And this a freemarketeer who did not succeed yet:
Posted on 02/15/2006 10:42:45 AM PST by SirLinksalot
That's NOT the same thing at all. Neither is it true.
That's not what he meant.
You're really on game tonight! LOL
Not always freely. His campaigns had a habit of stiffing creditors and ripping off volunteers.
Gasp! Bilking the American worker! No way!
As far as free trade, the only free trade, that is trade free of government intervention, I see, is drug smuggling, and smuggling in general. Let's not kid ourselves, the gummint exerts control over trade of all kinds of goods in small and big ways. "Free trade" as promoted by politicians is just another euphemism. End rant.
You posting self portraits now, dear?
believe it. I see it every day.
Actually his protectionist points have been refuted...but who's keeping track.
Sigh ... I do not hate such people. I respect them.
Also I admire other types of success even more. The material wealth is not the highest value.
Wow...you are a weiner aren't you.
Using the fire codes as an example: In 2003, approximately 100 people were killed in a fire at a Rhode Island dance club while the group "Great White" was performing. Several factors contributed: The club had violated fire codes in areas of construction materials, access to exits, and overcrowding. The band "Great White" had not announced they were going to use pyrotechnics, which started the blaze, because they didn't want to get turned down, and because many municipalities require pyrotechnic permits. These permits can be expensive, as they usually require a visit by an inspector to ensure safe operating conditions of the pyrotechnics. All of the decisions were short-term decisions based on immediate profitability. The owner of the club saved some money on the building, and increased profits by overselling of the venue capacity. Great White saved money by not purchasing a pyrotechnics permit, and not having to send an advance man to spend several days working out the details.
If another club operator in the same area wanted to compete with the club that burned, they would have been economically pushed to cut the same corners. if they spent more money to have the club properly constructed, then reduced the seating capacity to ensure exit access, they would have more overhead (mortgage or rental cost) and less revenue (fewer tickets sold). The perceived economic benefits of cutting corners were, of course, eventually destroyed by the fire, and borne by concert goers who died, and the community that had to pay firefighters, police officers, and paramedics. Hospitals most likely ate hundreds of thousands of dollars in expenses from medical treatment to club patrons who had no insurance.
I don't believe that erecting trade walls to keep out foreign competition is the right way to go. However, I also believe that it is appropriate to establish a floor of accountability in our trade policy. Americans should not subsidize slave labor, and American companies should not have to compete for the market with companies that work their employees sixteen to eighteen hours a day for slave wages. I think this is different from propositions such as protectionism in the automobile industry, where Toyota workers overseas, for example, have reasonable wages and working conditions. In this instance, all it does is encourage inefficiency on the part of GM, Ford and Chrysler.
To me, the question is "Where is the appropriate level of trade regulation?" What is the level of accountability? I think both Buchannan's AND the absolutist free trade argument are wrong.
Remember, buchanan is also the one who claimed on national TV that Al Gore was more qualified to be the President over Governor Bush.
And this a freemarketeer who did not succeed yet:
Nice dodge. Don't worry. I won't post to you again.
My objective on this thread is simply to point out the political agenda of the author of this article. I don't believe buchanan gives a wit about the U.S. economy but if you review his collected works over the last six years you will see what he does care about.
The political cartoons of the 1800s, are actually far better; dear, and much more up your alley. :-)
He says trade deficits are bad. Do you agree? Why are they bad?
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.