Quote:
Originally posted by Spanky
By definition free trade acts undermine "labour protections". The reason why the Democrats are stopping it is they don't want to give Bush a win going into the congressional elections.
|
Only if you think of tariffs as labor protections, and I don't. You mentioned Rep. What's Her Name from CoCo County. She would vote for the right kind of free trade pact. Rep. DeLay doesn't want her getting business support. Connect the dots.
Quote:
|
For the California Chamber of commerce the biggest complaint coming from their members is liability issues. Are all the members just stupid? Don't understand how to run their businesses? You can quote me all the stats you want, but the bottom line is that small business owners are in the best position to judge what is threatening their businesses. I just can't fathom that anyone would disagree with that.
|
Burger, would you explain
Brunswick's holding about the difference between hurting competition and hurting competitors?
Quote:
|
Absolutely. He is turning that country into a Socialist dictatorship. And socialist dictatorships can last a very long time - see Cuba and Burma.
|
And the people there voted for him. What you are suggesting has no legitimacy at all.
Quote:
Where was I wrong?
1) Clinton was not against the Republican Spending cuts
2) Spending cuts do not help balance the budget.
3) Clinton did not criticise Dole and the Republicans for trying to "cut" Medicaid.
|
Clinton got balanced budgets passed. Once he left, your guys went on a bender. It's that simple.
Quote:
|
Economic risks is a different subject than free trade and growth. Those things you are talking about may hurt certain people and cause economic pain to certain groups but not the country as a whole. I am for growth. There is no questions that the entire legal system is a drain on growth. As much as you would like to believe they do, lawyers do not ad to the GNP. The more business litigation there is, the worse it is for business.
|
I worked on a case years ago that involved a dispute over the valuation of a business that was sold. They couldn't do a proper audit before the deal, for various reasons, so they agreed to litigate after the fact. In a country with an inferior legal system, you can't do this. In this way, the legal system helps growth.
Quote:
|
Workers Compensation was the number one issue for the California Chamber of Commerce when they helped Arnold get elected. I know this because half of the board of the Chamber also sits on my board. I was also there when the Chamber listed their complaints to then candidate Arnold. On most of the bills that go through the legislature the Chamber of Commerce is on one side and the Unions are on the other. The same is true of the trial lawyers. So somebody is taking the side against growth, a healthy business environment and free trade. They both can't be on the side of free trade, growth and a healthy business environment because they are almost always on different sides. Call me crazy, but when it comes to free trade, growth and a healthy business envornment I think such issues are better in the hands of the Chamber than the Unions and Trial lawyers. Do you disagree with that?
|
My comment above about [i]Brunswick[i] goes to the difference between helping markets function well, and helping businesses do well. There's a difference. Your guys speak the language of markets, but they're all too willing to carry water for businesses even when it has nothing to do with promoting competition on growth or the better functioning of the markets.
Unions play an important role. Their existence is not anti-competitive, any more than permitting concentrations of capital is. If you want to complain that unions are a drag on the markets, but have nothing to say about (e.g.) oligopolies, you're either not taking a balanced look at the situation, or you're more interested in helping people with money than helping people make money.
