Dear Free Trade activists - thank you putting America at risk of foreign manipulation

[ccnyman]

Really, that wasn't what did the banks in. It was their general mismanagement.

We haven't had a crisis of that magnitude since, because of banking regulations and the FDIC.

Nothing like knowing your money is safe and guaranteed, to stabilize an economy.

Nothing like not knowing your money is safe, to bring it to its knees.

I present evidence, can give you the source as to why the pumping of money into the economy by the Fed caused a speculative expansion which they then tried to correct causing a liquidity crisis and a contraction. You give a blanket statement without offering proof.

I can just as easily say the Fed learned its lesson and has not done anything of that magnitude again. There still have been smaller crisis, but none that large. What makes people think their money is safe are not the regulations, but the fact that the government is behaving responsibly.

 

[xssve]

There is a big difference between free trade, fair trade and protectionism. Democrats advocate "Fair trade", it was the best solution to preserve markets between very different economies - essentially, it levels tariffs according to the amount of government subsidy support a given countries exports enjoy - this levels the playing field in nmarkets where one country subsudizes a given industry and another does not.

Republicans called this "protectionism and insisted on "Free Trade" - in fact a consensus for free trade was finally evolving between the EU and the US, a thing that had taken almost Thirty years to accomplish, but htis wa s the point the administration chose to grant record breaking agricultural subidies, and start dumping on global markets. This is typical of republican policy, who are typically aggressively protectionist: there were trade barriers against Japanese cars and steel, pacific rim textiles, price supports for sugar, etc., throughout the Eighties - the most protectionist administration since, well, Nixon.

So, we're back to square on in terms of free trade, everyone is going to scramble to protect themselves from subsidized US agricultural products, and re-subsidizing industries that had finaly been cut loose to compete on their own - the whole free trade consensus has collapsed.

There is little choice but to try and go back to fair trade policies to try and level out the distortion caused by subsidy in global and domestic markets.

Try to understand the distinction between "Free" and "Fair" trade before beating the drums when you hear the word "tariff". Lately, it's the "free trade" advocates who are protectionists in praxis, while calling fair trade "protectionism".

Oh, and while Chimerica is certianly an interesting concept, there was a guy once who noted that the collapse of the worlds great financial empires followed a distinct pattern, you might want to to look that up.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

There is a big difference between free trade, fair trade and protectionism. Democrats advocate "Fair trade", it was the best solution to preserve markets between very different economies - essentially, it levels tariffs according to the amount of government subsidy support a given countries exports enjoy - this levels the playing field in nmarkets where one country subsudizes a given industry and another does not.

Republicans called this "protectionism and insisted on "Free Trade" - in fact a consensus for free trade was finally evolving between the EU and the US, a thing that had taken almost Thirty years to accomplish, but htis wa s the point the administration chose to grant record breaking agricultural subidies, and start dumping on global markets. This is typical of republican policy, who are typically aggressively protectionist: there were trade barriers against Japanese cars and steel, pacific rim textiles, price supports for sugar, etc., throughout the Eighties - the most protectionist administration since, well, Nixon.

So, we're back to square on in terms of free trade, everyone is going to scramble to protect themselves from subsidized US agricultural products, and re-subsidizing industries that had finaly been cut loose to compete on their own - the whole free trade consensus has collapsed.

There is little choice but to try and go back to fair trade policies to try and level out the distortion caused by subsidy in global and domestic markets.

Try to understand the distinction between "Free" and "Fair" trade before beating the drums when you hear the word "tariff". Lately, it's the "free trade" advocates who are protectionists in praxis, while calling fair trade "protectionism".

Oh, and while Chimerica is certianly an interesting concept, there was a guy once who noted that the collapse of the worlds great financial empires followed a distinct pattern, you might want to to look that up.

Your history lesson is not too far off, but "fair trade" is now a codeword for protectionism. It means, requiring undeveloped nations to adopt the same labor and environmental laws of highly developed nations before allowing their products to compete in our markets. Obviously they can't do that - they are poor countries. Closing them out of our markets means that poor they will remain.

I'm sure some of the grass roots people who parrot this believe they are doing what's right for the inhabitants of those poor nations, but the union bosses and their wholly owned politicians know exactly what its real effect will be, and don't give a crap. They're out for power, they know how to get it and keep it, and they're not playing games.

 

[Le Jacquelope]

Fuck "conservatism," I'm talking about human nature and evolution. People want comfort and security, they have to work and think to live, and our species has arrived for the first time ever in a place where a majority of the world's population is in reach of enjoying the comforts and security that industrial civilization provides, instead of the poor, nasty, brutish, and short lives they endured under subsistence ways of "living." The things you rail against are challenges and difficulties this new reality presents, but you ignore the opportunities and benefits it also brings, which are orders of magnitude greater. You lack balance.

You dare lecture me on balance when you glorify greed and exploitation as part of the "greater good"? You dare lecture anyone on balance when you poo poo on America's working class in favor of bringing up the rest of the world at our expense?

News flash. Human nature != always good. Otherwise we wouldn't need laws.

You know what's really hurting the middle class in this country, LT? Growing health care costs, and the completely uncontained costs of higher education for their kids.

That's two of many factors.

Neither of those things have a goddamn thing to do with China or anyplace else. They are purely the product of government totally fucking up those sectors by destroying all semblence of the free market incentives and signals which make the other goods and services we enjoy keep getting cheaper and better.

In your hate-hazed tirades against the Government, have you considered the fact that other nations don't have a private care industry but their costs are far better contained than here?

The common thread between all nations is the ever present hand of Government - but the problems are nowhere near the same. Logically, something else is involved.

 

[Le Jacquelope]

Your history lesson is not too far off, but "fair trade" is now a codeword for protectionism. It means, requiring undeveloped nations to adopt the same labor and environmental laws of highly developed nations before allowing their products to compete in our markets. Obviously they can't do that - they are poor countries. Closing them out of our markets means that poor they will remain.

And why can't the poor countries evolve to our standard the way we did? We did it. They can, too.

The problem with NOT making other nations adopt the same labor and environmental laws of highly developed nations is that we'll never be competitive against countries with crappy labor and environmental laws. It's exactly like letting steroid users play in major league baseball.

Furthermore, countries with lax environmental laws put the whole world in danger. I know you conservatives don't believe in global warming or air/water pollution or the dangers of damaging the ozone, but free trade with nations with poor environmental laws only make things worse for the environment. Go fly over the Indian Ocean some time and see what it looks like, if you don't believe me. Go check out a major Chinese city and try to breathe their air.

Plus, this "free trade" is impoverishing western nations to enrich other nations. There's no sin in providing for your own country before giving your wealth to others. What you're proposing is to enrich other nations at the expense of our own. That's illogical.

I'm sure some of the grass roots people who parrot this believe they are doing what's right for the inhabitants of those poor nations, but the union bosses and their wholly owned politicians know exactly what its real effect will be, and don't give a crap. They're out for power, they know how to get it and keep it, and they're not playing games.

Wow, you have such a seething hatred for the people who saved your grandparents from being killed by faulty machinery. You have a seething hatred for America's working class and a whole lot of love for people of other countries.

Why don't you move there and help them?

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

In your hate-hazed tirades against the Government, have you considered the fact that other nations don't have a private care industry but their costs are far better contained than here?

I don't have "hate" for government, I have well-warranted skepticism for it, and contempt for the dishonesty and disappointment that is its hallmark.

Yes other nations health care costs are lower. That's because they explicitly ration care, and if you are above a certain age you don't get certain treatments. At any age you don't get certain state of the art treatments. They also ration dishonestly through waiting lists. The bottom line is, for all the problems of the U.S. health care system, and they are legion, it is the best in the world for people who actually get sick.

Some of that rationing in other countries is rational, such as extraordinary expenses for people in the last months and weeks of life. I would much prefer that rational decisions about end of life care were made voluntarily by individuals at an earlier stage in their lives, via the kind of insurance voucher system that I've described elsewhere, rather imposed by government fiat. Americans won't accept the latter, but they could be conditioned to accept the former. People could choose to pay a lot extra for insurance that covered such expenses, but most would decide that using that extra money to enjoy more life before their last days is a better use of it. Regular annual reminders of this choice in the form of invitations to acquire the extra insurance at ever higher prices as one ages would accomplish that "conditioning." Such a system is much more suited to American individualism than would be Big Brother handing down the "now you will accept death" mandate from Washington - that really wouldn't go over too well here. You watch and see - if we get a socialized system that Big Brother diktat will be part of it, but they'll hide the reality in dishonest obfuscation. You know they will.

 

[Le Jacquelope]

I present evidence, can give you the source as to why the pumping of money into the economy by the Fed caused a speculative expansion which they then tried to correct causing a liquidity crisis and a contraction. You give a blanket statement without offering proof.

I can just as easily say the Fed learned its lesson and has not done anything of that magnitude again. There still have been smaller crisis, but none that large. What makes people think their money is safe are not the regulations, but the fact that the government is behaving responsibly.

Eh, so far you're not offering much more than blatant assertion yourself. And you're leaving out major issues like how free trade depressed the price of crops, which ruined farmers and then local banks as a direct consequence; and the over-investment of city banks in stocks and in foreign countries. This had a much bigger effect than any Government action.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

And why can't the poor countries evolve to our standard the way we did? We did it. They can, too.

The problem with NOT making other nations adopt the same labor and environmental laws of highly developed nations is that we'll never be competitive against countries with crappy labor and environmental laws. It's exactly like letting steroid users play in major league baseball.

Furthermore, countries with lax environmental laws put the whole world in danger. I know you conservatives don't believe in global warming or air/water pollution or the dangers of damaging the ozone, but free trade with nations with poor environmental laws only make things worse for the environment. Go fly over the Indian Ocean some time and see what it looks like, if you don't believe me. Go check out a major Chinese city and try to breathe their air.

Plus, this "free trade" is impoverishing western nations to enrich other nations. There's no sin in providing for your own country before giving your wealth to others. What you're proposing is to enrich other nations at the expense of our own. That's illogical.


Wow, you have such a seething hatred for the people who saved your grandparents from being killed by faulty machinery. You have a seething hatred for America's working class and a whole lot of love for people of other countries.

Why don't you move there and help them?

LT, the labeling and accusations of "hatred" are starting to remind me an awful lot of the two individuals on AH who refuse to accept the primary prerequisite of civil discourse, which is the presumption of good will in one's debate opponents. To be specific, the one for whom sneering at me has become something of an obsession. I've given you no cause to descend to that, unless you think disagreeing with you is sufficient justification.

Remember, this is AH, and we try to keep to the high road a bit more. I'm not claiming moral superiority in that, it's just tends to be the ethos here, and makes the place a little different than the typical Internet flame board. I know you appreciate that difference because you've said so. But it only stays this way because most people here appreciate it and make some effort to sustain it.

 

[Le Jacquelope]

LT, the labeling and accusations of "hatred" are starting to remind me an awful lot of the two individuals on AH who refuse to accept the primary prerequisite of civil discourse, which is the presumption of good will in one's debate opponents.

Deal with it. Your "you lack balance" and "get a grip" comments were just as nasty and un-called for.

To be specific, the one for whom sneering at me has become something of an obsession. I've given you no cause to descend to that, unless you think disagreeing with you is sufficient justification.

I've only responded to you in kind. Get a grip.

Remember, this is AH, and we try to keep to the high road a bit more. I'm not claiming moral superiority in that, it's just tends to be the ethos here, and makes the place a little different than the typical Internet flame board. I know you appreciate that difference because you've said so. But it only stays this way because most people here appreciate it and make some effort to sustain it.

Like I said, get a grip. Using your exact words.

 

[Le Jacquelope]

I don't have "hate" for government, I have well-warranted skepticism for it, and contempt for the dishonesty and disappointment that is its hallmark.

While ignoring the dishonesty inherent in the private industry.

Yes other nations health care costs are lower. That's because they explicitly ration care, and if you are above a certain age you don't get certain treatments. At any age you don't get certain state of the art treatments. They also ration dishonestly through waiting lists. The bottom line is, for all the problems of the U.S. health care system, and they are legion, it is the best in the world for people who actually get sick.

Funny, how no other nation is in any rush to implement the "best" health care system in the world. I wonder why.

Speaking of rationing care, we do that here by the way doctors groups limit the number of doctors entering the field. Also, donated organs are rationed. And if you can't pay for chemotherapy, good luck with that. America rations based on who has money. If you're poor, your only hope is the emergency room, no matter what your age is.

Some of that rationing in other countries is rational, such as extraordinary expenses for people in the last months and weeks of life. I would much prefer that rational decisions about end of life care were made voluntarily by individuals at an earlier stage in their lives, via the kind of insurance voucher system that I've described elsewhere, rather imposed by government fiat. Americans won't accept the latter, but they could be conditioned to accept the former. People could choose to pay a lot extra for insurance that covered such expenses, but most would decide that using that extra money to enjoy more life before their last days is a better use of it.

Speaking of insurance, insurance companies also ration. They've been busted in court for denying coverage to paying customers in countless cases.

Regular annual reminders of this choice in the form of invitations to acquire the extra insurance at ever higher prices as one ages would accomplish that "conditioning." Such a system is much more suited to American individualism than would be Big Brother handing down the "now you will accept death" mandate from Washington - that really wouldn't go over too well here. You watch and see - if we get a socialized system that Big Brother diktat will be part of it, but they'll hide the reality in dishonest obfuscation. You know they will.

Does it matter whether it's Government or corporations that say "now you will accept death"? Both "hide the reality in dishonest obfuscation."

 

[ccnyman]

Eh, so far you're not offering much more than blatant assertion yourself. And you're leaving out major issues like how free trade depressed the price of crops, which ruined farmers and then local banks as a direct consequence; and the over-investment of city banks in stocks and in foreign countries. This had a much bigger effect than any Government action.

This is always how you've argued. You make blanket assertions from headlines not examining the validity or the superficialness of the argument. Unlike Roxanne, I never was under the illusion you would offer rational discourse. My hope is that whoever reads these posts will find counter points to your argument and if they're interested, investigate further before drawing their own conclusion.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Number one threat to American economic security?


...buttfuckers.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Deal with it. Your "you lack balance" and "get a grip" comments were just as nasty and un-called for.


I've only responded to you in kind. Get a grip.


Like I said, get a grip. Using your exact words.

Alright, truce. "Get a grip" can be a bit confrontational, and although I meant it in good spirit, I accept your rebuke. "You lack balance" - well, I think many of your over-the-top assertions on this issue do, but I suppose I should say "your assertions lack balance," because the other might be interpreted as a personal attack.

I'll just say this: Civility doesn't mean we have to be mamby-pamby, or can't "throw an elbow" now and then. But accusing your debate opponent of being motivated by hatred goes beyond that, LT. Using shallow and inaccurate labels to characterize that opponent's views does also. You don't see me throwing around the 'L' word. (I mean the other "L" word.)

(Although I do call Gauche a flaming Marxist. I suppose the "flaming" is a bit excessive.)

 

[Le Jacquelope]

This is always how you've argued. You make blanket assertions from headlines not examining the validity or the superficialness of the argument.

Funny, how you're doing the very same thing right now.

Ever wonder why laissez-faire economics is not practiced anywhere in the world?

Unlike Roxanne, I never was under the illusion you would offer rational discourse. My hope is that whoever reads these posts will find counter points to your argument and if they're interested, investigate further before drawing their own conclusion.

Translation: I don't bow down to the Money God. You have a reputation of attacking and denigrating the arguments of anyone who disagrees with you.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Unlike Roxanne, I never was under the illusion you would offer rational discourse.

Alright, I chided LT, now let me share the grief: that part of your post is uncivil.
~~~~

Just because we disagree doesn't mean we have to get mean or squabble like children, damnit! These are worthy issues that generate great passion from well meaning people on all sides. We don't have to agree with each other, and we don't have to demean those who don't agree with us. We are wrong when we presume that they are not motivated by goodwill.

 

[Le Jacquelope]

Alright, truce. "Get a grip" can be a bit confrontational, and although I meant it in good spirit, I accept your rebuke. "You lack balance" - well, I think many of your over-the-top assertions on this issue do, but I suppose I should say "your assertions lack balance," because the other might be interpreted as a personal attack.

I'll just say this: Civility doesn't mean we have to be mamby-pamby, or can't "throw an elbow" now and then. But accusing your debate opponent of being motivated by hatred goes beyond that, LT. Using shallow and inaccurate labels to characterize that opponent's views does also. You don't see me throwing around the 'L' word. (I mean the other "L" word.)

(Although I do call Gauche a flaming Marxist. I suppose the "flaming" is a bit excessive.)

You mean "Liberal"? Heck, I'll own up to that. And if you're offended by being accused of being motivated by hatred, well I'll try to avoid that. Besides, indifference is the more accurate word.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

You mean "Liberal"? Heck, I'll own up to that. And if you're offended by being accused of being motivated by hatred, well I'll try to avoid that. Besides, indifference is the more accurate word.

Nope, that's no better. It's just saying, "I care about my fellow man, but you don't give a fuck either way." Just as much a denial of goodwill in the breast of your fellow AH debater as saying she is motivated by hatred.

Try again. Let me help: "I disagree with you. I think your premises and/or logic are in error, but that your motivations are just as noble as my own." Of course, that makes our tasks a bit more challenging - now we have to identify where we think the other's premises and/or logic are faulty. It's much easier to just say, "You're evil, and that's why you don't agree with me." It's the lazy man's way, and characterizes everything you see coming out of Dem or GOP HQ's, and probably every other internet debate forum other than this one. It's why most people hate politics and political debates, and it's out of place in a place where the goal is intellectual discourse.

 

[ccnyman]

Funny, how you're doing the very same thing right now.

Ever wonder why laissez-faire economics is not practiced anywhere in the world?


Translation: I don't bow down to the Money God. You have a reputation of attacking and denigrating the arguments of anyone who disagrees with you.

Yes, because laissez-faire economics necessitates people freely enter into transactions. It requires a democratic government impervious to pressure form interest groups plus a willingness for people to be responsible for their actions. Both require a great deal of courage and commitment.

As to my reputation, if you or anyone feels denigrated because you can't come up with good arguments, too bad. I don't bow to specious thought nor do I care to make nice to show how open minded I am. I don't bow to money for money's sake. I do respect rational thought, the rights of an individual, and freedom.

 

[amicus]

Yes, because laissez-faire economics necessitates people freely enter into transactions. It requires a democratic government impervious to pressure form interest groups plus a willingness for people to be responsible for their actions. Both require a great deal of courage and commitment.

As to my reputation, if you or anyone feels denigrated because you can't come up with good arguments, too bad. I don't bow to specious thought nor do I care to make nice to show how open minded I am. I don't bow to money for money's sake. I do respect rational thought, the rights of an individual, and freedom.

~~~



amicus

 

[Le Jacquelope]

Yes, because laissez-faire economics necessitates people freely enter into transactions. It requires a democratic government impervious to pressure form interest groups plus a willingness for people to be responsible for their actions. Both require a great deal of courage and commitment.

You're describing a perfect world. That ain't gonna happen as long as we're human beings. Courage and commitment don't even come close to what's needed here.

As to my reputation, if you or anyone feels denigrated because you can't come up with good arguments, too bad. I don't bow to specious thought nor do I care to make nice to show how open minded I am. I don't bow to money for money's sake. I do respect rational thought, the rights of an individual, and freedom.

You don't bow to thought at all, it seems. Your arguments are crap. Starting with your lack of understanding of how truly impossible it is to have a working laissez-faire system.

 

[amicus]

You're describing a perfect world. That ain't gonna happen as long as we're human beings. Courage and commitment don't even come close to what's needed here.


You don't bow to thought at all, it seems. Your arguments are crap. Starting with your lack of understanding of how truly impossible it is to have a working laissez-faire system.

~~~

Not that it matters as you will not comprehend, but reading your posts and what passes for 'thoughts', I suddenly realized that an apt title for you would be an "Evangelical Collectivist".

In every utterance of a religious fanatic, 'god' and the 'scriptures', is either openly appealed to or implicitly in their rhetoric.

You function precisely the same and it, as with them, has become automatic.

Stop to realize for just an instant, that when you speak wanting a 'fair trade', as opposed to a 'free trade' policy, you are advocating total control over trade by an outside agent, namely, government.

When you preach about 'health care', you have already decided that outside agents should determine the choices of medical personnel and the consumer, again, government.

It is part and parcel of every area you address: you want absolute and total control by an agency that neither produces or consumes; government.

Since I gather from the fervor of your rants, that like religious fanatics, you really believe all that shit and do not see your rabid condition.

I trust that others do, however see clearly and that when I suggest perhaps you and SG, at least admit your foundations, that you both go into attack mode and try to redirect the question.

Most all people fully realize the faults in communism and socialism and the precarious mixed economies of Europe and most people want no part of it, save the left over European wannabee's that seem to have nested in the crannies of the AH.

The Evangelical Left....heh, I like that!

Amicus...always amusing....

 

[Le Jacquelope]

Amicus, spare me your rants. Your fanatical inquisitor-style adherence to the religion of money, profits and the "Free market" are the stuff of AH legend.

America is and always will be partially socialist. I know that offends you, but too bad. Go find a desert island to create your laissez-faire utopia. We here in America are all stocked up on that brand of stupid; we ain't buyin' no mo'.

 

[amicus]

Amicus, spare me your rants. Your fanatical inquisitor-style adherence to the religion of money, profits and the "Free market" are the stuff of AH legend.

America is and always will be partially socialist. I know that offends you, but too bad. Go find a desert island to create your laissez-faire utopia. We here in America are all stocked up on that brand of stupid; we ain't buyin' no mo'.

~~~

America is and always will have thieves, rapists and murderers, yes, I know, we deal with criminals as best we can.

Socialism is a disease, like cancer, we learn to cure one form and a mutation appears elsewhere.

You are just the latest pimple of an outbreak and Clearasil is on the way.

Amicus the applicator

 

[Le Jacquelope]

~~~

America is and always will have thieves, rapists and murderers, yes, I know, we deal with criminals as best we can.

Socialism is a disease, like cancer, we learn to cure one form and a mutation appears elsewhere.

You are just the latest pimple of an outbreak and Clearasil is on the way.

Amicus the applicator

But in our country we don't see socialism as a crime.

Too bad, so sad. We do tend to commit people like you, though.

 

[ccnyman]

You're describing a perfect world. That ain't gonna happen as long as we're human beings. Courage and commitment don't even come close to what's needed here.


You don't bow to thought at all, it seems. Your arguments are crap. Starting with your lack of understanding of how truly impossible it is to have a working laissez-faire system.

Thank you, LT. Another one of your well reasoned, well thought out arguments. It's always such a pleasure to listen to your point of view.