Making Baby Jesus Cry

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Actually, I'm really not sure what the fuck you're talking about, but that's not that different from usual. Carry on.

eta: Spanky, I will respond to your CAFTA post, but I'm about to watch a DVD, so it will have to wait. The basic point, is that you are confusing free trade with the libertarian fantasy of a common-law regime in which all of the social legislation of the late-nineteenth and twentieth centuries are rolled back. The rest of us understand that a foreign government can subsidize its own businesses by failing to enforce labor or environmental laws providing basic protections. When our companies try to compete with those companies, they do so on an uneven playing field.

But businesses support this, so it must be good.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Spanky
You sound like liberals with SDI. For a high priority budget item what percentage of the total budget do we spend on Stem Cell Research? I bet it is not even one tenth of one percent.

I dissent. SDI is part of national defence. National defence is something we all benefit equally from and which is difficult/impossible to pass to the marketplace to be allocated (other than via the exercise of our second amendment rights). There is an inherent and absolute market incentive to engage in R&D for diseases, including via stem cell, so I say let the market go at it. If there is a such a potential benefit for Alzhiemers patients, there should be a huge market incentive. Let lil Ronnie Reagan gather up some of his loudmouth pals in the media and pool their seven figure salaries and fund some research, in exchange for some patent et al rights to future medical techology/drugs.

In the absence of the above, if Japan and China and Europe and all the other places who are allegedly doing so much more than us in this area, actually are doing it, fantastic. We can be freeriders off their R&D later on, much as they have free-ridden out coattails in so many areas since WWII.

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by Spanky
You idea of a level playing field is an unatainable goal. It simply can't happend.

Please answer this directly?

1) By your definition there is not a level playing field between California and Alabama (Alabama has lower minimum wage, less environmental regulations and less workplace protection).
and therefore, there is no free trade between California and Alabama.

2) And following your line of reasoning (if it was possible) shouldn't California institute tariffs against Alabama until they "level the playing field".

I'm Not Ty, but I play him on TV.

Short answers.

1) Correct in the theoretical sense. (Of course, there is no such thing as pure free trade, but whatever.)

2) If they weren't in the same country, they could and probably would. This very situation, by the way (bewteeen the 13 original states, of course), was one of the major reasons why the Articles of Confederation went the way of the do-do bird.

I was tempted to respond (again) to your earlier post's comment about the workers being free to choose to take or reject a lowpaying with the picture of the child laborers from 1900. We haven't had free trade here since those little bastards got out of honest labor and into the 3rd grade.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
You idea of a level playing field is an unatainable goal. It simply can't happend.

And yet, as Richard Epstein is my witness, we don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

Please answer this directly?

1) By your definition there is not a level playing field between California and Alabama (Alabama has lower minimum wage, less environmental regulations and less workplace protection).
and therefore, there is no free trade between California and Alabama.

2) And following your line of reasoning (if it was possible) shouldn't California institute tariffs against Alabama until they "level the playing field".

The Commerce Clause not prevents California and Alabama from taxing goods crossing their boundaries, it also gives Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce on a national basis, including by preempting inconsistent state laws. This power is located in the federal government instead of state governments in order to realize a national economic union, because the alternative set forth in the Articles of Confederation didn't work so well.

[eta: Sweet, Not Bob.]

Look, one of Cardin's objections to CAFTA had to do with the enforcement mechanism -- or lack of an effective one -- for terms in the treaty. You can argue all you want about whether this subject is "free trade" or not, however you mean that term, but Cardin's objection relates to what the treaty actually does (or fails to do).

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
There is an inherent and absolute market incentive to engage in R&D for diseases, including via stem cell, so I say let the market go at it. If there is a such a potential benefit for Alzhiemers patients, there should be a huge market incentive. Let lil Ronnie Reagan gather up some of his loudmouth pals in the media and pool their seven figure salaries and fund some research, in exchange for some patent et al rights to future medical techology/drugs.

I defer to RT on this stuff, since her little finger knows more about it than I do, but I thought Bush's policy was to prevent institutions which do stem cell research of certain types from receiving any federal funding at all.

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by Not Bob
I was tempted to respond (again) to your earlier post's comment about the workers being free to choose to take or reject a lowpaying with the picture of the child laborers from 1900. We haven't had free trade here since those little bastards got out of honest labor and into the 3rd grade.

Alas, I can resist anything but temptation. Here goes:

Spanky, don't let them take away my freedom of contract!



Thank goodness my employer doesn't have to worry about pesky OSHA inspectors!



Not letting me work is anti-free trade!

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
And yet, as Richard Epstein is my witness, we don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.



The Commerce Clause not prevents California and Alabama from taxing goods crossing their boundaries, it also gives Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce on a national basis, including by preempting inconsistent state laws. This power is located in the federal government instead of state governments in order to realize a national economic union, because the alternative set forth in the Articles of Confederation didn't work so well.

[eta: Sweet, Not Bob.]

My point of saying (if it was possible) was so you wouldn't blather on like this. I not asking what the consitution says. I am asking, if you believe that if it was possible - should we institute tariffs on Alabama? Shouldn't we try and level the playing field so our workers are not exploited by what is happening in Alabama? (again, I know it is not possible, but if it where).

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop Look, one of Cardin's objections to CAFTA had to do with the enforcement mechanism -- or lack of an effective one -- for terms in the treaty. You can argue all you want about whether this subject is "free trade" or not, however you mean that term, but Cardin's objection relates to what the treaty actually does (or fails to do).

Enforcement of the labor provisions not the free trade provisions. Again focusing on the nonfree trade aspects.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Not Bob
I'm Not Ty, but I play him on TV.

Short answers.

1) Correct in the theoretical sense. (Of course, there is no such thing as pure free trade, but whatever.)

Originally posted by Not Bob 2) If they weren't in the same country, they could and probably would. This very situation, by the way (bewteeen the 13 original states, of course), was one of the major reasons why the Articles of Confederation went the way of the do-do bird.

I am not asking if they would. I am asking if Ty thinks that would be a good thing? Would it be better for California to institute tariffs on Alabama. A-g-a-i-n I AM NOT ASKING IF IT CAN HAPPEN OR WOULD HAPPEN. I AM ASKING FROM A POLICY STANDPOINT IF CALIFORNIA INSTITUTING TARIFFS ON ALABAMA WOULD BE GOOD FOR CALIFORNIA.

Originally posted by Not Bob I was tempted to respond (again) to your earlier post's comment about the workers being free to choose to take or reject a lowpaying with the picture of the child laborers from 1900. We haven't had free trade here since those little bastards got out of honest labor and into the 3rd grade.

I am not saying that we should not have labor laws. I never said that. What I am saying is that economic growth does more for workers than any regulations. India has worker regulation up the Yin Yang but it is much better to be a worker here than in India.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
My point of saying (if it was possible) was so you wouldn't blather on like this. I not asking what the consitution says. I am asking, if you believe that if it was possible - should we institute tariffs on Alabama? Shouldn't we try and level the playing field so our workers are not exploited by what is happening in Alabama? (again, I know it is not possible, but if it where).

I'm not sure what you're asking. If Alabama and California were able to erect trade barriers like tariffs or (say) rules requiring the makers of, say, wine to use an in-state distributor instead of shipping directly to a customer, I would favor trying to reach a deal that benefited consumers by removing these barriers. But as Not Bob is pointing out, some things that can be called barriers to trade are good things.

I AM ASKING FROM A POLICY STANDPOINT IF CALIFORNIA INSTITUTING TARIFFS ON ALABAMA WOULD BE GOOD FOR CALIFORNIA.

You, I, and Rep. Cardin all think tariffs are bad, as a rule.

Enforcement of the labor provisions not the free trade provisions. Again focusing on the nonfree trade aspects.

Whatever. Cardin and the rest of the universe -- pending repair of the Hubble Space Telescope -- understand that what he's talking about is within the subject of free trade. If you want to attack him for not using your own peculiar terminology, go ahead, but now that I understand that this is what you're arguing about, I'm less interested in pursuing it. I'll stick to law and policy.

What I am saying is that economic growth does more for workers than any regulations. India has worker regulation up the Yin Yang but it is much better to be a worker here than in India.

OK, but perhaps the question is not whether to have CAFTA at all, but whether to have CAFTA with the flaccid labor law enforcement provisions, or CAFTA with the sort of provisions that were a feature of previous trade agreements. The Administration could have gotten the votes of people like Cardin if they had followed those precedents, so why did they water them down?

edited to try to keep up with the above

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Not Bob
Alas, I can resist anything but temptation. Here goes:

Spanky, don't let them take away my freedom of contract!



Thank goodness my employer doesn't have to worry about pesky OSHA inspectors!



Not letting me work is anti-free trade!

I find the middle photo disturbing. Can we please have it removed? Penske you can remove can't you? please Get that off- it offends me for some personal reasons.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I find the middle photo disturbing. Can we please have it removed? Penske you can remove can't you? please Get that off- it offends me for some personal reasons.

Hmm. Your "No Pink Frame" rule is an interesting one.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I find the middle photo disturbing. Can we please have it removed? Penske you can remove can't you? please Get that off- it offends me for some personal reasons.

We'll remove images (or rather, edit to link to them) if they're not safe for work. Spanky assures me that no children will be harmed by the machinery in the middle picture, so it's work-safe. If Not Bob wants to show me some evidence that the machinery really wasn't safe for children, I'm willing to reconsider.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
I don't think so either, and it's a moot point because the moderation of this board isn't going to change unless one of you guys wants to voluntarily step down. I can see the temptation of wanting to do so from time to time.

Actually I was trying to force Ty out to consolidate my own manaical powerbase.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan


I guess outsourcing cutting edge medical research, though, is par for the course in this administration. Free trade and all that, right Spanky?

Yes.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Miss Crabtree
Now, Mr. Pensky, I've decided to grade all your work as fiction so that I don't have to flunk you in social studies. But, really, I'm concerned and want you to check in with the school nurse every morning until we figure out what is causing these hallucinations.

As fiction, I'll give this a "C".

with this being the exception to the rule, I don't converse with my socks.