Posted on 01/09/2007 8:27:45 AM PST by jmc813
You understand that buying stuff at WalMart is unrelated to the Federal Government spending more money than it takes in? No, I guess you don't.
Well, we do apply definitions to words, yes.
We are talking Public Policy AND Economics.
Which would be more than mere economics, eh?
They don't need foreign investment, they have so much extra money that they can invest in America.
Their growth rates are reasonable and acceptable because of that
If you think 1% growth is reasonable and if you think Germany's 8% plus unemployment is acceptable, then you're dumber than I thought.
But, of course, this isn't economics. And what Henry Clay may have called "The American System" makes it neither a system, nor American nor in any way "the".
I think she's absolutely hilarious. Do yourself a favor and if you see that a new Cindy Sheehan interview takes place, hoold your nose and listen to Laura that night. Her impressions of Sheehan are priceless. I think Laura's hawt too and that's always a nice bonus.
I agreee with you to a certain extent. It's possible to be shrill and negative and still entertaining, but it takes talent to pull it off. For instance, Michael Savage depresses the heck out of me after listening to him for 5 minutes, but I'm a really big fan of Mark Levin.
Don't patronize me. You are a common thief, and a thug.
First, your position is not enhanced by your "Medvidianism". And Second, any agreements which set up extra-constitutional trade courts, or defer to International regimes such as the WTO Court, are genericaally unacceptable to me as a matter of Constitutional Principle. I suppose that seems quaint to you too.
But as a matter of substantive "give and take" fairness, the following Bilateral reciprocity agreements I tentatively approve:
Canada-U.S. FTAAustralia-U.S. FTA
And I'm of a mixed opinion, and would prefer to remain neutral on the virtues of the U.S.-Chile FTA.
A real, honest-to-God FTA with Japan, if enforceable, would be, intuitively, a good idea. Wages are indeed similar. There are a number of U.S.-Japan Bilateral Agreements which have been assessed as deficient however in compliance, engendering among some former Trade Representatives to advocate for:
The “new emphasis on explicitly mandated results has arisen from the perception that previous market-opening initiatives with Japan have failed because the standard process- or rule-based approach is too easily undermined or subverted by Japanese countermeasures.
In view of my preference for completely switching around our tax systems, shifting from production and investment-punishing income/gains taxes to revenue tariffs and national sales taxes, this will always apparently put us at logger-heads over trade policy.
Interestingly the World Trade Organization does permit the existence of neutral Revenue Tariffs. But suggest the notion...and the Phoney Traders here scream bloody murder at the idea.
But it is well justified. I was looking for a yes or no answer, not blather about "tentative approval," which, in a Corsican fashion ("Corsi," get it? I slay myself sometimes) makes it impossible to have a reasonable conversation with you on the subject.
Which would be where the Rubber Meets The Road.
This was never an exclusive discussion of Ivory Tower theory.
In a Pig's Eye.
I was looking for a yes or no answer
Guess you live in a black and white universe.
not blather about "tentative approval,"
Guess you didn't read the whole of my post then.
And if you find "fine-print" in a contract that is totally unacceptable, that may gut some particular fundamental elements you were expecting in a "deal" do you automatically say the whole deal is "good" or "bad"? You've got to read more than the "headlines" in these agreements. And know more than whether they superficially appear fair. You need to know the actual likely compliance and impacts "on the ground". Hence the issues we still have with Japan.
And multilaterally-enforced FTA's simply multiply the compliance issues, as China has shown...leading the WTO...and the US phoney trade community... around by the nose.
China's US Trade Surplus is now Six-To-One.
You don't actually believe that trade with high-wage societies is mutually beneficial, do you?
Ha, Ha...Ha.
"Bad." If not "bad," "good." I guess I'm not "sophisticated" enough to be a protectionist.
In principle, yes. Of course I do. There may be some individual issues where the trade is not free, however, as where Europe subsidizes AirBus, and their state airlines preferentially discriminate against the American free enterprise "competitor" and as pointed out above, that Japan exercises some serious non-tariff trade barriers still...
These are issues of imperfection in the trade, i.e., "non-freedom" in the trade that need to be addressed.
How is this trade beneficial?
So in your unsophisticated universe, there are never any "mixed bags"?
Since you're an all-or-nothing kind of guy, which is it for you. Let's see you identify any Free Trade Agreements...that you don't support.
Those "boarders" can be pests.
The border is porous indeed.
Help me out here, was it on this thread or another that you were complaining that trade agreements shouldn't take-up so many pages? Now you're arguing that they don't take into account all the "nuances?"
You're funny, Amish Dude.
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.