Wolfowitz Calls For End To Farm Subsidies(what's so free about "free trade?")

Free Internet Press ^ | October 24, 2005 | Intellpuke

[hedgetrimmer]

If that's the case, then it will be the first Soviet in history to advocate less government global centralized government intrusion in the economy.

[hedgetrimmer]

Do you understand that free traders only want free trade?

No they don't. Don't you read any of their papers or speeches? The want to "reduce poverty". They want to advantage "poor countries" in our trade agreements. The don't want one country to make a trade deal with another, the want "multilateral trade" so that the "poor countries" always get cut a noncompetitive deal. That is socialism, on a global scale.

Every quoted word or phrase belongs to the WTO and the "free trader". These goals are endlessly repeated in every "free trade" deal the WTO brokers. Your view on "free trade" is not reflected at all in the implementation by the Clinton administration and the global socialist WTO. Your view does not exist in reality.

[hedgetrimmer]

I am denouncing the marxist rhetoric of the "free traders". I am not confusing building highways with anything.

Your arguments have no basis in the reality of soveriegn nations, what you argue is theoretical based on an economic equation with only one variable, price.

In reality, there are many variables, here's an example used many many times. "free traders" want the lowest price. The absolute lowest price can be obtains if slaves produce the product. Now add sovereign law into your economic equation. Slavery was abolished in the US, US workers therefore will never compete in your stilted economic view because they are not slaves. Your economic argument says that if the best price can be obtained by slave labor, then laws approved by our citizens no longer apply. China has at least 10 million slave laborers in their logai and they effectively control our economy now. The "free traders" have sold out a fundamental principle that has guided the United States for a century. No conservative can support this, but all "free traders" argue endlessly for it. Let's hear where you stand.

[hedgetrimmer]

That's fine. Rhetoric is talk. I can turn off the radio and for me the problem is solved

Yes, you can hide your head in the sand and pretend that the WTO and the "free traders" are just full of talk and no action. The rest of us know that in the Doha round, the "free traders" are going to make plenty of decisions that affect us, and we have absolutely NO SAY. But since you're a "free trader" and your side is making so many inroads on the rights of American citizens, you have no argument with the marxists who run your organization. At least there is a ballot box in this country-- there isn't one for American citizens at the WTO, which is probably why you so vociferously support it. Its a classic soviet, with its members spouting marxist rhetoric, affecting the lives of American citizens. Your head may be in the sand so you don't hear Paul Wolfowitz's strident calls for "poverty reduction", but its pretty clear that you do not side with our form of government, a representative republic.

[Casloy]

Let's hear where you stand.

Don't confuse slave labor with cheap labor. The only slave labor in China are political prisoners who are forced to work in factories. A problem for sure, but an infinitesimal part of the work force. Cheap labor is how every country works it's way from poverty into middle class. Japan, after world war II had extremely cheap labor and you could buy a lot of Japanese products cheaply. Over time, the Japanese moved their economy forward and now no longer have cheap labor (whatever cheap labor is). The problem with your approach is it pretty much will lead to a global economic crisis. The only solution for what you see as a problem of cheap labor is to impose tariffs. Tariffs always hurt the poorest of the poor and ALWAYS lead to counter tariffs by other countries. Eventually, we end up with an isolated market that can't grow and can barely sustain itself. If you want to understand the global economic catastrophe that started in October of 1929 look to the Smoot Hawley laws which did exactly what you are recommending. The problem with your solution is it takes the decision for what to purchase and how to price it out of the hands of the consumer and into the hands of some government bureacrat. God forbid.

By the way, you want to know what caused the gas shortages of the 70's? It was price controls. Gas prices were artificially set by the government so we just didn't have much of it. What you think is an economic solution leads to shortages and misery. The free market isn't perfect, but it certainly beats anything else. I strongly recommend you read FREE TO CHOOSE by Milton Friedman, you might understand my side better. Besides, how can you argue with FREE?

[hedgetrimmer]

Besides, how can you argue with FREE?

1. The "free" in "free trade" means the global socialist WTO is regulating trade. If a global group is regulating trade by setting down rules, then it isn't free, is it? Add an international bureaucracy on top of our stifling environmental regulations and taxes, and you get a system that is the polar opposite of free. But "free traders" think because they call it "free" everyone is going to believe them.

2. Let's not use relativism to justify the way "free traders" run around the desire of the American people with respect to slavery. Ten million people may not be so many compared to China's workforce, but its a lot compared to ours. And if we believe in "free", then there is no justification for propping up governments that exploit human beings in such a horrific manner. Note that China is not the only slave country that "free traders" are boosting economically.

[Toddsterpatriot]

The absolute lowest price can be obtains if slaves produce the product.

Absolutely. Because slave labor is not only cheaper but much more productive. That's why the Confederate States were such an economic powerhouse. That's why the Sudan has a higher GDP per capita than Switzerland and Japan.

[hedgetrimmer]

. That's why the Confederate States China were is such an economic powerhouse.

[Toddsterpatriot]

So some countries that use slave labor are not economic powerhouses? How about the Soviet Union? Didn't they have a huge gulag slave labor system? How good was their economy?

[hedgetrimmer]

How about the Soviet Union? Didn't they have a huge gulag slave labor system?

America wouldn't trade with the USSR because communism and slavery was and is abhorrent to the majority. Now the WTO and the "free traders" says we must trade with every country, we can't discriminate based communism, slavery or any other anti-human system. Our government, corrupted by "free trade" sides with the WTO instead of the American people.

[1rudeboy]

It's laughable that you can simultaneously argue in favor of subsidies and accuse your philosophical opponents (who are in favor of reducing subsidies) of advocating government intrusion in the economy.

[hedgetrimmer]

It's laughable that you can simultaneously argue in favor of subsidies

Its funny how hard you are trying to change the topic from the marxist rhetoric of the "free traders".

But, here's more of the same

The world's richest nations should allow duty- and quota-free access to all products from poor countries without demanding anything back as part of a deal on global trade, South Africa said on Thursday.

[1rudeboy]

You're worried about the South Africans now? What are you, some sort of a globalist?

[Casloy]

That's why the Confederate States were such an economic powerhouse

Actually, the south was anything but an economic powerhouse. It was financially very weak and sustained itself only marginally. I think a very good case could be made that slavery was highly unprofitable except for those whose bought and sold slaves. Plantation owner capital was tied up in slaves and a good economic case could be made that it would have been much more profitable to hire labor seasonally for the work done by slaves. As to slavery being more productive, there is absolutely no data to back that up. How productive is someone going to be who's primary motivation is going to be to do as little work as they can possibly get away with?

[Toddsterpatriot]

Actually, the south was anything but an economic powerhouse.

Yeah, that was my point. Blondie says there is no way to compete against slave labor. Sounds more like the South couldn't compete by using slave labor. Just another example of old hedgie getting the facts backwards.