Sun Yat-sen Quotes

Trade wars in which countries are then obliged to retaliate by raising their own tariffs against the initiator undermine growth and hurt consumers. Far from being expressions of strength they highlight the failure of the initiating country's economic sector to compete in the global market place.

Unfortunately, the United States has entered into several free trade agreements that do not sufficiently protect and support our manufacturing industries and the millions of American workers they employ.

Before we move forward with new efforts to lower the barriers to international free trade, we must review the consequences of the policies of the past and address the problems of the present.

In 1945, the world was in a shambles. American companies had no competition. So nobody really thought much about quality. Why should they? The world bought everything America produced. It was a prescription for disaster.

We're living through the twilight of American economic dominance.

We need a government that does not give in to a globalist agenda, an agenda I am now convinced seeks to bring American as a sovereign nation and the middle class to their knees.

It was fairly obvious to anyone who studied the situation that China was dumping bedroom furniture in the U.S. to the detriment of our American workers and manufacturers to gain market access and share.

Since trade ignores national boundaries and the manufacturer insists on having the world as a market, the flag of his nation much follow him; and the doors of the nations which are closed against him must be battered down. Concessions obtained by financiers must be safeguarded by ministers of state even if the sovereignty of unwilling nations may by outraged in the process.

Free trade would place our farmers and workers in competition with peasant and sweated labor products.

Protect and foster American industries … Democrats are willing to risk our manufacturing interests in the face of the starving hordes of pauper labor in other countries.

The countries that stand to benefit most from greater competition and openness are those nations that display the highest protection.

I personally do not believe in protection mechanisms. It’s like a false friend. It makes you believe that you can compete, but you can’t compete and as the protection mechanisms fall away—the world is going for this—then you are in trouble.

I do not believe that we are under any obligation whatsoever to the Filipino people to open our markets..

It is the system now called free trade that tends to the destruction of commerce, as is shown wherever it obtains.

When democracy creates wealth on a broad scale there is no tension between it and capitalism. But when that is not the case, the value of democracy becomes less clear to some. There are tremendous tensions between democratic national sovereignty, open global markets and mass migration.

Oil has become the principal wealth in the hands of the great Yankee transnationals; through this energy source, they had an instrument that considerably expanded their political power in the world.

Unfettered free trade has led to a disaster.

We ask our companies to restructure; we ask employees to work more for less money because there is overproduction, but then we're unable to defend them from cheaper Chinese imports. We are insane.

I think that the level playing field is so unlevel - it is tilted so much in favor of Chinese companies - that it's time for the United States to do a little bit more, see.

The idea that you could send agricultural products to Tokyo and Osaka and not pay tariffs, and you would have to pay tariffs sending them to Manchester, is quite hard to fathom in the modern world.

It's much easier for non-Indian companies to raise capital because they have profitable markets elsewhere. You might call it capital dumping, predatory pricing, or anti-WTO, but it's a very unfair playing field for Indian startups.

The international institutions go around the world preaching liberalization, and the developing countries see that means open up your markets to our commodities, but we aren't going to open our markets to your commodities. In the nineteenth century, they used gunboats. Now they use economic weapons and arm-twisting.

Rich countries have 'kicked away the ladder' by forcing free-market, free-trade policies on poor countries. Already established countries do not want more competitors emerging through the nationalistic policies they themselves successfully used in the past.

There is a phrase in trade theory; it's called "kicking away the ladder." First you violate the rules - the market rules - and then by the time you succeed in developing, you kick away the ladders so others can't do it too, and you preach about "free trade."

We are aware that globalization doesn't mean global friendship but global competition and, therefore, conflict. That doesn't mean we will all destroy each other, but it is no happy global village, either.