MasterJaguar01
Posts: 2345
Joined: 12/2/2006 Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: heavyblinker quote:
ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01 How am I incorrect? I indicated in two separate posts that Economic Nationalism did not automatically mean tariffs. How does Economic Nationalism LEAD to trade wars as I have defined it? I prefer the definition from this link: https://www.nationaleconomicseditorial.com/2017/03/21/economic-nationalism/ Economic nationalism is best defined as an umbrella term for the variety of economic theories and policies that prioritize the economic interests of one nation, and its citizens, above those of another. NOTE: I do NOT endorse the link in its entirety, NOR its endorsement of Trump, or Bannon How does an umbrella term for a variety of economic theories automatically LEAD to trade wars? It seems that you had your own pre-defined definition of the term, and simply took license with attributing your definition to my post and me. Congrats on finding an article in support of Economic Nationalism, but I am convinced you're merely responding to the tone of the article and not actually thinking through what it says. Thank you indeed fro the congratulations. Please understand, that I was posting from my own thought. I had no real need for an article at all except for a specific purpose. (And that purpose, you completely missed, as I expected) More below quote:
So if the economic policies 'prioritize the economic interests of one nation, and its citizens, above those of another.', how can you possibly not see how this could easily lead to a trade war? Countries develop economic policies all the time to prioritize their economic interests above other nations. That is what nations do all the time!!! I f negotiations occur where one nation's interests are prioritized and met, while, WITHOUT de-prioritizing that nations interest meet another nations prioritized interest, a trade AGREEMENT is reached (and trade war is avoided) The alternative is a Trade WAR which hurts the economic interest of both nations. The result of this is called a TRADE AGREEMENT. It is mind boggling that you fail to understand this. quote:
Here is just an example of the insanity: quote:
Economic nationalism would also make America more powerful relative to its rivals (particularly China)—by cutting them off from America’s market, we would undermine the viability of their economic model. So I guess China is just going to let the US undermine the viability of their economic model, allow America to become more powerful, and be perfectly okay with being cut off from America's market? Still, by saying you don't support the concept in its entirety, and since I don't know what you DO support, it's impossible to argue this... you can just keep denying that what I am saying is what you support I posted the article for a clearer definition of how I use the term "Economic Nationalism". Nothing more. (An "umbrella" term meaning we need to prioritize our economic interests (particularly in three areas: Our trade agreements, our alliances, and our immigration policies). There are various tactics that ALL nations employ EVERY day in those areas. RE: China, yes we could negotiate (or at least attempt to negotiate) more favorable deals with China, which very well could include restricting their access to our market. As to cutting them off? Doubtful. quote:
quote:
False. in many states (e.g. California). (OK... maybe not free, but HIGHLY subsidized) I was talking about GOP values, not blue state policies. Do you think California is opposed to 'unskilled' immigration? I hope they are! quote:
quote:
1. What "apocalypse"? I do not know of any UK health care apocalypse. 2. What budget cuts? PLEASE point out the budget cut in the graph in this link: https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/projects/nhs-in-a-nutshell/nhs-budget There IS a budget cut proposed for next year. Perhaps the Doctor shortage, which has been going on for a few years is caused by a future cut announced in January of this year? Here: https://www.theguardian.com/healthcare-network/2015/jun/02/nhs-no-more-cuts-to-social-care http://www.pulsetoday.co.uk/news/commissioning-news/government-announces-200m-cuts-to-public-health-budget/20010183.fullarticle http://www.parapundit.com/archives/007356.html quote:
The poll of health leaders was carried out by Populus for the confederation, which represents bodies both commissioning and providing services. Of 313 respondents, 99% agreed and no one disagreed with the proposition that social care cuts were increasing pressure on the NHS as a whole, while 92% agreed and only 2% disagreed that they were increasing pressure on their own organisation. Can you not just look this stuff up yourself? Or read the articles you post beyond the title? https://www.bing.com/search?q=uk+health+care+budget+cuts&form=EDGEAR&qs=PF&cvid=890ea729ffbe4ee1a920f78deefd9afa&cc=CA&setlang=en-US&PC=DCTS I will concede the point. I was probably lazy in my research. (I have no GOOD excuse. In reality, I was taking a break from working on my 2018 OpEx budget) HOWEVER: I cannot find (again still lazy) find any ACTUAL evidence of a budget cut. I do see the announcement and the related perception. http://www.nhsconfed.org/resources/key-statistics-on-the-nhs quote:
quote:
Shit or not... These services cost money, and there are people who are using these services (either free or highly subsidized) that have little or no potential to contribute significantly to the tax base. Now I notice you're not talking about immigrants anymore. So what about the American deadbeats? Why are they less of a problem than the immigrants, which, btw, you haven't actually proven are doing what you claim they are doing. A few personal anecdotes doesn't cut it, I'm afraid. I hate to tell you this... But EVERY single post of yours is one GIANT strawman. I was responding to a post of yours, and none of the points to which I responded, addressed immigrants. These "deadbeats" as YOU call them, could indeed be a problem. "Deadbeats" (again YOUR word), people who don't contribute to society, and utilize services are a burden to any society. (And NO, that does NOT include Retired Seniors , or Veterans, as were included in Romney's 47% comment) quote:
quote:
My agreement with Bannon goes as far as this: 1. His comment about GWB 2. High-level (ready for 60 minutes) theory of Economic Nationalism Beyond that, he is a putz. Kind of a harder-edged Bill O'Reilly So basically you like the version of EN that focuses exclusively on the purported benefits, ignores all the dangers and drawbacks, and makes it seem like America can start doing to the rest of the world what Trump has been doing to his investors since the 80s. I like the idea that we should prioritize our Economic interests over other nations. (As all other nations do with their own economic interests. quote:
So if I told you I had a deal for you where it would make me very rich, increase my power and influence, and do considerably less for you (because doing anything more would be a threat to my 'win'), would you take that deal? No. Would you? quote:
I don't know how you can separate what Bannon said on 60 minutes from the rest of it... DING DING DING!!!!!! That is the HEART, the CRUX... THAT IS THE PROBLEM!!!!! quote:
they are inextricable. Not to a free thinking person, who is free to develop his/her own ideas separate from someone ELSE's defined ideology. quote:
There is a difference between making a few less advantageous concessions so that a bigger deal can go through (which happens in current trade deals), and openly declaring that anyone who deals with you is gonna get screwed. Yes!!! That's a start.
|