THE AMERICAN SYSTEM VS. BRITISH FREE TRADE LOOTING

American Almanac ^ | 1995 | Marcia Merry-Baker and Anton Chaitkin

[ScottM1968]

Ah, yes, the warm fuzzies of a pat on the back after being handed a plate of sludge. Where did you learn your psychobable people skills? And when are you erecting your shrine to the father of free trade - Bill Clinton.

What do you mean? The whole original article is found on the following site: "LaRouche Declares "War" On Get-Clinton Mob" http://members.tripod.com/~american_almanac/clinwar.htm You are the Clintonite, Havoc.

[ScottM1968]

Havoc, I have a question for you. You are apparently against "dumping". I'd like to ask you what you would do on behalf of your country if Germany did the following:

BMW and Mercedes-Benz offer to give every US citizen, totally free of charge, their top-of-the-line automobiles next year (never mind how they do it, but all cars will have their normal high quality and finish). They claim they are doing it to repay their war debts to us (this is the only way they will do so).

Do you refuse their offer? It would very greatly affect the US auto market for the next several years but would provide absolutely everyone with transportation.

Simply put, I would not stop it from happening and would formally thank them for their gracious gesture.

What do you do?

[ScottM1968]

Because HTML was turned on, the link wouldn't work right as I placed it. That Pro-Clinton article link I mentioned is here:

http://members.tripod.com/~american_almanac/clinwar.htm

Again, it is entitled "LaRouche Declares 'War' On Get-Clinton Mob" and is the article you are supporting. Again, you are the Clintonite.

[ScottM1968]

It is you that breaks with "supply and demand". "Supply" isn't the extremely limited number of businesses you dictate people can buy from. That is "market control" by "suppliers" instead.

Please think before you post.

[Havoc]

Right, you guys have all but bowed down to kiss his butt on nafta and I'm the clintonite. What are you, on drugs.

[radicalamericannationalist]

No doubt dope smuggled up by the new fleet of Mexican truckers. No security risk there, though.

[Havoc]

Turn them down. That's what I'd do. Do you have any sense. They aren't granting all americans automobiles for free, they're giving a one time gift. And that one time gift would destroy the US auto market for years to come. Are you off your nut. Regardless of how you paint it, this is dumping. And it would destroy our industry for years to come. You guys haven't the sense to see the long term damage - you can only see the short term profit.

I would thank them for their gesture; but, suggest that if they wanted to thank the american people they could do something short of destroying the american auto industry for a generation as a gift. That ain't a gift.

[ScottM1968]

Thank you. I think you put your position together well.

There was probably no way the difference between our positions could be more greatly defined than through that example.

You would refuse on behalf of our country a huge gift fearing it would hurt three major auto manufacturers.

I would accept it such that everyone, regardless of industry affiliation, would profit and use their monies on more useful endeavors.

[Havoc]

It is you that breaks with "supply and demand". "Supply" isn't the extremely limited number of businesses you dictate people can buy from. That is "market control" by "suppliers" instead.

Oh, I didn't dictate anything. The market did. And because you didn't like what the market dictated, you sold out America and went to another market. You just decided you didn't like the american market as it dictated wages via supply and demand. So you jumped ship. You want to play this off as if we've always been part of a bigger market and just didn't know it. Not so. And McKinley knew it as well. Our market is our market. Britain's market is Britain's market. Trade between the two markets isn't trade in the same market. McKinley knew it. You know it too. It just doesn't serve your purposes to be truthful about it. Clinton signed nafta and you're bowed at the waste slobbering over it. You're the Clintonites. You don't want to wear that badge because it would put you in the place of having to say Clinton was right about something, which, I'm sure, brings bile to your throat. I don't have a problem admitting he could have been right about something - but nafta weren't it bub. Screwing americans for profit - that was Clintons game, selling National security secrets to the Chicoms, and selling US Jobs to INDIA, Mexico, and China to gut our economy and subvert it - for profit. Yep. Same thing. And people opposing clinton on clinton policy are somehow clintonistas. What a warped mind you must have to make that connection.

[Havoc]

I would accept it such that everyone, regardless of industry affiliation, would profit and use their monies on more useful endeavors.

Yeah, but then you'd be run out on a rail when the auto industries failed and with them, our ability to defend ourselves because the auto industry has been our means of mobilizing for war. Again, you race for a short term profit ignoring a 20 year destruction of the auto industry and our ability to produce for war - national defense. You'd sell out our national defense industry for a 1 year gain for current Americans. Yes, your example does show the difference between us. Your lack of judgement and foresight and your overpowering urge toward satiating greed.

[Havoc]

You got it. I don't know who we have more to fear from, these idiots chasing their greed to subvert us or the terrorists who want to see us in ruins. Two sides of the same coin - one using a pen the other using a gun. And both too indoctrinated by their own obsessions to think clearly or care beyond the moment.

[ScottM1968]

Our national defense industry would be virtually unscathed (Boeing, MD, Lockheed, etc.). For what the auto industry could produce, the Defense department could buy up their capacity for the whole year and build transports or whatever you think they could do. Engineers at the Big-Three would still work on new designs for the inevitable demand for new designs in a few years.

Okay, so what's the problem again?

[radicalamericannationalist]

Sometimes a "gift" isn;t always what it's cracked up to be. Ask the Trojans.

[radicalamericannationalist]

You're talking about plane production when you used an auto example.

[Havoc]

Right, The auto industry has been responsible for tanks and other military vehicles. That isn't going to sustain them and If we're subsidizing the US auto industry through taxation, your free cars aren't free. You've essentially put them out of business. That's the problem. You're easy fix formula don't do squat. You've just given 300million people a vehicle that is going to last them 10-20 years. You've garaunteed no american car sales for as long as people are satisfied they don't need a new vehicle. You've also killed the replacement parts and maintenance parts side of the industry for a generation. You don't know what the hell you're talking about.

[radicalamericannationalist]

These are the folks who would sell Osama the rope used to hang us. Can you imagine how our enemies must feel as we deindustrialize ourselves while industrializing them? Of course, the Chinese promise only to build civilian planes and cars. And we can trust them.

[ScottM1968]

Well, tell Havoc to stop thinking that the defense industry will be gone if the auto industry makes loads of transports instead of cars!

:-)

[ScottM1968]

"You've just given 300million people a vehicle that is going to last them 10-20 years."

Perhaps that helps show our problem with the US auto industry. We can't produce something that can last nearly that long.

[radicalamericannationalist]

I do believe the problem was your comparing apples to oranges. Now if your example had been about France giving airplanes...

[radicalamericannationalist]

Cars can last quite a long time, U.S. or foreign made. Most people like to get new ones after a while because they have new features or simply look nicer than what we've been driving.