My Home About Me

The New York Times editorial board is so resolutely liberal, pro-Democrat and pro-union, it simply amazes me that it is at the same time so reliably pro-trade and anti-protectionism. From an editorial this morning:

Democrats Max Baucus and Charles Schumer and Republicans Charles Grassley and Lindsey Graham ? bristle at being labeled protectionist, in part because they generally agree that free trade is superior to trade constraints. But they also clearly believe in threatening protectionism to get their way.

Threats can backfire. They also obscure workable solutions to today?s global imbalances.

Even if China were to give in, there is no guarantee that a stronger yuan would be a big plus for the United States? economy.

Naturally, the Times can't resist taking this as yet another arbitrary opportunity to promote its current favorite liberal lines:

It would be better if Congress focused on the problems from globalization that it could actually solve rather than blaming China for America?s economic ills. The problem of American business competitiveness ? and Americans? economic anxiety ? would be best addressed by health care reform. The problem of growing income inequality could be ameliorated with a more progressive tax code.

Basic Materials sector   Technical chart patterns   support/resistance levels   ETFs (exchange traded funds)   Deron Wagner   IRS denies trader tax status   trader tax status   mark to market accounting   Patience in the markets   Dow Monthly Performance   Dow Performance since 1900   Amateur Investors   Nasdaq Composite chart pattern   forex   trade   profit   S&P 500 chart pattern   euro   selling options   currencies