Skip to comments.
QUESTION: Are free-trade agreements good or bad for U.S. manufacturing jobs?
Northwest Indiana News ^
| Monday, October 06, 2003
| Barbara Glepko-Toncheff (Letter to the Editor)
Posted on 10/07/2003 10:53:06 AM PDT by Willie Green
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-80, 81-100, 101-120 ... 181-189 next last
To: PuNcH
Self-serving? Bah
Simplistic? Maybe
But if things are more complicated, as you suggest, then perhaps you can explain why protectionists have such a symbiotic relationship with the Left, why hedgetrimmer cites Robert Reich with a straight face, or why Willie can cite Ralph Nader's organization to support his positions? (To his credit he hasn't done so recently).
Get off the pot. Tell me how complicated things are. Explain to me why your philosophical comrades have that bust of Lenin in their room.
81
posted on
10/08/2003 2:04:06 PM PDT
by
1rudeboy
To: hedgetrimmer
Your reply #76 is simply false. If you require a response, I'll need a valid question.
82
posted on
10/08/2003 2:11:02 PM PDT
by
1rudeboy
To: hedgetrimmer
The communist agenda for the US advocates free trade regardless of the risk to our society. Again, false. The communists, in your limited example, advocated free trade because they felt it was a danger to our society. At the risk of appearing simplistic [/sarcasm], would you care to explain why you agree with the previous sentence?
83
posted on
10/08/2003 2:17:23 PM PDT
by
1rudeboy
To: 1rudeboy
Why do you think it isn't a danger for our country to trade with communist nations?
To: harpseal
One final thing. The ITC study that you mention came down firmly on the fence about steel tariffs. That you think it favors the tariffs in the first place questions your commitment to "rigorous" study.
85
posted on
10/08/2003 2:27:47 PM PDT
by
1rudeboy
To: 1rudeboy
Explain to me why your philosophical comrades have that bust of Lenin in their room
Oops you are getting me mixed up with someone else. That is the categorically groundless charge you leveled at me. Or maybe its the only argument you have that supports the "free trade" system as we have it today. That everyone who questions it is a philosophical comrade with lenin. I wonder....
To: hedgetrimmer
Leading question. I feel that I'm appearing in a bad Perry Mason episode.
87
posted on
10/08/2003 2:29:05 PM PDT
by
1rudeboy
To: hedgetrimmer
Groundless? [laugh]
I am simply asking why your political/philosophical objectives coincide with those of the Left. Which is not the same as calling you a leftist, I hope you understand. But what makes you think that you are magically immune from the comparison?
88
posted on
10/08/2003 2:32:16 PM PDT
by
1rudeboy
To: 1rudeboy
Its interesting that you have not posted one fact to bolster anything you have said, you have not cited one paper, you do not answer questions put to you and you insult people by calling them names.Then you get your posters and your insults mixed up(he he).So many posters, so many insults, its easy to see how you might get confused.
To: hedgetrimmer
[yawn]
90
posted on
10/08/2003 2:39:51 PM PDT
by
1rudeboy
To: hedgetrimmer
Ok, I'll admit that I'm curious, my Robert Reich-loving friend, who do you think I mixed-up?
91
posted on
10/08/2003 2:44:36 PM PDT
by
1rudeboy
To: 1rudeboy
Imagine yourself at the latest WTO meeting in Cancun
Then you won't be bored.
To: y2k_free_radical
However,this was an exceedingly big cause of the AMERICAN CIVIL WAR As predicted by Bastiat in 1850...
Slavery and Tariffs Are Plunder
But even in the United States, there are two issues - and only two - that have always endangered the public peace.
What are these two issues? They are slavery and tariffs. These are the only two issues where, contrary to the general spirit of the republic of the United States, law has assumed the character of a plunderer.
Slavery is a violation, by law, of liberty. The protective tariff is a violation, by law, of property.
It is a most remarkable fact that this double legal crime - a sorrowful inheritance from the Old World - should be the only issue which can, and perhaps will, lead to the ruin of the Union. It is indeed impossible to imagine, at the very heart of a society, a more astounding fact than this: The law has come to be an instrument of injustice. And if this fact brings terrible consequence in Europe, where the perversion of the law is a principle; a system?
93
posted on
10/08/2003 2:48:12 PM PDT
by
Grit
(Tolerance for all but the intolerant...and those who tolerate intolerance etc etc)
To: Grit
Tariffs protect property.
A tariff on foreign almonds protects the value of the almond growers crop(his property).
To: hedgetrimmer
Thus the term 'protectionist'
95
posted on
10/08/2003 2:56:21 PM PDT
by
Grit
(Tolerance for all but the intolerant...and those who tolerate intolerance etc etc)
To: Grit
How can tariffs be plunder and protect at the same time?
To: hedgetrimmer
How can tariffs be plunder and protect at the same time? It depends on which side of the equation you are on. One man's protection is another man's plunder.
A tariff on foreign almonds protects the value of the almond growers crop(his property).
...at the expense of the almond purchaser. Now my Almond Joy costs $1.50. That's 50 cents I no longer have to spend on other fine American made products.
97
posted on
10/08/2003 3:13:41 PM PDT
by
Grit
(Tolerance for all but the intolerant...and those who tolerate intolerance etc etc)
To: Grit
So the WTO supports free trade. Well here is what one US senator says:
Meanwhile a powerful US lawmaker said he would identify countries to blame for the debacle and try to shut them out of lucrative free-trade pacts with the United States.
Senator Charles Grassley said in a statement, "I will use my position as chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, which has jurisdiction over international trade policy in the US Senate, to carefully scrutinize the positions taken by many WTO members during this ministerial.
"I will take note of those nations that played a constructive role in Cancun, and those nations that did not."
How free is that!
To: Grit
Well, I am on the American side. Which side are you on?
To: lelio
Does your "freedom of exchange" extend to communist countries? Yes, it does. The individual firms and consumers in those countries are not free to engage in trade, and the government acts as the trading partner. You are free to seel to that entity and free from buy from it.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-80, 81-100, 101-120 ... 181-189 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson