Posted on 05/09/2009 12:47:21 PM PDT by 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.
You have stated there are costs, yet you do not show them. I have stated where you can find payments for those “costs” you claim.
So what are the costs? Where are they listed? And how are domestic suppliers hampered by not paying those costs?
The statement about illegal immigration was simply to point out that Government malfeasance with funds is universal; if a port authority cannot manage their charges and or set their fees appropriately then your anger should be directed at the port authority not the shippers.
May I suggest you reset your "apparently' meter? ;^)
More importantly, it’s amazing what selective reading can do to change the entire reason a phrase is stated!
Please point to where Friedman stated free trade was bad, or where NAFTA would hurt the US. Please do so, and show the context of the answer.
Using Friedman to back your position on free trade and capitalism is like using Carl Sagan to back the Vatican!
Which stands in stark contrast to what Ronald Reagan did in office.
"We have not neglected our responsibilities to fair trade. ... President Reagan, in fact, has granted more import relief to US industry than any of his predecessors in more than half a century." --U.S. Treasury Secretary James A. Baker III
As a resident and taxpayer in Los Angeles, I am well aware of the costs everytime they issue a new bond for infrastructure, transportation, ports, environmental cleanup, etc. That doesn’t even include the cost of beefing up border crossings, customs, security, etc. That you are unaware of the costs does not mean they don’t exist. Do some research.
Will you answer now? How about clarifying your position - please correct me and set me right!
From post 117:
Is that a correct summation? Just want to make sure we get this solidly determined.
Here's your chance, you can set the record straight, tell us what your position on FREE TRADE (not NAFTA) is, and earn some mea culpas from me!
Better yet. Please point to where I ever stated either.
So your solution is to increase tariffs, rather than increase the docking, transport, and processing fees the port charges, is that correct?
I have no idea where you got that.
I am for charging those who receive the direct benefit with the cost of foreign imports. I do not favor subsidizing imports.
I assumed you were using the reference to Friedman and NAFTA to tie in with your statement that free trade agreements are not about free trade.
If I was wrong, I apologize.
Can I thus state you are in favor of free trade? Perhaps not NAFTA as it was created, but the concept of free trade?
Because, "you cut your tariffs to 0% if I cut my tariffs to 0%" is too difficult for you to understand.
The Reagan administration wrote any of NAFTA? Source, please.
I am wondering why you choose to increase tariffs rather than docking fees. If you increase tariffs, then shippers who use the ports around LA will pay more money for the costs you say they are creating; but so will shippers who use the ports of Washington and Oregon and Louisiana and Texas, where they may not have those costs to the same degree you see in California!
Essentially, you are forcing ALL ports to increase the charge on incoming product, regardless of the need of those ports to raise additional capital.
So, if your issue really is the infrastructure costs created by shipping, then wouldn't it be logical to simply increase the fees at a given port to cover the costs of that port? Rather than force ALL ports and states to increase their costs, regardless of the need to do so?
I do not see myself as the writer of post 123, nor you answering the question; I am not sure what you are trying to say by referencing that post?
If you feel I (not the author of post 123) am in error in terms of your position on free trade, please accept my apologies! I do not want to put words in anyone’s mouth!
To help me NOT insult you, can you simply state your position on free trade (not NAFTA)? Are you a supporter of free trade?
Huh. I thought you were enjoying your beating.
Well, Mojave, how much are you willing to pay to have me do your research? I'll do it for $150/hour, which I think is a very competitive rate.
Because I don't trust you, let's use PayPal.
I’m wondering if we will ever get someone to actually define their position! It seems to be consistently changing and shifting...
I do not want to offend anyone by falsely stating their positions and beliefs, but it’s hard to do so when they will not state such themselves.
bookmark to read all the point-counterpoint arguments.
Anyone want to recommend a good book on the subject?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.