Meet your new thread, same as the old thread.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Whatever you do, Spanky, don't try to engage on substance.

I am sorry that when I engage in substantive arguments it shows that your arguments have none, but it just can't be helped.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
only of guaranteed failure if we continue the present course.

Guaranteed failure? That is an awfully self assured statement to make about the future. And what exactly are these guys’ credentials for him to know exactly what is going to happen in the Middle East if we continue on the present course?

The only people that can guarantee the future (or think they can guarantee the future) with the utmost accuracy that this author claims to be able to do, are either not human (some sort of supernatural being) or someone who is insane.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
The people that have the most to benefit from free trade are the ones that are voting against it.

It's a little odd to see an advocate of free trade insist that so many people are irrational.

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by Spanky
Who is getting hurt by free trade? Is there some law preventing US companies from outsouring jobs overseas that these free trade agreements are repealing? All these free trade agreements do is make it is cheaper consumers to buy products in the United States and easier for the US to sell products overseas. The people that have the most to benefit from free trade are the ones that are voting against it.

We've been through this before -- people who have lost their factory jobs have been hurt by free trade, and the fact that they can buy cheap Chinese toys for their kids at Wal-Mart on their unemployment checks is cold comfort. Why should they vote for people who support economic policies that cost them their jobs?

Is free trade a net benefit for the economy as a whole? I think so. Are there people who disproportionately benefit from it, and are there people who disproportionately suffer from it? I think so. Should we try to pass laws that spread the pains and gains? Again, I think so. As an aside, I would argue that the current Administration cares more about using free trade as a club against unions and environmentalists than it does about free trade.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Not Bob
Nice. Wonder if he goes for the comparable position that people who get hurt by higher taxes should vote for candidates who support higher taxes for, say, national health insurance, because it will help other people.

No? Didn't think so.

So you think more free trade will hurt the United States? Following your logic, doesn't that mean that we have too much free trade right now? Unless of course you think we have reached the perfect balance? How much of a cut back in free trade do you think would benefit the United States. Maybe we should seal the borders?

And the free trade that is being pushed for in these agreements is trying to push for free trade that more closely resembles the free trade that exists between the states of the United States. So if that is bad, clearly we have to much free trade between the states in the US. Where do you suggest we set up interstate trade barriers to improve the US economy?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Not Bob
Is free trade a net benefit for the economy as a whole? I think so. Are there people who disproportionately benefit from it, and are there people who disproportionately suffer from it? I think so. Should we try to pass laws that spread the pains and gains? Again, I think so. As an aside, I would argue that the current Administration cares more about using free trade as a club against unions and environmentalists than it does about free trade.

You're giving unions way too much credit there. They were flagging before this admin took office. This admin cares about free trade because engaging in it is the only way we can compete and keep our economy going. And it helps Wall St.

I agree with spreading pain and gain. But the instrumentality used for that spreading always seems to target and hurt people like us instead of the disproportionately enriched.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Not Bob
We've been through this before -- people who have lost their factory jobs have been hurt by free trade,

We are talking about free trade agreement, not ree trade in general. What free trade agreements have cost these people these jobs? Was there some law that prevented companies from setting up factories overseas that was repealed by some free trade agreement I was not aware of?

Originally posted by Not Bob
Is free trade a net benefit for the economy as a whole? I think so. Are there people who disproportionately benefit from it, and are there people who disproportionately suffer from it? I think so. Should we try to pass laws that spread the pains and gains? Again, I think so. As an aside, I would argue that the current Administration cares more about using free trade as a club against unions and environmentalists than it does about free trade.

Who are thes people that are suffering from recent trade Agreements? Who was hurt by NAFTA? Who was hurt by the WTO?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Not Bob
I would argue that the current Administration cares more about using free trade as a club against unions and environmentalists than it does about free trade.

Yes that is why so much political (and monetary) capital is put into free trade agreements. Just to punish the unions and the environmentalists. All this money is spent on lobbyists by these large corporations, not to help the bottom line, or benefit their shareholders, but just to make some people a little more miserable. Yes, Bush has limited political capital, and not much time left in his administration to effect his legacy but he is not going to use that time on stuff he wants to accomplish and his legacy, he is going to use it just for sour grapes…..I think this may be the dumbest statement I have heard all year.

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by Spanky
Who are thes people that are suffering from recent trade Agreements? Who was hurt by NAFTA?

People that worked in the GM Delphi factories. You know, the ones that used to be in the US and moved to Mexico.

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by Spanky
Yes that is why so much political (and monetary) capital is put into free trade agreements. Just to punish the unions and the environmentalists. All this money is spent on lobbyists by these large corporations, not to help the bottom line, or benefit their shareholders, but just to make some people a little more miserable. Yes, Bush has limited political capital, and not much time left in his administration to effect his legacy but he is not going to use that time on stuff he wants to accomplish and his legacy, he is going to use it just for sour grapes…..I think this may be the dumbest statement I have heard all year.

Read what I said, not what you think I said.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
Guaranteed failure? That is an awfully self assured statement to make about the future. And what exactly are these guys’ credentials for him to know exactly what is going to happen in the Middle East if we continue on the present course?

The article itself is a better guide than his credentials, but since you asked, he's a professor at Illinois. The article was published in The American Conservative, of all places.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
This admin cares about free trade because engaging in it is the only way we can compete and keep our economy going. And it helps Wall St.

The administration "cares" about free trade because it helps the country as a whole and its political supporters, except when it doesn't, in which case the administration is all too happy to throw free trade out the window, as it's done (e.g.) with steel and agricultural subsidies.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Not Bob
People that worked in the GM Delphi factories. You know, the ones that used to be in the US and moved to Mexico.

And these factories were moved because of NAFTA.? NAFTA negated some law that prevented US companies from shutting down auto plants? and it further prevented US companies from builging auto plants in other countries?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Not Bob
Read what I said, not what you think I said.

Originally posted by Not Bob We've been through this before -- people who have lost their factory jobs have been hurt by free trade, and the fact that they can buy cheap Chinese toys for their kids at Wal-Mart on their unemployment checks is cold comfort. Why should they vote for people who support economic policies that cost them their jobs?

Was this said by another "not Bob"? Because my statement was a direct and pertient response to this ignorant diatribe.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
The administration "cares" about free trade because it helps the country as a whole and its political supporters, except when it doesn't, in which case the administration is all too happy to throw free trade out the window, as it's done (e.g.) with steel and agricultural subsidies.

So then you disagree with Not Bob when he says " that the current Administration cares more about using free trade as a club against unions and environmentalists than it does about free trade."?