Free Enterprise Works, Not Romney’s Anti-Capitalist Views

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.

 Despite the populist rhetoric on immigration, fences, and the violence in Mexico, the trade between Mexico, the US, and Canada under NAFTA stands as a positive beacon of hope for free trade and capitalism.  Specifically, just in 2010, the trade between the U.S. and its North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) partners, Canada and Mexico, jumped a record 24.3%  in 2010.  U.S.-Canada surface transportation trade totaled $471 billion in 2010, an increase of 22.1 %.  The value of imports carried by truck from Canada was 17.3% higher in 2010 than 2009 while the value of exports carried by truck rose 21.8 %.  Further, surface transportation trade between the U.S. and Mexico totaled $320.3 billion, up 27.6%.  Truck imports rose 26.5% while exports rose 24.3%.  The total merchandise trade among the United States, Canada, and Mexico reached $944.6 billion in 2010, an increase of 218% since 1993. Canada and Mexico are our first and third largest merchandise trading partners, accounting for 32.3% of U.S. exports to the world in 2010. So free trade works in the border with Mexico, yet Romney overlooks this facts to promote his big government policies that will only hider the flow of goods       

 Moreover, According to the US Department of Agriculture, the market integration between Canada, the US, and Mexico through NAFTA has taken hold in North American, especially in agriculture. For the past several years the U.S. agricultural trade with Canada and Mexico, and efforts to facilitate the further integration of the region’s agricultural sector will be beneficial for trade if  ease regulations.  Furthermore,  the easing of regulation on free trade leads to more job-creation and higher income on both sides.  In fact, Regional between the three NAFTA nations, more than triples in the last 15 years, which was the goal of George W. Bush.  But, by listing to Mitt Romney we could never imagine that our trade partner is in fact a thriving economy on its way to a middle-income nation as fewer immigrants are coming in from Mexico to the US, according to CBP.   Thus, any claims by Romney that we need more fences,  we need to increase border patrol is in fact an attack on a trade partner, and attack on free market/enterprise. 

The other attacks on free enterprise, prosperity, and individuals rights are Romney’s solution to immigration. By nature, capitalism, or free enterprise, is self-sustained because it operates outside government intervention or by  free competition whereby  employers and employee enter into a formal contract:  exchange of labor for a pay.  Moreover, in order for the employers to prosper and maximize their investment, they will have to find a pool of workers for their business.  But capitalism is spontaneous,  since the market is controlled by supply and demand, the “invisible hand,”  capitalism, or free enterprise,  so that it cannot be planned especially in the U.S.

 Consequently, businesses in the US are left with the only option to hire workers, when business is good,  who may not be legally present in the US since the U.S. government has not provide for the necessary pool of workers to make their business prosper under a free capitalist market, and thereby, forcing business to hire those willing to work, regales or legal status. So why does Mitt Romney’s want to penalize those employers ‘prosper’ seeking able bodies to work in their spontaneous  businesses  when native workers won’t do the jobs?

According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO),  77% of those undocumented workers in the national pool, are working jobs that Americans don’t want.  Also, “70% of workers from Mexico and Central America were in occupations filled by people with a relatively low average level of education,  but only 23 percent of native-born workers were in such jobs.”  And this 77% pool of workers is natural the interaction of supply and demand that crates free societies and free prosperous enterprise.  Thus, when Mitt Romney’s claims that he  will use the power of the federal government to make sure those low- skilled workers  “have to return to their home ” he is in fact spouting off more  anti-capitalist  anti-businesses big government policies rhetoric.  Or what about when he claims that he will allow states like Arizona and Alabama to create their own immigration laws that essentially slows down and prevents business growth by pushing immigrants out of the states

Therefore, Romney’s position on immigration is an attack on individual rights of corporation and capitalism because he wants to deport workers without guaranteeing a healthy pool of workers that will take those jobs left by those who go home.  The reality is:   Native workers will not take those jobs. Gingrich could gain even more traction with Hispanic if he talks about the success of NAFTA.

  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 facebook

Be the first to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.