Free Trade has been a part of American Politics since its inception, and especially since Truman. Today Alan Blinder, a professor at Princeton University and a former deputy chairman of the US Federal Reserve Bank has his doubts; as does at least one Candidate for Presidency…Hillary Clinton.
According to Professor Paul A. Samuelson who served as an advisor to several presidents, including Eisenhower and Kennedy, and winner of the 1970 Nobel Prize in Economics has asserted that “…the consequences of globalization for the United States have been negative for some time now. By globalization he means Free trade.”

“According to opinion polls across the board, a majority of voters in both political camps have the same doubts as Clinton.”

“According to Blinder, up to 40 million American jobs -- representing twice as many people as are currently working in the US industrial sector today -- could face the threat of outsourcing.”

My question is, “Are we to eliminate free trade as a benchmark of American Politics; if so,
What is the alternative” and how would it be better or worse?

West Wing: The End of Globalization? - International - SPIEGEL ONLINE - News

Free Trade is being viewed as a double-edged sword, yet ironically both have an argument economically and to some degree end up promoting capitalism. Both views with positives and negatives. As positives: we want to promote jobs on our domestic front and at the same time welcome innovations and less costing products to our consumers. Negatively: the domestic job route loses pace with the costs of living and therefore in some cases gives-in to cheap labor, at home and abroad. Sometimes it's at the cost of losing quality, as well as the wage issue.

Personally I don't think we should attempt reversing or resisting Free Trade. We do want United States goods purchased by other countries! International markets are mainstream and part of the current world. Technology is less isolated and communication is better than ever. I love the US and being American. From a consumers perspective, I love many of our home made products. However my car, that was made in Korea, suits me just fine. It was economically affordable for my budget and rated among the best by Consumer Report. And of course, we all know how well the Japanese have done in the auto market. The craftsmanship that comes from countries in Europe, especially woodcrafts from Germany, have always been some of the best. Everybody has their hands in making cell phones, laptops, ipods, etc.. the US doing just fine in the computer markets. For example: the heralded Dell Computers and cutting edge engineering, semiconductors, of Applied Materials down in Austin, Texas. Hey! I still like my vodka imported from Russia and if I was a tequila drinker I'd insist on Mexico made. BTW I do drink wine and imports from Argentina and Israel (kosher) are really good. If it's from the US, I like the California orchards. I like vacationing to places in the States, but love Asia and learning about it's cultures just as much. And how about when we do travel outside the States? I have a home in another country. We all buy things when we travel. My clothing is made from various countries. Medical technology? Who wouldn't go to another country if provided a rare life saving procedure? I know I would.

Yes! Paul A. Samuelson is correct when he asserted that “…the consequences of globalization for the United States have been negative for some time now. By globalization he means Free trade.” All the candidates, including Hillary know this. Perhaps she's trying to make more of an issue out of it, but there's no new revelation that we live in a changing world, still relatively young to the globalization effect. When we, the U.S. got involved for economic and political ideal reasons decades ago, it had to come with consequence. We lost ground on the economic home front for it, however, I think we will eventually learn how to adapt.




Bobby

Tariffs played a big part in America's economic development in it's 1st century . Until the income tax was instituted it was the single largest source of revenue to the national government. Alexander Hamilton for one was a big proponent of protectionism to jump start the American industrial revolution. But he was over-ruled but the US eventually did adopt high tariffs after the War of 1812 .Tariffs played a big role in the politics of the nation. South Carolina almost seceded over the issue in 1832(see the Nullification Crisis).

During the Wilson Presidency the US adopted a freer trade policy until the disastrous Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930 which extended the Great Depression.(the farm depression started earlier with the Fordney-McCumber Tariff of 1922) Trade opened up again with plans like 'Lend Lease' before WWII.

After WWII the US has been pretty much a free trade country . Any attempt at trade restrictions have harmed American industry . There were voluntary restrictions on Japanese auto imports .This helped Japanese auto industry because they were able to concentrate on and thus compete in the higher end mid- and large-size autos that Detroit had dominated .

Since the Reagan Presidency the country has expanded it's free trade positions.

I think in general free trade helps us more than it hurts us. Unemployment in the US has steadily declined since the 1980s .The US has added more manufacturing jobs and out put has increased dramatically since NAFTA . After 10 Years, NAFTA Continues to Pay Dividends .The Economist reported that more jobs are outsourced to America than the other way around.
And it is not just 'Walmart shelf stackers "either .It is jobs across the board.

Jobs are added and jobs are lost .That has always been true. There once was a thriving business in this country for blacksmiths for horse shoes ;Draftsmen drew blueprints by hand. These jobs are lost forever. Yes there are transitional pains that need to be addressed but to change course would be to throw out the baby with the bathwater .

That being said... I think many of the emerging economies are using the US model of the 19th century against us and that needs to be addressed also. I think this is the backlash we are seeing . But bury your head in the sand isolationism would be a disaster .

Bobby
Samuelson didn't explain in what way and for how long when he said-- the consequences of globalization for the United States have been negative for some time now, do you know? Has it been negative for just some, or overall…I take his comment to mean overall. Is it overall for just the short time gain or long term as well?

Hello DC:

I'm not sure what those guys mean. Economics is pretty heady stuff, and I ain't so heady. However, I understand what's going on.

The world economy is stronger than any government. It's beyond the control of bureaucrats. Therefore, no matter what short term damage bureaucrats attempt to do, the world market will assert itself. The more fiddling the bureaucrats do, the more violent the market correction.

During the industrial revolution, unions set the price of labor, and government set the price of the raw commodities with its tariffs. Free trade was a myth, but we believed it because we were on the top of the heap.

Then the third world woke up. They came out of the jungles and rice paddy's and into the factories. We couldn't compete, and still can't for the hard industrial jobs us once have. Because the price we paid for labor was around $20/hr, and the real world price for that same labor is about $1.25/hr, there is going to be a violent correction. That's what's happening.

However, the corrections are only temporary until the market re-asserts itself. AND, during the time of one industry's collapse, another brand new grows. It becomes prosperous.

Is the prosperity shared equally? Nahhh. Is free trade real?? Nahhh. It's just a meaningless political word.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dark_crow

Free Trade has been a part of American Politics since its inception, and especially since Truman. Today Alan Blinder, a professor at Princeton University and a former deputy chairman of the US Federal Reserve Bank has his doubts; as does at least one Candidate for Presidency…Hillary Clinton.
According to Professor Paul A. Samuelson who served as an advisor to several presidents, including Eisenhower and Kennedy, and winner of the 1970 Nobel Prize in Economics has asserted that “…the consequences of globalization for the United States have been negative for some time now. By globalization he means Free trade.”

“According to opinion polls across the board, a majority of voters in both political camps have the same doubts as Clinton.”

“According to Blinder, up to 40 million American jobs -- representing twice as many people as are currently working in the US industrial sector today -- could face the threat of outsourcing.”

My question is, “Are we to eliminate free trade as a benchmark of American Politics; if so,
What is the alternative” and how would it be better or worse?

West Wing: The End of Globalization? - International - SPIEGEL ONLINE - News

---

Hi DC,

Like Tom, I believe that we get more from gloalization than we lose. Global markets give us the opportunity to sell more product, which in turn creates demand, and production increases to meet demand. That increased production results in jobs here, income here, and increased spending here. Even outsourced jobs create increased spending here... the Indian who is now answering phones for American companies is getting paid, and can now go out and buy that computer or TV or Xbox that he was nevwer able to afford before, and that creates American income and American jobs.

You see, the people who see "outsourcing" as a problem tend to be people who see the economy as a "net zero" system. They believe that the creation of a job in India for an American company means the loss of a job in the USA. That's not necessarily true. It may result in the loss of a specific job in the USA, but that is often replaced by another job, either in another industry or another sector of the same industry.

For all that we have been talking about outsourcing as a problem over the past few years, we have seen the number of jobs in the USA increase. From November 1997 to November 2007, the number of employed people in the USA grew by 12% (roughly 16 million jobs). Incomes have increased by an average of 3% per year evey year for the past 8 years overall. (Salaries for females have actually gone up an average of 3.5% per year over that time period). Salaries for employees without a high school degree have gone up by an average of 2.6% per year. For those with a high school diploma, the increase was 2.9% per year. Those with some college but no diploma have seen their salaries increase by 2.5%, while those with bachelor degrees saw an increase of 3.1% per annum. Those with advanced degrees saw an increase of 3%.

So what we have is an increase in the number of jobs AND an increase in salaries at all levels of income. For all that we talk about an "outsourcing crisis", it isn't apparent from the employment statistics.

I just don't buy the idea that globalization is bad for the USA. It doesn't make any sort of economic sense.

Elliot

Hi Excon
I don't think “free” trade is a myth but rather a theory. I believe there has always been a price to pay by “Traders” since at least the “Silk Road,” if not the first traders coming out of East Africa thousands of years before the silk road existed.
When you talk about the industrial revolution you are referring to the period of Mercantilism… tariffs, which are a form of Protectionism, not free trade; that failed miserably and is one alternative to free trade.
What I wonder is, is it Mercantilism i.e. trade issues such as agricultural subsidies and government-imposed tariffs that reduce the amount of exchange between developing and developed countries--- that is failing us, and not free trade.

Quote:

---

is it trade issues such as agricultural subsidies and government-imposed tariffs that reduce the amount of exchange between developing and developed countries--- that is failing us, and not free trade.

---

I think so and in the example of agricultural subsidies I find the US as complicit in creating the barriers . As the guy on the radio said today ;not one candidate from either party has the fortitude to go into Iowa and argue against corn to ethanol subsidies ;even though they know it's a boondoggle.

Tom
You're right…the problem is we have too many Politicians and not enough Statesmen (And I don't mean senior Politicians). For the most part there is just not enough of the population in general that understands Globalization, and Trade as a part of it. Unfortunately even people like Hilary Clinton don't appear to understand it, or feels incapable of explaining it in political speeches. People are not going to seek out that knowledge on their own; the only way to educate them is through media political news.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dark_crow

Bobby
Samuelson didn't explain in what way and for how long when he said-- the consequences of globalization for the United States have been negative for some time now, do you know? Has it been negative for just some, or overall…I take his comment to mean overall. Is it overall for just the short time gain or long term as well?

---

"According to Professor Paul A. Samuelson who served as an advisor to several presidents, including Eisenhower and Kennedy, and winner of the 1970 Nobel Prize in Economics has asserted that “…the consequences of globalization for the United States have been negative for some time now. By globalization he means Free trade.”"


Your question, if I understood it correct, is do I know that "globalization for the US have been negative for some time?" Yes, but admittedly didn't think as much about it until the outsourcing became apparent. I guess "some time" is as ambiguous as Samuelson's quote "for some time." Personally from my work experience in finances I've seen the fruition of outsourcing jobs. For example: as I work with financial institutions that held jobs traditionally for our American citizens and legal residents since bank buildings were first regulated in the United States, but as Elliot mentioned, some of the jobs are now handled in India. Job growth in the US has been steady, but foreign countries hiring out to US residents is not proportionate to jobs that we outsource, at least not yet. I do believe we currently are adapting. As for tariffs, we benefit as much by exporting and we don't want those doors closed. As for the candidates what is it that could be planned for reversing such a global mechanism? And I'm sure we can find candidates on both sides of the issue. But honestly I think at this point we can't turn back only to isolating ourselves. To answer your other question, in my opinion, this effect is long term. There are too many possibilities to account for that can change the dynamics.

However, I do have a problem with certain products being sold on the cheap. But for myself, it's less a tariff issue. Fortunately the FDA governs the domestic produced beef standards here in the States, meanwhile other countries have very loose regulations to almost no standards. And that's one of the black eyes on a famous hamburger chain with golden arches, they don't mind going the cheaper route.



"The original message is from the Texas Cattle Feeders Association. American cattle producers are very passionate about this. McDonald's claims that there is not enough beef in the USA to support their restaurants. Well, we know that is not so. Our opinion is they are looking to save money at our expense. The sad thing of it is that the people of the USA are the ones who made McDonald's successful in the first place, but we are not good enough to provide beef. Just to add a note, all Americans that sell cows at a livestock auction barn had to sign a paper stating that we do NOT EVER feed our cows any part of another cow. South Americans are not required to do this as of yet. McDonald's has announced that they are going to start importing much of their beef from South America. The problem is that South Americans aren't under the same regulations as American beef producers, and the regulations they have are loosely controlled. They can spray numerous pesticides on their pastures that have been banned here at home because of residues found in the beef. They can also use various hormones and growth regulators that we can't. The American public needs to be aware of this problem and that they may be putting themselves at risk from now on by eating at good old McDonald's. American ranchers raise the highest quality beef in the world and this is what Americans deserve to eat, not beef from countries where quality is loosely controlled."





Bobby

Q: Is it true that McDonald's has said that American beef production cannot meet its needs and it will be outsourcing for hamburger meat? I thought McDonald's actually owned and managed its own cattle for quality control purposes.

A: A spokesman for McDonald's Customer Response Center gave us the following reply:

"McDonald's does not, and has never, imported any beef into the U.S. from South America. The information you received is absolutely incorrect.
"You may be interested to know we are testing high quality beef from Australia and New Zealand. We will NOT import beef from any other country. There is a well-documented shortage of lean beef in the U.S. At the same time, demand for lean ground beef product is increasing dramatically. That is the only reason McDonald's is testing high quality lean beef from Australia and New Zealand.

"Additionally, this beef is subject to our stringent guidelines and USDA inspection. The beef is inspected both as it leaves Australia and New Zealand and again when it enters the U.S. The amount of beef from Australia and New Zealand that enters the U.S. is governed by a strict quota system. McDonald's opposes any change in the current quota.
"McDonald's is the world's largest purchaser of U.S. beef, and that will NOT change. Each year, McDonald's purchases nearly one billion pounds of beef from U.S. producers. Our commitment to the U.S. agriculture industry stands stronger than ever.

"McDonald's is also working with the National Cattlemen's Beef Association and the American Farm Bureau to explore other solutions to the lean beef shortage. You may be interested to know McDonald's is working to expand the export market, which will help U.S. producers by getting more U.S. beef into foreign markets. Last year alone, McDonald's exported more than 19 million pounds of U.S. beef to Central America and the Caribbean.

"Long before there was a shortage of lean ground beef, some of our competitors chose foreign beef from all over the world to save money. For more than 30 years, their hamburgers have contained as much as 50 percent imported beef.

"McDonald's has the highest standards for food quality and food safety (including feed certification) in the business, and uses only those products that meet or exceed our highest standards. We have been and will continue to play a leadership role in setting food safety and quality guidelines for the entire industry to follow. It's what McDonald's is known for around the world, and we will never compromise these standards. Suppliers in Australia and New Zealand are subject to the same standards we have in place here in the U.S."FYI: McDonald's imports beef only from Australia, New Zealand -- not South America

Also from Snopes Urban Legends Reference Pages: McDonald's Beef Imports

The bigger concern for the beef industry in my view would be the practice of using the phoney threat of mad cow disease as an excuse by some nations and the EU to restrict imports of American beef into their markets. South Korea has used that excuse to ban imports into their country when in fact they are catering to their own domestic cattle industry who are threatened by cheaper US beef.

Since the United States is the leading exporter of beef to the world ,we certainly would not be advantaged by a trade war over the product. Food safety standards needs to be enforced with all products be they beef imports or US spinach exports. Contaminated U.S. spinach causes food scare in Canada | Medical Health Articles

Oh! You mean the same McDonald's denying they import beef, that started importing beef in 2002.




McDonald's serving foreign beef

News Release
Index

McDonald's serving foreign beef - Rocky Mountain Farmers Union

DENVER—Rocky Mountain Farmers Union (RMFU), a general farm organization representing family agricultural producers from Colorado, New Mexico and Wyoming, is appalled by McDonald's recent announcement that it will begin serving imported beef in its 13,000 U.S. outlets.
“McDonald's first advertised its hamburgers as quality U.S. beef,” said RMFU president John Stencel. “Now, McDonald's is reducing its standards by importing poorer quality hamburger for its sandwiches.”
The majority of discount hamburger meat, including that of most fast-food chains, is made using low-fat meat from cull cows and grinding it with fat that has been trimmed off retail beef cuts. The low-cost fat trimmings are considered a byproduct, much like bone, hides and offal. Cull cows are those that are too old, or otherwise unproductive, to be used for breeding or milk production.
“Good quality hamburger is ground chuck or other cuts from young animals that are naturally marbled. High quality hamburger can be low or higher fat, depending on the characteristics of the carcass,” Stencel said. “Adding exterior fat from other animals to ground meat gives it a similar consistency but seriously compromises the taste.”
The decision to serve imported beef, according to McDonald's, is due to a shortage of lean U.S. beef. However, it should be noted that Australian and New Zealand beef sells for 5-20 cents per pound less than U.S. beef. After years of low live cattle prices during which producers were told that depressed market prices were due to oversupply, U.S. cattle producers have reduced the U.S. cattle herd in order to increase demand.
“Now that demand is greater than supply, prices should go up to stimulate production,” Stencel said. “However, producers are having the economic rug pulled out from under them by imports.”
In fact, beef imports have risen by one-third over the past five years. The United States imports nearly 600,000 metric tons of beef annually, just from Australia and New Zealand. The United States is a net importer of beef, a fact U.S. cattle producers say is not necessary.
“Surveys show that upwards of 80 percent of consumers want products labeled, and many of them would pay more for U.S. products,” Stencel said. “Consumer demand, food safety, and national security all are very good reasons to 'buy American'.”

-30- (Apr. 10, 2002)

________________________________________________


Bobby

Hey McDonald's,
American beef is best!

By Donald Patman


Texas Agriculture | Hey McDonald's, American beef is best!


TFB President

When one of the world's largest purchasers of beef—an American company—decides to import substantial quantities
Of their product, it is disturbing. McDonald's is no ordinary company or restaurant. It is an American icon, and through superb marketing the company has positioned itself as a part of the world of virtually every American child.

McDonald's efforts to buy American beef has, in the past, been a pillar of the American beef market, and the recent decision to import significant amounts of lean beef in a "pilot program" has caused alarm among Texas and American beef producers.

McDonald's, like every business, should be accorded ample room to make business decisions, and there is some validity to the claim that less of the lean beef the company desires has been available from American sources.

Still, I hope the executives at McDonald's realize that American beef is part of the company's success story. Consumers respond to the American product. They have confidence in it. There can never be the same level of consumer comfort with any food product produced beyond our own shores, because it is not subjected to the rigorous safety standards that we have in the U.S. We do not dispute that those other countries have worthwhile standards, but here, we know our food is the safest in the world. American beef producers support the efforts to make sure of that.

I wrote a letter recently to Mr. Jack Greenberg, Chief Executive Officer of McDonalds. The text of that letter is below. I asked him to consider all these facts. I encouraged him to state publicly that McDonald's prefers American beef, and that it be purchased first as a matter of policy. My hope is once this pilot effort is concluded, the decision makers will have evidence that American beef is best for the world's largest seller of beef. McDonald's and U.S. beef producers have always been partners in quality and food safety.

We, as beef producers, now face a new challenge. We must respond to market opportunity. We must use our unmatched system of research, marketing and production to ensure that McDonald's and other buyers get what they need, in ample amounts. It is not overstating the case to say that McDonald's hamburgers are a critical part of the U.S. beef market. It is a market share for which we should now feel compelled to fight.

If we respond, as we should, this pilot effort will end with the conclusion that American beef is best for McDonald's, best for consumers and best for America.

McDonald's letter text...

The following is the text of a letter sent to Jack Greenberg, Chief Executive Officer of McDonald's from TFB President Donald Patman:

Dear Mr. Greenberg:

I am a grain, cotton and cattle producer from Waxahachie, Texas and I serve as president of the Texas Farm Bureau, the largest organization of farm and ranch families in our state.

The beef producers and members of Texas Farm Bureau are very concerned about McDonald's recent decision to do "pilot-testing" that involves the import of lean beef from outside the United States.

While our members understand the need to ensure the supply of beef for your U.S. restaurants, we believe it should be the policy of McDonald's to purchase beef from American suppliers whenever possible. Moreover, McDonald's, we believe, should state a preference for American beef for use in your restaurants.

Clearly, Americans have shown a preference for American beef. The reasons for this are obvious, and easily understood by the consumer. In terms of quality and safety, the American product has no equal in the world. Consumers and beef producers alike understand the health and safety regulations in the United States and doubt that we could ever approach the same comfort level with any product produced beyond our own borders.

McDonald's is a proud symbol of American success to the entire world. Large-scale purchases of imported beef would not be in the long-term interests of McDonald's or U.S. agriculture. We believe your company would be best served by identification with beef produced by American ranchers.

While your pilot program may be necessary for business reasons that apply to the current market, we strongly urge you to make the purchase of American beef a priority and exhaust sources of supply within the United States before any import suppliers are considered.

Sincerely,


Donald Patman, President


Texas Farm Bureau


____________________________________________



Bobby

I wasn't disputing the fact that they began importing beef. They admitted as much .I was disputing that they were importing South American beef. They buy some of their beef from Australia and New Zealand... as does Burger King.

The claim that they import South American beef is a hoax that has spread around the net since 2002.

www.kansascity.com | 12/12/2007 | Food for thought before you hit ‘send’

Micky D's has enough of a public image problem to deal with from movies like "Supersize Me" to get involved in this foolishness.

Elliot

“They believe that the creation of a job in India for an American company means the loss of a job in the USA.”

I agree, it's the same with a Dollar…many people believe a dollar earned by one person is a dollar taken from another.

In both cases this stems from the assumption that there is a “Pool” that is dipped from that only has so much water; as though the streams that feed it does not exist.

Frankly I don't know what Professor Samuelson had in mind when he warned about the consequences of globalization for the United States, but I doubt very much that he had Mc Donald's in mind or it's importing beef in mind. More likely it would be the large U.S. trade deficit with the rest of the world. That is what causes jobs and demand to disappear from the economy. It causes borrowing and spending that should create jobs in the United States ending up creating jobs in other countries, and at the same time it leaves the U.S. economy with a weakened manufacturing sector and burdened with the debts that finance this spending.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

I wasn't disputing the fact that they began importing beef. They admitted as much .I was disputing that they were importing South American beef. They buy some of their beef from Australia and New Zealand..... as does Burger King.

The claim that they import South American beef is a hoax that has spread around the net since 2002.

www.kansascity.com | 12/12/2007 | Food for thought before you hit 'send'

Micky D's has enough of a public image problem to deal with from movies like "Supersize Me" to get involved in this foolishness.

---

"You may be interested to know we are testing high quality beef from Australia and New Zealand. We will NOT import beef from any other country."

McDonald's says they are testing and then followed that up with, "We will NOT import beef from any other country." Yeah. So they said, but obviously the Texas Cattleman Association and a Farmers Union in Colorado were less than amused by those words. Any lucrative enticed advertisement by snopes or easily filled pockets of USDA inspectors upon importation wouldn't be out of the question either. When there is one suspected untruth, I tend to lose interest for what their own spokes people claim. That's Ronald the clown investigating his own big top. I don't eat the non-kosher treif anyway, but I know many people that do. Every time I drive by the joint it claims billions served. Served what though is really any one's guess.



Bobby

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dark_crow

Frankly I don't know what Professor Samuelson had in mind when he warned about the consequences of globalization for the United States, but I doubt very much that he had Mc Donald's in mind or it's importing beef in mind. More likely it would be the large U.S. trade deficit with the rest of the world. That is what causes jobs and demand to disappear from the economy. It causes borrowing and spending that should create jobs in the United States ending up creating jobs in other countries, and at the same time it leaves the U.S. economy with a weakened manufacturing sector and burdened with the debts that finance this spending.

---

DC,

I doubt the Professor eats often at McDonald's, but perhaps has mild interest in the economic impact of the thirty thousand eateries worldwide. Unless, of course, the "Nobel Prize in Economics" has a high school freshman grandson that seeks his first job or his grandmother desires a break from the convalescent center. In which both cases, they are in the age groups that would be prime suspects for hire by the famous golden arch food chain. The trade deficit is at least part of the problem. But we shouldn't glance over outsourcing since it is a part of globalization. As Bush once said, that is "fuzzy math." There are too many dynamics in the economy. Didn't you say you took Samuelson to mean "overall?" Like I said before, we will adapt, and as Tom pointed out, there are positive signs we are currently making headway.



Bobby

Yes, I did say he meant overall because that is what the term “Globalization” means, as does so many other Politicians here and in Europe (Which includes immigration.) however I think they are wrong; just as I think it is wrong thinking to point the finger at imports. If we stop importing who would we be able to export too? Trading is a two way street. Trading involves not just the goods but the means of getting the goods from one place to another and that is a huge industry and includes the communications industry, ships, airplanes and ports with the ability to move the goods across America, stop trading and we are dead. Given that importing is essential, Mc Donald’s is contributing by meat imports and is not the problem you seem to believe it is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dark_crow

Given that importing is essential, Mc Donald’s is contributing by meat imports and is not the problem you seem to believe it is.

---

I make my living raising beef cattle in the US, and I agree with this. The continuing restrictions on our ability to export freely (because of the BSE mess) is WAY more damaging to our economic welfare than what little lean (i.e. cull cow and bull) beef gets imported from wherever. Without that lean meat to mix it with, the excess fat that gets trimmed off our corn-fed beef would probably end up in cosmetics, pet food, or fuel tanks instead of human stomachs. Also, there are some parts of a beef carcass that Americans just won't eat (tongue, organ meats, etc) but that other food cultures value highly, so exporting those products is much more profitable than using them domestically in low-value co-products.

Trade and immigration are perennial favorite whipping boys of the nativist xenophobic right. Demagoguery is largely about convincing people to pick their enemies in ways that are contrary to their own best interests. Regrettably, a lot of beef producers have been suckered into this trap.