(laws passed by your legislature are the cause of your unemployment)

I absolutely go ballistic every time I hear some politician or talking head opine that Free Trade is inherently good, as if trade restrictions were inherently evil. The truth is that many things influence trade, and laws have unintended consequences.

Take for example, laws intended to mandate a minimum wage. The purpose is clearly to mandate employers pay employees at least a minimum, Congress legislated, hourly wage. The motive is clear, obtain for workers a minimum wage. The result is somewhat different. The legislators presumed employers would (if necessary) raise prices which the public would pay, to guarantee workers a wage sufficient to keep unskilled workers out of poverty. But in a Global Economy with Free Trade, the unintended consequence is that employers put Americans out of work, and relocate their factories to other countries where their legislators are not as concerned for the plight of their workers ... or are they? By not legislating minimum wage laws they actually attract manufacturing, and factories relocated to their countries actually provides jobs for their population. Who is more concerned for their workers?

But what of the plight of the workers? One must ask themselves which is better for the workers, a low paying job or no job? But I digress ... the topic is Free Trade.

When the government legislated minimum wage, why did it only apply to American employers? Could it not be foreseen that jobs would simply be relocated to circumvent the law? Truly Congress has no legislative authority over employers that run factories relocated to foreign countries, but they certainly have to get their goods back into the US to get their products onto American store shelves. Are we unable to calculate the cost of minimum wage laws on the cost of products? Of course we can. Why not charge an import duty equal to the saved cost of circumventing US minimum wage law on manufacturing produced in a country that chooses not to? This certainly takes a bite out of the cost advantage to relocate American jobs out of the country in the first place.

I'm not so naive as to presume that doing this would halt the exodus of manufacturing from our shores, and the drain of American jobs. You see, Congress has passed numerous laws, all with unintended consequences. American employers are charged with workman's compensation costs for American workers. American employers are charged with social security contributions for American workers. American employers are soon to be charged with health care contributions for American workers. Yada, yada, yada. It soon becomes clear that there's OVERWHELMING financial incentives, created by your government, for companies to relocate your job to another country ... where you lose your job, and a foreign worker gets your former job. What I am suggesting is that we assess the government surcharge levied on an American job. We then assess the equivalent surcharge of a job in country "xyz", and charge an import duty on goods manufactured in country "xyz" to level any unintended consequences created by your government which incented your employer to relocate your job.

Is this ethical? If you believe the motives of your government's regulation was to improve your life, what could be better than incenting other countries to do the same for their citizens? Truly, if employers in other countries were forced to contribute the same amount for all the purposes they're charged in America, then trade surely would be FREE (no balancing import costs necessary). The way it is it's hardly FREE ... there's a government created incentive for your former job to be performed somewhere else in the world. Our motive would surely be judged magnanimous ... we're doing it for the workers. To not do so is to somehow be complicit in assisting employers to circumvent all these American regulations and simply give your job to someone else in another country.

Store shelf prices of goods manufactured in other countries would naturally rise to a comparative level equivalent to goods manufactured in the United States. I'm not sure I can morally object to this since we've already had this debate over the cost of manufacturing IN the United States, and in each case the conclusion was that protecting the American worker justified each cost. Are people aware that America has historically almost always had import duties? Dropping import duties altogether is, historically, a relatively recent phenomenon. America grew to the manufacturing powerhouse of the world WITH a fairly consistent import duty throughout its history. Dropping import duties altogether actually only began in the late 1960s, and by the early 1970s the exodus of manufacturing from our shores had clearly begun.

Question for all those talking heads ... if you actually believe capitalism and Free Markets are somehow inherently evil, then how come this somehow doesn't apply to Free Trade?

Just as police attempt to deflect public interest with "move along, nothing to see here", our politicians act as if over-spending is no big deal.

True, in WWII we spent massively (to the tune of twice the GDP if I recall figures correctly), and it brought America back to work.  But this wasn't a yearly practice.  Further, we're not spending for one-time worthy event ... this spending is being committed as an ongoing basis by creating another entitlement program (and virtually every entitlement program we've ever created has been massively under-estimated regarding its growth over time).  It's only when debt goes down as a percentage of GDP over time that it's not a bad thing.

Homeowners understand this principal, as fixed mortgage payments which decrease as a percentage of income. But if entering into a mortage is good, why not enter into another one every year?  The average citizen knows that accumulating increasing debt is unsustainable and a sure formula for ultimate bankruptcy.  All politicians who act as if this is acceptable are fools who don't deserve an ounce of public respect ... they should be tar'd and feathered and run out of town on a rail.  They're villains, charletans, con-men.  If they were anything other than politicians being adored on some supposed pedestal they'd be candidates for having portraits hanging in our post offices (most wanted).

If this was responsible behavior (everyone runs their countries this way), consider where does the money come from?  In fact, it's not responsible behavior.  Financially, we're being happily funded by countries which are being run more responsibly than our own (countries not being run in deficit).

When someone tells you they'll fund this latest over-spending by finding savings in other entitlement programs, remember, those entitlement programs were unsustainable too.  Saving by reducing over-costs in social security, medicare, and medicaid are unfunded ... the money we might save by reducing their totals DOESN'T EXIST.