Politics: Onward from New Hampshire

[Skeks in the city]

Originally posted by sgtclub

We are coming at this from positions so far apart, it's not even worth discussing further. No offense, of course.

Whoah, there buddy. If the most productive use for land in a river valley was as a resevoir, you'd howl like a stuck pig if the government flooded the property in that valley without fully compensating the owners of the property. How is free trade so different? Free trade helps some people at the expense of others. Full compesation is a reasonable demand. If free trade results in some people taking jobs that pay less, why shouldn't they get some permanent benefit like an earned income tax credit?

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Skeks in the city
Whoah, there buddy. If the most productive use for land in a river valley was as a resevoir, you'd howl like a stuck pig if the government flooded the property in that valley without fully compensating the owners of the property. How is free trade so different? Free trade helps some people at the expense of others. Full compesation is a reasonable demand. If free trade results in some people taking jobs that pay less, why shouldn't they get some permanent benefit like an earned income tax credit?

If I may, I think Club's difference of opinion originates from his child-like wonder at markets. Unlike you, he doesn't realize that markets wouldn't exist but for the governments that protect them, prescribe their operations, and enforce their rules. To him, free trade preexisted protectionism. Silly, I know, but bear with me. So the default position for him is no trade barriers internationally ab initio; if American workers have been receiving a wage premium in the international labor marketplace as a result of protectionism since 1604, they're merely going to lose what the government had no right to give them in the first place, so no tears and no reparations, there's no crying in baseball.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Skeks in the city
Originally posted by sgtclub



Whoah, there buddy. If the most productive use for land in a river valley was as a resevoir, you'd howl like a stuck pig if the government flooded the property in that valley without fully compensating the owners of the property. How is free trade so different? Free trade helps some people at the expense of others. Full compesation is a reasonable demand. If free trade results in some people taking jobs that pay less, why shouldn't they get some permanent benefit like an earned income tax credit?

The difference, quite simply, is that the owners of the property OWN the property and are thus entitled to certain rights in respect thereof. Service providers do not own their jobs nor any right to continue to provide the services they provide, other than as dictated by the market.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
If I may, I think Club's difference of opinion originates from his child-like wonder at markets. Unlike you, he doesn't realize that markets wouldn't exist but for the governments that protect them, prescribe their operations, and enforce their rules. To him, free trade preexisted protectionism. Silly, I know, but bear with me. So the default position for him is no trade barriers internationally ab initio; if American workers have been receiving a wage premium in the international labor marketplace as a result of protectionism since 1604, they're merely going to lose what the government had no right to give them in the first place, so no tears and no reparations, there's no crying in baseball.

Sorry to inform you, but this is exactly what I believe. Markets exist without regard to governments, though at times government oversight may provide a net efficiency (though government is not the necessary overseer in the equation).

[Skeks in the city]

Originally posted by sgtclub

The difference, quite simply, is that the owners of the property OWN the property and are thus entitled to certain rights in respect thereof. Service providers do not own their jobs nor any right to continue to provide the services they provide, other than as dictated by the market.

You don't understand politics. If you want someone to do something that is against their interest, you have to pay them. Assuming the majority of the US population is better off killing free trade and immigration policies, you have will have to pay them off. Quid pro quo. Pork barrel politics. Call it what you like.

You have to understand, if the only clear beneficiaries of free trade with countries that have low standards of living are poor foreigners and the rich, then free trade is a shitty deal for the majority of the U.S. population. And if you want them to consent to it, you'll have to pay them.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Skeks in the city
Originally posted by sgtclub



You don't understand politics. If you want someone to do something that is against their interest, you have to pay them. Assuming the majority of the US population is better off killing free trade and immigration policies, you have will have to pay them off. Quid pro quo. Pork barrel politics. Call it what you like.

You have to understand, foreign aid have never been popular with the US public. Neither have helping the rich at the expense of everyone else.

What don't I understand? NAFTA is the law and free trade is the stated policy of the US and is not going away, even if Kerry wins. How will the US population kill free trade?

What does foreign aid have to do with this? It may not be popular, but it is also not going away anytime soon - quite the contrary. And what does helping the rich have to do with anything?

Are you on drugs?

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Sorry to inform you, but this is exactly what I believe.

Even my attempts to caricature you result in an accurate likeness.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by sgtclub
What don't I understand? NAFTA is the law and free trade is the stated policy of the US and is not going away, even if Kerry wins. How will the US population kill free trade?

Um, democracy?

[Skeks in the city]

Originally posted by sgtclub

What don't I understand? NAFTA is the law and free trade is the stated policy of the US and is not going away, even if Kerry wins. How will the US population kill free trade?

If offshoring of jobs creates a big enough backlash against free trade and immigration, watch how fast the US unilaterally violates treaties and imposes tariffs &c.

What does foreign aid have to do with this?

The left has supported free trade and immigration as a way to help poor in the third world. Eliminating subsidies for US agriculture helps poor foreign farmers sell their own goods and even export it to the US.

And what does helping the rich have to do with anything?

Free trade with a country that has a lower standard of living and ample workforce at all educational levels depresses wages and increases purchasing power, so there's an ambiguous effect on workers. Some are better off; others are worse depending on which effect trumps. The rich make their money off capital, so their income is not depressed. They benefit to the extent they increase their profit margins by using cheaper workers and they benefit from increased purchasing power. A lot of big business and much of Wall Street tend to like free trade for this reason.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Skeks in the city
If offshoring of jobs creates a big enough backlash against free trade and immigration, watch how fast the US unilaterally violates treaties and imposes tariffs &c.

No, Club thinks it's appropriate permanently to divest our sovereignty to a foreign power, because he believes we have done so to The Benevolent Marketplace instead of, say, to The U.N. No take-backs for the former; the latter is subject to a case-by-case analysis.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
No, Club thinks it's appropriate permanently to divest our sovereignty to a foreign power, because he believes we have done so to The Benevolent Marketplace instead of, say, to The U.N. No take-backs for the former; the latter is subject to a case-by-case analysis.

You, sir, are an asshat, defending an asshat status quo with your asshat arguments.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Skeks in the city
Originally posted by sgtclub
If offshoring of jobs creates a big enough backlash against free trade and immigration, watch how fast the US unilaterally violates treaties and imposes tariffs &c.

Hooey. Pat Buchanon lost. So did Gephart. Edwards got smoked. This far left enclave that you and Atticus live in is just that, and not representative of where 95% of America is today.

Originally posted by Skeks in the city Free trade with a country that has a lower standard of living and ample workforce at all educational levels depresses wages and increases purchasing power, so there's an ambiguous effect on workers. Some are better off; others are worse depending on which effect trumps. The rich make their money off capital, so their income is not depressed. They benefit to the extent they increase their profit margins by using cheaper workers and they benefit from increased purchasing power. A lot of big business and much of Wall Street tend to like free trade for this reason.

Are you related to NotMe? Do you want to have the same argument again and again?

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
No, Club thinks it's appropriate permanently to divest our sovereignty to a foreign power, because he believes we have done so to The Benevolent Marketplace instead of, say, to The U.N. No take-backs for the former; the latter is subject to a case-by-case analysis.

Actually, I have mixed feelings on essential items like food and defence.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Actually, I have mixed feelings on essential items like food and defense.

You should read more about what people survived on during sieges back in the olden days. Really, do you need your little toes and little fingers? Insects are edible. Grass is edible. Hell, dirt is probably quite filling.

If you are going to insist on some kind of "nutritional value" you are on the slippery slope to socialized medicine!!!!

I fixed the spelling thing for you when I quoted you.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
If I may, I think Club's difference of opinion originates from his child-like wonder at markets. Unlike you, he doesn't realize that markets wouldn't exist but for the governments that protect them, prescribe their operations, and enforce their rules. To him, free trade preexisted protectionism. Silly, I know, but bear with me.

And in one fell swoop, you've taken us from libertarianism straight to totalitarianism. I've never fully understood the glib rejoinder "that argument proves too much." Until now.