Posted on 08/03/2003 2:37:02 AM PDT by sarcasm
Edited on 04/13/2004 2:10:34 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
Oh really and just who gave you that bit of idiocy. By calling tariffs Marxist you are spouting some ignoramus' line that has no basis in History. The USA had a protective traiff for manufacturing before Karl Marx was born. The fact that individual staes were having a great many problems with foreign tariffs under the Article's of Confederarion was one of teh reasons for a Constitutional Convention. No one who has read Adam Smith or Alexander Hamilton could possibly take the position that tariffs are Marxist.
Please read some economics and history before you give such copiuos proof of your own ignorance. "Better to be thought a fool by remaining silent than to give evidence of that by openings one's moth."
Because they can.
While credit cards are hugely profitable for the banks, they don't get all the spread. Part of the spread goes to Visa, a hugely rich international instititution, more powerful than even the biggest banks. The card transaction processing networks are also huge and expensive to run. You are also paying for all the people who go bankrupt and don't pay off their balances, as well as rampant credit card fraud losses due to the fact that mag stripe card security is pathetic at best.
Get a card that gives you 1% back on your purchases, and then pay the balance off every month. That way you get back part of the vigorish the card companies charge the merchant.
Please cite such a story from an era in which the USA was not employing protective tariffs. further Phineas T Barnum was a sucessful showman long before he created his circus.
This is a very interesting perspective.
I would add that the US college and university system is geared to turning out graduates that fit into the previous managerial role. This was done through a liberal arts and business adminstration type of education.
By contrast, the Indian and especially Chinese systems turn out a very high percentage of science and engineering degrees, and thus have a workforce with educations that address the new skills required today.
1. No matter what the GOP does, it is easily demogogued by the Democrats, who have no idea what to do about it either and even if they did, still wouldn't because it goes against their own voter base.
2. The GOP could partially address it by staunching the flood of illegal immigration, but won't because they are afraid of offending the "Hispanic Vote".
Illegal immigration is soaking up millions of jobs at the lower end of the spectrum, is depressing wages in the lower and lower-middle end of the wage spectrum, removes a needed employment source for temporarily unemployed workers, is a cash drain on the collection of legal taxes, is a cash drain in the services system (especially medical and social services), is toxic to the rule of law, and is a horrendous balance-of-payments problem as much of the cash is sent overseas for work performed here.
Item 2 is also perfect for the Dems to demogogue. They can promise all sorts of free stuff to voters, both legal and illegal, while simultaneously beating the GOP to death for their heard-heartedness.
The only losers are Americans who want to mind their own business, control their own destiny, and work an honest job.
This has a '90 copyright? Written during the second Regan administration?
Moreover, I think he has some recent updates at Harvard Business School that continue to confirm his thesis in this book with new evidence.
The bad news is that our kids, to get the mundane skills they need to compete, often have to do so on their own when they should have received them. The good news is that they still are inbred with a certain sense adventure and rebellion that leads them to look for the next breakthrough rather than continuing to improve on the widget. The nature of the foreign systems is that no matter how "good" they get at the nuts and bolts, their culture does NOT encourage them to a) think outside the box, and b) become entrepreneurial.
Now, PARTS of India are improving in that regard, but they are still light years behind Silicon Valley and Boise.
It is typical of Marxist internationalist such as you to engage in personal insult. Abolition of tariffs is an idea specifically advicated by Marx. An idea can be anti-Christian even if introduced before Christ; and an economic concept can be Marxist in its essentials well before Marx. who STOLE his ideas from everyone else anyway.
Now would you please go back to the l;ibrary at yopur college andf read you little peice of filth about what the USA was founded upon. Personal liberty protective traiffs were viewed as essential to personal liberty. Equating tariff s with slavery is not really valid historically as slaveholders and those who profitted from slaveholding were the primary opponents of protective tariffs. You really should have read a history book before you started posing on Free Republic and calling names. I am used top seeing Marxist isealogs post on Free Republic and the tactics are always the same personal attack without basis. Assertions of facts contradictory to the historical record. denial of facts continued lying and deciet.
Tariffs provided the basis for teh USA going from an agricultural enclave hugging the Atlantic Coast to the greatest industrial power of the world. The decline of the British Empire correlates nicely with the British getting rid of protective tariffs.
Your personal attacks make me realize that you are just another anti-American piece of filth who is tryiong to use the fact the US once had slavery as a weapon against the USA. The USA fought a Civil War over the issues of Slavery and tariffs the side advicating slavery was against protective tariffs.
Clearly today the side advoicating a reintroduction of slavery to the USA is the side against protective tariffs.
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.