A disgusting vat of filth that no self-respecting intelligent person would wade into.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Having watched you define "liberal" today, I'm not going to argue with you about whether I am a "free trader," since you seem to use political labels in a different manner than most of the functionally literate population. Suffice it to say that most people would call me a free trader.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I don't recall opposing CAFTA. Perhaps you want to go read those posts again.

The quotes don't seem to jibe with those statement below (I would find better quotes but I don't know how to search past a year).


"but there are many, many supporters of free-trade -- moderate Democrats, moderate Republicans -- who want to lower barriers to trade but who do not want to sacrifice environmental protections and labor laws and other regulation that this country enjoys."

"While there will surely some Democrats who were happy to stick it to Bush, there were also a lot of Democrats who thought it was bad policy."


"quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From the Washington Post
But a core group of as many as 50 pro-trade Democrats are voting against CAFTA; those lawmakers say the agreement is a step backward on labor standards after years of steady gains under previous trade accords.

They complain that the administration failed to consult them during negotiations, taking their votes for granted. And they say past trade agreements were accompanied by increased support for worker-retraining programs, education efforts and aid to dislocated workers -- support that the president has not provided.

"Free and open trade is an important component to widening the winner's circle for all Americans, but it's not a Johnny One Note part of the puzzle," said Rep. Ellen Tauscher (Calif.), a co-chairman of the centrist New Democrat Coalition, who voted for the most contentious trade bills of the past half-dozen years.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




"As I've posted before, it's not a coincidence that CAFTA was written with labor standards that Democrats didn't support. The GOP leadership doesn't want Democrats voting for its bills. They don't want business giving money to Democrats. All the better to draft a bill designed to get Democrats to go the other way."

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
The quotes don't seem to jibe with those statement below (I would find better quotes but I don't know how to search past a year).

You and I have unresolved semantic disagreement about whether things like environmental protections and child labor laws are inconsistent with "free trade." I say no, you say yes. Like many Democrats, I would support something like CAFTA, but would use free trade to try to get other countries to improve environmental protections and child labor laws and so forth. I was under the impression that there was a calculated effort by the GOP to make CAFTA unpalatable to Democrats along these lines. When we debated that stuff, you suggested otherwise, and I will confess that I just don't know the details of the statute that well.

eta: I also think that while society generally benefits from free trade, some people are harmed, and we ought to do thinks to protect those people as a part of any deal to open up trade. I know you disagree with that.

[Spanky]

Spanky quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Like the Economist article said, a Democrat takeover of Congress would be disastrous for free trade, so a true free trader would not want a Democrat takeover tomorrow.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Ty reponse:

Only Nixon could go to China.


Tyrone quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So progress is going to take a less partisan approach, and will require deal-cutting to get Dems on board. I'm not optomistic that this will happen in the next two years, but it would be for the best.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Spanky response:

Best for whom? Free trade? Are you kidding? Does the Financial Times think a Democratic takeover of the Congress would be good for free trade? I really, really, doubt it. No one with any credibility would argue that a Democrat takeover of congress would be good for free trade. Anyone that prioritises free trade wants the Republicans to stay in controll of congress.

Ty response:

As I said above, only Nixon could go to China.



Spanky quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You are the only one on the planet that thinks the Dems will step up on free trade.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Ty response:

I didn't say that, either. Is it so hard to read what I say and respond to that instead of foaming at the mouth about random crap?


Spanky quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You are just trying to rationalize a Democrat takeover.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Ty response:

No. I'm just arguing that Bush has been a huge disappointment from a free-trade perspective. No matter who is elected to Congress tomorrow, that tiger is not about to change his stripes.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
You and I have unresolved semantic disagreement about whether things like environmental protections and child labor laws are inconsistent with "free trade." I say no, you say yes. Like many Democrats, I would support something like CAFTA, but would use free trade to try to get other countries to improve environmental protections and child labor laws and so forth. I was under the impression that there was a calculated effort by the GOP to make CAFTA unpalatable to Democrats along these lines. When we debated that stuff, you suggested otherwise, and I will confess that I just don't know the details of the statute that well.

eta: I also think that while society generally benefits from free trade, some people are harmed, and we ought to do thinks to protect those people as a part of any deal to open up trade. I know you disagree with that.

These are not the arguments of a "free trader". I was not trying to argue whether or not you are right, you just said most people would consider you a free trader and that you did not oppose CAFTA. You did not support CAFTA and these statements above would convince most people you are not a free trader.

A pro-choice person (who thinks abortion should be legal in the first tri-mester) may argue that their position does not preclude them from being pro-life. But most people in the pro-life camp would not buy that. A pro-life person could argue that even though they want to make abortion illegal in the first tri-mester they could still be considered pro-choice because they would allow an abortion for cases of rape and incest. But most pro-choicers would not buy that argument.

You can claim to be a "free trader", but no one in the true free trade camp would buy that with the arguments you make.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Not a word of substance in that response. OK. I've been reasonably specific addressing things like Doha, and you've been, well, misinformed. Six years of this President and what you can say for him is, never mind steel and Doha, he actually hauled his ass to Capitol Hill to ask Republican congressmen to vote for CAFTA. And I'm supposed to give him kudos for that.

I am misinformed on Doha? You were the one that spliced that quote to make it misleading. The article you quoted stated that Bush pushed hard on Doha. That same article you quoted gives Bush kudos for being a committed free trader.

And you say that you are free trader who is disappointed in Bush when you oppossed the main free trade legislation he got through? Give me a break.

As I said, you are just blinded by your hatred of the Bush administration.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
These are not the arguments of a "free trader". I was not trying to argue whether or not you are right, you just said most people would consider you a free trader and that you did not oppose CAFTA. You did not support CAFTA and these statements above would convince most people you are not a free trader.

I didn't say I didn't support CAFTA. I said I didn't know the details well enough to know whether to believe you or the moderate Dems who oppose it. Nevertheless, I think most people would call me a free trader. Most people do not see environmental protections and child labor laws as barriers to trade, although I understand the economic perspective from which you suggest that's what they are.

You can claim to be a "free trader", but no one in the true free trade camp would buy that with the arguments you make.

Well, you can have fun in the "true free trade" camp, and I'll stay in the "free trade" camp. But this is a semantic argument that was boring the first time around.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
I am misinformed on Doha? You were the one that spliced that quote to make it misleading.

You lie like a rug. I spliced nothing. I took a single sentence from that article that shows that the U.S. was part of the problem, not a mere bystander to a dispute between Europe and the third world. Which was the point where I mentioned it, and the point on which you were misinformed. I might add that the FT covered the issue on a daily basis at the time, so I was reasonably sure I could find it somewhere in the Economist's coverage.

I used to read the Economist regularly, and I think it's very good in general, but I think their coverage of U.S. politics shows a FOX-like effort to tell conservatives what they want to hear. Pointing out that the Economist praised Bush is about as convincing to me telling me that FOX did.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Not Bob
He was a brilliant guy, no doubt about it, and truly a Rennaissance man -- talented writer, artist, soldier, statesman, etc. I just think that Ike was right and he was wrong on this particular issue.

And, in his defense on Gallipoli, they didn't move after the landings when they had the chance. Of course, nothing that happened in Turkey would have changed anything on the ground in the front that mattered then, either, so . . . .

Yes, but if the Gallipoli campaign went well, Istanbul might be part of Greece. There might also be a Kurdistan (where much of Turkey is now) and Armenia might be much larger. In other words, it would have been much easier for the allies to impose the original peace treaty on Turkey if they occupied the areas in question (or it would have been harder for Attaturk to oppose the first treaty and force another agreement).

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
You lie like a rug. I spliced nothing. I took a single sentence from that article that shows that the U.S. was part of the problem, not a mere bystander to a dispute between Europe and the third world. Which was the point where I mentioned it, and the point on which you were misinformed. I might add that the FT covered the issue on a daily basis at the time, so I was reasonably sure I could find it somewhere in the Economist's coverage.

You lie like a rug. You spliced the quote. It clearly said that many people were going to blame America, but that the Economist didn't agree with that position. But if course you left of the sentence where the economist said it was "ironic" that Bush would get blamed.

You said that Bush wouldn't put the sugar subsidies and corn subsidies on the line. That Economist quote showed that he insisted on putting them on the line. He wanted a full revocation of farm subsidies. You were clearly misinformed.

The only place you can possibly blame Bush on Doha is that he actually wanted the treaty to do something. But he never obstructed it because he was taking the "protectionist" side. So to use Doha as an example that he is not committed to free trade is ridiculous.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop I used to read the Economist regularly, and I think it's very good in general, but I think their coverage of U.S. politics shows a FOX-like effort to tell conservatives what they want to hear. Pointing out that the praised Bush is about as convincing to me telling me that FOX did.

To say that the Economist sucks up to American conservatives like Fox does is just ludicrous. Who else has that opinion of the Economist? You just can't stand reading anything that would ever praise Bush.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I didn't say I didn't support CAFTA. I said I didn't know the details well enough to know whether to believe you or the moderate Dems who oppose it. Nevertheless, I think most people would call me a free trader. Most people do not see environmental protections and child labor laws as barriers to trade, although I understand the economic perspective from which you suggest that's what they are.

The point is that labor laws and environmental protections have no place in a free trade treaty. Free trade treaties are just that - they are supposed to dismantle government laws that interfere with free trade. Tariffs, subsidies and other NTBs.

The free trade theory is that these barriers are bad for both countries. That they are never any good. When you argue for environmental riders and labor riders, you are protecting trade barriers unless the other government institutes some labor or environmental laws.

It is fine if you want to pass international labor laws or have environmental treaties, but using the threat of the continued employment of tariff barriers to get changes on these issues is not making free trade a priorty.

If we were at war with another country and you wanted the US to only discontinue the war if a free trade treaty was signed, could you say you support peace? Of course not. You would be putting free trade before peace. If I pushed for the treaty without free trade, does that mean I am against free trade. No. It just means I think peace is more important. If you want to make a free trade treaty conditioned upon forcing the other country to pass labor and environmental laws, you really aren't a free trader. You are more concerned with environmental reform and labor reform than free trade. If I don't want environmental or labor riders put on my free trade treaty, does that mean I am against environmental laws or labor laws? No. I just think Free trade treaty is good on its own. In other words, if the other government does not agree to impose more labor standards or environmental standards, it is still better that we have the free trade treaty. Similarly, if I wanted to stop the war without the free trade agreement, that doesn't mean I oppose free trade, I just think we would be better off with peace, regardless if we have a free trade agreement.

People who support free trade do not support labor and environmental riders being added to free trade treaties.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
You lie like a rug. You spliced the quote.

A classy thing to do would be to check before accusing me of misrepresentation. Another classy thing to do would have been to check when I said you were wrong.

Here's post #10, where I quoted the July 24 Economist article:

___________________________
[Spanky:] This is complete drivel. When it comes to Doha the dispute is between the EU and the third world. All we can do is try to mediate.
___________________________


You don't know what you're talking about. Try reading, say, The Economist. After the talks collapsed this summer, the July 24 issue observed:

• The collapse will probably be blamed on America, which has been pushing for bold action on agricultural tariffs, and resisting a modest compromise deal that includes caps on its own agricultural subsidies.

You said -- cluelessly, I might add -- that the U.S. was blameless for the collapse of the Doha round, so I quoted the Economist to point out that you are wrong.

Here is that article on the Economist's website. The first sentence of the third paragraph reads:

• The collapse will probably be blamed on America, which has been pushing for bold action on agricultural tariffs, and resisting a modest compromise deal that includes caps on its own agricultural subsidies.

You'll note that I quoted it verbatim, splicing nothing. Ctrl-C, Cntrl-V.

I don't like being accused of misrepresentation. To do it so sloppily shows a real disregard.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
But if course you left of the sentence where the economist said it was "ironic" that Bush would get blamed.

You truly can't read, can you? The article points out the irony in Bush getting blamed not because he was blameless -- the article points out that the U.S. "resisted a modest compromise deal that includes caps on its own agricultural subsidies" -- but because the U.S. had "push[ed] hard to revive Doha after the round’s first collapse at Cancún in 2003.

You said that Bush wouldn't put the sugar subsidies and corn subsidies on the line. That Economist quote showed that he insisted on putting them on the line. He wanted a full revocation of farm subsidies.

Here is the full text of the article. You tell me where it says that Bush "insisted on . . . full revocation of farm subsidies."

• IT IS nearly five years since the latest round of World Trade Organisation (WTO) negotiations was born in the brilliant daylight of Doha, Qatar. For much of that time, however, the sun has been setting on ambitious plans for agricultural liberalisation, economic development, and global poverty reduction. As in Dylan Thomas’s poem, the wise men and the grave men have raged against the dying of the light, but their struggles have come to naught. On Monday July 24th, Pascal Lamy, the director-general of the WTO, said he would suspend discussions after a marathon 14-hour negotiation session between the big trading powers—America, the European Union (EU), Japan, Australia, Brazil, and India—failed to produce agreement on the contentious issue of cutting agricultural protections.
  
  Though there are wan hopes of restarting the round, at best it looks likely to be years before the sun rises again on the WTO talks. With Monday’s collapse, there is not enough time to get the details of an agreement hammered out before George Bush’s fast-track trade authority expires in July next year. This forces Congress to vote “yes” or “no” on trade agreements without amending them. Without it, no substantial agreement would survive the approval process. Given his administration’s myriad political problems, it is unlikely to be renewed, even if his party manages to hold onto both houses of Congress in the autumn mid-term elections.
  
  The collapse will probably be blamed on America, which has been pushing for bold action on agricultural tariffs, and resisting a modest compromise deal that includes caps on its own agricultural subsidies. This is ironic, because America has been one of the grave men pushing hard to revive Doha after the round’s first collapse at Cancún in 2003. Despite high-profile deviations, such as slapping tariffs on imported steel, Mr Bush has largely been a committed free trader.
  
  But his successor may well not be. Protectionist and anti-immigration sentiment is rising in both big parties in America, thanks partly to stagnating median wages. This will make fertile ground for protectionist politicians. Even those who are committed to free trade may find it wiser to suppress their liberalising urges. Mr Bush has found it difficult, politically, to expand trade and bring illegal immigrants into legal jobs. And whatever his instincts on trade, the next president will face a Congress much more hostile to open markets than those that gave Bill Clinton and Mr Bush authority to negotiate deals at the WTO. Without leadership, and concessions, from America, it is hard to see how the WTO can go much further.
  
  This is a tragedy, especially for the developing world. Last year, the World Bank estimated that global gains from trade liberalisation would equal roughly $287 billion, of which $86 billion would accrue to developing nations, lifting at least 66m people out of poverty. Activist groups including Greenpeace and Oxfam were quick to condemn both Washington and Brussels for intransigence over agricultural subsidies, saying that rich-world self interest is leaving the poor to suffer.
  
  Without further progress at the WTO, those keen on liberalising trade will focus on regional and bilateral agreements. These are already proliferating (see chart): just about every one of the WTO's 149 members is a party to a regional trade agreement of some sort.
  
  But these smaller agreements are a poor substitute for global progress. While they improve flows within the deal, they distort markets by favouring certain countries over others, even if their goods offer less economic value. The proliferation of special regulations, which companies must spend time and money to understand, does nothing to free up trade generally. And such deals sap the will for broader progress in multilateral talks. This is particularly harmful to smaller and poorer countries, which lack the economic muscle to win concessions from behemoths like America and the EU unless they are part of a broad negotiating consortium. With the sun finally setting on the hopes for Doha, there may be very dark times ahead for trade.

In fact, the sentence I quoted says the exact opposite of what you think the article said. "America . . . resist[ed] . . . caps on its own agricultural subsidies." If I inscribed it on a two-by-four and clubbed you in the forehead with it, you still wouldn't get it.

Learn to read before you accuse other people of lying.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
Free trade treaties are just that - they are supposed to dismantle government laws that interfere with free trade.

When you start making sense about the word 'liberal," I'll take your views on the meaning of "free trade" seriously. Until then, it's pointless semantics. Even after then, actually. Have fun with the other "true free traders."

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by Spanky
The point is that labor laws and environmental protections have no place in a free trade treaty. Free trade treaties are just that - they are supposed to dismantle government laws that interfere with free trade. Tariffs, subsidies and other NTBs.
...

People who support free trade do not support labor and environmental riders being added to free trade treaties.

I can recognize that some environmental and labor protections are really just protectionism in disguise, but if this is your standard, you've got a big, big problem.

I want China and Indonesia and India and Mexico to stop building cheap poluting factories and paying their workers subsistance wages, the first because polution knows no borders and the second just because it is morally right (and negotiating a treaty seems like a less drastic way of ameliorating a wrong than invasion. YMMV.)

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
When you start making sense about the word 'liberal," I'll take your views on the meaning of "free trade" seriously. Until then, it's pointless semantics. Even after then, actually. Have fun with the other "true free traders."

"Liberal" is a subjective term. I'm not sure any one person's definition is completely in agreement with another's.

But I do know this for certain about "liberalism" - it's dead. Right now, millions of voters are throwing Republicans out of office because they spent like Democrats. The Democratic Party has adopted huge chunks of the classic GOP platform to win. Just look at the Democrats who are poised to take over battleground states - they're all moderates.

Don't blame Bill Clinton for sentencing the liberals to death and forcing the Dems to the center. That's putting the chicken before the egg. The voters had already rejected liberalism - Bill was just being a smart politician and following public sentiment.

In many regards, Karl Rove is right - the GOP can't lose today. The funny thing is, it'll be the Old GOP - the real Republicans - that win. So some of them will be Democrats. So what? That's just a name.