CAFTA
 

The idea in the beginning was the dropping all tariffs benefits everyone. The dynamic has changed because of the need to appease liberals. When Reagan was asked why he didn't institute retaliatory tariffs his response was - why should I stick holes on my side of the boat if he is sticking holes on his side of the boat. He understood economics much better than you do.


There are two possiblilities. Either the Bush administration does not think they are good or they were asked and turned down. Either way they are not going to be included. If they didn't ask they have a different view of trade policy than I do. But that really does not matter. I am not President. And the treaty has already been signed and is on the Fast Trak. So when the option is up or down you need to make the call. CAFTA does the main thing it is intended for - reducing tariffs. It would have been nice to ad labor and environmental stuff but those are just extras. It would also be nice if he forgave some of their debt. But that aint happening either.

CAFTA
 

If not game theory.

For that matter, none of us got a vote, so under this reasoning there's no point in discussing any of it. To make Hank happier, I now succumb to your reasoning.

CAFTA
 

This kind of reminds me of the whole Mental Health "Parity" thing where you can't have a different dollar limit on mental health coverage than on other medical coverage (if you provide mental health coverage), so companies/insurers just slapped on limits on how many treatment sessions people could have. Which in a regulatory kind of way, resulted in costs never exceeding whatever cap they might want to put on.

So what's up with Rove?

CAFTA
 

Right



I think I have agreed with this as well.


I thought I heard you say that the anti free trade stuff in CAFTA out weighed the Free trade stuff making CAFTA on balance not a free trade agreemenht. In fact I am sure you did. CAFTA cuts tariffs (completely) but doesn't create a level playing field. So does that mean you support it?


You think your idea of parallel regulation is so widely accpeted that I have got the definition of free trade wrong and such definition is used for other ends. And don't you think if parallel regulations were important to business that someone somewhere would mention it. And I did not say trade association I said any business.


Again. That is what you argued. You argued which I pointed out as proposition one. The Free trade lost by parallels outweighs the free trade benefit of cutting tariffs.

He argues #2. Which you did not support. That the loss of the other aspects, labour and environment, outweight the free trade aspect.



Cardin does not support CAFTA because it does not provide an enforcemnt mechanism of labour rules provided for in NAFTA. He does not make the argument that the lack of this provision makes the agreement less free.


This doesn't make sense because it hasn't only been this administration. The business community could have cared less about the environmental provisions and labor provisions in NAFTA. The Chamber was worried that Clinton was going to screw it up. If you told a lobbyist your theory about parallel regulations they would laugh.

To the Bookmobile . . .
 

Why don't the rest of us decamp to the big board, and take over spanky's book discussion. Ty and spanky can carry on here.

To the Bookmobile . . .
 

No worries. I'm done with free trade ("free trade"), and Spanky probably won't keep posting on it if I quit replying.

To the Bookmobile . . .
 

I tried, but Spanky called me a gay. I'll stay here. It may be boring, but it's safe.

To the Bookmobile . . .
 

What's wrong with being called gay?

To the Bookmobile . . .
 

There is nothing wrong with that.


It was his tone of voice.

To the Bookmobile . . .
 

Not "gay", silly. "A gay". There's a world of difference, you know.

To the Bookmobile . . .
 

I thought we determined that Shifter was bi, no? Or is it Lucky Pierre and Lucky Jacques?

To the Bookmobile . . .
 

Don't be so sure. As you have stated before, I can make up arguments, atribute them to you and then argue against them.

In between name dropping posts of course.

To the Bookmobile . . .
 

Just trying to help you get out of the closet. The first step is a doozey. But from what I have heard, the more steps you take the easier it gets.

Query
 

Question:

I have heard many heterosexual guys say that they can't really be friends with a good looking women because they are always thinking of ways to get them in bed.

I have homosexual men tell me that the reason they have so many friends that are women because they really can't be good friends with a good looking guy because they are always trying to get them in bed.

So does that mean a bi-sexual man can't have any good looking friends?

Query
 

Are you going to ACL this year?