Is globalism and "free trade" what's destroying the GOP? (America-first vanity)

[Cringing Negativism Network]

Yesterday I happened upon a post by a fellow FReeper. In retrospect, I am sorry for responding rudely to their post - and I hope they happen upon this apology.

The post was presenting their heartfelt opinion that American industry and our system itself must be allowed to come apart so that something better can replace it.

It was a Rand-ian position. The system is becoming oppressive, therefore we must weaken it.

[calcowgirl]

Come on, Mojave. How could the US possibly engage in trade without the Border Environment Cooperation Commission
and North American Development Bank? /s

[1rudeboy]

Obama's intention to use the NAFTA agreement to create more international environmental restrictions, just like algore and Bill Clinton before him, is Reagan's fault?

That's YOUR argument, idiot. You've been making it for more than 24 hours. LOL

[1rudeboy]

Wait a minute, now . . . it’s only on this thread that protectionists are whining about standardizing environmental laws. Next week, they will be arguing that environmental laws that are more lax in other countries give those countries an unfair advantage.

[calcowgirl]

Wait a minute, now . . . it’s only on this thread that protectionists are whining ...

Who are you referring to as a "protectionist." I am not one.

[Mojave]

That's YOUR argument,

What a shameless liar. Reagan didn't write, negotiate, pass or sign NAFTA.

[Mojave]

Apparently anyone who questions any element of Bill Clinton’s NAFTA agreement is a “protectionist.”

[calcowgirl]

"We are always willing to be trade partners but never trade patsies." --Ronald Reagan

Good quote. Reagan set out to eliminate barriers in trade. His successors created a whole new set of barriers requiring a full barrage of lawyers to navigate the regulations in order to engage in what should be a simple international transaction. So much for Reagan's vision.

"We would insist on trade that is fair and free. " -- Ronald Reagan

[1rudeboy]

"We are always willing to be trade partners but never trade patsies." --Ronald Reagan

Let's run the tape:

Now, today, we also find ourselves engaged in expanding peaceful commerce across the world. We will work to expand our opportunities in international markets through the Uruguay round of trade negotiations [for the second time, Mohave, you blithering idiot--the Uruguay Round created the WTO] and to complete an historic free trade arrangement between the world's two largest trading partners, Canada and the United States. Our basic trade policy remains the same: We remain opposed as ever to protectionism, because America's growth and future depend on trade. But we would insist on trade that is fair and free. We are always willing to be trade partners but never trade patsies.

Damn, Mojave . . . what will you do, when you run across someone who knows Reagan better than you do?

[PugetSoundSoldier]

And the gov't forced AIG and others to get into the derivatives market?

Nope, but the Government bailout of AIG has short-circuited the way that capitalism solves these kinds of issues - it stopped the company from going away.

Apparently a capitalist market approach is not what you support?

[Mojave]

Let's run the tape:

Thanks for shooting yourself in the foot. Again.

[1rudeboy]

Oops, sorry . . . here's my source. I don't want anyone to think I've fallen to Mojave's level.

[Mojave]

"We would insist on trade that is fair and free. " -- Ronald Reagan

Wanna watch 1rudeboy dance?

Hey, 1rudeboy, how many of NAFTA's 2000+ pages of regulations were created by Ronald Reagan?

[Going to get popcorn]

[1rudeboy]

That’s a good question: maybe I should ask you how many of NAFTA’s pages were created by Bill Clinton? That was your argument, earlier.

[PugetSoundSoldier]

Uh huh... sure. And billions for road/highway expansion and maintenance for all those trucks tearing up the roads, going from port to freight forwarding facilities, are all covered by your fees, right? Sorry — the math doesn’t work, despite the graft.

Yes, those same roads you also drive on, and never mind the trucking fees, the permit fees, the fuel taxes that are supposed to cover costs of operation of trucking.

And I guess the damage to your highways from trucks going to and from domestic farms and factories is to be ignored?

Again, this is a case of Government mismanaging their funds. California clears over $4 BILLION in just fuel taxes alone; that is supposed to be used for road maintenance. Instead, your state Government chooses to spend that money elsewhere.

When the state decides to retrofit a perfectly good and working school, do you get mad at your neighbor for not paying enough property tax? When the state runs a big deficit providing services to illegal immigrants, do you attack the immigrants who benefit, or the state for giving YOUR MONEY away?

[Mojave]

That’s a good question:

Glad you like it. Here it is again:

How many of NAFTA's 2000+ pages of regulations were created by Ronald Reagan?

So what's your good answer?

[PugetSoundSoldier]

Even Milton Friedman called NAFTA “managed trade.”

Here is what Milton Friedman said about NAFTA:

On the contrary, as far as NAFTA is concerned, it really is a minor thing, from the point of view of the United States. After all, the United States is a very much larger economy than Mexico. The main beneficiary for NAFTA will be Mexico and the people in Mexico, not the people in the United States. There's no doubt in my mind that that is the net effect. Mexico is doing very well by reducing the role of government, by introducing free market ideas, cutting tariffs, getting government out of business, privatizing banks and other businesses that government had taken over. NAFTA will be a little extra push for them, which will help them much more. It will help us a little, but a trifle. You know, nothing is good unless both parties benefit from it, and both Mexico and the United States will benefit from it.

NAFTA is misnamed, it's not a Free Trade Agreement, it's a Managed Trade Agreement. I supported NAFTA, as a lesser of evils, but it would be better if we in the United States would simply reduce our tariffs across the board for everybody in the world. As far as Latin America is concerned, it's been showing remarkable changes. Beginning with Chile, going on to Mexico, now Argentina, one country after another in Latin America has unilaterally been lowering its tariffs, opening its markets up. If we are sensible, we certainly will go as rapidly as we can to expand NAFTA to include all of the rest of the Latin American countries. I believe that that is what will happen.

NAFTA is not the discussion though, free trade is. NAFTA is a poor attempt; Friedman didn't like NAFTA because it didn't go far enough in reducing tariffs! Apparently you want to increase tariffs which is exactly the OPPOSITE of what Friedman's desire was.

[PugetSoundSoldier]

So your problem is with NAFTA, not free trade? You’re OK with the FTAA, that simply eliminated tariffs between the US and Chile?

What is your position on free trade?

[calcowgirl]

Like I said, your math doesn’t work.

There is a significant incremental cost for infrastructure to accomodate international imports, infrastructure that is not required for distribution of US products. Many of these costs are born by US and California taxpayers, and not passed on in the cost of the imported products. It acts as a double-whammy to US competitors who receive no such subsidy and pay more than their proportionate share.

The cost of illegal immigration is a whole nuther subject — please try to stay on topic.

[calcowgirl]

Here is what Milton Friedman said about NAFTA:

...The main beneficiary for NAFTA will be Mexico and the people in Mexico, not the people in the United States.

... NAFTA is misnamed, it's not a Free Trade Agreement, it's a Managed Trade Agreement.

It's amazing what a change in emphasis tells ya.

[Mojave]

What is your position on free trade?

In earlier posts, made without the courtesy of a ping, you were content to simply lie about my positions on trade. Why ask now?