Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Kathianne said:Nope, the government should be getting tough on China, moreso Japan, which has been living off our goodwill and stupidity for much longer. Yes, there are others, but they pale in comparison.
rtwngAvngr said:Definitely. The republicans need to talk about this issue and what they're going to do about it. The dems will hit this and hit it hard, and it is a winning issue.
Kathianne said:Announcing that we demand equity in markets between countries, is a fair thing to do. Becoming 'protectionist' in a broad sense, losing proposition as GOPJeff pointed out earlier.
Nope, set 'time tables' for opening markets by industry. (Sounds like Iraq, but more doable-this time, timing IS everything). If not, then slap an import duty against one of their trades.rtwngAvngr said:No question it would be devastating. But who would recover first? And in lieu of these corrections being made, do we just accept defeat? I'm putting protectionism back on the table.
Kathianne said:Nope, set 'time tables' for opening markets by industry. (Sounds like Iraq, but more doable-this time, timing IS everything). If not, then slap an import duty against one of their trades.
Don't punish all, deal one or two at a time. No meltdowns then.
Protectionism as a policy is just inane.
Kathianne said:Nope, set 'time tables' for opening markets by industry. (Sounds like Iraq, but more doable-this time, timing IS everything). If not, then slap an import duty against one of their trades.
Don't punish all, deal one or two at a time. No meltdowns then.
Protectionism as a policy is just inane.
archangel said:Ya just admitted to being a protectionist...slapping import duty on trades is classic protectionism...it puts your country in a fair balance and controls job loss!
Exactly, avoids some of the inherent problems with 'embargoes' or 'protectionism.' Not so much to 'protect' as to even the playing field. We should not have both hands and feet tied.rtwngAvngr said:Sure, implement it piecemeal if you want, and give countries chances to avoid certain barriers we might put up.
Kathianne said:You just don't get what we're talking about.
Kathianne said:Exactly, avoids some of the inherent problems with 'embargoes' or 'protectionism.' Not so much to 'protect' as to even the playing field. We should not have both hands and feet tied.
rtwngAvngr said:Do you think the neocons will go for this? Or will we be told we're jingoistic racist idiots, like they called us on the port deal?
Kathianne said:IF presented the right way, yeah. For one thing, the 'neo-cons' really hold a very small nitch, in the GOP or even with Libertarians, that is WOT.
rtwngAvngr said:I hope so. If they don't do something big, the dems will have victories on this issue alone, and rightfully so.
rtwngAvngr said:Why is china allowed to devalue it's currency to corner the market on all production?
BaronVonBigmeat said:Still, if you want to look at what would happen if you cut off free trade, look at the Smoot-Hawley tariffs, passed in 1929. Supply-side economist Jude Waninski believes it is basically *the* cause of the great depression. It devastated our economy, set off a wave of retaliatory tariffs by our former trading partners, and provided an even more fertile breeding ground for socialist regimes in europe, which ended in WWII.
MtnBiker said:Countries are a lot less likely to attack one another if they are doing business with each other.
archangel said:cause if not well...Pearl Harbor fast forward...we sure did alot of trading with Japan right up until the big kaboom hula...and we sure do alot of business with the ME up until and after the big demolition of the Twin Towers...
BaronVonBigmeat said:You're almost on the right track. You may find this article interesting. I'm sure you've heard the same stories I have over and over again: manufacturing has gone downhill for the last 35 years, real (inflation-adjusted) wages have been stagnant for 35 years, families have increasingly needed 2 incomes instead of one, for the last 35 years, etc.
It begs the obvious question, what happened 35 years ago? We abandoned any pretense of being on the gold standard, that's what. Namely, the Bretton Woods agreement was abolished by an executive order from Nixon. A persistent trade imbalance and loss of manufacturing is one of the symptoms of our fiat currency system.
Read some of the articles at www.fame.org and if you're still interested, you really need to read a book called The Creature From Jekyll Island. Really, if you want to understand the relentless drive towards global socialism/new world order--the real motivations I mean, not the sensationalistic freemasons-meeting-in-a-smoky-room type stuff--you need to read this book. gop_jeff has read the book too if I remember correctly. You're probably yawning at the thought of reading a book on the history of american banking and currency, but it's actually fascinating and fairly easy to follow.
Having said that, free trade is a good thing. Not that NAFTA and similar agreements represent truly free trade of course. Still, if you want to look at what would happen if you cut off free trade, look at the Smoot-Hawley tariffs, passed in 1929. Supply-side economist Jude Waninski believes it is basically *the* cause of the great depression. It devastated our economy, set off a wave of retaliatory tariffs by our former trading partners, and provided an even more fertile breeding ground for socialist regimes in europe, which ended in WWII. Or as Bastiat said, if goods don't cross borders, armies will.
