Naturally trade is generally good. However, a general maxim is meaningless without a proper context.

I would venture to say that an overwhelming majority would agree with the statement “violence is bad”. However, give violence a context of self defence and the majority will then agree that it is justifiable and good.

There is a proper time to exercise restraint and a proper time to meet aggression blow for blow.

For instance, outsourcing of jobs can be a good thing under certain circumstances, and under other circumstances it can be a bad thing. Few would disagree with the notion that a systematic policy of ripping away peoples’ livlihoods to fatten corporate profits is socially undesirable.

This is because “The purpose of the corporation is to harness private interests in service to the public interest.” Corporations are public institutions that in all societies are held to certain ethical standards.

While all societies through their elected officials hold corporations to certain standards of ethics, the question of what standards they should be held to is a matter for public discussion.

One of the most important ethical questions today is whether the fox is watching the henhouse. For instance, while the saftey of US beef is acknowledged, we may nonetheless express concern that just 1.3 percent of imported fish, vegetables, fruit and other foods are inspected and that the FDA is inspecting a smaller percentage of food products than it did 30 years ago.

Deregulation gone amok is as bad as regulation gone amok. The moderate position is that a cost benefit analysis should determine public policy.

WTF! Who are these 32%? Have high school drop outs reached that level! Or maybe the Amish have been recruiting lately. If they think trade in general is bad they must also think that business and money and jobs in general are bad. Dear lord! Whoever is the next president please, please, please invest in real education. (Not the creationism is science crap.)

“Although the tariff act was passed after the stock-market crash of 1929, many economic historians consider the political discussion leading up to the passing of the act a factor in causing the crash, the recession that began in late 1929, or both, and its eventual passage a factor in deepening the Great Depression. Unemployment was at 7.8% in 1930 when the Smoot-Hawley tariff was passed, but it jumped to 16.3% in 1931, 24.9% in 1932, and 25.1% in 1933.”

No substance to this post other than bald assertions backed by…well other bald assertions, which is circular logic. Come to think of it, that does sound a lot like the logic of John McCain.

“Competition is good for any economy, therefore the more the better. Sorry to say, but change happens and the term ‘Luddite’ is used to describe the desire to impede it.”

As opposed to the term ‘Troglodyte’ which is appropriate to describe someone with an overly simplistic misunderstanding of the realities of the global marketplace.

Despite the typical free market academic prattle, in reality there is no such thing as a “free market economics.” In reality, commerce occurs within the context of the real world in which there are huge disparities in income levels and regulatory environments. The “huge sucking sound” that Perot predicted has not only come to pass but at a rate that is unprecedented and undeniable.

Republican policies aimed at the systematic elimination of the manufacturing sector, expensive and debilitating military adventurism, depletion of natural resources with no alternative energy strategies, environmental degradation, deficit spending, outsourcing labor overseas and dismantling the safety net of the underemployed apparently serve the interests of the privileged few who are immune to the effects of a weakened dollar, rising energy costs and loss of employment. For them, free market economics might indeed create profit opportunities. However, it is undeniable that their profits come at the expense of the average American consumer.

Massive gains in the productivity of the American worker have been accompanied by concurrent declining incomes in constant dollar terms and drastic increases in the incomes of top executives. It is abundantly clear who are the serfs and who are the masters in the new economic order.

It is ominous that the above passages are expressed by a pro-business political moderate who understands that, as you say, “competition is good for any economy.” The reality is that the new economic order actually eliminates any meaningful competition in favor of a radical redistribution of wealth to multinational conglomerates. How can an American entrepreneur “compete” with Chinese or Mexican labor?

The choice is clear: McCain’s positions represent an exponential increase of these debilitating trends while Obama’s positions intend to reverse of at least slow such developments, by bringing rationality and mindfulness - in other words, balance back into public policy.

Whether you consider yourself a conservative, liberal or moderate, the rotten fruit of these unsound economic policies can only be denied if one is in fact in ideological denial. A good dose of reality is on the way and if you still haven’t been hit by it, you are indeed a troglodyte.

http://www.gocomics.com/jeffdanziger/2008/07/08/

Ah yes. True leadership and logic there.

France-style obstructionism, as another reader pointed out.

Not really. This tactics, in France, is actually “successful” — using this word very generously… Many governmental projects, before the current government, have been stopped in their tracks because of that obstructionism…

Anyways good (managed) trade between the States and Canada has always been around. Look at the 1965 Automotive Products Trade Agreement for a positive example (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada-United_States_Automotive_Agreement).

I gotta wonder if Obama wants to renegotiate this deal as well?

Of course few know of it so the APTA serves the Obama politics of opportunity no good.

Things will never be perfect, but they can always be better. Trade agreements are easy to complain about, so they are used as cheap political shots by cheap politicians.

True leaders like J. McCain take positions based on fundamental logic for the greater good.

Competition is good for any economy, therefore the more the better. Sorry to say, but change happens and the term ‘Luddite’ is used to describe the desire to impede it.

Obama (or anyone) should remember this before pissing into the wind.