Offering constructive criticism to the social cripples in our midst since early 2005.

[Spanky]

No one has explained to me why an economically screwed up Europe is good news. Isn't the EU one of if not the biggest trading partners of the US?

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Spanky
America has never really followed the rest of the world on this.

If America doesn't count, then you are generalizing to the whole world based on . . . Europe.

Somehow this seems problematic to me.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Spanky
America has never really followed the rest of the world on this. Our birth rates are not as low as the rest of the developed world. However, I think that today we are slightly below the 2.1 parity point but our immigration keeps us on the positive side (reason 3345789 that closing of the border with Mexico would be a bad idea).

I understand all of that, but it all contradicts Hello's argument. If the safety net causes the birthrate to drop, then you would expect the birthrate to be lower in the late 50s and early 60s than it is now, when the safety net is less solid than it was.

What causes a reduced birthrate? Prosperity is surely one thing -- the knowledge that you don't need lots of kids to support you. But this country has been prosperous for quite some time, and the birthrate has fluctuated substantially during that time. Greater opportunity for women is probably a more significant cause than any other factor -- as women pursue educations and careers, they are less likely to have children, particularly earlier in their lives. If you don't start breeding in your 20s, you are likely to have fewer, or even no, kids.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
If America doesn't count, then you are generalizing to the whole world based on . . . Europe.

Somehow this seems problematic to me.

In case you missed that part of Geography class, there is more to the world than the USA and Europe.

Most Developed: Japan, Canada (minus immigratoin) - negative growth rate
Pretty well developed: South Korea, Taiwan, Chile and Singapre - low to zero growth rate.
Underdeveloped - High growth rate - Phillipines, Honduras, Guatemala, Egypt, Algeria etc.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Spanky
In case you missed that part of Geography class, there is more to the world than the USA and Europe.

Most Developed: Japan, Canada (minus immigratoin) - negative growth rate
Pretty well developed: South Korea, Taiwan, Chile and Singapre - low to zero growth rate.
Underdeveloped - High growth rate - Phillipines, Honduras, Guatemala etc.

Sorry, on the basis of Europe and a tiny, tiny bit of the far east. My mistake.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
I understand all of that, but it all contradicts Hello's argument. If the safety net causes the birthrate to drop, then you would expect the birthrate to be lower in the late 50s and early 60s than it is now, when the safety net is less solid than it was.

What causes a reduced birthrate? Prosperity is surely one thing -- the knowledge that you don't need lots of kids to support you. But this country has been prosperous for quite some time, and the birthrate has fluctuated substantially during that time. Greater opportunity for women is probably a more significant cause than any other factor -- as women pursue educations and careers, they are less likely to have children, particularly earlier in their lives. If you don't start breeding in your 20s, you are likely to have fewer, or even no, kids.

The big exception you left out is Russia. They have probably the biggest negative growth rate and they are not very well developed. So clearly female education, access to birth control (developed Latin American countrys have higher birth rates than their counterparts in the rest of the world) and woman's rights are a big factor.

However, having said that, their is high a correlation between increasing PCI and decreasing population growth rates. It is a pretty safe bet if you want to reduce a populations growth rate you just increase its PCI.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
I understand all of that, but it all contradicts Hello's argument. If the safety net causes the birthrate to drop, then you would expect the birthrate to be lower in the late 50s and early 60s than it is now, when the safety net is less solid than it was.

What causes a reduced birthrate? Prosperity is surely one thing -- the knowledge that you don't need lots of kids to support you. But this country has been prosperous for quite some time, and the birthrate has fluctuated substantially during that time. Greater opportunity for women is probably a more significant cause than any other factor -- as women pursue educations and careers, they are less likely to have children, particularly earlier in their lives. If you don't start breeding in your 20s, you are likely to have fewer, or even no, kids.

I don't think it contradicts it at all, and the women's rights thing is surely not the strongest correlation... at least because some places outside of Europe (I'm thinking Japan and Korea) don't exactly have the strongest and most balanced history of this stuff.

As for prosperity, I think you need prosperity before people let the government really start massively spending on retirements security. A poor America might not tolerate the spending that a rich America does for something like Social Security. But hey, we have money, let's do it.

Other factors: People's willingness to trust this system. Over time, maybe this system gains trust (some time after the Depression and WWII). People reaaaallly adjust their behavior and expecations accordingly.

Immigration: immigrants need some time to get used to this idea too. I'd bet immigrants have disproportionately more children than native born Americans do (only considering what they do when they get here). Evidence to the contrary would make me raise my eyebrows.

Your women's rights thing surely plays into it. But how do we get a society that accepts and advocates women's rights? Well, it goes right back to the bedpan theory. I don't need Martha to change my bedpan no more, so what do I care if she don't need me no more.. I don't really need her so much either (partly because I don't need kids either... b/c uncle Fritz is gonna change my bedpan).

Anyway, there are obviously a lot of interrelated causes here. But I'd bet dollars to Fringey's dinner that the strongest correlation you could find by regression is between declining birthrate and the increasing guarantee (if "guarantee" and "trust in" could be measured) of a social umbrella, especially for the elderly.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
This is bad news: One of the effects of economic development and education is that you reduce the population growth. Japan has a really bad case of this. If China and India keep growing economically then they will hit the same problem. This is a problem because most of the muslim world's population is growing by leaps and bounds. North Africa and Persia especially. In these countries you have slow to no growth, and tons of new young people with no job prospects. If we stop buying their oil the problem will become seriously acute. That is what I call fertile ground for more terrorists. The only solution to this problem is get governments in the Middle East that encourage economic growth. The Baathists, that used to be in power in Iraq and still are in power in Syria are Arab nationalist socialist parties. In other words socialist governments that prevent economic growth and consequently encourage population growth. Anti-western sentiment in the region led to anti-capitalsim. Our only hope is to have governments in the Middle east that embrace policies of economic growth.

Oh but wait - I forgot - we are not suppose to encourage governments in the middle east to let evil multi-nationals exploit them and we shouldn't be knocking out bad regimes. I guess we should just cross our fingers and hope for the best.

Since you seem to think that whoever has the biggest population wins, why don't you submit this plan to our Chinese and Indian overlords?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Spanky, read this if you want to see how free-trade-supporting Democrats can come out against CAFTA. DeLong is pro-free trade in a big way.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Since you seem to think that whoever has the biggest population wins, why don't you submit this plan to our Chinese and Indian overlords?

That one went completely by me.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Spanky, read this if you want to see how free-trade-supporting Democrats can come out against CAFTA. DeLong is pro-free trade in a big way.

Did you actually read what the Blog said. These comments are from the "Center for American Progress". Not exactly an unbiased source. Not really a free trade group. The purpose of a free trade agreement is to increase free trade. And CAFTA does that. All these criticisms of CAFTA critisize it for not doing things that have anything to do with free trade. Its only crticisms are:

1) by imposing, for example, obligations to provide certain forms of intellectual property protection....

Is this such a terrible thing. Protecting intellectual property.

2) the rule of origin in the textile provisions is sufficiently restrictive that it may impede the ability of industries in the DR-CAFTA countries to remain competitive....

This makes no sense to me.

3) The refusal of the Administration to include enforceable labor standards in the agreement, despite the well-documented absence of basic international labor protections in some of the DR-CAFTA countries, is a missed opportunity....

This is a free trade agreement. Not a international labor agreement.

4) the Administration is not dedicating the long-term resource and financial commitments necessary to realize the environmental goals of the agreement.

They should be happy it has environmental goals. Again this is a free trade agreement.

5) The Administration's insistence on a provision that forbids DR-CAFTA countries from using test data submitted by one pharmaceutical company to approve a similar drug of another pharmaceutical company could increase the cost of much-needed drugs in the region....

This needs more explanation but is getting pretty nitpicky.

6) Existing safety net programs such as extended unemployment insurance and trade adjustment assistance (TAA) already fall far short of needed support. Yet... the Administration has tightened the eligibility requirements....

Again - nothing to do with the Free Trade Agreement.

7) On DR-CAFTA, as with each previous trade agreement, the Administration has failed to engage in bipartisan consultation.

This is such BS. It is either a good agreement or not whether or not he kissed up to egotistical and childesh congressman.

As much as the Dems try and cloud the issue, this Agreement reduces tarrifs and subsidies. That is always a good thing. Every group that matters (to me anyway) supports this agreement. Are you saying the DLC is wrong to support it?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
Did you actually read what the Blog said. The purpose of a free trade agreement is to increase free trade. And CAFTA does that. All these criticisms of CAFTA critisize it for not doing things that have anything to do with free trade.

Newsflash: Under the rubric of "free trade," your party is negotiating treaties to weaken things like environmental protection, workplace safety, etc. If you don't like this, you have a problem with CAFTA.

Its only crticisms are:

1) by imposing, for example, obligations to provide certain forms of intellectual property protection....

Is this such a terrible thing. Protecting intellectual property.

I think the authors' problem is with the specific form, not with the concept of intellectual property.

2) the rule of origin in the textile provisions is sufficiently restrictive that it may impede the ability of industries in the DR-CAFTA countries to remain competitive....

This makes no sense to me.

It's protectionism for (American) textiles.

3) The refusal of the Administration to include enforceable labor standards in the agreement, despite the well-documented absence of basic international labor protections in some of the DR-CAFTA countries, is a missed opportunity....

This is a free trade agreement. Not a international labor agreement.

That's their problem, eh? Are you in favor of forcing American workers to compete with workers in other countries who lack even the most basic enforceable labor standards? That's not a level playing field.

4) the Administration is not dedicating the long-term resource and financial commitments necessary to realize the environmental goals of the agreement.

They should be happy it has environmental goals. Again this is a free trade agreement.

Whatever.

5) The Administration's insistence on a provision that forbids DR-CAFTA countries from using test data submitted by one pharmaceutical company to approve a similar drug of another pharmaceutical company could increase the cost of much-needed drugs in the region....

This needs more explanation but is getting pretty nitpicky.

It's policy. Not fashionable in comtemporary GOP circles. You guys usually just let the lobbyists do it.

6) Existing safety net programs such as extended unemployment insurance and trade adjustment assistance (TAA) already fall far short of needed support. Yet... the Administration has tightened the eligibility requirements....

Again - nothing to do with the Free Trade Agreement.

It's says "the Administration has tightened the eligibility requirements." That's CAFTA. Do you like the actual deal, or your fuzzy conception of it?

7) On DR-CAFTA, as with each previous trade agreement, the Administration has failed to engage in bipartisan consultation.

This is such BS. It is either a good agreement or not whether or not he kissed up to egotistically congressman.

I think points 1-6 were establishing that it's not a good deal, and then 7 suggests why.

This Agreement reduces tarrifs and subsidies. That is always a good thing. Every group that matter (to me anyway) supports this agreement. Are you saying the DLC is wrong to support it?

If DeLong is against it, I trust his judgment. Not every treaty is good just because someone slapped a "Free Trade" label on it.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Newsflash: Under the rubric of "free trade," your party is negotiating treaties to weaken things like environmental protection, workplace safety, etc. If you don't like this, you have a problem with CAFTA.

Newsflash: "My party" is doing nothing of the sort. The people in your party a bitching because environmental protections and labour stuff were not added to the treat. The appropriate word is added. They are trying to use this free trade agreement to pursue another agenda. Again - like I said this is a free trade agreement.

I may not like the test ban tready because it does not also include banning mines. But that doesn't make the test ban treaty bad.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I think the authors' problem is with the specific form, not with the concept of intellectual property..

Well it would be nice if he explained it. Unlike you, just because this guy says so is not enough for me.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
It's protectionism for (American) textiles.

While that may be true, it still reduced the protection of American textiles. So what is there is not the best, but it is a lot better than the restriction we have now - is it not?

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop That's their problem, eh? Are you in favor of forcing American workers to compete with workers in other countries who lack even the most basic enforceable labor standards? That's not a level playing field.

You are going to force these countrys to adopt all our OSIA safety regulations? These countrys are a lot less developed so they can't afford to pay their workers the same or have the same regulation requirements. It would be nice if their economies grew to the point where they could be on par with our workers, but, of course, it is going to take them longer to get there if the free trade act is not implemented.

This is just a smoke screen. This is a free trade agreement. We just need to cut down the trade barriers. There is no way to make the playing field even. Even if those these disparities exist the free trade agreement is better for all countrys involved. That is the basic theory of free trade. If you are against free trade, just say it instead of hiding behind all this worker and environmental stuff.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop Whatever.

Interesting - that is the same argument my seven year old niece uses.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop It's policy. Not fashionable in comtemporary GOP circles. You guys usually just let the lobbyists do it.

No idea what this means.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop It's says "the Administration has tightened the eligibility requirements." That's CAFTA. Do you like the actual deal, or your fuzzy conception of it.

My understanding is that this has nothing to do with the treaty. With or without the treaty the administration is tightening the eligibility requirements. Why they are doing this I don't know. I am not going to make assumptions. But this is a separate issue from free trade and CAFTA.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop I think points 1-6 were establishing that it's not a good deal, and then 7 suggests why.

Yes letting congressman who are not really for free trade anyway, try and attach "labor protection amendments" is really going to help. Thats like having having Henry Hyde get his say on a contraceptive bill. Not really productive.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop If DeLong is against it, I trust his judgment. Not every treaty is good just because someone slapped a "Free Trade" label on it.

That is nice you trust him. Good for you and him. Some treaties are not really free trade treaties that are called them but this one is. This one does exactly what free trade treaties are supposed to do . It reduces tariffs and subsidies. The more you ad "Labour protections" and "environmental protections" it becomes less of a free trade treaty and more of us telling other countrys how they should treat labour and the environment. I believe that reducing tariffs and subsidies in this country is good. I also believe that other countrys benefit from this to. I would also like to see other countrys develop better labour standards and environmental standards but am not willing to use free trade agreements as leverage to get these governments to adopt what we believe are the environmental and trade standards they should adopt. In addition, these sort of "riders" when attached to free trade bills are often smoke screens for protectionism. That is why it is better to separate these issues from the free trade agreements and let the agreements do what they are defined to do - increase free trade.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Spanky
No one has explained to me why an economically screwed up Europe is good news. Isn't the EU one of if not the biggest trading partners of the US?

FWIW, that's not what I was saying.

One telltale clue to this from my original post was the reference to the Amsterdam street vendor. Being pro-women's rights and anti-exploitation and all, had I supported Europe's demise, I never would've referred to her providing discounts in a positive light.

Carry on.

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by Spanky
Newsflash: "My party" is doing nothing of the sort. The people in your party a bitching because environmental protections and labour stuff were not added to the treat. The appropriate word is added. They are trying to use this free trade agreement to pursue another agenda. Again - like I said this is a free trade agreement.

So, what exactly are the proper subjects to be included in a free trade agreement? I assume that forbiding a governmental subsidy to a local industry is one. Why? Because this makes the competition unfair, and penalizes the firm not getting the subsidy. That's why Boeing is pissed about Airbus.

Similarly, if a country doesn't enforce labor and environmental laws, businesses that operate in that country have an unfair advantage. Their costs are kept artificially low relative to businesses in other countries by the actions of their governement. Thus, Not Free Trade.

How are the two different?

One objection to CAFTA is noted by David Broder in his column http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...61502158.html:

• But the administration is not prepared to do what Clinton did in the Jordan agreement -- to apply exactly the same remedies to violations of labor and environmental standards that it would impose for violations of the agreement's commercial standards. To many Democrats, that represents retreat.