Reason.com
New at Reason
Some in the garment industry are carping about the end of tariffs and quotas on Chinese imports, but Kerry Howley says any protectionist troglodyte who stands between her and a nice pair of Manolo knock-offs is in for a world of hurt.
Most Popular Stories
- St. Louis Cops Worry That In-Car Cameras 'Are Being Used Against Them' (5.23)
- Here Are the 15 Senators Who Voted to Stop Armed FDA Agents From Conducting Warrantless Raids on America's Farmers (Not One of Them is a Democrat) (5.24)
- Reason "Hero of Freedom" Larry Flynt's Latest Stunt? Photoshopping a Penis into Mouth of Conservative Pundit S.E. Cupp (5.24)
- When Government Privileges Trump the Rights of Citizens (5.25)
- Plastic Bag Ban Will Put Los Angeles In Landfill (5.23)
Reason RUPE: Public Opinion Survey
- Reason-Rupe: Wisconsinites Favor Increasing Public Union Retirement Contributions to Address Budget Deficit (5.25)
- Reason-Rupe Poll Finds Support for Public Union Reforms (5.25)
- New Poll: Obama Leads Romney In Wisconsin, But Gary Johnson Could Impact the Race (5.24)
- Wisconsin Recall: Walker Leads Barrett 50-42 Among Likely Voters (5.24)
- Reason-Rupe Poll: Walker Leads Barrett 50-42, Obama Leads Romney 46-36 (5.24)
advertisements
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsSite comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment or disable your ability to comment for any reason at any time.
|5.9.05 @ 7:51PM|#
"We may not all be forced into bowties or pantsuits"
Actually, under John McCain's proposed "Senator Paul Simon Memorial Sartorial Act" we will be....
|5.10.05 @ 6:54AM|#
Clearly, Ms. Howley values her personal economic freedom over political freedom; otherwise she certainly would not choose to fill the coffers of an oppressive communist state for the sake of cheaper clothing. The Wal-Mart mentality is alive and well: lower prices for me, and screw the consequences!
|5.10.05 @ 6:58AM|#
Long live cheap underwear!
|5.10.05 @ 6:59AM|#
So I suppose you support trade embargos of Cuba, SPD?
|5.10.05 @ 7:04AM|#
(SARCASM FROM PREVIOUS POST DEACTIVATED)
The protectionism espoused by the U.S. government seems to be nothing more than a passive-aggressive form of economic sanctions. And if 40 years of economic sanctions have filled to bring down a podunk third-world Communist island 90 miles removed from our border, is it really going to hurt the largest nation on earth?
Free markets lead to free(r) societies, case closed. (Although sometimes neo-con Republicans want to have their cake and eat it, too.)
|5.10.05 @ 7:09AM|#
"failed", not "filled", in previous post. Oops. Looks like I declared an embargo on grammar.
|5.10.05 @ 9:33AM|#
By all indications, the Chinese who are benefiting from the China's economic expansion are the ones privileged enough to have connections to the totalitarian government; most of the peasants are just as badly off as before, if not worse. So I'm torn on this free-trade business; I'm all for free trade with free societies where one can rise on business on one's own merits, but I'm not sure about free trade with a country where the only ones getting rich are the ones who suck up to oppressive scumbags.
But if Ms. Howley likes her sexy, cheap shoes, then bully for her, I suppose.
|5.10.05 @ 10:05AM|#
Great article. Lou Dobbs is shaking with anger.
|5.10.05 @ 10:31AM|#
Ha! I love this description of Dick Cheney at the anniversary of Auschwitz:
Cheney stood out in a sea of black-coated world leaders because he was wearing an olive drab parka with a fur-trimmed hood. It is embroidered with his name. It reminded one of the way in which children's clothes are inscribed with their names before they are sent away to camp. And indeed, the vice president looked like an awkward boy amid the well-dressed adults.
Like other attendees, the vice president was wearing a hat. But it was not a fedora or a Stetson or a fur hat or any kind of hat that one might wear to a memorial service as the representative of one's country. Instead, it was a knit ski cap, embroidered with the words "Staff 2001." It was the kind of hat a conventioneer might find in a goodie bag.
What a blockhead! Ha, ha! It just goes to show: just because you're rich, doesn't mean you know how to look good -- much less represent your nation as an ambassador.
|5.10.05 @ 10:52AM|#
Smacky,
Here's a picture of little Dickie at the event in case you have only read a description.
|5.10.05 @ 12:10PM|#
I still like what PJ O'Rourke said:
"Libertarians think that if we trade with the Chinese, they will come down with a fatal case of Western Values."
Or something like that.
We traded with Franco's Spain, Pinochet's Chile, Chiang Kai-Shek's Taiwan, South Korea, Portugal, Argentina, South Africa et al and all those countries are doing, more or less, kinda-sorta, OK.
|5.10.05 @ 12:47PM|#
TheDumbFish,
Yeah, I saw the pic. Thanks for reposting it, though. You know who he reminds me of?:
"I can't put my arms down!", a.k.a.Randy from The Christmas Story.
|5.10.05 @ 1:11PM|#
Free trade is no panacea, and certainly the beneficiaries of trade with China aren't all self-made Hank Reardons (Han Ree Don?). But trade still seems to work better than the alternative.
Consider China. Certainly the bulk of the profits from trade with the West don't go to the average Zhou on the street. But rural Chinese are willing to break the law to move to the cities like Beijing and Shanghai without a permit and seek work. Why? Because the standard of living is higher. And those cities do a lot of business with the West.
Incidentally, I wonder if Shanghai residents are setting up lawn chairs at the city limits to keep out illegal immigrants from the countryside. And I wonder what the big difference is between a guy from a guy from rural China who speaks a funny dialect trying to work in Beijing without government permission, and a guy from Tijuana with a funny accent trying to work in San Diego without government permission.
|5.10.05 @ 1:29PM|#
Thoreau-
I suspect the difference is that the guy from rural China is more yellow than brown, but you'd have to check with Lonewacko to be sure.
|5.10.05 @ 1:50PM|#
While I do not doubt that the greatest beneficiaries of China's liberalizing economy are those best connected with the government, the first-order effects spread quickly to a brand new middle class. And the second-order effects caused by a newly wealthy middle class can only bring good things both within China and for the world.
I can think of two exceptions where trade should probably be restricted:
1. The workers are actually slaves.
2. The government is warlike and an unmitigated hazard to the rest of the world.
The very nature of free trade makes both of these unlikely: slaves produce poor product at high cost, and war spoils the free trade that makes the government wealthy enough to wage war.
|5.10.05 @ 3:05PM|#
The Communists in China use our trade to keep its middle class happy, and therefore to keep them from demanding actual reform; in other words, to remain in power. The whipped-up frenzy against Japan and others is supposed to have the same result. I had great hopes for China, but if anything, they seem to be moving in the direction of less freedom, not more. Now I'm not one to look a gift horse (or a cheap shirt) in the mouth... but any fancy ideas about economic freedom liberating the Chinese should be taken off the table right now. It ain't happening.
|5.10.05 @ 3:08PM|#
The Communists in China use our trade to keep its middle class happy, and therefore to keep them from demanding actual reform; in other words, to remain in power.
Granted, trade is not a panacea, but let's not kid ourselves into thinking that less trade with the outside world would make China a freer place. Just look at North Korea. Or our miserable failure that is the Cuban embargo.
Trade doesn't have a great track record, but it's still better than protectionism's track record.
|5.10.05 @ 4:18PM|#
The Communists in China use our trade to keep its middle class happy, and therefore to keep them from demanding actual reform; in other words, to remain in power.
I am going to play devil's advocate here and pose the question: Why are economic freedoms such second class freedoms?
Maybe I'm spoiled by being raised in a society where most personal and political freedoms are granted and unquestionably defended. Or maybe everyone else is habituated into thinking those freedoms are far more important than the freedoms of property, labor, contract, trade, and migration.
But I would argue that the ability to have significantly more choice in employment, significantly higher salary, significantly more goods and services to choose from, and significantly more control over your future is "actual reform". Just ask that Zhou family.
In ranking the freedoms in order of importance, where would you rank the economic freedoms?
Or posit a society where all economic rights are unquestionably granted, but all personal and political rights are granted only in private domains -- in public arenas personal and political rights and expression are strongly regulated by the state. Is that a good deal?
|5.10.05 @ 4:21PM|#
By the way, the mentality that free trade just makes it easier for the powers that be to remain in power sounds a whole lot like Marxists' claims a century ago that they should not support nonrevolutionary labor movements for exactly the same reason.
|5.11.05 @ 3:18AM|#
I am going to play devil's advocate here and pose the question: Why are economic freedoms such second class freedoms?
I know that I'm late to the party and this thread will soon disappear, but here's my theory:
Remember in the Matrix when that guy betrayed the rest of the crew? He asked Trinity "What did Morpheus ever do for us?" And Trinity said "He set us free!" And the traitor says "Free? All I ever do is what he tells me."
I wonder if it's sort of like that. Between 9am and 5pm, most people do what somebody else tells them to do. We can say what we want about free association, we can remind them that nobody owes them anything, we can remind them of the benefits of a market economy, etc. etc. But the bottom line is that "freedom" is not the first word that comes to mind when most people are asked to describe their life between 9am and 5pm. I know, I know, they should all see that the money they earn and the prosperity they enjoy (compared with much of the rest of the world) is a consequence of freedom, but the fact remains that most people will not use the word "free" to describe the portion of the day that they spend taking orders from somebody else.
Now, admittedly, people enjoy more direct and obvious manifestations of economic freedom outside of work, when they buy stuff, but the point is that the average person's economic activity is a mixed bag: When we earn money we take orders, and when we spend money we give orders.
If you perceive economic activity to be a mix of freedom and restrictions, then "a reasonable amount" of regulation doesn't sound like a violation of fundamental liberty. Yes, yes, I know, it is a violation of fundamental liberty, but it doesn't seem that way.
Also, arguably the most painful violation of economic liberty (the income tax) is hidden from view by mandatory withholding. A lot of people get a refund, so their only direct encounter with the IRS is when they receive a check.
All in all, I'd say that economic freedom plays second fiddle because it isn't as obviously a matter of freedom the way other aspects of freedom are.