Posted on 05/01/2005 9:40:04 AM PDT by A. Pole
If you think the GM and Ford cars of the 70's and 80's were reliable, you are a nut. They were junk. The domestics have improved but are still not up to the imports, but they improved only because they had to.
I just don't equate rich with filth. I equate filth with poor, welfare, lazy, etc. Rich means you are providing a valuable good or service. Poor means you are providing a not so valuable good or service. Rich is good. Rich pay most of the taxes.
Maybe the U.S. Senate is "extra-constitutional?" One can never tell with these people.
On this particular thread, I posted my first sourced assertion in reply #19. And your contribution is?
You're just a profit luster!!
What is wrong with profits ? I like profits. I intend to make profits. The more profits the better. I try to invest in companies that make profits.
I heard from a guy in the WalMart parking lot that 12 of the Senators had their fingers crossed behind their backs when they voted yes on NAFTA. That means that it really didn't pass.
Comparitive advantage should be renamed relative advantage. A shoesaleman (think al bundy) can sell shoes and do lawn mowing cheaper than jose. But it will still be in his advantage to sell shoes and hire jose. In other words, do what you do best and outsource(domestically or internationally) the rest. The law of comparitive advantage is really a mathematical description of common sense.
The free trade mantra in a nutshell. Rich is good. Rich is superior. Sure, half or more of the American workforce will see free trade reduce them to a third world level. But they were only losers who didn't provide valuable enough goods or services. They were weak, inferior, and we cannot tolerate the weak and inferior. The strong (or at least the well connected) must triumph. People who aren't brilliant are expendable casualties to the purity of free trade. The weak must be expended so that the strong may survive.
But of course 1rudeboy assured me that my sense of a pervasive elitist contempt for the lower orders among free traders was pure BS so I guess he must be right.
Now you've done it. How dare you even suggest such a thing? Someone will be by shortly to slice-off your fingers, lest you post your reactionary ideas again.
Finally, the protectionist mantra in a nutshell. Poor is good. Poor is superior.
I think that'll sell with the American people.
It won't sell with free traders who think of themselves as Ayn Rand's beautiful, brilliant heroes towering above the "looters" who would dare set limits on their actions. Real people in the real people see themselves as regular Joes just trying to survive and if possible get ahead. And that's not possible if they are being underbid by the entire goddam third world.
Talk about irony. Your post could've been written by Karl Marx.
Yeah, when the essential ugliness of the free trader pops out by accident he has no choice but to cover it up by yelling "commie".
iconoclast: Well, you've swallowed the koolaid alright, but when we buy more than we sell, it means fewer jobs .... and the jobs left are paying less because of the influx of cheap labor.
How in the world does the average American (like Bush's old lady with the three jobs) come out ahead while competing against incredibly cheap labor abroad and falling wage rates at home.
Meanwhile the top 5% (you don't even wanna think about the top 1%) watches with glee as there annual incomes increase at rates that are HUGE multiples of that of the peons.
At the same time you count yourself blessed because you just bought a shiny new power mower at WalMart._____
Karl Marx: But, in general, the protective system of our day is conservative, while the free trade system is destructive. It breaks up old nationalities and pushes the antagonism of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie to the extreme point. In a word, the free trade system hastens the social revolution. It is in this revolutionary sense alone, gentlemen, that I vote in favor of free trade.
"Poor is better" will sell with real people? I don't think so.
And that's not possible if they are being underbid by the entire goddam third world.
The third world has been underbidding us for how long now? We still have what, 130 million or 140 million jobs. That should be impossible according to you.
Just how do we do it?
One more thing. On this thread, you called your intellectual opponents "shills" as early as your reply #37. Why so sensitive to name-calling all of a sudden? Can't take it?
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.