Posted on 01/19/2016 7:31:56 AM PST by K Street Eyes
In politics and public policy, it’s important to build alliances that bridge philosophies and partisan allegiances. Moreover, ethics dictate that when such alliances are being built, that those seeking to bridge gaps are honest about who they are and their motivations for trying to bring people together.
(Excerpt) Read more at townhall.com ...
Free Trade ONLY works when the two countries trading have the following three things in common and AT THE SAME LEVEL: ( culture, Individual rights, economic development level )
We can easily free trade with Canada for instance, but we cannot with China, we can free trade with the UK, but not with India.
Free Traders are like a cult that bypasses this common sense
Since the author appears to support high levels of legal immigration, it might be overly generous to say he "forgot" about Zuckerberg.
Sounds pretty simple and beneficial to me, but I'm also a proponent for more individual liberty and a much smaller and less intrusive government. Like Milton Friedman, I find that most people who are opposed to the freedom to trade are also opposed to freedom itself.
Interesting rules. Let’s add another - economic status. For example, a CEO can ONLY hire or CEO, or equivalent, to blow leaves off his yard.
I really do like your tagline.
That is a fair observation, IMO. I fault many liberals on consistency and sincerity. An example would be when a liberal cites the tenth amendment to oppose some conservative cause. Hyppocrite.
Technically arguments should be evaluated on their merits, regardless of source. Still, I would want to know something about the source.
We have had too many double-standards. Nixon could not be above the law, but Bill (and Hillary?) could be. Eligibility is an absurd topic for Obama, but serious for Cruz. Obama could be inexperienced, but no Republican can be. Of course liberals will claim that the cases differ, as they always will if you look long enough, but it is only reasonable to question the sincerity of liberals who claim that similar cases are, once again, dissimilar to the advantage of Democrats.
Like Trump?
[ Interesting rules. Let’s add another - economic status. For example, a CEO can ONLY hire or CEO, or equivalent, to blow leaves off his yard.
I really do like your tagline. ]
I should have added that if we eliminated things like Minimum wage and over 90% of the government regulations on businesses we could easily free trade with 90% of the world. The problem is when we put shackles on ourselves we cannot expect to trade with the other countries that use their economies as a weapon or that don’t shackle their workers and expect to come out ahead.
“I should have added that if we eliminated things like Minimum wage and over 90% of the government regulations on businesses we could easily free trade with 90% of the world.”
Agreed.
One recurring problem is that bad policy becomes an excuse for more bad policy. For example, government requires that hospitals accept patients who cannot pay. I think that is bad policy. The Massachusetts solution was that everyone in the state be required to buy health insurance. Another bad policy. That might have created strains on or from neighboring states. Answer, the nation should require national health insurance. More bad policy.
The correct approach is to repeal the bad laws, not “correct” them with additional laws.
No government interference? What joke that is. In the 1980's people in the US government, like Bush senior for example, wanted a "new world order" so they propped up the ChiCom economy and we built factories in China and closed our factories. This was all done with total government interference on both sides at every step.
Free Traitors™ are nothing if not simpletons.
So Grace are the Oreos made in Mexico going to cost less than the ones made in Chicago? Does the consumer benefit?
[ So Grace are the Oreos made in Mexico going to cost less than the ones made in Chicago? Does the consumer benefit? ]
The Oreos made in Mexico will be cheaper, that being said their ingredients will be cheaper and the quality of the product will be cheaper. There will also be less demand for workers in the United States as a result, but have no fear those people in the USA who would have worked in the Oreos Plant in Chicago can get on food stamps and welfare to buy their Mexican made oreos...
Of course since the Mexican oreos will be cheaper, the US government will call this a “savings” for the EBT program and thus will justify the fact another thousand people are now on EBT as a “good thing”.
Well and since the EBT cards will be used to buy Oreos, Nabisco will raise the cost of them back to normal as they have been taxed more to pay for the extra people on EBT because the state of Illinois will raise state taxes to pay for EBT....
When Oreo initially moves to Mexico this will increase the short term earnings of Nabisco so their stock will go up and this will make the shareholders who have a lot shares very happy, and since they are propped up by welfare money (most welfare people buy per-packaged snack type foods) they are pleased as punch to be crony capitalists.
this is my Cynical take on this...
Oreos will not be cheaper, to the consumer.
[ Oreos will not be cheaper, to the consumer. ]
Nabisco will be able to put them on sale more than in the past, but you are right the “base consumer price” will not go down at all....
Sugar tariffs are awesome! We should increase them. What could go wrong?
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.