Well, right. Sounds good. Not sure that is the government job. But,hey, we hey we use almost no taxpayer's dollars for this did we? I mean it is just some little old meetings" Right? Why isn't this being done by business if we are talking - FREE TRADE.
why does the taxpayers have to pay that person unemployment for 2 years and train them for another job - no government interference here - just free trade.
[Then what you're arguing against is government interference, not free trade. Don't let yourself be fooled just because the bureaucrats steal the title for their purposes... ]
Ahhhh. Now you are talking!! But it seems it is not only the bureaucrats that are misusing the title for their purposes. But there seems to be some on here who have tried to argue free trade when they know that is not what we have. It is also all those people who are making money off it. I was never fooled. This has been my premise all along. And I have never tried to fool anyone by arguing for or against FREE TRADE, when that is not what we have. I have argued against the situation we now have. Now we have agreed what we have is not FREE TRADE. Why are we arguing that it is a good thing - since it is only a theory - certainly not a fact.
Under our Constitution the federal government is empowered to regulate foreign commerce. This puts them in the situation of trying to lower trade barriers between our nation and others. Lower tariffs is again a move in the direction of free trade.
But,hey, we hey we use almost no taxpayer's dollars for this did we? I mean it is just some little old meetings" Right? Why isn't this being done by business if we are talking - FREE TRADE.
Because tariffs are taxes instituted by governments, and our federal government is tasked by the Constitution with the duty of regulating ours. Businesses can plead with foreign governments to lower their tariffs on American goods, but likely without the effectiveness of the American government, which has power over our reciprocal tariffs.
why does the taxpayers have to pay that person unemployment for 2 years and train them for another job - no government interference here - just free trade.
Once again I'm forced to explain to you that government interference in the marketplace is not free trade. "How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg. " -Abraham Lincoln
Ahhhh. Now you are talking!! But it seems it is not only the bureaucrats that are misusing the title for their purposes. But there seems to be some on here who have tried to argue free trade when they know that is not what we have.
They were arguing in favor of free trade. If you can't see the difference the failing is yours, not theirs.
It is also all those people who are making money off it. I was never fooled.
Free trade benefits all by freeing capital and labor for expanding production to meet new and existing demands. It's not simply the owners of the relocated factory that benefit. It's the multitude of consumers who pay lower prices as result, in addition to the producers and consumers of industries which can grow with the labor and capital freed by the increased efficiency. You can't seem to see past the first step of the process...
And I have never tried to fool anyone by arguing for or against FREE TRADE, when that is not what we have. I have argued against the situation we now have. Now we have agreed what we have is not FREE TRADE.
In arguing against "the situation we now have", do you support moving in the direction of free trade, or toward more state control of the marketplace?
Why are we arguing that it is a good thing - since it is only a theory - certainly not a fact.
Because, in case you forgot, the article was titled "Free trade is a bad idea." Sheesh...