Globalists Unite Behind Hillary

[buckeye45_73]

http://www.economist.com/news/leade.../ednew/n/bl/n/20160728n/owned/n/n/nwl/n/n/n/n


This article alone should be enough to sink Clinton, but I believe there are too many who buy into this globalist tripe. Hope that does not prove to be the case.

It used to be that the entire republican base believed in free markets. It's nice to see that some of you have stopped drinking the kool aid.

Never took an economics class, did you?

If you have something to say, say it.

You don't know what you are talking about. Globalists and free traders are completely different. Globalists support government policies driving global integration. Free marketers want government to neither help nor hinder globalism, we just want government to stay out of it.

As for opposing free markets, you never took an economics class, did you?

You are free to define globalist any way you like. As my comment relates to the article linked in the OP, the globalist and the free trader is the same. The globalist promotes trade liberalization which is by definition a freeing of the markets.

there is no your or mine definition....jesus, liberals are fucking stupid.....you know what the definition of is is?>

 

[Tehon]

It used to be that the entire republican base believed in free markets. It's nice to see that some of you have stopped drinking the kool aid.

Never took an economics class, did you?

If you have something to say, say it.

You don't know what you are talking about. Globalists and free traders are completely different. Globalists support government policies driving global integration. Free marketers want government to neither help nor hinder globalism, we just want government to stay out of it.

As for opposing free markets, you never took an economics class, did you?

You are free to define globalist any way you like. As my comment relates to the article linked in the OP, the globalist and the free trader is the same. The globalist promotes trade liberalization which is by definition a freeing of the markets.

That's what a globalist is, you are NOT free to make up your own definitions for words.

Globalists use trade for government policy. They make those deals to reward their friends and punish their enemies. They pick winners and losers and protect industries they don't want open.

Free traders just want free trade.

The name clearly shows the objective. I'm not a globalist, but I am totally a free trader. Hence my solution to just open our economic borders and keep government out of it. Globalists would never, ever agree to that

The free trader is the useful idiot of the globalist.

 

[Toro]

Republicans believe in free and fair markets.

Leftists agree.

That's why leftist Republicans who support Trump's tariffs want to use government power to redistribute wealth. Trump's leftist Republicans want to spread the wealth around.

 

[Toro]

Never took an economics class, did you?

If you have something to say, say it.

You don't know what you are talking about. Globalists and free traders are completely different. Globalists support government policies driving global integration. Free marketers want government to neither help nor hinder globalism, we just want government to stay out of it.

As for opposing free markets, you never took an economics class, did you?

You are free to define globalist any way you like. As my comment relates to the article linked in the OP, the globalist and the free trader is the same. The globalist promotes trade liberalization which is by definition a freeing of the markets.

That's what a globalist is, you are NOT free to make up your own definitions for words.

Globalists use trade for government policy. They make those deals to reward their friends and punish their enemies. They pick winners and losers and protect industries they don't want open.

Free traders just want free trade.

The name clearly shows the objective. I'm not a globalist, but I am totally a free trader. Hence my solution to just open our economic borders and keep government out of it. Globalists would never, ever agree to that

The free trader is the useful idiot of the globalist.

Go back to Cuba.

 

[Toro]

When did Republicans start hating capitalism so much?

 

[kaz]

Never took an economics class, did you?

If you have something to say, say it.

You don't know what you are talking about. Globalists and free traders are completely different. Globalists support government policies driving global integration. Free marketers want government to neither help nor hinder globalism, we just want government to stay out of it.

As for opposing free markets, you never took an economics class, did you?

You are free to define globalist any way you like. As my comment relates to the article linked in the OP, the globalist and the free trader is the same. The globalist promotes trade liberalization which is by definition a freeing of the markets.

That's what a globalist is, you are NOT free to make up your own definitions for words.

Globalists use trade for government policy. They make those deals to reward their friends and punish their enemies. They pick winners and losers and protect industries they don't want open.

Free traders just want free trade.

The name clearly shows the objective. I'm not a globalist, but I am totally a free trader. Hence my solution to just open our economic borders and keep government out of it. Globalists would never, ever agree to that

The free trader is the useful idiot of the globalist.

You're not a useful idiot, just an idiot.

Question, you know more than the field of economics about economics how?

 

[kaz]

When did Republicans start hating capitalism so much?

Pathetic, isn't it? The party of Reagan is now the complete reverse

 

[Tehon]

If you have something to say, say it.

You don't know what you are talking about. Globalists and free traders are completely different. Globalists support government policies driving global integration. Free marketers want government to neither help nor hinder globalism, we just want government to stay out of it.

As for opposing free markets, you never took an economics class, did you?

You are free to define globalist any way you like. As my comment relates to the article linked in the OP, the globalist and the free trader is the same. The globalist promotes trade liberalization which is by definition a freeing of the markets.

That's what a globalist is, you are NOT free to make up your own definitions for words.

Globalists use trade for government policy. They make those deals to reward their friends and punish their enemies. They pick winners and losers and protect industries they don't want open.

Free traders just want free trade.

The name clearly shows the objective. I'm not a globalist, but I am totally a free trader. Hence my solution to just open our economic borders and keep government out of it. Globalists would never, ever agree to that

The free trader is the useful idiot of the globalist.

You're not a useful idiot, just an idiot.

Question, you know more than the field of economics about economics how?

I'm an amateur. I don't claim to know more than anyone else about the subject. I'm just stating my opinions, the same as everyone else.

 

[Tehon]

It used to be that the entire republican base believed in free markets. It's nice to see that some of you have stopped drinking the kool aid.

Never took an economics class, did you?

If you have something to say, say it.

You don't know what you are talking about. Globalists and free traders are completely different. Globalists support government policies driving global integration. Free marketers want government to neither help nor hinder globalism, we just want government to stay out of it.

As for opposing free markets, you never took an economics class, did you?

You are free to define globalist any way you like. As my comment relates to the article linked in the OP, the globalist and the free trader is the same. The globalist promotes trade liberalization which is by definition a freeing of the markets.

there is no your or mine definition....jesus, liberals are fucking stupid.....you know what the definition of is is?>

His definition is deceitful.

Globalists support government policies driving global integration.

As Alan Greenspan would relate, the government policies that the globalists support in their effort to achieve global integration are trade liberalization policies. The very thing free traders seek, a freeing of the market from government intrusion. How do you separate free trade and globalism?

https://www.kansascityfed.org/publicat/econrev/PDF/4q00kahn.pdf
Greenspan defined globalization as “the increasing interaction of national economic systems.” He linked this trend to technological progress and to government policies that have promoted deregulation and privatization in markets around the world. In particular, technological improvements have lowered transactions and information costs, promoting the efficient operation of market-based economic systems. The resulting expansion of markets has been associated with increased competition and reduced tariffs and trade barriers.

 

[kaz]

You don't know what you are talking about. Globalists and free traders are completely different. Globalists support government policies driving global integration. Free marketers want government to neither help nor hinder globalism, we just want government to stay out of it.

As for opposing free markets, you never took an economics class, did you?

You are free to define globalist any way you like. As my comment relates to the article linked in the OP, the globalist and the free trader is the same. The globalist promotes trade liberalization which is by definition a freeing of the markets.

That's what a globalist is, you are NOT free to make up your own definitions for words.

Globalists use trade for government policy. They make those deals to reward their friends and punish their enemies. They pick winners and losers and protect industries they don't want open.

Free traders just want free trade.

The name clearly shows the objective. I'm not a globalist, but I am totally a free trader. Hence my solution to just open our economic borders and keep government out of it. Globalists would never, ever agree to that

The free trader is the useful idiot of the globalist.

You're not a useful idiot, just an idiot.

Question, you know more than the field of economics about economics how?

I'm an amateur. I don't claim to know more than anyone else about the subject. I'm just stating my opinions, the same as everyone else.

Free trade being in the interest of the overall economy is so basic to the field of economics that you literally would learn that and why in your first econ class. So you concede that maybe, just maybe, economists know more about that then the lawyers you worship? Here's a hint. Lawyers lie. Shocking, isn't it?

 

[Tehon]

You are free to define globalist any way you like. As my comment relates to the article linked in the OP, the globalist and the free trader is the same. The globalist promotes trade liberalization which is by definition a freeing of the markets.

That's what a globalist is, you are NOT free to make up your own definitions for words.

Globalists use trade for government policy. They make those deals to reward their friends and punish their enemies. They pick winners and losers and protect industries they don't want open.

Free traders just want free trade.

The name clearly shows the objective. I'm not a globalist, but I am totally a free trader. Hence my solution to just open our economic borders and keep government out of it. Globalists would never, ever agree to that

The free trader is the useful idiot of the globalist.

You're not a useful idiot, just an idiot.

Question, you know more than the field of economics about economics how?

I'm an amateur. I don't claim to know more than anyone else about the subject. I'm just stating my opinions, the same as everyone else.

Free trade being in the interest of the overall economy is so basic to the field of economics that you literally would learn that and why in your first econ class. So you concede that maybe, just maybe, economists know more about that then the lawyers you worship? Here's a hint. Lawyers lie. Shocking, isn't it?

There is something that you are probably familiar with as well........teachers indoctrinate.

 

[kaz]

Never took an economics class, did you?

If you have something to say, say it.

You don't know what you are talking about. Globalists and free traders are completely different. Globalists support government policies driving global integration. Free marketers want government to neither help nor hinder globalism, we just want government to stay out of it.

As for opposing free markets, you never took an economics class, did you?

You are free to define globalist any way you like. As my comment relates to the article linked in the OP, the globalist and the free trader is the same. The globalist promotes trade liberalization which is by definition a freeing of the markets.

there is no your or mine definition....jesus, liberals are fucking stupid.....you know what the definition of is is?>

His definition is deceitful.

Globalists support government policies driving global integration.

As Alan Greenspan would relate, the government policies that the globalists support in their effort to achieve global integration are trade liberalization policies. The very thing free traders seek, a freeing of the market from government intrusion. How do you separate free trade and globalism?

https://www.kansascityfed.org/publicat/econrev/PDF/4q00kahn.pdf
Greenspan defined globalization as “the increasing interaction of national economic systems.” He linked this trend to technological progress and to government policies that have promoted deregulation and privatization in markets around the world. In particular, technological improvements have lowered transactions and information costs, promoting the efficient operation of market-based economic systems. The resulting expansion of markets has been associated with increased competition and reduced tariffs and trade barriers.

No, they implement trade policy laws. To achieve free trade, you eliminate laws, you don't implement them.

I want to stop driving our industry offshore, but I don't want to stop them. Liberals really can't tell the difference between enacting laws and removing them, can you?

 

[kaz]

That's what a globalist is, you are NOT free to make up your own definitions for words.

Globalists use trade for government policy. They make those deals to reward their friends and punish their enemies. They pick winners and losers and protect industries they don't want open.

Free traders just want free trade.

The name clearly shows the objective. I'm not a globalist, but I am totally a free trader. Hence my solution to just open our economic borders and keep government out of it. Globalists would never, ever agree to that

The free trader is the useful idiot of the globalist.

You're not a useful idiot, just an idiot.

Question, you know more than the field of economics about economics how?

I'm an amateur. I don't claim to know more than anyone else about the subject. I'm just stating my opinions, the same as everyone else.

Free trade being in the interest of the overall economy is so basic to the field of economics that you literally would learn that and why in your first econ class. So you concede that maybe, just maybe, economists know more about that then the lawyers you worship? Here's a hint. Lawyers lie. Shocking, isn't it?

There is something that you are probably familiar with as well........teachers indoctrinate.

What a stupid argument. It's the field of economics itself, it's not commentary by the teachers.

You ignore the big gains of lower prices. They benefit all consumers and they help American companies compete both domestically and internationally with foreign competition

 

[Tehon]

If you have something to say, say it.

You don't know what you are talking about. Globalists and free traders are completely different. Globalists support government policies driving global integration. Free marketers want government to neither help nor hinder globalism, we just want government to stay out of it.

As for opposing free markets, you never took an economics class, did you?

You are free to define globalist any way you like. As my comment relates to the article linked in the OP, the globalist and the free trader is the same. The globalist promotes trade liberalization which is by definition a freeing of the markets.

there is no your or mine definition....jesus, liberals are fucking stupid.....you know what the definition of is is?>

His definition is deceitful.

Globalists support government policies driving global integration.

As Alan Greenspan would relate, the government policies that the globalists support in their effort to achieve global integration are trade liberalization policies. The very thing free traders seek, a freeing of the market from government intrusion. How do you separate free trade and globalism?

https://www.kansascityfed.org/publicat/econrev/PDF/4q00kahn.pdf
Greenspan defined globalization as “the increasing interaction of national economic systems.” He linked this trend to technological progress and to government policies that have promoted deregulation and privatization in markets around the world. In particular, technological improvements have lowered transactions and information costs, promoting the efficient operation of market-based economic systems. The resulting expansion of markets has been associated with increased competition and reduced tariffs and trade barriers.

No, they implement trade policy laws. To achieve free trade, you eliminate laws, you don't implement them.

I want to stop driving our industry offshore, but I don't want to stop them. Liberals really can't tell the difference between enacting laws and removing them, can you?

What law do they implement, the law that says I can't apply tariffs to you and you can't apply tariffs on me. Sign on the dotted line. There is no such thing as a free market without that agreement you cannot enforce the other party to comply.

 

[Tehon]

The free trader is the useful idiot of the globalist.

You're not a useful idiot, just an idiot.

Question, you know more than the field of economics about economics how?

I'm an amateur. I don't claim to know more than anyone else about the subject. I'm just stating my opinions, the same as everyone else.

Free trade being in the interest of the overall economy is so basic to the field of economics that you literally would learn that and why in your first econ class. So you concede that maybe, just maybe, economists know more about that then the lawyers you worship? Here's a hint. Lawyers lie. Shocking, isn't it?

There is something that you are probably familiar with as well........teachers indoctrinate.

What a stupid argument. It's the field of economics itself, it's not commentary by the teachers.

You ignore the big gains of lower prices. They benefit all consumers and they help American companies compete both domestically and internationally with foreign competition

It's the field of economics itself, it's not commentary by the teachers.
BS, that's why there is only one school of economics and everyone is in agreement on the correct policies to follow right?

 

[kaz]

You don't know what you are talking about. Globalists and free traders are completely different. Globalists support government policies driving global integration. Free marketers want government to neither help nor hinder globalism, we just want government to stay out of it.

As for opposing free markets, you never took an economics class, did you?

You are free to define globalist any way you like. As my comment relates to the article linked in the OP, the globalist and the free trader is the same. The globalist promotes trade liberalization which is by definition a freeing of the markets.

there is no your or mine definition....jesus, liberals are fucking stupid.....you know what the definition of is is?>

His definition is deceitful.

Globalists support government policies driving global integration.

As Alan Greenspan would relate, the government policies that the globalists support in their effort to achieve global integration are trade liberalization policies. The very thing free traders seek, a freeing of the market from government intrusion. How do you separate free trade and globalism?

https://www.kansascityfed.org/publicat/econrev/PDF/4q00kahn.pdf
Greenspan defined globalization as “the increasing interaction of national economic systems.” He linked this trend to technological progress and to government policies that have promoted deregulation and privatization in markets around the world. In particular, technological improvements have lowered transactions and information costs, promoting the efficient operation of market-based economic systems. The resulting expansion of markets has been associated with increased competition and reduced tariffs and trade barriers.

No, they implement trade policy laws. To achieve free trade, you eliminate laws, you don't implement them.

I want to stop driving our industry offshore, but I don't want to stop them. Liberals really can't tell the difference between enacting laws and removing them, can you?

What law do they implement, the law that says I can't apply tariffs to you and you can't apply tariffs on me. Sign on the dotted line. There is no such thing as a free market without that agreement you cannot enforce the other party to comply.

Oh, you're so naive. That's what free trade agreements should be and aren't. They are better than no agreement, but they aren't just unrestricted trade. Why do you think they spend so many years negotiating? What do you think they are negotiating if that's all they say?

 

[kaz]

You're not a useful idiot, just an idiot.

Question, you know more than the field of economics about economics how?

I'm an amateur. I don't claim to know more than anyone else about the subject. I'm just stating my opinions, the same as everyone else.

Free trade being in the interest of the overall economy is so basic to the field of economics that you literally would learn that and why in your first econ class. So you concede that maybe, just maybe, economists know more about that then the lawyers you worship? Here's a hint. Lawyers lie. Shocking, isn't it?

There is something that you are probably familiar with as well........teachers indoctrinate.

What a stupid argument. It's the field of economics itself, it's not commentary by the teachers.

You ignore the big gains of lower prices. They benefit all consumers and they help American companies compete both domestically and internationally with foreign competition

It's the field of economics itself, it's not commentary by the teachers.
BS, that's why there is only one school of economics and everyone is in agreement on the correct policies to follow right?

This is econ 101, it's way below where different theories come into play. It's like arguing algebra is wrong in math.

Yes, the most liberal economist would agree that free trade is good for the economy.

 

[Tehon]

You are free to define globalist any way you like. As my comment relates to the article linked in the OP, the globalist and the free trader is the same. The globalist promotes trade liberalization which is by definition a freeing of the markets.

there is no your or mine definition....jesus, liberals are fucking stupid.....you know what the definition of is is?>

His definition is deceitful.

Globalists support government policies driving global integration.

As Alan Greenspan would relate, the government policies that the globalists support in their effort to achieve global integration are trade liberalization policies. The very thing free traders seek, a freeing of the market from government intrusion. How do you separate free trade and globalism?

https://www.kansascityfed.org/publicat/econrev/PDF/4q00kahn.pdf
Greenspan defined globalization as “the increasing interaction of national economic systems.” He linked this trend to technological progress and to government policies that have promoted deregulation and privatization in markets around the world. In particular, technological improvements have lowered transactions and information costs, promoting the efficient operation of market-based economic systems. The resulting expansion of markets has been associated with increased competition and reduced tariffs and trade barriers.

No, they implement trade policy laws. To achieve free trade, you eliminate laws, you don't implement them.

I want to stop driving our industry offshore, but I don't want to stop them. Liberals really can't tell the difference between enacting laws and removing them, can you?

What law do they implement, the law that says I can't apply tariffs to you and you can't apply tariffs on me. Sign on the dotted line. There is no such thing as a free market without that agreement you cannot enforce the other party to comply.

Oh, you're so naive. That's what free trade agreements should be and aren't. They are better than no agreement, but they aren't just unrestricted trade. Why do you think they spend so many years negotiating? What do you think they are negotiating if that's all they say?

I know they are more involved than that, maybe, since you are more knowledgeable, you would point me to trade legislation that you feel is hampering the free market. That would be more helpful to me in understanding your perspective.

Part of the reason they take so long is that they have to be approved, once negotiated, by the governments of those who participate. It is not always easy to convince the population to hand over sovereignty to a foreign entity largely unaccountable to the people of said country.

 

[Tehon]

I'm an amateur. I don't claim to know more than anyone else about the subject. I'm just stating my opinions, the same as everyone else.

Free trade being in the interest of the overall economy is so basic to the field of economics that you literally would learn that and why in your first econ class. So you concede that maybe, just maybe, economists know more about that then the lawyers you worship? Here's a hint. Lawyers lie. Shocking, isn't it?

There is something that you are probably familiar with as well........teachers indoctrinate.

What a stupid argument. It's the field of economics itself, it's not commentary by the teachers.

You ignore the big gains of lower prices. They benefit all consumers and they help American companies compete both domestically and internationally with foreign competition

It's the field of economics itself, it's not commentary by the teachers.
BS, that's why there is only one school of economics and everyone is in agreement on the correct policies to follow right?

This is econ 101, it's way below where different theories come into play. It's like arguing algebra is wrong in math.

Yes, the most liberal economist would agree that free trade is good for the economy.

Yes, the most liberal economist would agree that free trade is good for the economy.

Yes, they are indoctrinated. We have experienced the affects of free trade and it is good only to the corporations who benefit from cheap labor. Are you familiar with Sir James Goldsmith? He predicted the outcome of these free trade agreements, he was particularly disturbed by GATT/WTO.

 

[kaz]

there is no your or mine definition....jesus, liberals are fucking stupid.....you know what the definition of is is?>

His definition is deceitful.

Globalists support government policies driving global integration.

As Alan Greenspan would relate, the government policies that the globalists support in their effort to achieve global integration are trade liberalization policies. The very thing free traders seek, a freeing of the market from government intrusion. How do you separate free trade and globalism?

https://www.kansascityfed.org/publicat/econrev/PDF/4q00kahn.pdf
Greenspan defined globalization as “the increasing interaction of national economic systems.” He linked this trend to technological progress and to government policies that have promoted deregulation and privatization in markets around the world. In particular, technological improvements have lowered transactions and information costs, promoting the efficient operation of market-based economic systems. The resulting expansion of markets has been associated with increased competition and reduced tariffs and trade barriers.

No, they implement trade policy laws. To achieve free trade, you eliminate laws, you don't implement them.

I want to stop driving our industry offshore, but I don't want to stop them. Liberals really can't tell the difference between enacting laws and removing them, can you?

What law do they implement, the law that says I can't apply tariffs to you and you can't apply tariffs on me. Sign on the dotted line. There is no such thing as a free market without that agreement you cannot enforce the other party to comply.

Oh, you're so naive. That's what free trade agreements should be and aren't. They are better than no agreement, but they aren't just unrestricted trade. Why do you think they spend so many years negotiating? What do you think they are negotiating if that's all they say?

I know they are more involved than that, maybe, since you are more knowledgeable, you would point me to trade legislation that you feel is hampering the free market. That would be more helpful to me in understanding your perspective.

Part of the reason they take so long is that they have to be approved, once negotiated, by the governments of those who participate. It is not always easy to convince the population to hand over sovereignty to a foreign entity largely unaccountable to the people of said country.

I already answered that question. Our government shouldn't have trade agreements. We should:

1) Remove all laws restricting importing and exporting

2) Our government should inform and follow up on anyone who uses our military for protection or gets foreign aid that we will remove it if they don't open their markets to our companies.

That's it