quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sanity

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

Yes, I am all for that, and they can pay extra for police protection, may not spend any money in the us for political purposes, lobbyists, pay extra for any use of american resources such as roads, and higher property taxes on their buildings and grounds.........register with the state department as foreign agents, and we need some legislative actions that would raise foreign based corporate taxes in the US above those paid by Americans.

Trade wars

Great idea

Why not just build higher walls to keep our people in. With towers, spotlights and sharpshooters

OMG.

There's a political position on which we actually agree. Strongly even.

Well, not about the sharpshooters, but I'm assuming that part's irony.

And, it has long been an essential part of my disagreement with Democrats -- global free trade is here to stay, and for good reason.

quote:


Interestingly, in our bizarre political climate today, it's also among my disagreements with the Tea Party conservative wing.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Fair point. To be more accurate, factions within the Democrats' caucus are anti-free trade.

I have to disagree with you about Republicans, however. The turn to populist conservatism has brought with it arguments for isolationist economic policies and opposition to free trade agreements. I can't imagine how you see it any differently--it's their stated position.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

Hey, we cant produce TVs? Vehicles? We give up a 1,000 American jobs here, 400 American jobs there, 100, 000 American jobs over there, and so on, and pretty soon, we are talking about Some Real American Jobs.

quote:


Sure, you can produce them but where are the American consumers willing to buy those American produced goods at prices that would support those jobs?

quote:


"Oxford researchers say that 45 percent of America’s occupations will be automated within the next 20 years."

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

quote:


Sure, you can produce them but where are the American consumers willing to buy those American produced goods at prices that would support those jobs?

Protectionism. Perhaps you have a dictionary at hand? Maybe an encyclopedia so you can get a deeper overview.

quote:


"Oxford researchers say that 45 percent of America’s occupations will be automated within the next 20 years."

And there will be people that design and build the automation, and program it, and service it, and sell it, and buy it and administer it and and and and . . . and since some of those aren't automated yet, thats more jobs, and of course there are new frontiers, just ahead of us, ALWAYS.


Anyway there is a reason that I want to dismantle corporations at the same time I want to protect our economy.


Nevertheless, somebody is buying this shit, and if you cast about you will find that a big buyer is us.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63
I don't think we even have global "free" trade anyway. It can't possibly be "free" if much of the world still remains "not free," including China and various nations of the Middle East which figure prominently in the globalist agenda.

quote:

There's also a certain unevenness about global trade which some Democrats might oppose, such as variances between countries regarding environmental laws, worker safety, laws regarding unions and collective bargaining, and a minimum living wage comparable to that of ours. There's no possible way that US workers can compete with workers who work for $5 a day, so until that situation balances out and wages world-wide are more comparable with each other, it won't really be "free" trade.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

Uh, sorry protectionism does work, it is proven stuff. I don't know that we need fur lined sinks. So, whatever markets we are tapping into, we are getting imports from them but not exporting as much.

As for third world countries wanting what Americans have, they will eventually get it, from China, Sri Lanka, Korea, Japan, or wherever, but not from this country.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63
I don't think we even have global "free" trade anyway. It can't possibly be "free" if much of the world still remains "not free," including China and various nations of the Middle East which figure prominently in the globalist agenda.

The "free" part of "free trade" isn't about the level of freedom within a country or civilization, but with it being, more or less, unencumbered. NAFTA didn't happen because Canadians, Americans and Mexicans all enjoy the same level of freedom, but because our 3 nations agreed to not encumber trade among the three.

quote:

quote:

There's also a certain unevenness about global trade which some Democrats might oppose, such as variances between countries regarding environmental laws, worker safety, laws regarding unions and collective bargaining, and a minimum living wage comparable to that of ours. There's no possible way that US workers can compete with workers who work for $5 a day, so until that situation balances out and wages world-wide are more comparable with each other, it won't really be "free" trade.

What's ways are there to "balance out" world-wide wages? Wouldn't that be a natural result of increasing free trade with those countries? Mexico was the poster child for outsourcing. Then, it was China. Even now, China is starting to fall out of favor for India, Pakistan, and other "emerging" markets. There is a small wave of "on-shoring" going on because it's becoming less economical to outsource outside the US.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

Uh, sorry protectionism does work, it is proven stuff. I don't know that we need fur lined sinks. So, whatever markets we are tapping into, we are getting imports from them but not exporting as much.

As for third world countries wanting what Americans have, they will eventually get it, from China, Sri Lanka, Korea, Japan, or wherever, but not from this country.

What those countries buy will be from American companies but wherever those goods are made is up to those same American companies.. those companies also have "friends" in Washington, friends you and voters don't have (despite what is promised at election time).. and that means you & voters ranting away isn't gonna change a damn thing.. OWS was the closest ya'll ever got in Washington and that got ya nothing but cheap lip service..

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zonie63
I don't think we even have global "free" trade anyway. It can't possibly be "free" if much of the world still remains "not free," including China and various nations of the Middle East which figure prominently in the globalist agenda.

The "free" part of "free trade" isn't about the level of freedom within a country or civilization, but with it being, more or less, unencumbered. NAFTA didn't happen because Canadians, Americans and Mexicans all enjoy the same level of freedom, but because our 3 nations agreed to not encumber trade among the three.

Mexico is considered "partly free" according to the most recent Freedom House survey. They were at the level of 5/4 back in the 80s, but now they're at 3/3, so they're getting a little more free incrementally. (China is at 7/6, Saudi Arabia is at 7/7)
Still, it's not about wordsmithing over the word "free." There would still be encumbrances if the political/economic systems are not congruent to each other. It's not the same thing as trading between States within the United States, since there isn't that much variance between State governments. National governments are a different kettle of fish, and this is where the encumbrances come into play. If the people in one nation are more encumbered than they are in another nation, then that poses a problem and a conflict with the concept of free market economics. How can the market be free if the people are not? If there isn't a level playing field among all the people in the market, then such a market will ultimately self destruct.
In the end, few people seem willing to accept any concept of a global government, which would be a necessity for a global economy. I can't see that there's any other way around it.

quote:

quote:

quote:

There's also a certain unevenness about global trade which some Democrats might oppose, such as variances between countries regarding environmental laws, worker safety, laws regarding unions and collective bargaining, and a minimum living wage comparable to that of ours. There's no possible way that US workers can compete with workers who work for $5 a day, so until that situation balances out and wages world-wide are more comparable with each other, it won't really be "free" trade.

What's ways are there to "balance out" world-wide wages? Wouldn't that be a natural result of increasing free trade with those countries? Mexico was the poster child for outsourcing. Then, it was China. Even now, China is starting to fall out of favor for India, Pakistan, and other "emerging" markets. There is a small wave of "on-shoring" going on because it's becoming less economical to outsource outside the US.

That could also be because some are beginning recognize the long-term problems which come with outsourcing, things that weren't considered previously due to being blinded by short-term profits without considering the consequences.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
Ron, I think a better solution, admittedly very long term, is meaningful international law and cooperation.
The current global organization allows readily for "I've got mine, but fuck you, not my problem."
I'd argue that's short term thinking, and that we'd all be better off if we addressed it. I readily acknowledge it won't be easy. And I get that many people flat out oppose it. But we're treating symptoms instead of problems.
And that's what protectionism does as well. So we still have the problems, and add to them the side effects of the treatment.
Subsidies complicate this. Some are nationalistic, but others address market externalities -- supporting honey, for example, to ensure pollination. Yes, some will claim that the market would provide, but it doesn't in this case. Utilities are another example -- they have such huge economies of scale that natural monopolies, with regulation, are essential.
So I get that it would still have to be managed. And I'm for sensible regulation.
But roll up the carpet and raise the walls? It doesn't work, and never has.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)