Making Baby Jesus Cry - Page 66

Spanky · 08-10-2005, 05:22 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
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.

The idea in the beginning was the dropping all tariffs benefits everyone. The dynamic has changed because of the need to appease liberals. When Reagan was asked why he didn't institute retaliatory tariffs his response was - why should I stick holes on my side of the boat if he is sticking holes on his side of the boat. He understood economics much better than you do.

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
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?

There are two possiblilities. Either the Bush administration does not think they are good or they were asked and turned down. Either way they are not going to be included. If they didn't ask they have a different view of trade policy than I do. But that really does not matter. I am not President. And the treaty has already been signed and is on the Fast Trak. So when the option is up or down you need to make the call. CAFTA does the main thing it is intended for - reducing tariffs. It would have been nice to ad labor and environmental stuff but those are just extras. It would also be nice if he forgave some of their debt. But that aint happening either.

Tyrone Slothrop · 08-10-2005, 05:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
The idea in the beginning was the dropping all tariffs benefits everyone. The dynamic has changed because of the need to appease liberals. When Reagan was asked why he didn't institute retaliatory tariffs his response was - why should I stick holes on my side of the boat if he is sticking holes on his side of the boat. He understood economics much better than you do.

If not game theory.

Quote:

There are two possiblilities. Either the Bush administration does not think they are good or they were asked and turned down. Either way they are not going to be included. If they didn't ask they have a different view of trade policy than I do. But that really does not matter. I am not President.

For that matter, none of us got a vote, so under this reasoning there's no point in discussing any of it. To make Hank happier, I now succumb to your reasoning.

ltl/fb · 08-10-2005, 05:34 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
blah blah blah

This kind of reminds me of the whole Mental Health "Parity" thing where you can't have a different dollar limit on mental health coverage than on other medical coverage (if you provide mental health coverage), so companies/insurers just slapped on limits on how many treatment sessions people could have. Which in a regulatory kind of way, resulted in costs never exceeding whatever cap they might want to put on.

So what's up with Rove?

Spanky · 08-10-2005, 05:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
And I agreed, so insofar as you think that's why we disagree, you are wrong.

Right

I think I have agreed with this as well.

Quote:

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

I thought I heard you say that the anti free trade stuff in CAFTA out weighed the Free trade stuff making CAFTA on balance not a free trade agreemenht. In fact I am sure you did. CAFTA cuts tariffs (completely) but doesn't create a level playing field. So does that mean you support it?

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
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.

You think your idea of parallel regulation is so widely accpeted that I have got the definition of free trade wrong and such definition is used for other ends. And don't you think if parallel regulations were important to business that someone somewhere would mention it. And I did not say trade association I said any business.

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
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.

Again. That is what you argued. You argued which I pointed out as proposition one. The Free trade lost by parallels outweighs the free trade benefit of cutting tariffs.

He argues #2. Which you did not support. That the loss of the other aspects, labour and environment, outweight the free trade aspect.

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
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.

Cardin does not support CAFTA because it does not provide an enforcemnt mechanism of labour rules provided for in NAFTA. He does not make the argument that the lack of this provision makes the agreement less free.

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
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.

This doesn't make sense because it hasn't only been this administration. The business community could have cared less about the environmental provisions and labor provisions in NAFTA. The Chamber was worried that Clinton was going to screw it up. If you told a lobbyist your theory about parallel regulations they would laugh.

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) · 08-10-2005, 05:46 PM

Why don't the rest of us decamp to the big board, and take over spanky's book discussion. Ty and spanky can carry on here.

Tyrone Slothrop · 08-10-2005, 05:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Why don't the rest of us decamp to the big board, and take over spanky's book discussion. Ty and spanky can carry on here.

No worries. I'm done with free trade ("free trade"), and Spanky probably won't keep posting on it if I quit replying.

Shape Shifter · 08-10-2005, 05:52 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Why don't the rest of us decamp to the big board, and take over spanky's book discussion. Ty and spanky can carry on here.

I tried, but Spanky called me a gay. I'll stay here. It may be boring, but it's safe.

Replaced_Texan · 08-10-2005, 05:53 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
I tried, but Spanky called me a gay. I'll stay here. It may be boring, but it's safe.

What's wrong with being called gay?

Shape Shifter · 08-10-2005, 05:54 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
What's wrong with being called gay?

There is nothing wrong with that.

It was his tone of voice.

dtb · 08-10-2005, 05:55 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
What's wrong with being called gay?

Not "gay", silly. "A gay". There's a world of difference, you know.

Penske_Account · 08-10-2005, 06:01 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by dtb
Not "gay", silly. "A gay". There's a world of difference, you know.

I thought we determined that Shifter was bi, no? Or is it Lucky Pierre and Lucky Jacques?

Spanky · 08-10-2005, 06:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
No worries. I'm done with free trade ("free trade"), and Spanky probably won't keep posting on it if I quit replying.

Don't be so sure. As you have stated before, I can make up arguments, atribute them to you and then argue against them.

In between name dropping posts of course.

Spanky · 08-10-2005, 06:10 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Shape Shifter

It was his tone of voice.

Just trying to help you get out of the closet. The first step is a doozey. But from what I have heard, the more steps you take the easier it gets.

Spanky · 08-10-2005, 06:14 PM

Question:

I have heard many heterosexual guys say that they can't really be friends with a good looking women because they are always thinking of ways to get them in bed.

I have homosexual men tell me that the reason they have so many friends that are women because they really can't be good friends with a good looking guy because they are always trying to get them in bed.

So does that mean a bi-sexual man can't have any good looking friends?

Shape Shifter · 08-10-2005, 06:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
Question:

I have heard many heterosexual guys say that they can't really be friends with a good looking women because they are always thinking of ways to get them in bed.

I have homosexual men tell me that the reason they have so many friends that are women because they really can't be good friends with a good looking guy because they are always trying to get them in bed.

So does that mean a bi-sexual man can't have any good looking friends?

Are you going to ACL this year?