Posted on 06/15/2004 9:55:41 PM PDT by Remember_Salamis
Before you say it, yes. Free Trade is government engineered.
It is not some centrally planned, micro managed communist system. It is however an engineered set of common laws employed to create an environment. It is not some liberatarian idea.
It is a basic set of rules, just like football has, then everyone has to abide in those rules and compete as they will.
Making a rule book of common rules is not micromanaging the football team. Likewise, Liberatarian views and philosophies on trade are not in touch with reality.
I can explain that if you want...
No, it 'works' because of comparative advantage and government isn't getting in the way of me driving across the border and buying what I want. When a State like California imposes upon it's citizens and businesses excessive taxes, it's not allowed to tax goods at the State border from Nevada, or anywhere else that doesn't have the same dumb regulations. They're not allowed to put up a Berlin Wall and try to keep people in either.
WTO is managed trade, ie communism, it's not Free Trade.
But California can't impose duties on goods coming into California from States that don't have the same worker compensation laws. ie Fair Trade
If there were no government intervention Microsoft would have never been sued, Standard Oil wouldn't have been broken up, and the telephone company wouldn't have been chopped into pieces.
You're heading into different territory (which I'd gladly discuss, but in another thread). Those were also national actions. California can't put a tax on Microsoft software just because it's made in Washington, in order to encourage software development in California. California is not allowed to put up trade barriers with every State it considers 'unfair' because of different minimum wage or worker compensation rules. It also can't put up a Berlin Wall to keep businesses and people in, so both people and businesses flee as they see fit to more hospitable governments (Nevada, Florida, etc.)
Yes. And that is essentially what we are doing on an international scale. We are using our sovereign power to make what was considered a 'national action' into an international one. In an FTA both sovereign nations agree to a set of rules and use their sovereign power to enforce them. It is only slightly different than the California vs Washington example. California agreed to abide in those rules upon entering the union. But now, most characterize the situation as the Federal Government imposing those rules on them. If you view it as compulsion on a federal level thats ok. However on an international level its not compulsion, its willing participation.
Free Trade Agreements ultimately set out to make international locations part of our economy. Its no different. It requires actions on both parts, and willing participation of the sovereign nations entering into that agreement.
California can't put a tax on Microsoft software just because it's made in Washington, in order to encourage software development in California. California is not allowed to put up trade barriers with every State it considers 'unfair' because of different minimum wage or worker compensation rules. It also can't put up a Berlin Wall to keep businesses and people in, so both people and businesses flee as they see fit to more hospitable governments (Nevada, Florida, etc.)
EXACTLY. You are making my point exactly. That hits the nail on the head.
Now, why can't they? Because there is a higher law governing how they treat each other. And they agreed to it long ago.
A Trade Agreement is the highest form of international law governing the two respective parties. That law often eliminates tarriffs, but it is not just about tarriffs. Its about the system as an overall operation. Again, it is entered into willingly, and submitted to lawfully by both parties.
The WTO has NO sovereign authority whatsoever. None. Zip. Nada.
It is NOT like the US House where the majority rules and the winners win and losers lose.
It is a negotiating body where two or more sovereigns can come together and bilaterally negotiate those agreements.
If we got into a WTO negotiation with France and didn't like the terms...what can the WTO do? Nothing. We can tell them to take a hike. They can impose no penalties. The WTO is a negotiation body, almost like a large scale trade show. One does not have to buy anything if they don't want to.
The WTO is also a trade dispute body. Say we enter into an agreement with Japan, via the WTO. (The WTO is a a body of trade experts basically). Now say Japan signed on the line, but 5 years later decided that they didn't like this or that.
If we complain about that we can take it to a panel who will study it out in some form of arbitration.
If that still doesn't work the WTO itself does nothing. They just say "OK America. They broke the rules you guys agreed to. We have used the proper channels of arbitration and it didn't work. As a sovereign power you are free to impose whatever retaliation you want."
It works for us, because often the problems are solved through negotiation. And if not, no one takes Japan seriously next time around. On top of that we can still retaliate as we see fit, with the blessing of the international community.
They set it up that way to avoid the numerous trade wars. They decided ultimately that arbitration (or family counciling) is ultimately better than going straight into a fist fight over things.
Again, the WTO has no authority, but it can lend legitimacy to decisions of retaliation. Thats about it.
As long as the WTO is respected by those involved it can function. As soon as that stops, its all over.
A Trade Agreement has to be ratified into law by all concerned parties.
We cannot just jump into an FTA. It has to be signed off on, and into law, by the House, Senate, and President. That, as well as the same procedure in whatever the other respective country is.
We both agree to use our own sovereign powers to uphold that set of laws we agreed to...Thats not giving up sovereignty.
It is also not at ALL managed trade. It is far from it, and actually the opposite of it.
Oh, really? Has the American Iron & Steel Institute noticed?
Every time a modern nation has attempted economic self-suffeciency it has ended in disaster. Nazi Germany wanted to gain self-suffeciency in wheat, and called this type of economic activity "autarky". Stalinist North Korea is currently trying it nationwide, calling it "juche". We cut ourselves off in the 1930s and that didn't end up very well either.
Wanna fix the problem? Change the tax code!
We encourage consumption while discouraging investment and savings through the income tax, payroll tax, and capital gains tax.
We encourage importation while discouraging exportation through corporate taxes.
"Pop culture" is at it's core a consumer society. Our Keynesian consumption-based economy has spawned it.
Want to change it? Want to get active? Want to stop the slide? Support the FairTax, a National Retail Sales Tax. Want to know more? Ask me or go to http://www.fairtax.org
Yes, excuse me.
true, but it CAN cut it's own taxes in order to entice businesses to set up shop in california instead of washington or Nevada. That is what this country doesn't understand when it comes to international trade: the theory of tax competition. It works well between the states, but we don't even acknowledge it on the international stage. Other states have, however. Ireland has slashed corporate taxes and have seen their economy BOOM. Even socialist Europe has realized it; they cut their corporate taxes too, although they replaced a lot of them with a exporter-exempt Value-added Tax. Now the EU waqnts to put in place a MINIMUM coporate tax because low-tax Ireland is stealing manufacturing jobs!
Tax comeptition works wonders between the states, and there is no reason why we shouldn't be employing it on the world stage.
Sounds pretty good, huh? Gotta love that Marx - he's only got a perfect score of being 180 degrees off the mark, so to speak.
One, my dad had to catch a ride to work with a friend since Mom didn't have her own vehicle. Two, if she wanted to make a phone call, someone had to get off the line. You remember good ole' Ma Bell don't you? Who had more than 1 line? Three, we had to hoof it to the library to look up something in the encyclopedia, rather than just crank up the PC.
I could go on, but I think you get the point. Just because medicine has changed doesn't mean the country is becoming poorer. On the contrary, the country has become so wealthy that even 'poor' people can now afford to kill themselves from all the luxury: limited physical blue collar work, a sea of cheap, used autos, and of course, the ability to inexpensively consume 5k+ calories a day.
Yeah, France is actually leading the charge on this 'tax fairness' crap. Let them hang themselves. I think the sooner we drop the sophistry that corporations pay taxes instead of just collect them from you and I the sooner we can eliminate corporate taxes and encourage business to be located here instead of elsewhere. People have to remember the global environment has changed a lot over the last 20 years, and there is nothing automatic about the U.S. as a haven for a capital investment.
Damn straight! Are you familiar with the FairTax, a plan for a National Retail Sales Tax that would replace ALL federal income, payroll, corporate, capital gains, and estate taxes with a 23% across-the-board retail sales tax? It's picking up major steam in congress (HR 25). If you have any questions, I'd be glad to answer them.
That would be nice, but how do you tell people that a 4-5% tariff is excessive, yet a 23% sales tax is not? If 4-5% is killing trade, then what is 23% going to do to sales?
The 'business cost' exception looks like a vehicle that everyone with an account will be able to drive complete tax avoidance through. That bothers me. Further, I'm not interested in a tax that replaces the 2+ Trillion dollars the government takes, I want them to take much less. Instead of a general sales tax, which they would continually lever up like they did the income tax (have you ever seen the original, 1913 income brackets and tax rates?). I prefer something along the lines of our original system of excise taxes to fund the federal government. This puts the final control over government purse strings in the hands of consumers by allowing them to adopt alternatives and curb egregious taxation.
I don't dispute that a consumption based taxed is superior to an income tax, but I don't like this proposal because the flaws are too great, imo.
Repeal the 16th amendment and enforce the 13th. End the wealth transfers and you'd cut over half the government spending in one stroke.
Of your first complaint, for every product bought for business purposes would have to be accounted for. If things are being bought tax-free but not being re-sold, something's fishy and they're subject to audit. What's more, the most likely enforcement system would have EVERYBODY pay the tax at the counter, with businesses able to recieve a check for "taxes paid" that month.
On your sec0ond complaint, the size of government, the FairTax actually restricts the size of government. goods and servicces purchased by government entities WOULD be taxed. This would encourage outsourcing and privatization of government busineeses. Purchases made by the Post Office or Amtrak wouldn't be taxed if they were spun off and privatized, as an example. And it would work at all government levels too. What is a state going to do when purchases made by a public school are taxed while purchases made by a private school are not? And remember, tuition isn't taxed either. So what would be the most economic course of action in this case? Give everyone a voucher. There are thousands of examples, at all levels.
Regarding excise taxes, the FairTAx IS an excise tax, only applied to domestic and imports. Even if we spent only spent $500B, which we would spend if we only spent on programs specifically outlined in Article I, section VIII, we would need almost a 100% tarriff on all imported goods. That is literally impossible.
Regarding the 16th-- It's repeal WOULD NOT prohibit an income tax. It's repeal would only make an UNAPPORTIONED Income tax unconstitutional.
Regarding the 13th, that regards slavery, and I thikn it's enforced fairly well (sarcasm). I think you may be referring to the 10th amendment, which states:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
The only problem with that is FDR's court packing scandal stretched the commerce clause so bad that virtually anything is within the domain of the Feds.
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.