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.
I’ve also noticed, over the years, that people who claim that they are delivering a beating are not. I know that when I’ve delivered one, I never had to crow about it on the thread.
I favor trade, with as few impediments as possible. That doesn't mean that I think we need 2000 page documents and huge government bureacracies regulating it. It doesn't mean that I support taxpayers subsidizing the import of foreign goods. It doesn't mean that US businesses should have the full protection of the US government and US taxpayer if they choose to establish a business in a foreign country. The lame attempts on this thread to label anyone a "protectionist" who does not favor the current "free trade" framework is absurd as I have not seen anyone promote tariffs for the sole purpose of protecting US businesses or equalizing prices.
And then you would lie about the results. No thanks.
The Reagan administration didn't write NAFTA. Poor you.
And I didn't claim that your beating came from me.
That’s perfect, Mojave. You won’t do the reasearch, and you do not trust me to do it. You win the internet.
I am wondering why you have such a problem with English.
Please show me where I said any such thing.
Essentially, you are forcing ALL ports to increase the charge on incoming product, regardless of the need of those ports to raise additional capital.
Really? Where did I say any such thing?
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?
There are a dozen ways to do it. I did not propose one or another. The point is we shouldn't be subsidizing foreign imports and putting our competing industry out of business as a result.
Rather than force ALL ports and states to increase their costs, regardless of the need to do so?
Again... Where did I say any such thing?
Correct, on that we completely agree, and I never meant to argue counter! In fact, Friedman called for the unilateral lowering or elimination of ALL tariffs! I join him in that call, do you?
I favor trade, with as few impediments as possible. That doesn't mean that I think we need 2000 page documents and huge government bureacracies regulating it. It doesn't mean that I support taxpayers subsidizing the import of foreign goods. It doesn't mean that US businesses should have the full protection of the US government and US taxpayer if they choose to establish a business in a foreign country. The lame attempts on this thread to label anyone a "protectionist" who does not favor the current "free trade" framework is absurd as I have not seen anyone promote tariffs for the sole purpose of protecting US businesses or equalizing prices.
So you are in favor of free trade, not the managed trade we have today. You would be in favor of simply dropping all tariffs charged, unilaterally?
And you appear to make some assumptions on my part, too! I have never defended the current framework of trade; far from it, I believe it is too complex. There should be ZERO tariffs on import/export activity of these United States; there should be ZERO taxation of overseas income. That is counter to what you claim I hold.
But if what you write above is true, then I should be able to state the following, without offense to you:
Is that correct?
FYI, I was not using that document, although it did prove he has said exactly what I said he did.
No blank stare.
Bzzzzt. The Reagan administration didn't write NAFTA. Produce even a page.
[crickets]
Of course! I didn't realize that when you stated that you are "too busy kicking it" you were speaking metaphorically!
Please, indulge us again.
No, please accept mine. I incorrectly attributed #123.
"Where Ronald Reagan saw trade regulations, restrictions or tariffs that didn't serve the best interests of the American people, he would work to remove or amend them. Where Reagan saw that regulations, restrictions or tariffs that served our national interests, he would retain or create them."
It's just that people who cite to a document need to read the rest of it first.
No problem. How many pages of NAFTA did the Reagan administration write?
[crickets]
Hogwash! I have stated their positions quite clearly. That you choose to disregard it, or disagree with it, is not my problem.
I do not want to offend anyone by falsely stating their positions and beliefs...
Then why do you keep doing it?
...but it’s hard to do so when they will not state such themselves.
Again... I think I've been quite clear. The U.S. should not be subsidizing foreign imports and pushing crippling regulation on businesses. How clear can one be?
Please see your post 191, where you state (emphasis on tariffs is yours):
If I misunderstood your point, I am sorry. When you talked of wanting to increase fees and tariffs because of costs I assumed you were talking about fees and tariffs.
Really? Where did I say any such thing?
When you call for an increased tariffs. Tariffs are applied uniformly across the nation; fees are localized to the particular port of entry. When you call for increased tariffs (and I hope from your post 191 you can understand my confusion) you call for the costs at ALL ports to be increased.
There are a dozen ways to do it. I did not propose one or another. The point is we shouldn't be subsidizing foreign imports and putting our competing industry out of business as a result.
OK then you would support an approach that simply increased the port fees commensurately? No need to even use tariffs? What would be a solution you might like?
Accepted. Thank you! Let's see if we can get everyone to keep the discussion civil!
That is also an interesting quote about Reagan; who said it? Where did it come from? It seems to run counter to much of what Reagan himself said.
That was my position, stated in post #215.
I'm sorry, I must have missed it. Can you point me to it, or perhaps restate it here clearly and succinctly? Is the problem free trade or managed trade?
Then why do you keep doing it?
Again, my apologies. Can you show me where I mis-stated someone's position, and where they corrected me on my error? Where I claimed someone stood for X and they then stated "no, I stand for Y"?
Again... I think I've been quite clear. The U.S. should not be subsidizing foreign imports and pushing crippling regulation on businesses. How clear can one be?
VERY clear! So would you support an increase in port fees to balance this subsidy? Or must it be done by tariffs?
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.