The House of Representatives passed the Central American Free Trade Agreement by the slightest of margins this morning, 217 yeas to 215 nays. Just 15 Democrats broke ranks to support the agreement, and 25 Republicans rebelled against the president and House leadership to oppose the measure. CAFTA aims to lower tafiffs between Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, and the United States.

Good. Protectionist economics are ultimately bad for everybody.

It seems that in the 04-08 term, the GOPs in Congress seems to have lost all sense of loyalty to their leader.

This is an absolutely miserable bill which will only further destroy our economic independence and will lead to an even greater influx of illegal aliens, just like nafta did.

I thoroughly agree with Brian on this. Ben-T: you’re nuts!

All we got out of NAFTA was more Mexicans and drugs. Now we can only watch as powerful and wealthy global minded U.S. corporations close more companies and lay off more workers for the lure of cheap labor and more profits.

Meanwhile, as our economy has become more dependent on consumerism, there will be fewer Americans able to afford goods (and some services) produced and provided by our new third world partners.

We’ve pretty much already lost our economic national identity.

Another example of the millionaires in the $3,000 suits selling our country out from under us.

How are millionaires in $3,000 dollar suits selling out our country? Globalization has created an unprecedented growth not only the American economy but also in the world economy. Yes it does mean the United States will have to switch from the manufacturing sector to the service sector as it's economic basis, but protectionist economics are just a ultimately doomed attempt at holding off the inevitable: If third world workers can outcompete us in that sector, than third world workers are going to get the jobs. Why our economy being "dependent on Conusmerism" is such a terrible thing in your view is lost on me. It has been an entirely good thing for the American economy.

However I have also sense learned that the other nations in this agreement shall not be dropping their own tariffs for another decade. If we drop our tariffs while they do not drop theirs, we are only screwing ourselves.

P.S: I cannot bring myself to care about "Economic Independence" while at the same time watching the ever growing rise of a much more important global market.

Looks like Big-Fish-Small-Pond syndrome to me.

As an aside: I watched the vote last night on C-Span, and by the numbers on the screen, there were only 434 votes. I thought this was odd because I'm sure that I remembered there being 435 Representatives. I know the U.S. population didn't decrease between 1990 and 2000. Did someone die recently? And what if there is a tie, 217 to 217?

The article I read said that two representatives did not vote. This still makes one unaccounted for. Perhaps one died or resigned. Some reader knows.

Barney Frank had a hot date and couldn't make the vote. But, he was with the rest of those weasels in spirit.

The “suits” are our out of touch elected government officials who could care less about the economic plight of their constituents and would rather take care of the corporations who are quickly forgetting about what made this country strong and put money in their pockets in the first place.

Personally, I could give a fat rat’s azz about the “world economy” and am only concerned about the “American Economy” and the sovereignty of the country where that economy used to exist.

We are opening up our economic borders in the name of cheaper goods and services and as a national economy, we produce less. Foreign countries are buying our companies, our real estate, our natural resources and even the bonds that support our huge national debt.

We are gradually becoming the United States of the World. And you think this is ok? In the name of globalization? This may work for the powerbrokers who don’t care what they sell and who they sell it to, but it doesn’t bode well for the average Joe Taxpayer.

Ben, your statement “if third world workers can out compete us in that sector” is ridiculous. Of course they will be able to compete for less as their economies provide for less. They do not have to survive in an environment where a high standard of living is maintained. We do.

ASDF, this seems insane. You claim you care only about the American economy, so why do you so heartily oppose Globalization, something that has done nothing but BENEFIT the American economy?

Yes, third world workers can outcompete us for various reasons. They are going to outcompete us, they are going to get those jobs, protectionist economics is simply holding back the inevitable. Protectionism has never worked well in the history of the world, why it should work well now is beyond me.

The United States of America, along with the rest of the west and Japan, is evolving into a service sector economy. This means manufacturing sector jobs will indeed by outsourced. It also means that the American economy will continue to do what it has been doing since the mid-1980s: Grow at an unprecedented rate.

Why massive economic growth in the United States of America is seen as bad by someone who claims to care only for the American economy is beyond me.

Ben-T,

You have a firm grasp of economics. Some don't. It's a fact of life.

Corporations are evil because they are in it only for the money. Forget the fact that, in the process of making money they provide jobs, benefits and stability to millions of people. Forget the fact that their profitability translates directly into increased returns on savings accounts, retirement accounts, investment accounts etc for virtually everyone in the US. Forget the fact that increased corporate profits leads to increases in innovation and productivity, increases in technology and increases in overall wealth. Forget the fact that corporations' high output and efficiency make possible the affordability of the labor saving devices and luxuries that we take for granted every day. Forget the fact that for every low paying job outsourced to a third world country, two higher technology, higher paying jobs are insourced to American workers.

The economy has been global in scope virtually since the beginning of civilization. We cannot wish that basic fact away simply by not giving a "fat rat's azz" about it.

Ben-T, Curtis: I know the realities of what is and what will inevitably be. But, I vehemently disagree with it. Programs like NAFTA / CAFTA and the advancing of globalization are just more steps that are being taken by our government at the behest of wealthy, greedy corporations that will work to weaken this country and chip away at America as a national entity.

Contrary to building a strong economy, the farming out of jobs is killing it. It started with manufacturing jobs but has moved on to back office operations, computers, accounting services, tax preparations and many other white collar jobs. Don’t know what you do for a living but until this bites you in the azz, it all seems like a great idea.

NAFTA was supposed to increase our trade surplus with Mexico. To date, it has in fact created a trade deficit five times of what the former surplus was. Do we expect a different result with CAFTA? The selling of America is putting us about 20 years away from becoming a third world country.

>>Contrary to building a strong economy, the farming out of jobs is killing it.

I'm supposed to just accept that even considering that all economic indicators offer evidence to the contrary?

>>Don’t know what you do for a living but until this bites you

It doesn't matter what I do for a living. I don't expect the world to stop progressing for my convenience. If my job goes away, whether due to outsourcing, innovation, technology or plain old mismanagement, it is my responsibility to support myself and my family. I'll deliver Pizza if I have to. I've done it before and I can do it again. I can make enough to pay my bills and put food on the table by delivering pizza 6 nights a week. It may not be glamorous or fun, but it beats the heck out of sitting around feeling sorry for myself about how unfair the world is to me. In the meantime, I will continue to advance my education and skills in order to ensure my marketability in the future. Just as everyone should be doing. If I lose my job and I'm not prepared for it, it's my fault, not anyone else's.

>>NAFTA was supposed to increase our trade surplus with Mexico. To date, it has in fact created a trade deficit five times of what the former surplus was.

What is a trade surplus or trade deficit? I have money, someone else has a product or service. I trade an agreed upon amount of money for an equally agreed upon amount of the products or services. Where is the deficit?

Do you have a trade deficit with your local grocery store? I assume that you purchase more goods from them than they do from you. Does this imbalance negatively impact your economic situation? If so, how? Now if you shoplifted something from the grocery store, then there would be a trade deficit. You received goods without the store receiving the compensation of an equal amount of money.

I cannot claim credit for this anology***. I suggest you read some of Dr. Thomas Sowell's works. He is an accomplished economist who is adept at putting complicated economics concepts into terms that anyone can understand.

***I realize that this word is misspelled. I tried to post this comment several times but was rejected because the system objected to the first four letters of the correct spelling of this word.

Curtis and Ben,

Nice posts. C -- another interesting fact I learned from Sowell is that amidst all the babbling about "trade deficits," people tend to forget that during the Great Depression, we had a "favorable" balance of trade. During the booming 90s, when more and more luxuries became available to more and more people, we had consistent deficits. In conclusion, that statistic means nothing in isolation.

asdf,

If you follow your comments about disappearing manufacturing jobs to their conclusion, you would have to be in favor of socialism. We would have to grant the government more and more control to protect jobs that we believe deserve protection, regardless of all the other benefits we would have received from an economy that keeps moving forward and becoming more efficient. In fact (Curtis triggered some nice Tommy Sowell facts in my mind), in "Basic Economics" it is mentioned that all the protectionism in the European Union costs $43 billion, while saving a mere 200,000 jobs. Sowell concludes, "In other words, if the European Union permitted 100 percent free international trade, every worker who lost his job as a result of foreign competition could be paid $100,000 in compensation and the European Union countries would still come out ahead."

Protectionism is socialist, hyper-nationalist nonsense.

-ben

(I wrote an essay addressing some major criticisms of globalization recently. Here it is, if anyone's interested.)

Supporters of this nonsense like Ben-T are willingly selling their soul on the altar of the almighty dollar at the expense of this nation's future. Sure, there will be short-term economic benefits. The empirical evidence supports this.

Do you really think, however, that this prosperity will be maintained when the majority of our population is of third-world origin, unassimilated into the American mainstream? This is the path we're headed towards, and pro-globalization agreements such as this accelerate it. Your prosperity will vanish as your culture does. Not unprecedented. See Rome.

Glad to know that being in favor of Globalization means being opposed to immigration control Real America, thanks for the delusion fix.

Oh, and if you knew your Roman history, you would know that the reason Rome fell was because of a series of military invasions. Roman culture was alive and well when the Visigoths reached The Eternal City.

Ben-L: haven’t we (indirectly through our elected representatives) already granted our government more control to speed the loss of our jobs through big government programs like N/CAFTA? Now, our government is indirectly protecting the rights of corporations and foreign economies by moving our jobs overseas and out of the country.

Isn’t this the same as our government having to work to protect the jobs?

This is the same logic that dictates that our borders are meaningless. We need cheap labor, right? So, let’s not control the borders so that we can permit low skilled laborers (illegal if need be) into the country to do the work for pennies on the dollar so that businesses can make more money. Only problem is, these low-waged workers need government services which they are either not paying or paying very little for.

So, it again comes back to taxpaying American and the government that has to regulate and administrate costs and services.

Not sure where you get socialism out of any of this. Just government having to get more involved either way than maybe they should.

If our government is involved at all, they should be working to protect the rights of U.S. workers, not workers from Mexico, Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, and the Dominican Republic.

ASDF,

I fail to see how lowering tariffs is a big government program. I love when taxes of all sorts are lowered.

The government should neither provide specific corporations with benefits, nor tax people who buy goods or services from wherever they choose; they should allow the free market to work.

We need cheap labor, right? So, let’s not control the borders so that we can permit low skilled laborers (illegal if need be) into the country to do the work for pennies on the dollar so that businesses can make more money. Only problem is, these low-waged workers need government services which they are either not paying or paying very little for.

A couplah things...

1) I believe in controlling the borders. Immigrants ought to come here legally, just as my parents and much of my extended family has.

2) When they arrive, they should expect to work hard, learn English, etc. They shouldn't rely on the taxpayers through welfare checks and all the rest. Natives shouldn't either. This, as Walt Williams might say, is "a problem of socialism." Free trade is not to blame.

Just government having to get more involved either way than maybe they should.

ASDF, I'm sure you'd agree that the answer to problems created by government meddling is not more government meddling.

When the government "works to protect the rights of workers," the costs often outweigh the benefits. Economists are known for disagreeing on a wide array of matters, but the vast majority agree on this one: restricting free trade is the wrong way to go.