Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Trade is win-win. Two people trade only because each values what he gets more than what he gives up. That's why in a store both customer and clerk say, "Thank you."
At the international level, trade is also win-win because it allows countries to specialize in what they do well and trade the extra for things they don't make as well. When free trade is unmolested, the world is richer and has more choices.
But I keep hearing about unfair trade. I'm told that trade allows American companies to exploit people in poor countries and makes Americans jobless.
Tom Palmer of the Atlas Economic Research Institute, one of my guests on my Fox Business News show tonight, says those are myths.
Do we exploit people in Third World countries?
"The evidence does not show that," Palmer said. "Multinational companies pay a wage premium. They pay more than local companies pay ... because they want to attract good workers. Look at the Shanghai factory of General Motors. They pay three times what Chinese-owned factories (pay)."
Yet House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says that liberalizing trade with Central America would exploit workers.
"People want to work at those factories. They line up. They compete. Are they competing to get exploited? They're competing for higher-wage jobs. I think that those people know their interests better than Nancy Pelosi does."
...I support the elimination of all restrictions on campaign spending. Free speech should rule here. Campaign spending limits violate my right to free speech. There should be no requirement to register who contributes money. It's none of the governments business who I give my money to.
And the reform I demand is one term limits for all elected officials.
But how will you get the reform you seek, if you cannot outbid the money-masters of the politicians?
Bribery (even legalized bribery) is not "free speech rights", never was.
But how will you get the reform you seek, if you cannot outbid the money-masters of the politicians?
Bribery (even legalized bribery) is not "free speech rights", never was.
And if my observation is accurate, all the campaign laws have had almost no positive impact on the infusion of money. Big money has always been involved. Nothing has changed.
Campaign spending restrictions is kinda like prohibition. It doesn't work and it restricts my freedom of speech.
And if my observation is accurate, all the campaign laws have had almost no positive impact on the infusion of money. Big money has always been involved. Nothing has changed.
Campaign spending restrictions is kinda like prohibition. It doesn't work and it restricts my freedom of speech.
But what will change things is a one term limit.
The solution is to get rid of it, not make it worse. Public Financing of Clean Elections for public candidates running for the people is Constitutinal as Our Founding Fathers intended. They left the word [corporation] out of the Constitution on purpose.
Corporate campaign contributions are not "free speech", anymore than a corporation is a "person". The Supreme Court may have changed the jargon, but the Constitution and Bill of Rights remain the same.
Corporate rule will make sure that their corporate candidates are in office as long as they serve their money-masters. Even one term limit will be meaningless with corporatist feudalism replacing representative democracy.
Well, I can't agree with much, if anything on your post.
Never asked you to.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roadking2003
I support free trade.
Along with the destruction of the American manufacturing sector, American R&D (engineering & comp. science) along with the replacement of American tech workers with HB1 imports. Your also hi-fiving our blue collar & low skilled workers being made obsoloete by illegals imported to replace the American working and lower middle class. Not to mention increasing indebtedness & dependency on China, India, Saudi Arabia & the like.
Basically you're cheerleading for the destruction of the American middle class and a return to colonial status.
Great 1st impression you're making here buddy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roadking2003
I support the elimination of all restrictions on campaign spending. Free speech should rule here. Campaign spending limits violate my right to free speech. There should be no requirement to register who contributes money. It's none of the governments business who I give my money to.
So not only are you confusing money with free speech but you're a-okay with foreign nationals like the billionaire Mexican dude and fundamentalist oil sheiks having their mone,....., er "free speech", making the rules here.
Buddy, I'm sure as hell glad you weren't around during our war for independence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roadking2003
And the reform I demand is one term limits for all elected officials.
What the hell is that going to do, as your oil sheik buddies can just prop up another puppet to hold an office.
Trade is win-win. Two people trade only because each values what he gets more than what he gives up. That's why in a store both customer and clerk say, "Thank you."
At the international level, trade is also win-win because it allows countries to specialize in what they do well and trade the extra for things they don't make as well. When free trade is unmolested, the world is richer and has more choices.
But I keep hearing about unfair trade. I'm told that trade allows American companies to exploit people in poor countries and makes Americans jobless.
Tom Palmer of the Atlas Economic Research Institute, one of my guests on my Fox Business News show tonight, says those are myths.
Do we exploit people in Third World countries?
"The evidence does not show that," Palmer said. "Multinational companies pay a wage premium. They pay more than local companies pay ... because they want to attract good workers. Look at the Shanghai factory of General Motors. They pay three times what Chinese-owned factories (pay)."
Yet House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says that liberalizing trade with Central America would exploit workers.
"People want to work at those factories. They line up. They compete. Are they competing to get exploited? They're competing for higher-wage jobs. I think that those people know their interests better than Nancy Pelosi does."
and more.
Buddy, this is complete and utter bs.
Nobody, I've seen here on this thread is arguing against trade.
Humans have engaged in long distance trade since the stone ages.
What is being exploded in this thread is the myth of free trade.
Again you're article is blatantly distorting the facts by claiming "free trade" is the only trade or the way successful nations and empires have conducted trade throughout the millenium.
And for the record buddy, what do you think we were doing for the past 200 years from 1776-1940's?
What do you think we had to do to protect domestic industries from foreign domination before we became a super power?
Do you realize that the US wasn't always a superpower and had to compete with nations and empires, both Euro and non-Euro that were often times as powerful and influential if not more than us?
Methinks you're in dire need of some history lessons:
Quote:
Originally Posted by kovert
" The United States was founded in a trade war. The Mother Country forbade manufacturing in the colony and required all exports to be carried in English bottoms. The Revolution was definitely for freedom, but the forefathers were interested in trade more than freedom. Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution of 1787 called on Congress to regulate both domestic and foreign commerce. It wasn't until six years later that we amended the Constitution to provide for freedom of speech, religion, press and assembly. After adopting a seal, the first bill to pass the Congress in its history on July 4, 1789, was a protectionist tariff. And we financed and built these United States into an industrial power with "protectionism." We didn't pass the income tax until 1913. In 1900 the colony was richer than the Mother Country by $25 billion and had a GDP double the GDP of Germany and Russia combined, causing Teddy Roosevelt to exclaim: "Thank God I'm not a Free Trader.
Last week, as the Vice President was explaining the spy swap with Russia, the Pentagon was begging for Russian helicopters. We can't defend this nation save the favor of some foreign country. The Vice President and I provided the black program in the United States Senate for the stingers that shot down the Russian helicopters to win Charlie Wilson's war. Now we expect to win the hearts and minds in Afghanistan with Russian helicopters. All we need to do is enforce the War Production Act of 1950 like President Kennedy did in 1961. We brought the witnesses to a Cabinet hearing that found textiles as the second most important to our security than steel. Kennedy saved the textile industry. Globalization can't be stopped, and there's no chance of saving the entire industry. But we've got to produce those items necessary to our national security, like winter wear, camouflage, composites for body armor, etc.
Step in with tariffs or import quotas under Section 201 of the Trade Act when a vital industry is endangered. Don't wait for General Motors to go bankrupt.
Its time to get back to basics.
And no, not of the lunatic fringe Beckian revisionist history kind.
Its time to toss Beck, Palin and the rest of the freak show into the looney bin where they belong and start giving cats like old man Fritz, Paul Volcker and Jesse Jenkins, the spotlight.
Cats that can craft strategies to ACTUALLY solve problems.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aspiesmom
The solution is to get rid of it, not make it worse. Public Financing of Clean Elections for public candidates running for the people is Constitutinal as Our Founding Fathers intended. They left the word [corporation] out of the Constitution on purpose.
Corporate campaign contributions are not "free speech", anymore than a corporation is a "person". The Supreme Court may have changed the jargon, but the Constitution and Bill of Rights remain the same.
Corporate rule will make sure that their corporate candidates are in office as long as they serve their money-masters. Even one term limit will be meaningless with corporatist feudalism replacing representative democracy.
"Jefferson and Madison proposed an 11th Amendment to the Constitution that would "ban monopolies in commerce," making it illegal for corporations to own other corporations, banning them from giving money to politicians or trying to influence elections in any way, restricting corporations to a single business purpose, limiting the lifetime of a corporation to something roughly similar to that of productive humans (20 to 40 years back then), and requiring that the first purpose for which all corporations were created be "to serve the public good."
"It is, in fact, very easy to construct an impressive-sounding defense of free trade as a form of economic liberty on the basis of this myth. Unfortunately, this myth is just that: a myth, not real history. The reality is that all four of the four presidents on Mount Rushmore were protectionists. (Even the pseudo-libertarian Jefferson came around after the War of 1812.) Historically, protectionism has been, in fact, the real American Way.
This pattern even predates American independence. During the colonial period, the British government tried to force its American colonies to become suppliers of raw materials to the nascent British industrial machine while denying them any manufacturing industry of their own. The colonies were, in fact, the single biggest victim of British trade policy, being under Britain's direct political control, unlike its other trading partners. The British knew exactly what they were doing: they were happy to see America thrive, but only as a cog in their own industrial machine.
Thus the American Revolution was to some extent a war over industrial policy, in which the commercial elite of the Colonies revolted against being forced into an inferior role in the emerging Atlantic economy.It is no accident that after Independence, a tariff was the very second bill signed by President Washington.
Protectionism's first American theorist was Alexander Hamilton -- the man on the $10 bill, the first Treasury Secretary, and America's first technocrat. He worried that Britain's lead in manufacturing would remain entrenched, condemning the United States to being a producer of agricultural products and raw materials. In modern terms, a banana republic.Perhaps the most startling thing about his suggested policies is how modern they are: few people realize that the R&D tax credit was first proposed in 1791!
Today, having forgotten our own history, we can't even recognize the game being played against us, let alone figure out how to counter it. We will continue to pay a high price in lost jobs and declining industries until we wise up."
Along with the destruction of the American manufacturing sector, American R&D (engineering & comp. science) along with the replacement of American tech workers with HB1 imports. Your also hi-fiving our blue collar & low skilled workers being made obsoloete by illegals imported to replace the American working and lower middle class. Not to mention increasing indebtedness & dependency on China, India, Saudi Arabia & the like.
Basically you're cheerleading for the destruction of the American middle class and a return to colonial status.
Great 1st impression you're making here buddy.
So not only are you confusing money with free speech but you're a-okay with foreign nationals like the billionaire Mexican dude and fundamentalist oil sheiks having their mone,....., er "free speech", making the rules here.
Buddy, I'm sure as hell glad you weren't around during our war for independence.
What the hell is that going to do, as your oil sheik buddies can just prop up another puppet to hold an office.
Buddy, this is complete and utter bs.
Nobody, I've seen here on this thread is arguing against trade.
Humans have engaged in long distance trade since the stone ages.
What is being exploded in this thread is the myth of free trade.
Again you're article is blatantly distorting the facts by claiming "free trade" is the only trade or the way successful nations and empires have conducted trade throughout the millenium.
And for the record buddy, what do you think we were doing for the past 200 years from 1776-1940's?
What do you think we had to do to protect domestic industries from foreign domination before we became a super power?
Do you realize that the US wasn't always a superpower and had to compete with nations and empires, both Euro and non-Euro that were often times as powerful and influential if not more than us?
Methinks you're in dire need of some history lessons:
Excellent post.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"That's Not Democracy" - Target's Political Gift In Song
