Risky textiles policies

The Washington Times ^ | 15. November 2003 | Dan Ikenson

[1rudeboy]

In the month since trade talks failed in Cancun, U.S. agricultural policy has come under heavy indictment. Billions of dollars in federal subsidies lavished upon fat-cat U.S. agribusinesses depress world prices and undermine exports for struggling farmers in developing countries. It's a despicable policy that must change.

[WaterDragon]

Buy or borrow a copy of historian Jim Powell's new book, FDR's Follies which shows that FDR was gung-ho on high tariffs and government subsidies BECAUSE those would "change the way America does business", making it more like the fascist governments in Europe. He knew that the tariffs and subsidies would NOT recover the economy....his goal was to 'reform' the economy. His tactics caused the Great Depression to last as long and dispairingly as it did.

[Willie Green]

Bad enough that we're dependent on OPEC oil,
The libertarian corporate shills at the Cato Institute won't be satisfied until we're forced to become naked and dependent on hepatitis A contaminated food as well.

[meenie]

It is unbelievable that some people think that progress is made by relying on foreign made goods instead of American made. Exports should consist of surplus items not needed in the country of origin. The goal of independence should be the guiding force of trade.

What is the object of making a nation dependent on another for goods at the expense its own economy? So-called free trade relies on the examples of regimes in the past that starved their peoples in order to export the food they needed. This example is no different than what the Soviets did to the Ukraine. Why is this model so attractive to our free traitors?

[Willie Green]

What is the object of making a nation dependent on another for goods at the expense its own economy?

The globo-marxists believe that such interdependent poverty will abolish materialistic envy and bring about world peace.

[1rudeboy]

Come again? How is forced starvation similar to the operation of free markets?

[ETERNAL WARMING]

Risky? The only one at risk is the American worker. In fact, a livable wage earner is so rare, he's an endangered species.

[meenie]

If you sell the grain for export to a country while starving your own country, I would say it resembles The Chinese form of free trade. If you deprive a country the ability to produce its own goods in favor of allowing another country to produce them, you are operating on the same principle.

Trade for profit instead of regard for the workers in your own country. In our country's instance, increasing the trade deficit to unsustainable levels, while causing a famine in the ability for many to earn their own living. Same principle as the Ukraine policies that Russia imposed on its people, but in this case the item is not food, it is means for livelihood.