But it's not the "people" that present the choices the people have to choose from. 
Posted on 01/16/2008 4:01:09 AM PST by LowCountryJoe
Clearly? ....by a vote of 288 to 146, with the Republicans voting 121-56 and the Democrats 167-89.
Which of the outgoing Congressman voted yes? Which of the incoming would have voted no? It had 70 more votes than needed. I need a little more proof than the feelings of a guy who writes for Lew Rockwell.
What new jobs? Unemployment and the number of people on public services are rising. Seems that with the boomer's retiring we should have a worker deficit. Things arn't as the should be.
Read up on basic economics before you show yourself to be a fool with such statements. Trade occurs whenever two parties exchange goods (paper money is a good, as is the item received). Trade would not occur if both parties did not benefit from the transaction.
Yes.
So what?
If it harms another country to cease trade with us, they would be less willing to take such a course of action.
That's what people ask in the beginning when the new company moves in to run the competition out of business with artificially low prices.
So you don't actually have proof of your monopoly claim, just "the sky is failing" rhetoric.
Our current economic situation is the government stepping in.
So instead of arguing for the government to step out of the market by lowering taxes and reducing regulation, you want it to further step in to tell us how to behave in the marketplace? Since when is that a conservative position?
The ultimate summation of the bottom line is that you, and others like you, are willing to compromise Americans security, safety and welfare for cheap tennis shoes.
I object.
That's nice. You don't buy foreign made goods then. Let the rest of us exercise our freedom of choice to make decisions as consumers.
But it's not the "people" that present the choices the people have to choose from.
What’s that supposed to mean? I have close to 150 choices for beer, imported and domestic, down the street.
Probably because it wasn't as much of an election issue as you hope to believe? The Dems made the same argument during Clinton's impeachment trial: "we should disregard all the work that's been done to this point, and let the newcomers decide." It was simply an attempt to spin the issue, much like you are spinning yours.
Depends on the agenda the "trade" is supposed to accomplish. Weakening the US could be called a "benefit" for some. Plus, "benefits" from low prices only occur before the monopoly is established.
If it harms another country to cease trade with us, they would be less willing to take such a course of action.
Ideology ultimately trumps financial increase. But, until then, I guess we should just hope to hook 'em on taking advantage of us so they won't attack.
So you don't actually have proof of your monopoly claim, just "the sky is failing" rhetoric.
A monopoly doesn't have to be initially intended, but once the groundwork is laid, who has the spiritual strength to not take advantage? China?
And, if those same ones make critical parts for our war machines, or has treaties with those who do, what are we going to do about it?
Internationally, whoever wins takes the goose. You want to put us in a terrible position that can be taken serious advantage of later.
I prefer to operate on the world stage from a position of strength, not weakness. The ability to buy cheap jeans is not a position of strength.
So instead of arguing for the government to step out of the market by lowering taxes and reducing regulation, you want it to further step in to tell us how to behave in the marketplace? Since when is that a conservative position?
No, I want it to get out of the treaty and foreign policy bed with super rich multinational corporations domestically spawned which have forgotten their origins and see people as "human resources".
That is a conservative position.
You don't buy foreign made goods then. Let the rest of us exercise our freedom of choice to make decisions as consumers.
How many places can you go to not foreign made goods? The answer to that question should say something to you.
The people who choose to buy from that company selling artificially low, thinking nothing about what happens when its competition is driven out of business, are making decisions as consumers, too.
No, I want it to get out of the treaty and foreign policy bed with super rich multinational corporations domestically spawned which have forgotten their origins and see people as "human resources"."Conservative" Marxist position, maybe. He wrote extensively of the tension between labor and capital. He even thought free trade would hasten the revolution of the proletariat. Ask investigateworld . . . he's fond of quoting the speech.That is a conservative position.
I find it hilarious that Marx saw the triumph of his collectivist B/S through free trade.
Now what large communist nation is thriving today via free trade ...?
Picture if you will, Karl Marx speaking in a Colonel Klink voice. "Ve Germans are not stooopid, ja?".
Really? Is this more "pulled out of your ass" silliness or can you actually back this up?
A monopoly doesn't have to be initially intended, but once the groundwork is laid, who has the spiritual strength to not take advantage? China?
And what is this monopoly you speak of. You are aware that China is not one big company, right?
I prefer to operate on the world stage from a position of strength, not weakness. The ability to buy cheap jeans is not a position of strength.
More "trade is bad" nonsense. I'm sure we as a country would be much better off if only we made everything in America and weren't forced to pay low prices.
The people who choose to buy from that company selling artificially low, thinking nothing about what happens when its competition is driven out of business, are making decisions as consumers, too.
Where is your evidence of this company that is selling goods at artificially low prices?
“We can print billions of dollars very cheaply, exchange them for cars, TVs, oil etc and the silly foreigners never return them to buy our stuff.”
Great plan if you like inflation many times greater than this country has ever experienced.
Printing money does not equate to earning money.
“But what do those banks do with the dollars?”
Trade them for other types of currency.
“Then why is real GDP rising?”
Not because of trade.
“There are 2 sides to trade, the dollars you spend and the goods you receive. LOL!”
That is one. What is the other? Do you know? I do.
“Are we just donating that money, or are we getting things for it? When I buy something that’s imported, it’s because I’ve made the judgment that I would rather have the product than the money I’m spending. When I buy a less-expensive imported product instead of a more-expensive domestic product (assuming similar quality, etc), I benefit by the amount of the difference in price. Multiply this by billions of transactions per year, and our society benefits a great deal.”
Whether we are getting anything for the dollars spent is irrelevant. The only way that sending money to another country can assist our economy is if we are purchasing items that allow us to produce more.
“A trade deficit doesn’t mean we’re “losing” money. It means we’re spending it.”
It means there is less money in our economy. When you look at your checkbook are you better off when you have less money? Or when you have more? A country is the same way. If we are spending money in other nations (importing) faster than we are bringing money in (exporting), we are losing money. It is the same principle as when you get $100 dollars, then spend $200 dollars and have no way to recoup that money (invest to bring in more than the $200 you spent).
“And trade deficits are evil, right?”
If you want to know what a trade deficit is, try spending more every month (spending, not investing) than what you bring in.
“Because trade is bad, correct?”
No, but our current policy on trade is terrible. We are spending $800 billion a year more than we are bringing in. That is not free by any stretch of the imagination.
Years ago, we had mostly a trade deficit, but occassionally a trade surplus. With the trade we are doing today there is no way we will ever see a trade surplus. A trade surplus is what is good for us, not a trade deficit.
Then what do those who traded the other types of currency do with the dollars they now have?
Learn the difference between a budget deficit and a trade deficit. Or better yet, read what the late Nobel economist Milton Friedman wrote about this very topic in his book Free to Choose
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.