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.
"Free trade" isn't managed? So the 2000+ pages of NAFTA regulations aren't "free trade"?
Why would he be surprised? I’m curious.
I know danged well when I've administered a beating .... it's when I get the You're a racist 'cause you don't.....
Heheh.
They seem to be intent on proving the Ronald Reagan was not a "free trader" while simultaneously insisting that he was.
I said "tariff OR container fees" (emphasis added) as a examples of alternative methods for funding such infrastructure improvements. There are numerous other methods of funding that might be applied-- I did not state a preference for anything other than eliminating the inherent subsidy that we have today. Excerpt of my original post:
...the taxpayers that get to pick up the tab for port improvements, road maintenance, environmental effects, etc. Heaven forbid that some of that might be relieved by one of those awful tariffs or container fees!
You have now clarified that you don’t care how it’s paid for; thus we can have free trade with zero tariffs, and as long as the fees charged by your local port covers the costs of importing you’re happy with that. Correct?
NO. I already said that while that is mostly true, I would not make such a broad brush declaration. There may indeed be a time where a tariff would be appropriate.
As to why the percentage of goods enjoying trade protections increased during the Reagan administration? I bet you are.
“Of the $387 billion in goods the U.S. imported in 1986, more than 20% was protected by special tariffs, quotas, or other types of restraints, according to Gary C. Hufbauer, a Georgetown University professor. When Reagan took office, the figure was 12%.”
One other thing I’m curious about: who controlled Congress when Reagan was in office?
I'm not always for or always against the use of tariffs. I'll leave the knee jerk positions for simpletons such as yourself.
Sure you will. Maybe you can name one of my positions on this thread that qualifies as “knee-jerk,” instead of making one up.
Reagan... wasn't he the guy that wrote NAFTA? ;-)
Sure as hell wasn’t Congress. What’s your point?
Touchy, touchy!
I get that way around libs.
And seriously, no one on this thread is arguing that Reagan “wrote” NAFTA. It’s your, ahem, expansive use of language that is lib-like.
The Reagan administration called for the protective tariffs on Japanese automotive exports. And for a 100% tariff on Brazilian electronics. And for quotas on imported sugar. And for reductions in foreign steel imports. And for duties on imported Japanese motorcycles. And for increased tariffs on Canadian lumber.
But his administration did NOT write NAFTA.
Are you suggesting I’m a liberal?
That’s correct! NAFTA just appeared from outer space!
2. And seriously, no one on this thread is arguing that Reagan “wrote” NAFTA.
Nope. It was negotiated by the Bush and Clinton administrations. That gave algore to chance to make sure it was "the greenest trade agreement ever written."
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.