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

[Roxanne Appleby]

I'm a teensy bit drunbk.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

I really, really hope you're not talking about the Berlin wall there. Because the answer would be no.

In fact you let Poland go, along with East Germany and many satellite states that would have been ambivalent about what form of totalitarian government they were landed with.

Oops, I just called "democracy" and "free enterprise" totalitarian. Where's MiAmico?

We "let them go?" How did we do that? In 1944 ande 1945 they were conquered and subjected to a harsh occupation for 45 years by the Evil Empire. What, are you saying Patton was right? Don't stop at the whatever - On to Moscow!

Or in 1949 don't send C-54s to Berlin - send B-29s to Moscow! Or maybe we should have let the nuke armed B-47s keep going in 1956 - Slim Pickens and all! Or the ICBMs in 1968? Yee-haw!

Some commie pinko you turn out to be! (See my previous post. )

 

[WRJames]

I don't know that those things work. I don't know that they don't work. Shit hapens - over time. It tends to happen in a certain direction, over time, with three steps forward and 2.5 back.

Poor venezuaela - one step forward, two steps back.

Well, nudging with sanctions and diplomacy is probably better, in most cases, than trying to do it the hard way -- Iraq is a good example of that. Sanctions and moral support eventually prevailed in South Africa, for example.

Now -- here is an interesting question -- if the rest of the world had applied sanctions and containment to Germany and Japan in the 1930's -- would it have worked? Instead, the US wanted nothing to do with those problems -- and they got out of control.

 

[Pure]

same question

pure: i hope someday you'll explain why you think you're 'classical liberal' and how your position resembles, say, Adam Smith's. it's not obvious.

rox's answer to a similar question: What makes me not one [classical liberal]? Did you read the article? I say I'm one, I think I'm one, my posts express nothing that contradicts this and lots that argue explicitly or implicitly for the point of view. Demonstrate that I'm not - I'm all ears. Same to Mr. Sneer.

P: that's not really adequate, rox; you were asked a civil question by two people, and "I say I'm one." isn't much of an answer.

if you were, for instance, to give a concise summary of Adam Smith's views, or JS Mills, and then say, "I think they are right on these points" it would help.

methodologically, why doesn't one take someone's word, say, amicus, that he's a defender of liberty and the individual, in the manner of the founding fathers. well, one looks first for an understanding.

if i may use an analogy. mitt romney and a typical mormon say they are Xtians, and in a way they are. but the differences with the mainstream are rather great: so much so that many mainstream Xtians do not agree that Mormons are Xtians; and even a tolerant mainstream person would say, 'there are rather substantial doctrinal and practical differences, though there are some commonalities, between, say, Lutherans and Mormons.'

 

[Le Jacquelope]

What makes me not one? Did you read the article? I say I'm one, I think I'm one, my posts express nothing that contradicts this and lots that argue explicitly or implicitly for the point of view. Demonstrate that I'm not - I'm all ears. Same to Mr. Sneer.

I didn't say you weren't. I just wanted a short run down, that's all.

I'm a ronin, an independent. I don't agree with everything the Left says, or much of what the Right says.

 

[Le Jacquelope]

Sanctions work, over time. Diplomacy works, over time. Most of these "despotic" nations have signed treaties for human rights that the US has dragged its feet on. For example -- look at the list of signatories for CEDAW (everyone EXCEPT the US, Saudi Arabia, and the Vatican).

CEDAW Signatories

Funny how the CEDAW talks about women's rights. I doubt any of these CEDAW signatories have women's rights nearly as comprehensive as the U.S.

 

[Pure]

correction

loving: Funny how the CEDAW talks about women's rights. I doubt any of these CEDAW signatories have women's rights nearly as comprehensive as the U.S.


oh come on. there are Germany, France, Denmark, and lots of very advanced countries.

probably what you meant is that MANY of the signatories.e.g., albania, have fewer women's rights.

 

[WRJames]

Funny how the CEDAW talks about women's rights. I doubt any of these CEDAW signatories have women's rights nearly as comprehensive as the U.S.

Probably not -- but they are willing to sign the treaty. The US is not. Does that tell you where this administration would like to take us?

 

[Le Jacquelope]

Probably not -- but they are willing to sign the treaty. The US is not. Does that tell you where this administration would like to take us?

It tells me where I'd like to take this administration...

 

[trysail]

Balance Sheet
The United States of America

Assets.....................................Liabilities

..............................................Social Security.......$10,400,000,000,000
..............................................Medicare................ 40,000,000,000,000
..............................................Treasury Debt............8,000,000,000,000

..............................................Total Liabilities........$58,000,000,000,000


Against these known liabilities, the government has the ability to tax:

The whole stock market.........................~$15,000,000,000,000
All of the privately owned real estate.....~35,000,000,000,000
(basically, that's the net worth of everybody in the whole country)

Now comes the $64,000 question: is the U.S. solvent? The answer is: yes, of course- the government can print money. The only problem with printing money is that when the government chooses that alternative, it automatically creates inflation. That's the choice Weimar Germany made- look at that outcome! So, if the government decided not to print money, where else can it get it? Well, the ugly answer is that it might be forced to tax away the entire net worth of all its citizens. That's right folks- even if you took away ALL of Bill Gates' money and all of Warren Buffett's money and all the money of all the rich people, there still isn't enough to pay for all the promises the politicians have made. Taking all the rich people's money (and everybody else's for that matter), of course, begs the question of why anyone would bother working if the government decides that it's simply going to take away everything anyone earns.

The politicians in this country may not have invented the concept of "something for nothing," but they sure as hell have perfected the art and science of it by promising everything to everybody.

 

[ccnyman]

Funny how the CEDAW talks about women's rights. I doubt any of these CEDAW signatories have women's rights nearly as comprehensive as the U.S.

Funny, I was going to write something along those lines, especially about China which has little respect for rights in general. It's funny because I didn't think we would agree on any point, but I like this one you made.

 

[xssve]

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.

You are, unfortunately, probobly correct, this administration has pretty much fucked everything up, including language, i.e., words no longer mean what they mean. Not meuch difference anymore between neo-cons and neo-liberals.

 

[Le Jacquelope]

Funny, I was going to write something along those lines, especially about China which has little respect for rights in general. It's funny because I didn't think we would agree on any point, but I like this one you made.

But you probably won't like it when I point out that every time someone buys "made in China", they're giving Chinese citizens more money to abort and strangle-at-birth more baby girls.

It's like giving money to Nazi Germany, but Germany killed far fewer Jews than China has killed girls.

Not only that but free trade with nations like that, seriously undermine the credibility of Western values. It proves that our values are not as profitable as China's.

And if China does happen to improve their human rights, some poorer nation with fewer human rights will undercut them. Thus again proving that nations with human rights is not as profitable for business as ones without.

 

[xssve]

Well, nudging with sanctions and diplomacy is probably better, in most cases, than trying to do it the hard way -- Iraq is a good example of that. Sanctions and moral support eventually prevailed in South Africa, for example.

Now -- here is an interesting question -- if the rest of the world had applied sanctions and containment to Germany and Japan in the 1930's -- would it have worked? Instead, the US wanted nothing to do with those problems -- and they got out of control.

The rest of the world did apply sanctions and containment to Germany in the 1930's - the result was conditions so harsh that it made National Socialism look attractive.

That's why we formulated the Marshall Plan the second time around, and that happened to work.

Of course, those who fail to learn from history..., etc.

 

[xssve]

pure: i hope someday you'll explain why you think you're 'classical liberal' and how your position resembles, say, Adam Smith's. it's not obvious.

rox's answer to a similar question: What makes me not one [classical liberal]? Did you read the article? I say I'm one, I think I'm one, my posts express nothing that contradicts this and lots that argue explicitly or implicitly for the point of view. Demonstrate that I'm not - I'm all ears. Same to Mr. Sneer.

P: that's not really adequate, rox; you were asked a civil question by two people, and "I say I'm one." isn't much of an answer.

if you were, for instance, to give a concise summary of Adam Smith's views, or JS Mills, and then say, "I think they are right on these points" it would help.

methodologically, why doesn't one take someone's word, say, amicus, that he's a defender of liberty and the individual, in the manner of the founding fathers. well, one looks first for an understanding.

if i may use an analogy. mitt romney and a typical mormon say they are Xtians, and in a way they are. but the differences with the mainstream are rather great: so much so that many mainstream Xtians do not agree that Mormons are Xtians; and even a tolerant mainstream person would say, 'there are rather substantial doctrinal and practical differences, though there are some commonalities, between, say, Lutherans and Mormons.'

The Smithian paradigm leads almost unavaoidably to the very government by consensus that Roxanne is describing, and which the framers of the constitution provided the framework for - in which paradigm the exclusive justification for government is to protect the rights of the individual from tyranny - whether than be from other countries, or other Americans, including corporations, and even the government itself.

Both systems are based on self interest in competition, a basic recognition that all political power is through consensus, and the only way to ensure that all varieties of consensus are at least represented is to ensure the means of consusus formation, freedom of speech, freedom from coercion to curtail same, etc. - essentially the entire bill of rights being designed to protect consensus formation - then allow these competing consensus formations to scrap it out in the respective legislative bodies, with the courts, SCOTUS in prarticular, ideally, playing referee and assessing the resulting legislation with respect to it's recognition of the Constitution.

For the sake of economic growth, it has been extended to collective managment of public investment, in infrastructure, etc., and you might say that this is where the barn door was left open, as currently, we've come full circle back to where a sizable consensus appears to believe that the governments sole raison d'être is to protect profits rather than rights, in absolute contradiction to the spirit and intent of both capitalism and a constitutional republic.

i.e., we're very close to being back to the merchantilist, neo-theocratic monarchy the country was founded in opposition to.

 

[xssve]

Under such conditions, it's only natural that bought and paid for speech is going to speak louder than "free" speech.

 

[ccnyman]

But you probably won't like it when I point out that every time someone buys "made in China", they're giving Chinese citizens more money to abort and strangle-at-birth more baby girls.

It's like giving money to Nazi Germany, but Germany killed far fewer Jews than China has killed girls.

Not only that but free trade with nations like that, seriously undermine the credibility of Western values. It proves that our values are not as profitable as China's.

And if China does happen to improve their human rights, some poorer nation with fewer human rights will undercut them. Thus again proving that nations with human rights is not as profitable for business as ones without.

I try to avoid buying anything made in China, but it's gotten too hard. I don't like to do business with a country that's repressive.

Businesses do not act correctly or legally just because they're businesses. The role of the government is to protect an individual's rights not only from other individuals, but from any entity (businesses, government agencies, etc.).

 

[xssve]

I boycotted cocaine back in the Eighties - boy did that line get me a lot of stares.

 

[ishtat]

I try to avoid buying anything made in China, but it's gotten too hard. I don't like to do business with a country that's repressive.

I agree and it's so difficult when they start invading third world countries for no good reason and try to imprison their adversaries illegally and outside the scope of any acceptable legal system.

 

[ccnyman]

I agree and it's so difficult when they start invading third world countries for no good reason and try to imprison their adversaries illegally and outside the scope of any acceptable legal system.

Ahhh, yes those wonderful third world countries where:
- your family has to pay for the bullet they execute you with;
- women get stoned for having sex without being married;
- you can freely speak your mind if you don't mind being arrested or if they don't want to go through the trouble, just disappear;
- if a village proves bothersome, just send them some gas;
- it's a sport to hijack jet liners and fly them into buildings since after all, killing 3,000 infidels is not killing at all.

Virtual paradises. I'm not sure how much longer I'll be able to resist.

 

[WRJames]

But you probably won't like it when I point out that every time someone buys "made in China", they're giving Chinese citizens more money to abort and strangle-at-birth more baby girls.

It's like giving money to Nazi Germany, but Germany killed far fewer Jews than China has killed girls.

Not only that but free trade with nations like that, seriously undermine the credibility of Western values. It proves that our values are not as profitable as China's.

And if China does happen to improve their human rights, some poorer nation with fewer human rights will undercut them. Thus again proving that nations with human rights is not as profitable for business as ones without.

As long as you have half the world population living (if you can call it that) on two dollars a day or less, you are going to have an uncontrollabel downward pressure on wages. See Global poverty stats

What are the possible solutions?

1. Build a big wall around the first world nations and let the rest of the world rot -- problem if you like things like chocolate and bananas

2. Let the excess population die of starvation and AIDs -- seems to be our current tactic -- but it probably isn't going to work. Too many bleeding hearts with video cameras documenting the misery in the refugee camps.

3. Spread enough prosperity to raise global wages to an acceptable level . Slow -- yes. Painful -- probably. But do you have a better solution?

 

[Le Jacquelope]

As long as you have half the world population living (if you can call it that) on two dollars a day or less, you are going to have an uncontrollabel downward pressure on wages. See Global poverty stats

What are the possible solutions?

1. Build a big wall around the first world nations and let the rest of the world rot -- problem if you like things like chocolate and bananas

2. Let the excess population die of starvation and AIDs -- seems to be our current tactic -- but it probably isn't going to work. Too many bleeding hearts with video cameras documenting the misery in the refugee camps.

3. Spread enough prosperity to raise global wages to an acceptable level . Slow -- yes. Painful -- probably. But do you have a better solution?

3. Will come back to bite itself on the butt because of the lower purchasing power of the West and the Depression that it is going to cause.

I go for option 1 because I care about my country and my people and I don't desire to impoverish us to enrich others. Because that goes back to us being unable to support the rest of the world and the whole world - us included - goes down anyway. Then nobody prospers. Except the arms dealers.

How about
4. These 3rd world nations clean up their act just like we did?

 

[xssve]

How about
4. These 3rd world nations clean up their act just like we did?

Really, all they need is vast virgin continent, an astounding wealth of untouched resources, uninhabited save for a few pesky natives - clearly, it was our great moral transcendence that elevates us over the remaining squalid mass of slothful and perversely impious humanity.

 

[xssve]

Sorry to jump you there LT, but it's an oft overlooked factor in our wild success - our immigrant ancestors came from countries where they slept stacked like cordwood, were grateful for a crust, and were routinely treated generally worse than they treated the Native Americans, and in many cases, worse than they treated even the Blacks - rape, torture and mass murder were popular forms of medieval entertainment, starvation and disease were the rule, not the exception. Read Panati's Extraordinary Endings sometime, or RW Southerns The Making of the Middle Ages, Michalet's Satanism and Witchcraft. Camalot it weren't.

Coming to America, we're talking Christmas in July here, woohoo!

 

[cloudy]

were routinely treated generally worse than they treated the Native Americans

*ahem*

I think that would depend on who you asked. From where I sit, you can hardly be treated worse than attempted genocide.