So called Free Traders who blubber for unfettered trade have no idea what they are wishing for.

Unfettered free trade results in robber-barons and monopolies – it is just exchanging government bureaucracy for business tyranny.

Trade must be reasonably regulated to ensure that some big moneyed Ganges Khan doesn’t take over the market and establish anything BUT free trade.

Our Government is (well supposed to be) about balance. Balance between the branches and balance between private and national interests.

The American rich used to be a part of the investment / job creation cycle that built this country. Now they pour their money into Asia, incorporate overseas, and to add insult, refuse to buy American. All they while they expect the American Consumer to buy their outsourced junk without question.

They have gone from being a vital part of the American economy to parasites on the hemorrhoids of America with a sense of entitlement. This is a all because of unfettered and unbalanced trade agreements.

It is time to renegotiate our trade agreements to balance them and stop this hemorrhaging that benefits a small handful of rich investors.

Genghis Khan as a monopolist? Free trade floozies?

Something in the water where you live?

When I was young, all we had were protectionist floozies, and we were glad to have them!

Damn kids today have too many floozies.

as long as there are folks like you who don't know what the hell they are talking about (I'm personally in favor of free trade, not anarchy, by the way) who apparently pine for some long-ago past when the world was perfect. You are, apparently, simply a reactionary.

Freetrader the problem with free trade is no regulation. I want trade just not trade that disables our intrerests. Give our companies some competition that's fine. But trillions of dollars worth of trade deficit? This is not acceptable. Maybe you are one of these people who don't have to "work" for a living. Freetrader there has to be some control over the market. Deregulation is what destroyed the financial sector. It is clear that the government needs to have some basic disaster control regulations. Wouldn't you agree?

Here's some news for you free trade boy.

THERE HAS NEVER BEEN FREE TRADE EVER!

Never happened - never will. If you knew anything about economic and industrial history, you would know that.

It's a wishful theory that can't work - you must protect public and National interests or scuz-bags like you will sell out their own country. The last time this county attempted unfettered trade, we had child labor, monopolies, low quality and Teddy Roosevelt had to spend his presidency busting trusts to keep our country from being taken over by greedy power mongers.

Try reading a little history some time and see if you still want to hold on to your simplistic ideas.

There seems to be some confusion between economic regulation within the country and tariffs on goods coming into the country.

Teddy Roosevelt wasn't concerned about imports or exports; he was concerned about monopolies within the country.

And, the elephant in the room that only the "free trade floozies" seem to remember is that every country can impose tariffs on goods imported from anywhere. We can jack up tariffs, but what is to prevent other countries from doing the same, and starting a ruinous trade war?

Autarky doesn't work very well. See North Korea or communist Albania as two perfect examples.

And why would government control over trade do anything positive for anyone? That's how we ended up with a bankrupt, worthless GM and Chrysler -- misguided protectionism from foreign competition.

I could at best only echo what you said.

or what 'Free Trade' is supposed to mean. It would be pointless to try to educate a little sense into you, although I might try, but I think the response of "A Little Common Sense" below is about the best response you could hope for. I think you need to properly define and understand your terms before attempting to enter into a debate of this nature.

Freetrader, first of all your condescending attitude just doesn't help the discussion. What is sounds like to me is that you have a personal interest in free trade. What I mean by that is that you are profiting by it. You should think twice before you shoot off at the mouth. It does nothing to support your point of view. Tariffs are a means of controlling incoming goods. Which a lot of the countries that we engage in trade with enforce. I am not pretending to know all the solutions here, unlike you Mr. Freetrader. Your arrogance makes the whole matter not worth discussing something with someone who is not even willing to consider another persons point of view. If you have such a convincing argument about the benefit of free trade then you should easily be able to convey it here. If you can't engage in an intelligent conversation without insults maybe you should go back to grade school where that sort of behavior is acceptable. We however are supposed to be adults that use facts and evidence to support our point of view. Now if you can present some evidence to support your point of view I am all ears. On the other hand if you have more insulting things to say then you are not worth listening to. I like to see others point of view and look at the facts they present in order to either reject or consider further what they have to say. I have history to support my point of view. Do you have some history of some sort to support yours?

I think there should be a less damaging way of controlling the trade. We just simply can't destroy our own manufacturing base. That is the problem that needs to be controlled.

This may sound heretical, but I think there are enough commodities in short supply that countries will soon have to limit their exports to be able to supply even minimal domestic needs. That is, the problem might take care of itself in not too long. I think that commodities are going to be squeezed so much that it will not be just commodities that are no longer exported but the manufactured goods (including food) that rely on those commodities for their production.

Perhaps giving more tax benefits to companies inside the country. But some of the problem with our companies is the legacy cost. Lack of government control is what got us into this financial mess we are in now. It went out of control we the banking system starting to get de-regulated. The reason why those two companies are bankrupt has nothing to do with government control of their market. The financial sector caused this problem. Those two companies also were bloated and flooded the market causing them to be less profitable by lowering the value of their own product. They had waaayyy to much manufacturing capacity. But that problem happened because we had market competition. That is good to have the competition but not to destroy those companies. So in that example it's free trade, the market, excess capacity, legacy costs. That has a lot to do with the poor management of the companies which is not our discussion here. The fact is if we had less competition they would be in better shape no doubt. But hopefully that will be better for the companies in the future now that they have restructured into more efficient companies. So free trade did not benefit the country. This is not a small matter of free trade being a benefit to consumers. It is also a matter of national security. If we can't turn GM or Boeing into a war machine if needed then how are we going to defend ourselves? Nuke them? Mr freetrader2 who is going to make tanks then? Maybe this is an extreme example but history has proven this to be true. Fortunately our president had the sense to keep these companies afloat. Are we going to import our tanks from China? This is not a simple matter. Please don't treat it like one.

Thanks Phil for that important point. I guess we will have to confront that issue when it arises. But i think China for example has enough of a foothold on the future of our country. If we can encourage these countries to buy from us instead of everything the other way around maybe can maintain our manufacturing base. Tariffs against their products is probably more damaging than solving anything. Free trade is supposed to be a symbiotic relationship. They grow and buy our products. But instead they are making damn near everything. Why can't people understand that is a problem?

but your previous answers to my questions indicate, unfortunately, that you either i.) don't know what the hell you are talking about, or ii.) simply subscribe to some very idiotic, and wrong, economic ideas. Actually, i.) is obviously true, but I would like to think that you might have some basis for your theories and possible got a little confused about what the term 'free trade' means, hence your rants about TR, which were, to put it mildly, very misplaced.

As far as your assuming I have some "interest" in free trade, well, of course I do, we all do -- freer trade benefits us all. However, your assuming I have some personal interest in it, and that therefore it drives my conclusions about trade, are not only factually incorrect (and possibly libelous) they constitute a non-argument. Which is, at bottom, the only real argument that you seem to have...one that makes no sense.

As far as evidence, it is all around you (and I stated some good evidend in my first post). You are the one trying to equate 'freer trade' with anarchy; a ridiculous attempt at an argument, but more importantly, one that doesn't even address the issue we were supposed to be discussing.