David Brooks Quotes

There's no conflict between the social-welfare state and open markets.

Ann and I will carry out this equivocal message to the world: Markets must be open.

Everything is in place - after 500 years - to build a true 'new world' in the Western Hemisphere... And what happens if we don't pass NAFTA? I truly don't think that 'criminal' would be too strong a word for rejecting NAFTA.

I love free trade. I love the concept of free trade. Everything about it is good. I went to the Wharton School of Finance. They say, Let's go free trade.

We are in favor of greater free markets.

Europe should stick to an open economy, to competition and we should refuse protectionism. It will not save one single job in the long run to protect non-competitive industries.

The conventional viewpoint says we need a jobs program and we need to cut welfare. Just the opposite! We need more welfare and fewer jobs.

The pact creating a North American free-trade zone was President Bill Clinton's signature accomplishment; but NAFTA is also the bugaboo of union leaders, grassroots activists and Midwesterners who blame free trade for the factory closings they see in their hometowns.

The closest we can come to free trade is illuminating the barriers to free trade.

I am utterly opposed to anything which will alter the Free Trade character of this country.

Free trade is hard to sell politically.

I am a believer in free trade, fair free trade.

I wanted to be clear that Republicans will continue to be a champion for expanding economic freedom to trade. It is at the heart of our free-enterprise system.

How can we have 'freer' free trade? Let's get real, for God's sake.

We are in favor of free trade.

The Left loves the poor so much it creates more of them every time it gets into power.

There is much in American society which I admire, but I have long held the view that the absence of an effective safety net in that country means that too many needy citizens fall by the wayside. That is not the path that Australia will tread. Nor do we want the burdens of nanny state paternalism that now weigh down many economies in Europe.

The Welfare State is merely a method for transforming the market economy step by step into socialism.

I'm not a free trader, but I am a free trader, but I'm also a fare trader and a smart trader. I want to make sure that the United States gains something. So I think you would probably agree.

Liberals want to manage the damage with government programs to take care of those who have fallen between the cracks. Populists want to fix the cracks so that people don't fall in the first place.

The countries that have risen and separated out as a result of the collapse of the Soviet Union are, on the whole, following freer economic policies. Most of these states have freer government and less restrictions on trade.

The state, by relieving idleness, improvidence, or misconduct from punishment, and depriving abstinence and foresight of the reward, which have been provided for them by nature, may indeed destroy wealth, but most certainly will aggravate poverty.

I have never worshipped at the altar of free trade, but I've always been an advocate of free trade.

The companies move labor to the lowest-cost markets. And so I don't - I used to support these agreements. In the Congress, I lost the AFL-CIO endorsement a few years because I supported them. But when middle class incomes are declining, these agreements don't work well for America.

You ask, "Could we have an honest discussion about earnings insurance?" I think we could, if people understood that the alternative was to build up a backlash against global capital, against free trade, against technological change.