Posted on 03/10/2006 12:33:17 PM PST by groanup
Remember what the Communists always derisively called the liberals who went along with every jot and tittle of the program intended to bring about communism...but "weren't for communism"?Liberals never ever saw any enemies on the Left.
Ditto you. ~ Paul Ross.
Oh my word, Todd, psychologists have a term for this.
"This is precisely why the deal had to be killed, right, Jay?"
The reason the deal had to be killed was to send a message that our nation still has enough self-sufficiency and self-respect not to allow a kingdom with strong 9/11 ties manage our ports operations for us.
If America is good and just and worthy of patriotism, then why is it that the "One World Government" bogeyman [the irrational argument that protectionist spring forward when the free-trader makes an irrefutable claim that supports capitalism] would be a bad guy if it had a decidedly American face?
Um, Jay; human beings are better off when they trade with one another. Trade does not prove to be something that should be viewed through the lens of weakness. Trade is what people do in order to unlock value through comparative advantage. But, by all means, Jay, try growing your own food, making your own garments (a pretty little dress perhaps), getting your own power, etcetera, and see just how much time you have left in the day to write post in an Internet forum with your nonexistent ISP.
Trade is a tool, Joe, not a religion...
There's smart trading...and then there's foolish trading.
Why don't we ask the French if they feel they got a good deal on the Louisiana Purchase? Their government was just engaging in 'Free Trade'.
I'd say we pretty well smoked Russia on the Alaska deal. Our position in the world was gained in large part by smart decisions like these.
And they all have restrictions on foreign investment.
Those poor "dummies", running trade surpluses against us - when according to you trade deficits are so good.
BTW, China is a *Communist* country. A USA business (run for profit) in the long-term cannot compete against a business that doesn't care about profits.
We have a trade surplus with the U.A.E. All else aside (security considerations, etc.), I fail to see how blowing them off on this deal will help. In other words, while other considerations carry weight, your concern about the trade deficit is misplaced in this case.
You think that somehow free trade will bring about a one world government? Will it lead to the revolution?
Seeing that it's impossible to travel back in time to 1803 to ask them, and seeing that the purchase negotiations were at arm's length (we didn't hold a gun to their head and vice versa--if we did, someone please enlighten me), there is a strong presumption that the French thought they were getting a good deal.
And they all have restrictions on foreign investment.
Yes, they are! They're losing capital to us and we use it expand businesses and purchase homes. They're, in essence, growing our economy faster than what their own economies would grow at if they didn't manipulate free exchange of goods, services, and capital...it's not a straw man argument; you just don't understand the benefits of trade because you've probably never studied it.
...when according to you trade deficits are so good.
Trade deficits are neither good nor bad, they're neutral and a condition of the current market's many variables. But, yes, if I had the choice in the matter, I'd take being in deficit over being in surplus. Fortunately, though, that's decision is a decentralized one made by every individual economic actor in every respective economy.
Read this if you need some guidance and want to understand why I [and others] believe the way I [we] do. And read this if you want to understand my preference of trade deficit over trade surplus. The last one is a "must read" no matter what side of the argument you take...there are some things you'll have to simply explain away if you continue your views about trade deficits being bad.
Enjoy!!
Please explain why a trade surplus is good. Please tell us which country running a surplus you'd like to trade the U.S. economy for.
I'm sure some here feel we're getting a good deal under our current trade agreements with China, ATM...
Others do not.
Same mistake we're making with our addiction to foreign oil, and cheap consumer goods.
I'm not for discontinuing all trade with China. We definitely need to be smarter about our current trade agreement. Negotiating these agreements is within the purview of the Executive branch. I'm not blaming Dubya for starting it. Slick Willie took care of that. I'm disappointed that Bush has not addressed the problem, and seems to be encouraging MOTS.
If you consider Patriotism 'cheesy', you're already lost in my book.
You make assumptions and expect to be taken seriously? You can't spell assume without ass.
I have to tell you this: Your vocation is a uniquely narrow one. One that has long been recognized as essentially "amoral."
Long recognized as amoral by whom? My clients who have placed the utmost trust in me? Or by class warriors who haven't been successful in their careers?
As for the rest of your post it is full of assumptions about me and others and it also assumes that I invade holy shrines to trade money. That simply isn't true.
Render unto..., etc.
From May of 1989 to May of 1999, I served on active duty as a United States Marine - one that has a Combat Action Ribbon and achieved the rank of Staff Sergeant (E-6). And on just this last Friday, I again, joined the Armed Services of America as an Army Reservist. I think that I can safely consider myself a Patriot, Sir - one that can understand the benefits of capitalism even though conventional wisdom and sentiments often cloud the issue.
Ouch! It was though I was watching old Batman reruns when he and Robin were fighting their adversaries.
I'm not that much into philosophy, but I'd like to see someone explain why and how working at the Chicago Board of Trade is more "amoral" than, say, operating a press-drill.
Sorry, but you'll have to defer to A. Pole for an answer to this type of question. Something to do with faceless capitalism, proletariat uprisings, riding off the backs of the helpless labors and the like. I don't quite understand it but I'm sure that either he or Havoc can set you straight.
Maybe garandgal can explain 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.