By Alex Gonzalez
When my opponents attack success and free enterprise they are not only attacking me, they are attacking every person who dreams of a better future. He’s attacking you, I will support you I will help you have a better future. I will make sure that America is a place of opportunity for all. Free enterprise is the only permanent cure for poverty. Free trade has the demonstrated ability to make the people of both trading nations more prosperous–Mitt Romney
After the defeat in South Carolina , Mitt Romney was lamenting the criticism, on his career at Bain Capital, has focused on the firm’s private equity business of buying companies, boosting their profitability and then spinning them off. At present, Romney is playing the victim of anti-capitalism attacks and he criticizes Gingrich by saying that his opponent is joining in on a frontal assault on free enterprise. But his melancholic claims of victimhood during the concession speech does nothing to fix the fact that he is one of the most anti-free enterprise “restrictionist” Republican candidates of the last 30 years. So While Romney may claim that he is for free trade and capitalist prosperity, or free enterprise, his populists views on an “open trade war” with China, his anti- NAFTA positions of building feces with Mexico, and immigration views are in effect all big government solutions that will do little to limit the role of government in the American market. In fact, his views as they stand will increase government spending and bureaucracy. Thus, Romney’s views on free trade, immigration, and individuals rights for corporation have nothing to do with free enterprise and more in line with big government intervention against a free market capitalism society.
Similarly, Romney’s anti-capitalist views proposes penalties and retaliation on US companies that have moved to China. Romney argues that a corporation is a person. But if corporations are “people,” then, corporations deserve any right to relocate where they can maximize their profit under established legal trade agreements. And citizens here in the US, as consumers, can decide on whether to buy cheap low-quality products from China. Even the Economist agreed that Mitt Romney’s position on a War with China is an attack on free enterprise and individual rights, corporations. With jobs being the number one issues in the minds of Americans, fomenting trade wars, and erecting feces against trade partners, seems as the most anti-free enterprise position.
Romney rants about China and how he’s going to be authoritative and make them do what President Romney wants them to do. True, chinese companies have quickly divided the benefits of ignoring the rules followed by others. China seeks advantage through systematic exploitation of other economies. In fact, it misappropriates intellectual property by coercing “technology transfers” as a condition of market access. It enables theft of intellectual property, including patents, designs and know-how; hacks into foreign commercial and government computers. China further favors and subsidizes domestic producers over foreign competitors, and it manipulates its currency to artificially reduce the price of its goods and services abroad.
However, half of these companies are American companies that operate out of China, India, or Mexico. So any attack on them, is an attack on American jobs that most likely be terminated with retaliatory tariffs in “trade war.” That is why Jon Huntsman correctly told Romney that “you don’t know what you’re talking about.” Even the economist underlines that Romney’s positions on free trade are all just bluff.
Romney role in Bain Capital was to “fire” workers to make maximize profit people because that is how capitalism works. So he thinks that e can fire American workers and feel good about it. Those are the rules of the game. However, when American companies want to move abroad to maximize their profit and sale cheaper proud to American consumers they should be penalized? Shouldn’t the American consumer be the one deciding whether to buy cheaper product made in China? Unfortunately Romney’s “restrictionist” views of erecting more walls and trade wars with Mexico–and bad immigration policies–are likely to slow down the flow of goods and cost more money to transport for American companies who assemble products in Mexico. Too, those small business owners who find no able-bodies to do low skilled labor will suffer under Romney’s immigration plan. Perhaps if Romney feels attacked he needs to listen to his speeches and realize that indeed most of his views are in reality anti-capitalists big government “restrictionists” policies.
follow us on facbook