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.
The attempt to take Reagan's support for eliminating trade barriers between Mexico, Canada, and the U.S. and equate it to "NAFTA was Reagan's idea" are simply stunning.
One of the RINOs on the thread said he would only prove it if I paid him $150 an hour.
He's well tangled in his own web.
You know what, for morons, the rate just doubled.
You know what, for morons, the rate just doubled.
For you to prove or disprove that the Reagan administration wrote NAFTA? You've taken both side of the argument.
You’re stuttering.
Of course, who could possibly believe that Reagan's stated intention to reduce the tariff barriers between Canada, Mexico, and the United States could actually result in an agreement to reduce the tariff barriers between Canada, Mexico, and the United States?
Prove it.
Ronald Reagan - Statement on the Japan-United States Semiconductor Trade Agreement
March 27, 1987
I am today announcing my intent to raise tariffs on as much as $300 million in Japanese exports to the United States. I am taking these actions in response to Japan’s inability to enforce our September 1986 agreement on semiconductor trade. Regrettably, Japan has not enforced major provisions of the agreement aimed at preventing dumping of semiconductor chips in third country markets and improving U.S. producers’ access to the Japanese market. I am committed to the full enforcement of our trade agreements designed to provide American industry with free and fair trade opportunities.
Under the agreement, which was negotiated to resolve a series of unfair trade practice cases brought by my administration and American industry, the Government of Japan agreed to prevent Japanese semiconductor producers from selling below cost in markets outside Japan and to provide additional access in Japan for foreign producers. Despite monthly consultations with the Japanese since the agreement was signed and repeated assurances that all aspects of the agreement would be fully implemented, the most recent evidence we have demonstrates that dumping has continued. Moreover, American firms’ access to the Japanese market has not improved from last fall’s levels.
The Government of Japan has, in recent days, announced a number of actions aimed at improving their compliance with the agreement. I am encouraged by these steps, and that is why we are not terminating the agreement. When the evidence indicates that third-country dumping has stopped and U.S. firms are enjoying improved access to the Japanese market, I am prepared to lift these sanctions.
Who here believes that the 2000+ page NAFTA agreement signed into law by Bill Clinton only reduces tariff barriers? Can we get a show of hands?
Considering that neither you nor Mojave are willing to actually DEFINE what you consider free trade, or to say how trade should be managed, can you blame me for playing 20 questions with you?
If you have a position that is relevant, then state it; be clear, concise and unambiguous. If you cannot get your position across it says more about you than the reader.
What was the $150 for?
No. That is your fundamental mistake.
So the 2000+ pages of NAFTA regulations aren't "free trade"?
No. And I don't think I've ever stated as such; in fact, I've stated the exact opposite! NAFTA is managed trade; it is NOT free trade.
Look, you are for managed trade. I get it. You believe tariffs should be used to protect the US. Fine. Is there a problem here?
You know what’s funny about you guys? No one, here or elsewhere, has claimed that Reagan did not raise tariffs (on certain products). Yet you think that posting an announcement that he raised tariffs on certain products is somehow dispositive.
1. On July 21, 1988, prior to the date of enactment of section 1301 of the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988 (Pub. L. 100-418), 1 determined pursuant to section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (19 U.S.C. 2411), that the Government of Brazil has failed to provide process and product patent protection for pharmaceutical products and fine chemicals, and that this failure is unreasonable and constitutes a burden or restriction on U.S. commerce (53 Fed. Reg. 28177). This failure permits the unauthorized copying of pharmaceutical products and processes that were invented by U.S. firms. I directed the United States Trade Representative to hold public hearings on products of Brazil that were appropriate candidates for increased duties or other import restrictions, and those hearings were held September 8 and 9, 1988. I have further determined, pursuant to section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended by the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988, that appropriate and feasible action in response to Brazil's unreasonable policies and practices is to impose increased duties of 100 percent ad valorem on certain imported articles that are the products of Brazil.
That's your base price, moron. Think of the upcharge as a tariff.
And it was wrong to do so. THAT is the position of a free trade advocate. What Reagan called for was managed trade. Are you comfortable with that statement?
I must have missed your definition. Could you post it again, please?
See what you did? Now Mojave is Googling.
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.