CAFTA
 

You're not reading very carefully. CAFTA includes provisions about, e.g., labor protections as well. For whatever reason -- I'm banking on a hostility to labor protections -- it does not included the sorts of enforcement provisions that have been in previous free trade agreements. You don't seem to what to defend this on the substance, you just don't want to talk about it.

This make no sense. Most businesses that have to abide by environmental and workplace protections want their competitors to have to play by the same rules. This is why market-based emissions-credit trading programs work.

Is there some reason why you want U.S. businesses to have to compete on an unfair playing field? Are you just that hostile to the idea of protecting the environment, or workplace safety?

CAFTA
 

I'm not sure it's that, so much as a preference to take one's trading partner where one finds them, and an unshakable faith that trade is an elixir that will lift labor requirements, environmental standards, and dental hygine all on its own.

Considering such factors as part of the treaty-negotiating exercise delays the time at which American companies can move in and set up shop, and therefore is extraneous at best, and at worst fucks up a really good tarriff-elimination plan. The market will solve these problems, as long as it doesn't relate to SDI or stem cells.

It's quite simple, really.

Liberal hunt.
 

I think you have this backwards. The risk is not the problem, the return is.

Companies always take risks on possibly failing products, because there's a reward of selling something profitable. They take calculated, reasonable risks.

The reason there's no private development of SDI is because the market is very limited. There's one customer (sorry, no US company is going to be allowed to sell to anyone else), and they'll probably drive a hard bargain. Given that's the situation, the government has to commit to making a purchase in advance, but funding the development and guaranteeing a purchase of some sort (or at least funding the costs, so that the company doesn't throw away the money).

So it's not like disease research, other than in very limited circumstances (e.g., Orphan Drugs), where we do provide money to research cures for rare diseases, as market incentives (i.e., too small a market) would be insufficient to develop cures.

CAFTA
 

So what are your thoughts on Larry Summers's proposal to export toxic waste to third-world countries?

Way to go, Spanky.
 

This is the most sensible thing I have ever seen you post.

Liberal hunt.
 

2.

CAFTA
 

I am not familiar with it.

Not necessarily backwards.
 

In stem cell research (and other extremely long-tail research projects) the potential return is too far into the future to justify the expenditure on normal risk-reward metrices. This is a functional equivalent of defense research, where thed market is too attenuated to be accounted for.

There's actually a greater case for stem cell funding at this stge than there is for orphan drugs, because the potential market is zero and will be for decades. At this point, we don't even know that embryonic stem cells can be trained to develop in the needed way. Once that has been determined, the health care industry is still looking at extensive development to get to the testing stage.

The reason to fund stem cell research is that it has the potential to one day cure diseases which are not currently curable, and to reverse conditions which are not currently reversible. The possibility is simply too great not to fund.

CAFTA
 

I know there are labor provisions. What makes you think I didn't know. I just explained why the labor enforcement provisions in this bill are less stringent than in NAFTA. I could get into a substantive debate about that, but one step at a time. The whole labor thing is really a side issue that does not affect the free trade issue. First I was trying to point out that no matter what the bill says about labor, it is still a good bill because it reduces tariffs. The bill is better than the status quo - wouldn't you agree with that?


I am sure american businesses will be glad to hear you are on their side. I think American business knows what is good for them and you don't need to tell them what is. American business don't want labor provisions or environmental provisions becase they want free trade. They understand that the elimination of tariffs is good for everyone. Full stop. This other stuff does not really help and just prevents good deals from getting though. I saw Anna Eshoo make this ridiculous pitch at a high tech meeting to a bunch of businesses that did not have any employees outside of the US. There response was, we just want free trade. If we can sell our products over seas we can compete we just need the chance. Like I said, we can trust businesses to know what is good for them.

Way to go, Spanky.
 

Mistake

Not necessarily backwards.
 

2. And you are part of the fourth column if you disagree because you want Americans to stay weak and diseased so the Chinese can take us over.

Not necessarily backwards.
 

If anyone is concerned about weak and diseased Americans being enslaved by the Mongol hordes, I suggest there are more cost-effective ways to treat them than funding stem cell research.

Not necessarily backwards.
 

I hear that argument a lot for businesses generally--they underinvest in things for which the return comes too slowly. While there may be such a systematic bias, I don't see how one can distinguish between using taxpayer dollars to overcome that bias with respect to stem cells, but not with respect to a host of other things that business purportedly irrationally fail to invest in.

Moreover, even within the medical research arena, the distribution of federal funding is influenced more by interest group politics than any rational calculus of risk and reward. I'm not sure how one can pick out stem cell research for some favored treatment just because it offers such promise.

Not necessarily backwards.
 

Well, then I guess I have a reason to be thankful you aren't setting our national health care policy, don't I?

CAFTA
 

I think I already said that the question is not whether the bill is better than the status quo -- it is whether the bill is better than a different bill. Under the status quo, we were negotiating a free trade bill. With CAFTA adopted, there will be no will to return to these questions, I think.

I swear to God, it's like you're not bothering to read my posts. Please, show me some sign that you've read what I said re this.

OK, I can play the game your way. Business wants to compete on a level playing field with foreign businesses. That's what they all want. Why do you want American businesses to try to compete with one hand behind their back? Why do you hate America?