Making Baby Jesus Cry

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
not Sadaam was bad- in the instance he was good at making people do something. I'm saying take a tip from how he made people vote and make them watch the footage.

Oh. I can't go for that.

Then the terrorists have won.

S_A_M

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
You are confusing the (conservative) fight against government regulation with the (bipartisan) fight for free trade, as I have suggested several times. Free trade, to me and to most people who use the English language and pay attention to politics in this country, refers to improving competition. The way you are using the term, free trade means getting rid of pesky government regulations that protect the environment, and workers, etc., so that companies can do as they please, regardless of the state of comparable laws overseas. There are two reasons to use the term "free trade" this way. One is unfamiliarity with the normal use of the English language. The other is deceit -- an effort to roll back politically popular functions of government in the guise of improving competition with foreign countries. Many conservatives have adopted the latter strategy. I do not, however, think you are intentionally trying to confuse anyone.

I am not confusing the two. I am not using the free trade argument to achieve my ends of ending regulation you are using the term free trade to achive your ends. When most people think of Free Trade they think of ending tariffs. Pure and simple. Then other countrys have found other ways to prevent free trade to get around tariff reductions and these are called NTBs. Almost no one, when they talk of free trade, thinks that includes parallel environmental, safety and labor regulations. No one.

I simply want treaties to end Tariffs. When most people think of free trade that is what they are thinking. When you as a politician say you are pro free trade to people they expect you to mean that you are for reducing tariffs. No one when they hear someone say they are for free trade thinks that that person is for creating equal labor, safety, and environmental regulations around the world. They would only expect that from someone who says they are for international environental protection, or are for international workers rights.

Under Lincoln the Republican party was against free trade because it wanted to keep high tariffs to protect american business. The south were "free traders" because they wanted to end those tariffs. No one talked about making parallel regulations with Europe or other countrys.

That is been true eve since then. When the WTO, NAFTA and CAFTA were proposed to promote free trade no one thought that free trade meant making parallel regulations. No one thought that the main purpose, or even one of the main purposes of a free trade agreement is to make parallel regulations. They may think to make the treaties more equitable they would include that stuff, but no one thinks these provisions make the treaties freer - except for maybe you and few other readers of mother jones. You are confusing the terms fair trade and free trade.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Oh. I can't go for that.

Then the terrorists have won.

S_A_M

But if they don't "win" then they might WIN, see?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
1) I pointed out that parallel labor and environmental, labor and etc are not possible.

And I agreed, so insofar as you think that's why we disagree, you are wrong.

2) Lowered Tariffs are still good even if you don't have such a level playing field. So a trade agreement that does not have such provisions still promotes free trade.

I think I have agreed with this as well.

3) I have never heard anyone argue, besides you, that the lack of these parallel regulations is so detrimental to free trade that it outweighs the benefits of free trade brought by tariff reduction.

Well, that's not what I argued either, so I guess you've never heard anyone argue it. Which doesn't surprise me much.

2) can you find me one company or business organization that has complained about CAFTA because it does not create a level playing field (in the terms you are talking of) Just one.

Unlike you, I do not attach some totemic significance to the utterances of trade associations, so I am not going to Google this one. Sorry.

3) Can you find me one person who is normally considered a free trader who makes this criticism of CAFTA using the argument that because it does not create a level playing field it actually reduces free trade. (Actually even someone that supported NAFTA and the WTO who has made this argument?).

Again, that's not what I argued, so no. But I do refer you back to the piece I quoted by Rep. Cardin, a self-described supporter of free trade for twenty years. How do you explain his position on this bill? For the sake of argument, assume that he is principled, and is not lying.

4) NAFTA and the WTO don't even come close to creating a parallel playing field as you envision it. Yet they are still considered positive free trade agreements. Why is that? Do you consider that on balance these treaty create a free trade environment?

I don't know what you mean by "free trade," let alone "a free trade environment," but I do generally support NAFTA and the WTO, as do people like Cardin.

5) Clearly this disadvantage that American companys find themselves at does not seem to matter to them much. They clearly find that Tariff reduction without creating parallel regulations is fine. Why do you think they don't know what is good for their business?

That is a good question. I am aware that this White House retaliates against sympathetic interests that do not toe its line on things like this, so I tend to discount the articulated views of these sorts of trade associations. I wish I had a better answer than this, but I also suspect that if I set next to one of these lobbyists on a plane, I would learn much more about what they think about these issues than I am getting from your recitation of their rapture for CAFTA.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
P.S. When is that hypocritical fuck going to fire Karl Rove?

Thanks, S_A_M. Anything to get rid of this free trade stuff.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
Almost no one, when they talk of free trade, thinks that includes parallel environmental, safety and labor regulations. No one.

(1) You are simply wrong about this. The sorts of provisions I am talking about have been a part of free-trade agreements for years and years. Indeed, they are a part of CAFTA. Where CAFTA departs from prior treaties is, inter alia, in the mode of enforcement.

(1)(a) To the extent that people who are not well informed about these issues think otherwise, who cares?

(2) If we are discussing policy, then it does not matter what other people mean by "free trade," because we are discussing what CAFTA does.

(2)(a) I believe that you are not discussing policy, or CAFTA, but rather Spanky's Conception Of Free Trade, and whether other people are on board. If so, who cares? It's a semantic argument, not one about policy or the real world.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Thanks, S_A_M. Anything to get rid of this free trade stuff.

Don't make me start deleting your posts. Hank says I'll do it.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Don't make me start deleting your posts. Hank says I'll do it.

I have some thoughts on CAFTA that I developed for a Louisiana cleient, I'll share them with you, and while I don't mean to demean any of the fine analysis put forth over the past month, I do feel this is the final word on the issue.

Trade within the United States and with countries outside the United States is a common and accepted practice. People in Louisiana never question buying a book from Amazon.com or a shirt from L.L. Bean or hunting equipment from the Bass Pro Shop. We purchase cars made in Japan or Germany or Sweden; we purchase shoes made in Italy; we buy French wine; we purchase fruits and vegetables grown in many countries; we purchase coffee grown in Central and South American countries; and, we purchase oil produced and oil byproducts made in foreign nations. Similarly, Louisianans sell products that they make to persons living in foreign countries. Agricultural producers sell cotton, rice, soybeans, and other crops to other countries. The chemical industry exports its commodities around the world. Movies made in Louisiana are exportedaround the world. Tourism requires visitors from other states and other countries. Trade is a fact of life in today’s global economy. Trade leads to increased economic activity throughout the world. Louisiana economic activity associated with expanded trade with Central America revolves around increased commodities coming through the various Louisiana ports and the increase in exports from Louisiana businesses to Central American consumers,businesses, and governments. II.Economic Activity in Louisiana and Central American Trade Current economic activities in Louisiana related to trade with Central Americasuggest the economic base from which economic growth can occur. These current economic activities will include the handling of commodities by the various Louisiana ports and the exports that are currently shipped to Central America by Louisiana companies. Louisiana ports handling exports to and imports from Central America are the Port of New Orleans, the Port of South Louisiana, the Port of Baton Rouge, and the Port of Lake Charles. Key commodities produced in Louisiana and exported to Central America include bovine meat and poultry cuts, farm crops of cotton, rice, soybeans, and wheat, residues from products with oil, chemicals, paper products, plastics, and industrial machinery. All areas of the state could eventually prosper from the acceptance of CAFTA;however, certain areas with major economic activities associated with the commodities being exported to Central America and certain areas with ports that act as the intermediary between the exporters in the United States and importers in Central American and the exporters in Central American and importers in the United States should immediately feel the increased economic impact. Parishes and regions within Louisiana that can quickly improve their economic activity because of increased trade to Central America are spread from the south Louisiana parishes that are home to the majorports in the state to the chemical mainstays from Baton Rouge to New Orleans and Calcasieu Parish to the farm parishes in the northern parishes and in the southern and southwestern parishes. Chemical parishes include Ascension, Calcasieu, East Baton Rouge, and the New Orleans metropolitan area. Major cotton producing parishes include Catahoula, Franklin, Madison, Morehouse, and Tensas; major rice producing parishes include Acadia, Evangeline, Jeff Davis, Morehouse, and Vermilion; and major soybean producing parishes are Concordia, East Carroll, Madison, Pointe Coupee, and St. Landry. The benefits of trade are spread throughout the state. III.Economic Impact of CAFTA on Louisiana Economic Activity CAFTA will have a positive impact on business activity, household earnings, and jobs in Louisiana in areas such as poultry production, cotton, rice, and soybean production, paper product manufacturing, the manufacturing of chemicals and plastics, and the sale of major industrial equipment. These industries will, in turn, have a positiveeconomic impact on the community in which they exist and for the state as a whole. Thispositive impact on the Louisiana economy is illustrated in Table ES.1. The estimated impact of passing CAFTA on the Louisiana economy varies from new business sales of $169.3 million to $338.6 million, household earnings of $38.6 million to $77.2 million and new jobs of 1,385 to 2,769 new jobs.

Table ES.
1Estimated Impact of Increased Louisiana Exports To Central American Countries Due to CAFTA (Range of 8 to 16 percent in Exports and Port Activity) Economic Impact Due to Increased Export Activity (sales and earnings in millions of dollars) Export Industry Estimated Increase in Exports (Direct Effect) Sales EarningsJobs Poultry$7 to $14 million$18.1 to$36.2 $4.1 to$8.2 179 to367 Farm Production $26 to $52 million $48.9 to$97.9 $11.0 to$22.2 562 to1,123 Paper Products $5 to $10 million$11.4 to$22.9 $2.2 to$4.5 72 to144 Chemicals and Plastics $15 to $30 million $34.5 to$68.9 $7.5 to$14.9 169 to337 Machinery $10 to $20 million $17.9 to$36.7 $5.1 to$10.1 154 to308 Port Activities$20 to $40 million $38.5 to$77.8 $8.5 to$17.3 250 to500 Total$82 to $164million $169.3 to$338.6$38.6 to77.2 1,385 to2,769

IV.Estimated Economic Impact of Not Passing CAFTA Another way of measuring the impact of CAFTA is to ask what happens if it does not pass. If the trade environment deteriorates for US companies providing exports to the Central American markets, farm, chemical, and paper exports would surely decline. A $50 million reduction in farm exports from Louisiana to Central America along with the elimination of the chemical and paper exports from Louisiana to Central America would lead to the following consequences: a decline in overall business activity of $309.3 million; a loss of 3,240 jobs; and a loss of household earnings of $74.2 million. These estimates are illustrated in Table ES.2. Table ES.2Estimated Loss of Farm, Chemical, and Paper Exports To Central American Countries Due to NOT Passing CAFTA Economic Impact due to Not Passing CAFTA Industry Loss of Business by Specific Industries Sales (Millions of $) Earnings (Millions of $) Jobs Chemical $57.1 million $147.8 $33.3 1,452 Paper $20.6 million $32.0 $11.7 513 Farm Production $50 million$129.5 $29.2 1,275 Total $127.7 million $309.3 $74.2 3,240 Table ES.2 provides a benchmark of the adverse impacts on a variety of industries if trade environments are not competitive for them. CAFTA allows US producers to remain competitive in trading with Central American countries. V.Summary It is typically easier to spot industries that may be forced to adjust their production because of expanded trade than it is to spot industries that will be able to expand their business activities because of the improved trade environment. This report has focused on those industries that will benefit from expanded trade opportunities with Central America. Trade with Central America affects positively cotton, corn, rice, and soybeanproducers in Louisiana; it affects bovine and poultry producers; its affects the chemical industry, the paper industry, the industrial machinery industry, and other markets. Finally, it is important to note that the state of Louisiana and the local communities in thestate also benefit from these increased economic activities.

I'm just saying.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
If you're the manager of the Yankees now, and you trade Jaret Wright, Carl Pavano and Alan Embree to the San Francisco Giants for Scott Eyre and Jason Schmidt, people might say, that's a crappy deal -- you gave up two starting pitchers with real upside and a burned-out reliever for a solid set-up man and a starter who just isn't throwing like he used to. And you could say, Wright and Pavano have been injured and Embree blows -- we're in a pennant race and we need Schmidt and a decent set-up guy. I don't know, people could argue both sides of that. But if it gets out that you could have traded Wright, Pavano and Embree to, say the LA Dodgers for Brad Penny, Derek Lower, Eric Gagne and Duaner Sanchez, you'd be a moron for making the trade with the Giants.

The problem with your example is that in a free trade agreement no one is giving up anything valuable. In addition, you overestimate the value of your parallel regulations.

A more appropriate example would be that there are two baseball teams. One has two pitchers, two catchers, two shortstops, but no other infielders. The other team has two of every basemen but no shortstop, pitcher or catcher (in other words our tariffs are bad for us and you. And your tariffs are bad for you and us). The two teams reach a deal giving up their duplication of each fielder so each team has an entire infield (this is also known as comparative advantage). Yet one of the teams does not use batting helmets. They get more hits (less obstruction) but sustain more injuries. So the team that uses the batting helmets says that they won't make the deal unless the other team promises to use batting helmets. If the team can't get the other team to use batting helmets should they still make the trade? If the manager comes back and says he made the trade but didn't even bring up the issue of batting helmets and he ain't going back for another negotiation. Should the team accept the trade?

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Don't make me start deleting your posts. Hank says I'll do it.

Spanky said I was either gay, bi, or a woman. Can you delete him too?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Spanky
The problem with your example is that in a free trade agreement no one is giving up anything valuable. In addition, you overestimate the value of your parallel regulations.

A more appropriate example would be that there are two baseball teams. One has two pitchers, two catchers, two shortstops, but no other infielders. The other team has two of every basemen but no shortstop, pitcher or catcher (in other words our tariffs are bad for us and you. And your tariffs are bad for you and us). The two teams reach a deal giving up their duplication of each fielder so each team has an entire infield (this is also known as comparative advantage). Yet one of the teams does not use batting helmets. They get more hits (less obstruction) but sustain more injuries. So the team that uses the batting helmets says that they won't make the deal unless the other team promises to use batting helmets. If the team can't get the other team to use batting helmets should they still make the trade? If the manager comes back and says he made the trade but didn't even bring up the issue of batting helmets and he ain't going back for another negotiation. Should the team accept the trade?

I have over 100 more posts ready to go.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
The problem with your example is that in a free trade agreement no one is giving up anything valuable. In addition, you overestimate the value of your parallel regulations.

You just entirely misunderstand the dynamic driving these treaties. They are not about dropping our own tariffs as an act of altruism. We give to get. Other countries are making concessions to get better access to our markets. If you're going to give up your chips, you want to get what you can for them.

A more appropriate example would be that there are two baseball teams. One has two pitchers, two catchers, two shortstops, but no other infielders. The other team has two of every basemen but no shortstop, pitcher or catcher (in other words our tariffs are bad for us and you. And your tariffs are bad for you and us). The two teams reach a deal giving up their duplication of each fielder so each team has an entire infield (this is also known as comparative advantage). Yet one of the teams does not use batting helmets. They get more hits (less obstruction) but sustain more injuries. So the team that uses the batting helmets says that they won't make the deal unless the other team promises to use batting helmets. If the team can't get the other team to use batting helmets should they still make the trade? If the manager comes back and says he made the trade but didn't even bring up the issue of batting helmets and he ain't going back for another negotiation. Should the team accept the trade?

My point -- and it was a fairly simple one -- is that you compare a trade in baseball not just to the status quo ante, but to other trades you might have made for the same players.

By your analogy, here the Bush Administration "didn't even bring up the issue" of getting the same sorts of enforcement provisions that were in prior free-trade bills. Since you haven't said they're a bad idea, maybe you should ask, why not?

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I have over 100 more posts ready to go.

So when is that hypocrite going to fire Rove?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
(1) You are simply wrong about this. The sorts of provisions I am talking about have been a part of free-trade agreements for years and years. Indeed, they are a part of CAFTA. Where CAFTA departs from prior treaties is, inter alia, in the mode of enforcement.

They ad these provisions because they think it makes the treaty fairer but not becaues it makes it freer.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop (1)(a) To the extent that people who are not well informed about these issues think otherwise, who cares?

People that are well informed understand what is meant by free trade. You are the only one I know that uses your definition of free trade.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop (1)(a)(2) If we are discussing policy, then it does not matter what other people mean by "free trade," because we are discussing what CAFTA does.

We were discussing whether or not a congressman can be for free trade if they vote against this treaty. That is the whole point. By the definition that almost everyone accepts for free trade, except you, they can't be for free trade and vote against CAFTA.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop (1)(a)(2)(2)(a) I believe that you are not discussing policy, or CAFTA, but rather Spanky's Conception Of Free Trade, and whether other people are on board. If so, who cares? It's a semantic argument, not one about policy or the real world.

If I vote for a Congressman that say he is an environmentalist. And then he votes for a bill calling for every public park to be turned into housing developments. And I question it. He could say that humans are part of the environment and they need good housing so what I am doing is good for the "environment". Well that may be about semantics and he may have a different definition. But he really shouldn't call himself an environmentalist then should he? What the standard idea of an environmentalist is rather important.

And if a congressmen says he is for free trade. But then votes down a bill that reduces tariffs because it is not really a free trade bill because it does not include parallel regulations. Then the definitions matter. If no one else thinks that free trade includes parallet regulations we have a problem.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
They ad these provisions because they think it makes the treaty fairer but not becaues it makes it freer.

It is now clear beyond all possibility of confusion that when you refer to "free trade," you mean "trade free of government regulation," not "trade between countries on an equal footing." Got it.

People that are well informed understand what is meant by free trade. You are the only one I know that used your definition of free trade.

I disagree, but so what?

We were discussing whether or not a congressman can be for free trade if they vote against this treaty.

No, that's what you were discussing. I was discussing whether one should vote for or against CAFTA. Now that I understand that you have been discussing something different, let me say that I am not interested in discussing your topic. By the way you are using the term, we should roll back all tariffs regardless of what the rest of the world does, since that will make trade "freer." To me, this sounds like a dumb idea.