil' by searching for alternate fuels will be very interesting to see as it develops since it addresses three problems: compromising American values for a much needed commodity, a solution to the dwindling supply of oil, and maybe most important, reducing cash flow to hostile governments.  \n\nThis method of reducing the cash flow to a brainwashing government may not change a government outright, but it will make clear to the government and its people that their practice of controlling its citizens is viewed as wrong and violates some established human rights.  This can strengthen some internal attempts at coups against the brainwashing government, but may not be a very strong approach to the problem.\n\nThe most extreme way to do so may be a regime change as seen in Iraq.  Whether or not that is the best way cannot be determined just yet.  Only history will tell.\n\nAs far as what individuals under a brainwashing government can do, they can spark a social movement with literature.  Something that displays the acts of the government that are condemnable.  Controversial literature always seems to be unstoppable.  It may take a long time for the idea to catch on, since it will undoubltedly be secretly read and talked about, or it may spread like wild fire, depending on how effective it is at displaying a better way of life a citizen may attain.  But, over time it should change the thinking that has allowed the government to operate the way it has in the first place.  A poor economic condition of a country, made in part if the international community imposes tariffs or boycotts, may in fact fuel the citizen's dissatisfaction with the government, and possibly make them more open to different ideas of how their government should run.
434924
There should be restrictions on trade. Many Americans are demanding to get more benifits. If we could take things slow and not demand so much from our employers, would that help. A bit maybe. However, look at the profit of businesses and the billionares that are today. These people are stealing from the U.S. workers. Sending our jobs out just so they can make a fast buck. Is that what Americans do? So angry about greed that is going to distroy us.
202116
It needs to be better balance. We import far more than we are exporting. Importing may keep prices down, but the lack of balance is costing American's their jobs. If things are more cheaply made overseas, companies outsource or move their business to other countries and import the products. What good does it do to have things made more cheaply elsewhere, if you lose your job here and can't afford to buy them. We could even out the balance by taxing things that are imported. Yes, they would become a little more expensive, but companies wouldn't outsource as much, more American's would have jobs and our economy would be stronger. Trust me, we are paying more through taxes and programs to help those out of work than we would be paying in increases for imported goods. We really have to get this under control.
409317
Wisesayer makes sense.  Note: the Smoot-Hawley Act killed free-trade.  Farmers would have lost the 'world markets' for their products.  The net result would be a temporary oversupply of farm products in the U.S.  This would quickly result in bank loan foreclosures on the insolvent farmers who couldn't sell the products of their labor for a profit.  Destruction of free trade was an important piece of the downward economic spiral the government created for depression era Americans (and the world).\n\nThe question is, have we learned anything?  Bush, in his first term signed  laws that again limited some free trade (steel, lumber and possibly cattle tariffs).  I am not a supporter of much of what Clinton did as President, but the one economic issue he 'got right' was his strong support of free trade.
408819
That's why the only solution as I mentioned in my question, is to have some European Union Style Organization for the three countries in Nafta. \n\nWhat other measure do you think will fix the problem? What would be the problem with trying to achieve the aforementioned goal?
656958
I'd change the human greed for power and money. So the human being could start sharing with each other.\nAs a result, there would be less war, less poverty, ...
80469
I think that would devalue the american dollar on the world market.
1153408
I would change the federal income tax system to a federal sales tax. This would eliminate the huge tax burden from the upper and middle classes and make honest tax payers out of every consumer in the country.
422297
Free Trade Agreement (FTA or Free trade), in modern usage, trade or commerce carried on without such restrictions as import duties, export bounties, domestic production subsidies, trade quotas, or import licenses. The basic argument for free trade is based on the economic theory of comparative advantage: each region should concentrate on what it can produce most cheaply and efficiently and should exchange its products for those it is less able to produce economically. \nInternal Free Trade\nFree trade within national borders is in some countries a comparatively recent development. Jean Baptiste Colbert tried to abolish internal trade barriers in France in the 17th cent., but that was not accomplished until the French Revolution, a hundred years later. In the German states Prussia took the lead in organizing the Zollverein movement after 1818. The desire to assure freedom from internal trade barriers in the United States was a factor in calling the Constitutional Convention. In Britain, the classic home of the free-trade movement, the term free trade was first used during the agitation for removal of the privileges of the chartered companies in the 17th cent.\nInternational Free Trade\nIn 18th-century Britain, free trade eventually came to mean the desire for a moderate tariff policy in international trade, especially with France. The rapid growth of British industry in the late 1700s gave added force to the attack on international trade restrictions. Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations (1776) provided a powerful intellectual basis for the free trade movement, and the later work of David Ricardo was important in developing the notion of comparative advantage as an argument in its favor. The most important practical blow in favor of the free-trade movement came with the formation (1839) of the Anti-Corn-Law League, and the repeal (1846) of the corn laws. The Anglo-French commercial treaty of 1860 represented perhaps the high-water mark of free trade. \nAfter World War I, Britain reintroduced protection and a system of imperial preference in an attempt to establish a greater measure of economic autonomy. France, along with other European nations, historically followed a policy of protection. In the period of international economic dislocation in the mid-1930s, the United States reversed earlier policy and signed reciprocal trade treaties with many foreign governments, embracing a policy of selective tariff reduction for economic and political reasons. At present the United States is a relatively low tariff nation, although it still maintains a fairly restrictive system of import quotas. Japan also has restrictive import quotas, as well as high tariffs and other trade restrictions.\nAfter World War II, strong sentiment developed throughout the world against protection and high tariffs and in favor of freer trade. The results were new organizations and agreements on international trade such as the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade General (1948), the Benelux Economic Union (1948), the European Economic Community (Common Market, 1957), the European Free Trade Association (1959), Mercosur (the Southern Cone Common Market , 1991), and the World Trade Organization (1995). In 1993 the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was approved by the governments of Canada, Mexico, and the United States. In the early 1990s the nations of the European Union (the successor organization to the Common Market) undertook to remove all barriers to the free movement of trade and employment across their mutual borders.\nCritics of free trade zones argue that such measures are detrimental to domestic economies. In the case of NAFTA, for example, opponents contended that the jobs of some American workers would be "exported" to Mexico, where labor costs are lower. Many have continued to oppose the international impetus toward freer trade, arguing the accords not only fail to protect jobs in more developed nations but also harm workers and
532552
I agree that we should not be afraid to buy products from other countries.  If all the countries of the world participated in free markets and allowed their citizens basic freedoms, poverty would be greatly reduced.
685724
Think of it as selling lemonade in a cul-de-sac as opposed to selling it on a busy street. Tons more customers on the street, right? International free trade means that developing countries don't only get to sell to their neighboring third-world countries anymore, but to the entire "rich" world.
662602
Yeah, but that doesn't mean we're supporting one economy OVER the other.  Trade between countries helps both parties to the trade.  Otherwise, we wouldn't make the trade.  I mean, if it's cheaper to produce something in China, why would I want to pay more to produce it in the U.S.?  There are other things that are cheaper to produce here, and we can make those instead, and support our economy MUCH BETTER than if we're producing things where we have no comparative advantage.