Still Hating America.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Adder
I'm not actually sure what is on the table at the moment, the only current protectionist policy that I am sure of is the steel tariffs. And it is pretty clear which workers would be "hurt" by (rightly) opening that industry to competition. I suspect that there are agriculture segments that could have be in similar circumstances.

If all steel tariffs and quotas and agricultural subsidies were ended tomorrow it would negatively impact less than one percent of the population. So the point being that most of the "globalization pain" that will be caused in the future will be done by market forces, not by any changes in US trade law. Ty seemed to be implying that (and hence the hypos of sixty percent of the US population being negatively effected by free trade and the discussion of the massive negative impact of free trade on wage earners) 1) I was promoting lots of liberalization of trade policy, that such changes in policy was going to have a massive negative impact on the US citizenry and I didn't seem to care about the massive negative impact the policies I was promoting were going to create 2) that there was a lot of liberalization that could and would be affirmatively done by the US government in the future and that liberalization would have a lot of negative effects on the US citizenry that the government should deal with.

Yes some massive dislocations may be coming, but not because of any affirmative steps taken by the US government.

Originally posted by Adder But anyway, perhaps we can see where you are coming from. Do you support job training and a social safetynet for those whose jobs are displaced?

Yes I do.

Originally posted by Adder
Surely you recognize that the longer-term society benefits come at the expense of short-term hardship for those caught in the transition, right?

Yes. But I also realize that the entire capitalist system is based on long term benefits derived from increased efficiencies that when brought about cause extreme short term hardship on those who are replaced by the more efficient.

The same arguments that are used against free trade are used against capitalism in general, and the same arguments used in support of protectionism are the same arguments used to support socialism. Capitalism isn’t perfect, and needs to be regulated and monitored, but just because people get hurt in capitalism, and there is a lot of pain caused by the system, does not mean it should be replaced by socialism, or infused with socialist elements because socialism and socialist elements always cause much more pain than benefit. In the same vein, free trade isn’t perfect, there is a lot of pain caused by the system, but that doesn’t mean it should be replaced with protectionism, or infused with protectionist elements, because such protectionist elements always cause more harm than good.

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
If you are suggesting that no one is directly hurt by government action, as opposed to natural market forces, I think you are engaging in a sort of sophistry to avoid acknowledging the plain consequences of the government action.

Keep this is mind as the Democrat party publicly tries to "slow bleed" our troops in a war zone.

[SlaveNoMore]

Adder
Hardly surprising. In this country, you are an antisemite if you dare to question the Israel government. But it is hardly surprising that the case is different inside a healthy democracy.


(not that I care, but you also cited a blog again. bad Ty.)

If Israel is such a "healthy democracy", why are so many on the Left so supportive of its destruction?

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
Ha'aretz: The U.S. is more pro-Israel than Israel is.

If you used a polling sample of Americans living in San Francisco, you'd likely find that Iranians are more pro-US than the US is.

[Adder]

Originally posted by Spanky
My fear is if we leave the defense of Israel solely to the Israelis we will end up with another holocaust.

I don't know of anyone who is advocating that.

In addition, if U.S. policy towards Israel were left up to the Jews in this country (or Jimmy Cater), my fear would be that we would end up with another holocaust on our hands. I just don't think the majority of the Jews in this country appreciate the threat Israel faces and that is why I think so many Jews in this country complain about Israel's uncompromising defense posture.

That is wonderfully condescending of you. Another alternative is that they understand the threat and think the by being so "uncompromising" Israel adds to that threat.

[Adder]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
If Israel is such a "healthy democracy", why are so many on the Left so supportive of its destruction?

Cite please?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
This isn't that complicated.
You said:



I said:



That should speak for itself.

Evidently it didn't, for the reasons stated in my posts above.

But maybe you will understand it if I say this way. What specfic acts, or what trade restrictions can be lifted by the US government that will have a serious impact on a significant minority of people in this country? What trade restrictions are still out there that if the US government lifts them many people will lose their jobs or have their wages seriously diminshed? Clearly, we are not going to have open borders anytime soon, but what sort of stuff is in the works in these current trade deals being negotiated that if enacted will have this serious negative effect you anticpate requiring significant goverment action to remedy the losses incurred?

I don't know.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Adder
(not that I care, but you also cited a blog again. bad Ty.)

Won't be the last time.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
My fear is if we leave the defense of Israel solely to the Israelis we will end up with another holocaust. In addition, if U.S. policy towards Israel were left up to the Jews in this country (or Jimmy Cater), my fear would be that we would end up with another holocaust on our hands. I just don't think the majority of the Jews in this country appreciate the threat Israel faces and that is why I think so many Jews in this country complain about Israel's uncompromising defense posture. My view on this may be skewed because I went to see a talk by the head of the nearby Israeli consulate at the local reform synagogue, and these Jews were really angry about Israel’s actions in Lebanon. It almost seemed like the poor guy was going to get lynched. I think if they understood the true nature of the threat, and the depth of the hatred, they wouldn't complain so much about Israel’s military actions. I wish I could have shown the audience this:

www.youtube.com/v/-HlaVpqUXF0

That's an interesting point to make in response to a news story reporting that Israel wants to negotiate with a neighbor but we say no. There seem to a lot of people who are committed to an aggressive and militaristic U.S./Israeli Middle East policy whether or not it's in Israel's interest. Israel, after all, has to continue to exist next to Syria, something U.S. wingnuts don't have to worry about.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Adder
Good of you to adopt the Sebby definition of rich. Are you middle class too?

You confuse "rich" with "wealthy."

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
Ty seemed to be implying that (and hence the hypos of sixty percent of the US population being negatively effected by free trade and the discussion of the massive negative impact of free trade on wage earners) 1) I was promoting lots of liberalization of trade policy, that such changes in policy was going to have a massive negative impact on the US citizenry and I didn't seem to care about the massive negative impact the policies I was promoting were going to create 2) that there was a lot of liberalization that could and would be affirmatively done by the US government in the future and that liberalization would have a lot of negative effects on the US citizenry that the government should deal with.

I don't think I implied (1) or (2). Maybe you should respond to what I actually say instead of what you fear I may be implying.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Keep this is mind as the Democrat party publicly tries to "slow bleed" our troops in a war zone.

You are the only person I know of who thinks this is what the Democrats are trying to do.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
That's an interesting point to make in response to a news story reporting that Israel wants to negotiate with a neighbor but we say no. There seem to a lot of people who are committed to an aggressive and militaristic U.S./Israeli Middle East policy whether or not it's in Israel's interest. Israel, after all, has to continue to exist next to Syria, something U.S. wingnuts don't have to worry about.

Look. Israel is a stabilizing force in the Middle East and must maintain its safety and stabilizing stability at all costs.

The only way for this to happen is for it to remain fiercely independent and free from all threat to its borders. It can only do so by meeting all opposition with fierce and immediate overwhelming military force. There is no place for diplomacy when you are fighting for the stability of the region.

And as soon as the fucking Israelis realize that, the better off the United States will be.

Fucking Leftie.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
http://www.tnr.com/graphics2004.1/th...2207_large.jpg

better



Israeli Defense Minister Inspects War Moves Through Capped Binoculars


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,254038,00.html

remember when you all tried to foist a photoshopped pix of bush doing this, then I proved the fraud? this one is real I understand.