Explore the vast range of titles available.

He said the U.S. free trade agreement with Mexico is a good example of why the deals are bad for the United States. So it doesn't really benefit U.S. companies to gain open access to the Mexican market, since eliminating tariffs isn't likely to bring huge increases in sales, he said. By contrast, taking away the tariffs from the U.S. market opens up a huge mass of potential customers, with money, for Mexican businesses. U.S. manufacturers can set up factories in Mexico, he said, hire workers for pennies on the dollar compared to U.S. labor, and be relatively unfettered by the lax - or nonexistent - labor and environmental laws south of the border. Then they can simply ship the products back to the primary market in the United States.

Worse, a large and growing percentage of these products are not labor-intensive goods like apparel and toys, but advanced manufacturing products from the sectors that create the highest- paying U.S. jobs on average. And these Chinese goods keep taking share from their U.S.-made counterparts in the American market. China trade champions rightly note that many of these Chinese imports come from Chinese factories owned by U.S. multinational companies. But the explosive growth of American-owned or contracted production in China reveals that the trade agreements that have shaped U.S.-China economic relations were really outsourcing deals. Their main aim was helping these large U.S. firms supply American customers from China. Indeed, China's $148 billion trade surplus with the United States so far this year alone equals nearly 38 percent of the entire 2005 U.S. defense budget. Yet with few in Washington recognizing the link, U.S. trade policy literally keeps arming America's likeliest future rival.

The USBIC and its affiliated research arm, the USBIC Educational Foundation, lobbies on behalf of domestic family-owned and closely held firms that create new products, jobs and growth in the U.S. Local companies expressing their agreement with that position were Alger Manufacturing Co., Metric Machining & Subsidiaries and Nash-Webber Molds of Ontario, Berman Mold & Engineering Inc. of Upland, Everett Charles Technologies Inc. CPD Division of Pomona, Pacific Precision Inc. of San Dimas and Empire Injection Molds, Prestige Mold Inc. and Pyramid Mold & Tool of Rancho Cucamonga. \"We are in the middle of a very weird and fragile economic recovery,\" [Alan Tonelson] said. \"CAFTA is just one more leg of the race to the bottom.\"

\"This is the wrong deal with the wrong countries at the wrong time,\" said Alan Tonelson, a USBIC research fellow. \"For many different reasons, this is one of the worst public policy initiatives down the pike in a long time, and in Washington, that says a lot.\" Area companies expressing their agreement with that position include Alger Manufacturing Co., Metric Machining & Subsidiaries and Nash-Webber Molds of Ontario, Berman Mold & Engineering Inc. of Upland, Everett Charles Technologies Inc. CPD Division of Pomona, Pacific Precision Inc. of San Dimas and Empire Injection Molds, Prestige Mold Inc. and Pyramid Mold & Tool of Rancho Cucamonga. \"We are in the middle of a very weird and fragile economic recovery,\" Tonelson said. \"CAFTA is just one more leg of the race to the bottom.\"

For example, 8.7 percent of all beef consumed in the United States in 1980 was imported; in 2001 that import share stood at 11.6 percent. In round numbers, that means per capita consumption of imported beef rose 33 percent in the last two decades. Economic Research Service pegs the current value of those beef imports at $2.2 billion, a handsome sum in the chronically depressed domestic cattle market. The story is even more dramatic for imported pork and lamb consumption. In 1980, 3.3 percent of all pork consumed per capita in America was imported; in 2001 the figure was 54 percent higher, or 5.1 percent. Likewise, 9.5 percent of all lamb eaten in the United States in 1980 was imported. In 2001, 40 percent was imported. American meat producers aren't the only farmers getting nipped by rising imports. Indeed, American fruit and vegetable growers are being slaughtered by imports. In 1980, 5.8 percent of the per capita consumption of fresh and frozen fruits in America was imported; in 2001 it was 23.1 percent. Likewise, 16.6 percent of all vegetables you eat today are imported; 20 years ago only 5.9 percent of veggies eaten in America were imported.

For example, 8.7 percent of all beef consumed in the United States in 1980 was imported; in 2001 that import share stood at 11.6 percent. In round numbers, that means per capita consumption of imported beef rose 33 percent in the last two decades. The Economic Research Service pegs the current value of those beef imports at $2.2 billion, a handsome sum in the chronically depressed domestic cattle market. The story is even more dramatic for imported pork and lamb consumption. In 1980, 3.3 percent of all pork consumed per capita in the United States was imported; in 2001 the figure was 54 percent higher, or 5.1 percent. Likewise, 9.5 percent of all lamb eaten in the United States in 1980 was imported. In 2001, 40 percent was imported. U.S. meat producers aren't the only farmers getting nipped by rising imports.Indeed, U.S. fruit and vegetable growers are being slaughtered by imports. In 1980, 5.8 percent of the per capita consumption of fresh and frozen fruits in theUnited States was imported; in 2001 it was 23.1 percent. Likewise, 16.6 percent of all vegetables you eat today is imported; 20 years ago only 5.9 percent ofveggies eaten in the United States was imported.

FTAs aren't \"outsourcing agreements,\" as [Alan Tonelson] asserts. They are the way that we can level the playing field and get our trade deficit down. During the half-century \"Cold War,\" America deliberately opened its market to many countries without asking for access to their markets -- to help foster their industries and create jobs in their economies so they could resist communism. And it worked. But now we've won the Cold War, and it is time for these countries to take down their barriers to us -- that's what these trade agreements are about. Reading Tonelson, you would erroneously conclude that trade agreements are the fundamental cause of our trade deficit. But that's hogwash. The truth is that our FTAs -- principally Nafta -- account for 40 percent of our exports, nearly two-thirds of all our export growth, but only 10 percent of our manufactured goods trade deficit. Fully 90 percent of our trade deficit is with countries that have no FTA's with us -- countries that have not agreed to give us the same access we already give them. More trade agreements would reduce the deficit, not raise it.

The world is heading into a bright new dawn of economic promise, when a global economy will spread its riches and everyone's standard of living, like the children of Lake Wobegon will be above average. Or the same global economy will make the rich even richer and the poor not only miserable but robbed of any control over their lives.

Most Americans now want U.S. resources redirected homeward, and American lives not put at risk unless vitalU.S. interests are at stake. Hence, the internationalists must argue the benefits of a \"trickle-down foreign policy\": i.e., foreign aid to Russia, Israel and Egypt will be of long-range benefit you cannot now see; sending Americans to fight in Third World conflicts, under U.N. flags and UN. command, will one day pay off in global \"stability.\" Exactly. Millions of Americans are already at where [Alan Tonelson] says we are headed. His piece comes as close as any to identifying the new balance of forces in U.S. policy debates. \"At the other pole would gather America's internationalists. The social base ... would include many big multinationalbusinesses and upper-level managers, financiers, professionals and retailers. Journalists and the rest of the mass media as well as academics tend to support an idealistic globalism ... much of what they lack in numbers the internationalists would make up in money, influence and the aura of respectability that their media allies will continue to provide.\"

The rising economic success of China, India and Japan is largely due to U.S. consumer and political support, [Alan Tonelson] said. The countries' large populations and lower wages have attracted large, international companies and the U.S. is not effectively responding to questionable foreign trade practices - such as China undervaluing its currency and artificially lowering prices - that do not comply with international law, Tonelson said.