Comments have now closed

Barack Obama made his opinions on trade abundantly clear during the primary and general election. The Tribune enthusiastically endorsed him. Now he's carrying out what he said he'd do and you're unhappy? Please help me understand.

Longfellow @ 4:37 PM PST, Dec 5, 2008

Clinton made permanent China's Most Favored Nation trading status, without complete reciprocity, and while allowing their currency exchange to be pegged. No single decision before or since has hurt American industry so much. That's not free trade, it's "economic rape" trade. That's the behavior we need to curtail.

JS @ 3:48 PM PST, Dec 5, 2008

I can't believe the Times is printing this--oh yes I can. As usual, the Times tries to sell it's discredited Free-Trade Tripe as 100% steak to paranoid and weak-minded fellow oligarchs. We need to keep what jobs we have left in this country, and to take back those we have sent away. It's time to think of America first and to Hades with the low-ballers in China, India and elsewhere, who lure our jobs away from greedy corporations. Despite what Witch-CEO Carly Fiorina said in 2001, these jobs DO belong to us, and we mean to keep them. Buy American and viva Becerra!

NoJobsExported @ 3:43 PM PST, Dec 5, 2008

I couldn't agree more with this opinion. So-called progressives tend to be ignorant of the fact that the main beneficary of free trade are the people (i.e. consumers). We should also remember that protectionism was a significant contributing factor to the Great Depression. This is Obama's worst appointment so far, and betrays a disturbingly protectionist impulse.

Henry @ 3:26 PM PST, Dec 5, 2008

We are in our 32nd consecutive year of trade imbalances -- and to the uneducated, that means we have been increasing our debt at the expense of doing it ourselves. It is not free trade when we shut down our shoe making industry, put people out of work and pawn ourselves to the Chinese. Why is this so difficult to understand? When we have other countries produce our stuff and give them the know-how to produce it, that is insane. Free trade. As we now know it that is give-away, plain and simple. Why not give Iran and N. Korea all of our nuke building technology and spare them the agony of learning it themselves.

jr @ 2:49 PM PST, Dec 5, 2008

SOOO, the LAT supported Obama because they figured he really didn't mean what he said?? How stupid is that??

RB @ 1:35 PM PST, Dec 5, 2008

andrew, free trade and its results (good or bad, however you see it) have nothing to do with the current economic crisis. that, my friend, was a direct result of the government's distortion of the mortgage market by promoting subprime lending and easy money.

ceanf @ 12:39 PM PST, Dec 5, 2008

Free trade could mean the loss of American sovereignty. In 1956, the British, French and Israeli schemed to take over the Suez Canal. Israel would invade the Sinai and under the pretext of being peace negotiators, an Anglo-French force would seize the canal from Egypt. President Eisenhower forced them to redraw and England had to abide. Like the Chinese own our economic debt, much of Britain's war debt was held by the American treasury. Eisenhower threatened to dump enough of this debt on world markets to force a collapse in the pound. Much like China could dump enough dollars on the world market to force a collapse of the dollar.

Ransome @ 12:21 PM PST, Dec 5, 2008

A traitor like Obama will do his best to destroy American.

jim @ 12:06 PM PST, Dec 5, 2008

Protectionism always sounds attractive and in the short run can appear to protect jobs. In the medium to long run it leads companies to end up like Detroit - bankrupt, zero jobs, and no way to compete without more protectionism. It's a losing approach.

Tom @ 11:40 AM PST, Dec 5, 2008

Next