Meet your new thread, same as the old thread.

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by Spanky
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?

By this logic, free trade agreements are irrelevant. So why do we need them?

There's also no law requiring the use of lead paint on Thomas the Tank Engine toys. And yet it happens.

[Not Bob]

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

Actually you were replying to a different post. See below. My point wasn't about the business community or shareholders or lobbyists. My point was about the Bush Administration. You and Ty argued ad naseum for what seemed like eons about how Bush was unwilling to add any labor or environmental protections into the free trade deals in order to get them passed. Surely you remember that?

Anyway, my point is that Bush's unwillingness to do so shows that he cared more about scoring political points than he did about free trade (see also steel subsidies). You obviously disagree about that, and that's fine, but at least do me the courtesy of disagreeing with what I actually say.


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.

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.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
The article itself is a better guide than his credentials,

That is like saying Stalin is better than Hitler. There is no clearer indicator of how stupid someone is, as when they say they say they know exactly what will happen in the future when a certain course of action is taken. The future is always about probabilities not absolutes (otherwise Vegas wouldn’t exist) This guying is sitting in the Midwest ten thousand miles from Iraq yet he knows exactly what is going on and what to do about it.

[Not Bob]

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

Dude, you asked why a Democratic candidate would oppose free trade. I gave you a reason -- their constituents were hurt by it. How is this an ignorant diatribe?

(Apropos of nothing, this may be why free trade is in trouble. Supporters of it who happen to recognize that, while it is overall a good thing, it hurts certain segments of the country are accused of launching an ignorant diatribe. Anyway, whatever dude. You can have the last word with a cut and paste from The Economist.)

[Oliver_Wendell_Ramone]

Originally posted by Spanky
There is no clearer indicator of how stupid someone is, as when they say they say they know exactly what will happen in the future when a certain course of action is taken.

Originally posted by Spanky
There would be a massive civil war with lots of casualties.

Indeed.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Not Bob
By this logic, free trade agreements are irrelevant. So why do we need them?

So if factories are not shut down, free trade agreements are irrelevant? Are you kidding? Did you get hit over the head with a baseball bat this morning? It is only opportunistic populist politicians and the ignorant people who believe them that think free trade agreements are only about closing factorys.. So if no factory is shut down they are irrelevant. Ever heard of "comparative advantage"? Have you ever heard of leveraging the existence of comparative advantage so all citizens of two trading partners benefit? Free trade is about cheaper products and raising the standard of living of all the people that live in the free trade area. Just look at countries that turn their backs on free trade (like Burman and Cuba). There are no winner and losers. Just losers.

Originally posted by Not Bob
There's also no law requiring the use of lead paint on Thomas the Tank Engine toys. And yet it happens.

Exactly. Free trade agreement don't address the ability of companies to close or open factories and yet with or with out these agreements they open and close them in different countries all the time. The biggest factor in whether a factory opens or clkoses in a certain area is how the local government treats them.

[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.

Originally posted by Spanky
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. [/QUOTE]

You don't think the bottom statement is a direct response to the top statement?

[Spanky]

quote:
________________________________________
Originally posted by Spanky
There is no clearer indicator of how stupid someone is, as when they say they say they know exactly what will happen in the future when a certain course of action is taken.
________________________________________

quote:
________________________________________
Originally posted by Spanky
There would be a massive civil war with lots of casualties.
________________________________________

Originally posted by Oliver_Wendell_Ramone
Indeed.

Why did you find it necessary to edit my statement? Why didn’t you include the whole thing…..?



Originally posted by Spanky
Correct me if I am wrong here, but isn't it pretty much universally agreed that if the US pulled out there would be a huge blood bath and a market increase in violence? There would be a massive civil war with lots of casualties.


Oh wait, if you included the whole statement that would show that you are full of it. Nice try. Better luck next time.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Not Bob
Dude, you asked why a Democratic candidate would oppose free trade. I gave you a reason -- their constituents were hurt by it. How is this an ignorant diatribe?

(Apropos of nothing, this may be why free trade is in trouble. Supporters of it who happen to recognize that, while it is overall a good thing, it hurts certain segments of the country are accused of launching an ignorant diatribe. Anyway, whatever dude. You can have the last word with a cut and paste from The Economist.)

I don't think that the Economist even would be saying you were blathering an ignorant diatribe. You are correct.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Not Bob
Anyway, whatever dude. You can have the last word with a cut and paste from The Economist.)

That was actually from Statfor. The Economist usually doesn't blather on so much. I just liked the article because it showed that I am exactly where I belong in the political spectrum. Evangelical Republicans and Democrats are against free. That is why I am a moderate Republican.

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by Spanky
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.

Spanky 1:
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.

Spanky 2:
You don't think the bottom statement is a direct response to the top statement?

Now that you've edited your post to only that, yes.

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
I don't think that the Economist even would be saying you were blathering an ignorant diatribe. You are correct.

Aw, you're such a sweetie.

[SlaveNoMore]

While Cramer blows up - in several ways - all over the media. Kudlow keeps reminding us of sobering stats.

Today, from the Corner

I’m surprised that today’s Wall Street Journal story on income inequality failed to mention that while the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans earned 21.2 percent of all incomes in 2005, they now pay nearly 40 percent of all taxes.

In 1980, before the Reagan supply-side tax-cut revolution was launched, the top 1 percent earned 8.5 percent of all income and paid 19.1 percent of all taxes. So while the rich are getting richer, the rich are also paying the lion’s share of the taxes.

As others have pointed out, the top 5 percent of income earners pay 60 percent of the taxes. The top 25 percent pay 86 percent of taxes. And the top 50 percent pay 97 percent of all taxes.

Now Uncle Charlie wants to tip the scales even more. Sheesh.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
While Cramer blows up - in several ways - all over the media. Kudlow keeps reminding us of sobering stats.

Today, from the Corner



Now Uncle Charlie wants to tip the scales even more. Sheesh.

i thought you guys didn't like quotas?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
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."?

I think Not Bob was observing that the administration cares more about free trade as a political weapon than out of principle, and that's what I was saying too.