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.
So you're making claims about Reagan with no comprehensive data, interesting.
Like the fact that his administration didn't write NAFTA?
That’s right, genius. Have you ramped-up to answer yesterday’s questions, yet?
In my opinion, yes. He advocated free trade, and greatly increased free trade for the nation, but still relied on managed trade as an economic club. He was a freer trader, but still a managed trader.
Note this is MY position, no one else's. I'm sure your inclination is to use this statement against others in this thread; that is disingenuous and morally corrupt. Do not ascribe my contention to others.
Projection time.
BTW, since it sent you into shock the last time it was posted:
“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%.”
Isn’t it sad that you can’t even stake a position on this thread without adding a disclaimer?
I don't believe I was ever asked. I also didn't see you playing 20 questions with me. I answered you time after time, yet you ignored what I said and instead imposed your own words and own thoughts into my statements.
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.
Your unwillingness to acknowledge my opinion and statements as written, and your inability to have me agree with your statements, does not mean that I cannot get my position across. Sorry.
I expected you to label him a "protectionist" as you do so often to Freepers. You surprised me, rude one.
That's a bizarre and irrational assertion.
Let's see if the "others" are ready to admit that Ronald Reagan was not a free trader.
Squeak up, guys.
Fess up, 1rudeboy. Do ya think that Ronald Reagan was a "protectionist" or don't ya?
[crickets]
Mojave,
You’re missing a pretty fundamental point; you can increase the number of items with tariffs (the number of Harmonized Tariff Schedule codes), but decrease the rate of all existing tariffs such that the total tariffs paid are lower.
Essentially, if I double the number of tariffs but cut all the tariff rates by a factor of four, I cut the total tariff revenue in half.
So I’ve satisfied those who demand “we need tariffs!” by adding tariffs, and I satisfy those who demand “we should eliminate tariffs!” by reducing the total tariff taxation.
We may be making progress.
I think it has been established that NAFTA is “managed trade.”
We’ve also established that “free trade” differs from “managed trade.”
Accordingly, NAFTA is not “free trade.”
Does that make NAFTA a protectionist agreement? ;-)
Did that happen?
OK, please state what your position is on free trade as defined by the free dictionary.
Your unwillingness to acknowledge my opinion and statements as written, and your inability to have me agree with your statements, does not mean that I cannot get my position across. Sorry.
Your statements have been vague and argumentative. You give an answer that is ambiguous, and when asked for clarification you feign indignation. You are the reason no one understands your position, for you have not stated nor clarified your position.
If you take this as an attack on your intellect, you would be in error; if you take this as a statement about your inability to form a cogent position in this thread, you would be unequivocally correct.
I think that there was also an assertion made that it was incorrect to assume that "free trade" wasn't "managed trade." There's a lot of smoke in the air.
Is it really?
Let's see if the "others" are ready to admit that Ronald Reagan was not a free trader.
Thank you for proving my intuition 100% correct, in such little time!
Why the "free dictionary"?
The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. 2001-07.free trade
in modern usage, trade or commerce carried on without such restrictions as import duties, export bounties, domestic production subsidies, trade quotas, or import licenses.
Do you agree with free trade as defined by the Columbia Encyclopedia?
You lame attempt at preemption was transparent. You knew that when you cobbled it together.
Please restate your question.
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.