Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
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.
|
The entire business community is behind the deal. If it was just a Republican fix that wouldn't be the case. The deal will help American business, which will lead to growth. That is all we need to know.
Quote:
|
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop Burger, would you explain Brunswick's holding about the difference between hurting competition and hurting competitors?.
|
I have no idea what this means.
Quote:
|
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop And the people there voted for him. What you are suggesting has no legitimacy at all
|
Legitamacy? What does that mean? He is ruining that country and condemning future generations of the country to poverty. Everyone knows it. The US should do whatever they can do to undermine him. Venezuela is never going to get to the $4,000 PCI (or grow a strong middle class) if this bozo continues in office. If you really want a lasting stable democracy in Venezuela, the sooner this guy goes the better. Whatever the means.
Quote:
|
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop Clinton got balanced budgets passed. Once he left, your guys went on a bender. It's that simple.
|
You need to retake a civics course. Congress is responsible for the budget. Clintons proposed budgets were dead on arrival. The Republicans put together budgets and all Clinton did was force them to lessen their spending cuts. That was what the government shut down was all about. If Clinton did not get his way the budget would have been balanced sooner and the surpluses would have been larger. But if you are going to give the President responsibility for the budget the last budget Clinton signed (2001) was in deficit. Of course the current deficit is all about wasteful spending and nothing to do with the fact that we had a recession and we are in a war.
Quote:
|
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop 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.
|
Well you get a gold star. But one case is surely not a representative sample to demonstrate litigations effect on business.
Quote:
|
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop 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
|
You are putting the cart before the horse. The whole point is growth. That is why you have free markets because they are better at growing the economy. If you have well functioning markets, but business suffer that ruins the goal. If it takes screwed up markets to get growth, then you have screwed up markets. We carry water for the businesses, because they are what create the growth. Is there something else besides growing businesses that leads to growth. You make it sound like if we have fair markets and protect peoples pension that that in intself will bring growth regardless of the business climate. There are reasons to restrict businesses - environment etc. But balancing Business Interests with Union interests does not optimize growth. You may help the unions because it is fair, but thriving businesses equal growth.
Quote:
|
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop 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.
|
I don't mind Unions. I just mind it when they influence laws. Every law they seem to support today is antigrowth. If they would just try and stop protecting their jobs through laws (which by definition are anti-competitive) I wouldn't mind them at all. The bottom line is Unions don't create growth, Pensions don't create growth, SEC regulations don't create growth, businesses create growth. It is all about the business climate. You asked me why I am a Republican when economic growth is my objective and I have demonstrated that the Republicans support pro-growth policies. If they didn't, the Chamber wouldn't support them.
PS. T-Rex, I know we are having fun here but we might be driving everyone crazy. I will let you have the last word. And that bender comment was a great line. I actually laughed out loud at my computer.
