U.S. Trade Representative Reviews Progress on Free Trade Goals

U.S. Department of State's Bureau of International Information Programs ^ | 08 Jan 2006 | Ambassador Rob Portman

[Toddsterpatriot]

You do not know the future.

You are correct. We only know the past. In the past, sugar subsidies and quotas have cost US consumers $2.5 billion more a year. This can be seen in the difference between the world sugar price and the US sugar price.

This greater cost has led to the loss of American jobs as candy producers have been shutting down manufacturing in the Chicago area to move to Canada and Mexico where sugar is cheaper.

[Mase]

Free market experiments might be costly and impossible to undo

Can you show us an example where free market reforms did not increase the supply and lower the cost of something? You guys whine incessantly about the use of taxpayer money to stimulate trade but say nothing about hundreds of billions going to millionaire farmers or the impact this welfare has on the price of food.

Protectionists fear competition for many reasons. The facts prove that competition is good for both taxpayers and consumers. American agriculture is, and will continue to be, the world leader. Welfare is not responsible for that being so. Competition and innovation is.

[1rudeboy]

That's right. If we eliminate sugar subsidies and quotas, US consumers will save $2.5 billion every year.

Stop it, you globalist socialist! You're killing me! LOL

[WilliamofCarmichael]

It's no wonder there is name calling from both sides -- we oppose "free trade" with the Chi-coms and, apparently, you guys and many more favor it as best I can tell.

We have free tradiin' corporations handing off technology, wealth, and production to the Chi-coms -- the very same Chi-coms who are handing off conventional and nuclear weapons capabilities to Iran -- the very same Iran who today supplies weapons and training to kill American military in Iraq -- the very same Iran whose leaders speak daily of using the nuclear weapons they are developing to kill Jews and Christians by the millions.

If anyone thinks that true free market capitalism is going to win out in Red China -- that is, if anyone thinks that the Communist ideologues are going to let the Chinese invisible hand slap them silly -- those people who think that Red China will evolve into free, capitalist China are nuts. IMO.

[Toddsterpatriot]

If anyone thinks that true free market capitalism is going to win out in Red China -- that is, if anyone thinks that the Communist ideologues are going to let the Chinese invisible hand slap them silly -- those people who think that Red China will evolve into free, capitalist China are nuts. IMO.

Well, I guess we'll have to see. Is China a threat, sure. How do they compare to the threat of the Soviet Union?

[hedgetrimmer]

The "free traders" always post references to Pat Buchanan. They may have a "free trade" agreement with Mr. Buchanan to post his name as often as possible on the internet, whether it is appropriate or not.

[A. Pole]

Can you show us an example where free market reforms did not increase the supply and lower the cost of something?

After rent control was abolished in Boston metropolitan area the rent skyrocketed (tripled or more). Number of apartments did not increase much.

After electric supply systems got privatized (in the same area) the prices went up. The town in which I live refused to privatize and the price of electricity is lower than in the towns around.

[Toddsterpatriot]

They may have a "free trade" agreement with Mr. Buchanan to post his name as often as possible on the internet, whether it is appropriate or not.

Pat Buchanan equals assclown. Oops, I did it again.

[hedgetrimmer]

I most certainly wouldn't consider FR an infallible source of information especially when it comes from "free trade" neocons.

[1rudeboy]

Plenty of name-calling on all sides. But in this particular case, someone was called a "socialist" and the person doing the name-calling didn't have the decency to even acknowledge that it was happening. Instead, the person to whom the insult was directed got some meaningless blather about how it was a "correction" of one of my comments. Too bad A+Bert is no longer around . . . the subsequent exchange would have been truly entertaining.

[hedgetrimmer]

If you are for "free trade" you are promoting global socialism. There! I said it!

[1rudeboy]

Pat Buchanan
Pat Buchanan
Pat Buchanan
Pat Buchanan
Pat Buchanan
Pat Buchanan
Pat Buchanan
Pat Buchanan
Pat Buchanan
Pat Buchanan

That should make ten. Maybe enough to bump Google's usage figures by 0.001%.

[Toddsterpatriot]

Pat Buchanan assclown
Pat Buchanan assclown
Pat Buchanan assclown
Pat Buchanan assclown
Pat Buchanan assclown
Pat Buchanan assclown
Pat Buchanan assclown
Pat Buchanan assclown
Pat Buchanan assclown
Pat Buchanan assclown

Better

[hedgetrimmer]

He says US consumers will save $2.5 billion every year.

State economies would lose at least $10 billion, which is a chunk of change if you are a small state like Montana or North Dakota. That is a net loss to the economy.

Please note that the "free trader" cares only for consumers, citizens have no place in the "free trader" view of the world.

[hedgetrimmer]

Plenty of name-calling on all sides

Clearly an untruth.

Fun (NOT) to watch you hijack the thread about "free trade" goals (which are clearly socialist money giveaways) and attack individual posters instead. Its expected that you will turn every discussion away from the topic. You always do.

[1rudeboy]

State economies would lose $10 billion from what source?

[Toddsterpatriot]

State economies would lose at least $10 billion, which is a chunk of change if you are a small state like Montana or North Dakota.

You have a source? A source that's not EPI?

[hedgetrimmer]

You've cataloged all my other posts. I'm sure you can find it there.

BTW, what a kick that you have such an in depth knowledge of my postings. I know I have at least one freeper who reads everything I post. Thanks.

[1rudeboy]

Clearly, an untruth.

There you go again. Let folks click here, read onward from your comment 126, and judge for themselves.

[hedgetrimmer]

Off topic, dear boy.