The Reflector

Sadly this idiot speaker of the house that we have is so cought up in partisian politics and getting re-elected that she wont even allow a vote just like she didnt allow a vote on the energy bill. She is taking the Democratic process hostage. Shameful. And guess who is also against the free trade agreement thats right the annointed one in chief, president-elect Obama. Boy the outlook looks bright. I cant wait to see what else he is against, wait I already know he is against free market economies. What in the world have we done to ourselves?

Good post. Kevin Price, Host of the Price of Business and blogger at www.BizPlusBlog.com has made one of the best cases for free trade I've seen. Bottom line, frade trade helps make poor countries richer and rich countries richer still! He's out of Texas and can be heard at www.CNN650.com or around the country at www.aolradio.com

There is a need for more thoughtful debate on topics such like this and I will refer this to other bloggers on the Internet!

How about some FAIR trade instead of FREE trade?

NO.

The companies may ink their own contracts, without government supervision. All risks and profits are the shouldered by the company.

Yep, lets get rid of them.

And if you think those are FREE trade, you are out of your league.

Thanks for the interest in the article. This trade agreement would in no way be hurtful to the United States in the foreseeable future. You only need a child's research skills to look up all the different numbers from various economics experts concerning how profitable this would be. LIke I said, imports from Colombia already enter the United States tariff free, this agreement would secure that U.S. imports into Colombia enter tariff free as well.

The classic line "fair trade instead of free trade" which most people are now conditioned to say whenever they see something with the words "free" in it is not applicable here.

If I am not mistaken... you recently wrote an article claiming that there is no such thing as free trade. You rightly clarified in the comment section that "free trade" that is talked about by the government is not really free trade at all, and leads to small ruling class and a large impoverished working class. In this article, you continue to use "free trade" as spoken of by the government instead of saying that it is democratic capitalism or state capitalism (not an actual free market). Which leads me to the question, are you promoting the same policies that you said have negative consequences, or does the government really mean it this time?

I am as capitalist as they come. I believe in the power of the market so much that I would be 100% fine with abolishing government all together. My problem is, however, is people's refusal to attempt to use consistency in their arguments and using correct terminology while proposing certain policies. I am all for free trade with every country everywhere in the world. Unrestrained trading between free individuals undermines all the crackpot government schemes in the world, most importantly, ones based off of collectivism (communism/fascism/socialism/militarism/protectionism). Nothing would do more to undermine the tyrannies around the world than forcing market corrections through trade that challenges the dictates and regulations of those countries rulers. These corrections would be quite similar to the prices of houses and oil going down despite our government's massive effort to keep the prices of them high through Keynesian schemes of massive credit expansion.

I think to correctly characterize Nancy Pelosi's policy, would be protectionism. She wants to protect her industries from San Francisco and ensure them free use of government power to plunder the American people because they can not compete worldwide and against smaller businesses. I think to correctly characterize "free trade" agreements, they are more importantly government-managed trade agreements that give the benefits of that trade to large well-connected corporations that are looking to reduce risk by using government force. These agreements do little to help small businesses in the United States or likely in Columbia. Small businesses will still be allowed to fail while businesses with money to access to the politicians will keep a leg up on their competition, giving them something of a government maintained monopoly.

The history of "free trade" initiatives in South America are rather nauseating. Stephen Kinzer, in his book Overthrow, describes numerous times whenever the US government took part in overthrowing South American governments who were trying to curb American businesses influence in their country (I do not agree with their actions) which would be replaced with some sort of strong arm-dictator type military officer who they used for the coup. These actions were always taken part in at the request of large business interests, and usually tied with the concern of the scourge of communism somewhere in the world. Not only were the rulers of the country's taking part in socialist adventures, but our own government's interventions was a form of socialism, considering they were using government power to influence/run a certain portion of the economy. These include Guatemala because of fruit and energy interests, Chile for copper interests, along with Nicaragua and Panama in opposition to these government's leader's policies.

Why would Columbia be any different?

ColOmbia. ColOmbia. That is one of my biggest pet peeves... Have you researched this trade agreement at all specifically?? I'm going to guess no, because you did not spell my country correctly (sorry for the ad hominem argument...) Ouch! You cut me deep ha ha... But ok, seriously--:

Where in the world to begin. First of all, recently I wrote an article stating that there is no free market in the United States. I was quite perplexed with how easily people got confused and they thought I was arguing against free markets themselves. I was not. Those would be great. Unfortunately, we live in a socialist country where the government owns or regulates everything. Anyway.

I can see now that you are basically an anarcho-capitalist.?. That is a great idea, it really is, but I have accepted the fact that it will NEVER happen. NEVER. With that in mind, I try to put forth real ideas, with plausible solutions within our working system. Yes, I agree, our system in many ways is horrible, but that's the way it is. We can jibber jabber all day long about other systems, but the ultimate realization will always be that no progress will ever be done that way becuase very big scary people want to keep the system this way(and they will). If I get shot with an arrow, I don't want someone to just stand over me praying/thinking of me, etc. I want to them to come and pull that arrow out. That is, we have to try and slowly change things within the rules of this system. If anyything, it will just make this whole farce fail faster...

I'm glad you disagree with Nancy Pelosi's protrectionist policy. I am also very glad that you are not a blind, xenophobic American who thinks that everything done abroad is for the best interest. Yes, the U.S. has done some horrible things behind the curtain, and also quite obviously, in South America.

Unfortunately, that argument does not apply at all here! It really frustrated me how you used a very general arguments and applied it to something very specific. How are you using a big business argument for this specific trade agreement? Do you not realize that close to 85 percent of the businesses that import to Colombia are medium to small businesses (and here I am biased; I'll admit it. My uncle has an import/export business in Colombia)?? They have fewer than 500 employees!

Do you know how many "little guys" both in Colombia and the United States want this agreement passed? The National Milk Producers Federation, U.S. Dairy Export Council, Grocery Manufacturers Association/Food Product Association, and International Dairy Foods Association, The USA Rice Federation, The National Cotton Council and the American Cotton Shippers Association,The American Meat Institute; National Cattlemen's Beef Association; U.S. Hide, Skin and Leather Association; U.S. Livestock Genetics Export, Inc.; and Pet Food,Wine America publicly support the CTPA. The list goes on and on and on.

Many of those are represented in Pelosi's own state!

In our own state specifically, 25 percent of our farm economy is based on exports! Do you know how much MS would benefit? A good bit. I can go into details later on if you'd like.

It's actually kind of ironic, because my family is also part of the "problem" in Colombia. We have over 800 hectares there. And we are considered to have very "little." So many people there starve and do not have enough money for food because 60% of arable land is owned by only 15,000 families, or .4% percent of the population. Most of that land is not farmed at all, much less for fruits and vegetables. That is why there the prices for basic fruit and vegetables is so relatively high for extremely poverished people. This trade agreement would allow the already many small to medium sized agricultural business importing food goods to Colombia to do so without paying tariffs. The United States has already lost over a billion dollars in tariffs since Pelosi began this blockade.

Sorry man, I would go on and on, but I really want to go run right now. Ha. I'm glad you take the time to reply to my articles. I enjoy it. I think we have very similar views on many things, its just that I'm no longer the idealist. Maybe I have just been over time jaded/brainwashed/whatever-you-want-to-call-it. Or maybe I'm just an idiot and completley ignorant on this whole Colombia(a real possibility) thing, and in that case I would be glad for you to show it to me (in a nice fashion though.. ha). I'll definitely read that book over the break. But you can be sure I will also read another pro-free trade one as well.

Julio

There's more of an overarching problem with U.S. policy in South and Central America... whether it be with the government or our corrupt mega-corporations. I don't presume to be well researched on the topic of this in particular, but these free trade agreements with poorer countries rarely benefit the poorer country.