Pascal Lamy of France is leading in the race to head the World Trade Organization, while the foreign minister of Mauritius, Jayen Cuttaree, seen here in January 2005, ranked second, according to Amina Mohamed, Kenya's ambassador to the WTO(AFP/File)
Posted on 04/18/2005 6:37:40 AM PDT by A. Pole
I don't waste my money on the liberal rags printed here. But there is a great many ways to find jobs outside of newspapers, in fact that would be the last place I look.
That would be my first choice. It's hard to cut taxes, though, when the government is spending at such high levels.
The NRST might be a good place to start. I bet it would cause a lot more people to start screaming for spending reductions.
I can support tariffs in some limited scenarios, however I don't think the answer is government intervention, when that is what created the biggest problems to begin with.
Those liberal rags used to contain many jobs for engineers and IT people so you are running on empty. But since you do seem to be on the ball, you will find the truth.
Sigh - willful ignorance is no defence. Buchanan himself lists Smith's four exceptions - which one applies to Chinese trade? Protecting commodity manufactured goods as incipient technologies? The point was, there are plenty of respected journals to support your side - don't go playing with the opposition's if you don't fully understand them.
Nephi has been here since 1998, and you've been here nine months -- you're just a newborn
Google your tag and see what types of results you get. Now, consider whether or not you've ever used the tag in any passing reference outside of FR - email, conversation, placard, etc.
There are plenty of people here that, due to certain work/professional assocations, are constantly updating their tags to erase any potential tracks. Personally, I've been here since '98 under at least 4 different guises.
It wasn't me you asked, but I'll answer.
Innovation is good economics. Slave labor and low cost labor stifle innovation, whether the cheaper labor is in the next state or in a foreign country.
However, there is a huge economic difference between moving a factory from one state to another, and moving a factory from the US economy to a foreign economy.
When a textile mill moved from a northern state (i.e. PA) to a lower-wage southern state (i.e. NC), the PA local economy suffered some readjustment, while the NC local economy improved, allowing more of NC consumers to purchase automobiles, washers, dryers, refrigerators, etc. that were being manufactured up north, which in turn provided additional jobs in PA manufacturing to re-employ the former PA textile workers.
This worked economically because, and only because, PA and NC belong to the same United States and play by the same rules. This does not work economically when factories are packed up and shipped to foreign low-wage countries, especially countries that impose punitive tariffs and quotas on imports from the US (such as China and India).
That he did. Now that the disastrous results of (un)free trade and mass 3rd world immigration can no longer be swept under the rug, the Free Trade/Open Borders crowd are left with repeating their tired old mantras and slogans that have about as much basis in reality as Alice in Wonderland.
I agree that we need to eliminate government intervention in the US market, reduce taxes that punish US productivity, eliminate regulations that punish US productivity and reward only our domestic enemies (liberal NGOs), etc.
However ... import tariffs are one of the Constitutionally approved methods for the US government to raise revenue. Income taxes are not. The income tax and subsequent additions to the IRS rules and regs intervene in every aspect of American production, distribution, and consumption; in every contract between businesses, and between business and labor, and between individuals.
It is the government's job to negotiate trade agreements with foreign governments. It is not the government's job to inhibit free enterprise within our country.
Pat is a strong communicator whether it be in writing or speaking. His use of rhetoric consistently operates at a higher level than almost anybody else on the public scene and I find that to be the case even when I disagree with him on a particular matter or other.
Your philosophical basis is inaccurate.
The well-ordered State provides for the general welfare of its own citizens--not the citizens of another country.
If the general welfare of US citizens requires making life difficult for PRChina, so be it. Dramatically reducing the purchasing power of a significant sector of US society is NOT 'providing...'
In fact, it sounds like the reverse of that old saw "A rising tide lifts all boats." And, as Abe Lincoln would have been happy to tell you, "A diminishing tide sinks all boats."
One of the unintended consequences of the Republican 'big tent' philosophy was the inclusion of former died-in-the-wool Democrats. As soon as a Dem starts embracing pro-life, gun rights, America first, etc. you'll be switching back, right?
Are there any examples where (legal) free trade has proved to be a benefit for a reasonably well off country or area? I keep thinking about Hong Kong as perhaps one such example, but if memory serves, I believe that Hong Kong has also depended on a very large underclass from the PRC for a lot of its wealth creation. This I believe violates my condition that the country be reasonably well off; utilizing such a very large underclass would seem to eliminate even Hong Kong.
I've never voted for, or been, a Democrat. Anti-American "free trade" has been the mantra of liberal Democrats since before the Civil War.
Americans cannot be consumers unless they are employed. Shipping all the jobs overseas may allow Wal-Mart to price every item in their store at a nickel but nobody in America will have a nickel to buy anything.
I've said a couple of times that free trade should not mean sacrificing the national interests. IMO, it's not free trade unless both sides are free.
"Dramatically reducing the purchasing power of a significant sector of US society is NOT 'providing..."
Artificially deciding what the purchasing power of a segment of society shall be is not a function of government, IMO.
"Your philosophical basis is inaccurate."
What do you think my philosophical basis to be, and therefore inaccurate.
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.