Posted on 07/31/2006 3:05:40 PM PDT by Reagan Man
No, the trouble would be if she WAS right. FOrtunately, there is no chance she is.
Try finding an engineer or an electrician or a heavy equipment operator on the West coast of theUS that isn't working overtime.
:-)
You notice when asked for facts to back up his whine, he runs away. Reagan Man my ass. More like Reagan Woman.
Sure did.
Other than specialty woods and products, you're not going to persuade anyone that 'wood', generally, is in a boom on this continent.
Yes I could, if I had the time. The housing boom in the last 3 years was more than impressive. They are not all steel framed homes, I can assure you.
THat is why markets are speculatory. And the speculation is often wrong.
I have to disagree. Whther one considers it having been for good or ill, Ronald Reagan promoted free markets at home and abroad; he never supported "fair trade" anymore than he supported "fair wages".
Is that why Bush appointed CFR member Condoleeza Rice to the State Department?
Mkt values are about information and emotion, nothing else. The more information the mkt -- by which I mean the participants in the mkt -- has, the less volatile and unpredictable it is.
Supply imbalance? If the mkt participants, as a group, are all aware of it, the price will go to 'clearing' levels nearly immediately. If not, things can (and almost always do) become very wild.
The cause of large bull or bear mkts is the lack of sufficient information available to the participants, plus whatever emotional factors come into play, which of course can be huge on occasion. Energy mkts, above all, are subject to the excess of emotion, never mind whether mkt information is completely or nearly so to the mkt participants.
Following her initial Hoover Institution affiliation, Rice went to Washington, D.C. to work on nuclear strategic planning at the Joint Chiefs of Staff as part of a Council on Foreign Relations fellowship. She came back to Stanford when the fellowship ended.
That was 1986. She is definitely a part of the illuminati.
That's simply NOT true. You're wrong.
Ronald Reagan was a big believer in free trade, as long as it was fair trade. And while Reagan wasn't a protectionist per se, many economists considered his administration to be the most "protectionist" Presidency since Herbert Hoover. Reagan signed off on special trade protection for Harley-Davidson, imposed quotas on steel imports, pressured Japan to restrict vehicle shipments to the United States, tightened limits on foreign textiles, accepted new barriers to imported sugar, raised duties on Canadian shakes and shingles. All in the name of fair trade.
In 1980 Reagan campaigned on creating a free trade agreement with Canada and Mexico. Later that became NAFTA, which Reagan supported in principle. I think Reagan would have a different perception today of the poor results produced by NAFTA. Unlike Bush41, Clinton and Bush43, Reagan wasn't a hardcore globalist.
Here's two radio speeches to the nation on the issues of free and fair trade.
President Ronald Reagan, Radio Address to the Nation on Free and Fair Trade, September 7th, 1985
President Ronald Reagan, Radio Address to the Nation on Free and Fair Trade,April 25th, 1987
"We hope that through these negotiations we will be able to convince our trading partners to stop their unfair trading practices and open those markets that are now closed to American exports. We will take countermeasures only as a last resort, but our trading partners should not doubt our determination to see international trade conducted fairly with the same rules applicable to all. I'm committed to and will continue to fight for fair trade. American exporters and American workers deserve a fair shake abroad, and we intend to see they get it. Our objective will always be to make world trading partnerships freer and fairer for all."
President Ronald Reagan
I knew President Reagan had made some concessions to the protectionists, as all presidents have, but didn't realize President reagan had used the actual Naderite term "fair trade" which denotes the leveling of results at the expense of the fairness of process. The subsidizing other nations do of certain industries only hurts their economies, and it's too bad President Reagan was forced to do the same to ours. However, I still find don't believe that President Reagan believed in free but fair trade--- a free market in wages is incompatible with "fair" wages just as free and "fair" trade are incompatible. But thanks for the quote and links!
In 1993, before NAFTA passed, we exported $41.6 billion to Mexico and $100.4 billion to Canada. In 2005 we exported $120.3 billion to Mexico and $211.9 billion to Canada.
I know how inconvenient facts are to your position, but that doesn't look like a poor result to me.
Thanks for the post.
In 1993, before NAFTA passed, we had maybe 2 or 3 million illegals from Mexico. Today, there are approximately 20 million illegal Mexicans in the US.
I know how inconvenient facts are to your position, but that DOES look like poor results to me when a country exports 1/10 of their population.
Face it, NAFTA was and is a failure.
Send them back. Build a fence.
Are you advocating giving back their farmlands and conditions prior to NAFTA?
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.