Colombia Trade Deal

[ClydeR]

The President has sent the Colombia Free Trade Deal to Congress for approval.

Currently the United States pays an 11% tariff on our exports to Colombia. Colombia does not pay a tariff on most of its imports to the United States. The Colombia Free Trade Deal would eliminate the tariff on exports to Colombia.

McCain supports the treaty. Clinton and Obama oppose it. It looks like Congress isn't even going to vote on it. I can't understand why anyone in the United States would oppose it.

[Kembal]

It's getting blocked now because Bush went back on an agreement to give Congress time to negotiate Trade Adjustment Assistance and other related provisions that usually occur when we sign one of these trade deals. So Pelosi just did a WTFpwn on Bush. (It was a dick move by Bush to formally submit the trade agreement like that.)

As for opposing it on its merits, the only questions are labor and environmental protections. (and I mean questions, not actual disputes. There's been little analysis done on the protections in the agreement.) Otherwise, this is a good deal for the U.S. economically.

[Parkbandit]

I love how Hillary opposes this.. and her husband was out a few years ago making tons of money promoting it.

[Kembal]

I would not be surprised if this trade deal ends up costing Hillary in Pennsylvania. People in the Midwest states are naturally suspicious of free trade deals (because they think they got jobbed by NAFTA...which is partially true.) So when Hillary says she opposes it, and then her chief strategist is found advising Colombia and her husband is reported to have been promoting it....there's going to be a backlash against her.

Will she end up losing PA over it? I dunno. If it was Ohio, I would've unequivocally said yes. But PA's economy is in better shape.

[TheEschaton]

I'm an anti-globalization type, so I'm all for protectionist policies, and thus the opposition of this bill. ;)

[Keller]

I'm an anti-globalization type, so I'm all for protectionist policies, and thus the opposition of this bill. ;)


I think you're fundamentally confused or just irrational.

To be clear on which of these you are I pose the following question: Who does an outbound tariff protect?

[TheEschaton]

Ah, I wasn't reading carefully, I have an Evidence exam coming up. ;) I thought it was an inbound tariff on Colombian goods for some reason.

American consumers? I agree though, the case is less worthy of my support. :P

-TheE-

[Gan]

I'm an anti-globalization type, so I'm all for protectionist policies, and thus the opposition of this bill. ;)
Reading comprehension FTL. That and you're fucking nutzo.

I'm suprised you arent jumping on the Human Rights Watch bandwagon about opposing this because of the Columbian leadership's alleged support of anti-union violence.


I think you're fundamentally confused or just irrational.

To be clear on which of these you are I pose the following question: Who does an outbound tariff protect?
My God a voice of reason.

[Warriorbird]

The Colombian government is just whacked. Legalize cocaine and their society would collapse.

[longshot]

I'm an anti-globalization type, so I'm all for protectionist policies, and thus the opposition of this bill. ;)

Why?

Just to be a hippie douchebag?

[Drew]

Why?

Just to be a hippie douchebag?


And to get back at daddy who is leaving him too much trust fund money. Daddy has burdened him with so much guilt... and money.

[Parkbandit]

Why?

Just to be a hippie douchebag?

Oh, how I've missed Longshot. :)

[TheEschaton]

Because capitalism is at best amoral, and in its current manifestation, is immoral?

[Parkbandit]

Because capitalism is at best amoral, and in its current manifestation, is immoral?


Still waiting for you to show us a better system that actually works in the real world.

[TheEschaton]

I'd say the democratic Socialist states of Scandanavia are a pretty good example.

[Clove]

I'd say the democratic Socialist states of Scandanavia are a pretty good example.FFS E do I have to break down why their system wouldn't be economically viable for the USA again?

Norway does have a very high standard of living, very low unemployment, high productivity, low spread between wages (from janitor to CEO) etc. etc. etc.

It's also the third largest oil exporter in the world with something like 90% of the oil industry nationalized. Since Norway has a huge, nationalized oil reserve and a very low population (approx. 4.5 million) combined with sharp economic management (their oil-profit based Government Pension Fund is expected to reach near a trillion USD in the next decade) and incredibly high taxes they're able to provide a pretty excellent standard of living for every citizen.

But they also have a high cost of living (approximately 25% HIGHER than the US) largely due to the staggering taxes and duties.

I don't see the US following the Norwegian way unless we nationalize all our professional services (we have LOTS of those) so get ready for Federal Service E! We are not a nation with a small population sitting on a massive, highly-valuable, natural resource reserve.

[Parkbandit]

I'd say the democratic Socialist states of Scandanavia are a pretty good example.


Living in a country that is so 'immoral' as the USA makes you a collaborator at best.. and a capitalist pig taking advantage of the poor at worst. I will never understand people like you who bitch and moan about everything.. yet still live here. And seriously, the whole "We're trying to change it" is bullshit. This is the way the country has been since it's inception.. some tree bark humping hippies aren't going to change shit.

Seriously, why do you stay? Why not just move to the SSS? From what you have told us on this forum, your Daddy could easily pay your way over to there. Or maybe you should use that huge portfolio you have and start fresh over there? Then, you wouldn't look like a complete and utter hypocrite.. taking advantage of people through capitalism.

[TheEschaton]

One day, the revolution will come, and you'll see.

[Back]

We are the only nation that combines two very distinctly different systems.

Capitalism which is every man for himself and Democracy which is every voice heard.

Its no wonder we are at odds with ourselves.

[Clove]

We are the only nation that combines two very distinctly different systems.

Capitalism which is every man for himself and Democracy which is every voice heard.

Its no wonder we are at odds with ourselves.Fucking retard.

[Back]

Fucking retard.

There you go. Thats more like it. If you do not like me the person, for whatever reason, don’t shroud your insults with Googlized semantic hypothesis... just come out and say it. Well done sir.

:clap:

[Clove]

There you go. Thats more like it. If you do not like me the person, for whatever reason, don’t shroud your insults with Googlized semantic hypothesis... just come out and say it. Well done sir.

:clap:Who says I don't like you? You're just fucking retarded. Do you even know the definition of Capitalism? First of all the United States uses a mixed-market economic system (which isn't pure capitalism). Now let's go over some of the democracies you may have heard of that also use mixed-market (largely capitalistic) economic systems. Canada, Bahamas, United Kingdom, France, Germany, Spain, Italy, South Africa, Brazil, Mexico, Greece, Australia, India (that's how we ended up with The -E-) Japan... on, and on, and on.

[Parkbandit]

There you go. Thats more like it. If you do not like me the person, for whatever reason, don’t shroud your insults with Googlized semantic hypothesis... just come out and say it. Well done sir.

:clap:

It's funny.. that the most die hard liberals and the most frenzied conservatives all agree on this.. you are a fucking retard.

It's like your stupidity brings us all together in bipartisan support.

[Back]

You're fucking retarded.

You seem to have Tourettes.



Do you even know the definition of Capitalism?

Most definitely. But I suspect we are about to get a detailed lesson on what you’ve Googled. The floor is yours, sir.

[Parkbandit]

One day, the revolution will come, and you'll see.

Start the revolution then! Give away your wealth, advise your Daddy that he is a capitalist pig and that you want no part of his money, even after he dies.. and then live the life you go on about here.

But let's be honest.. that would be difficult and it's far easier to preach the greatness of socialism as long as you really don't have to practice it.

You are a shining example of why it's never worked.

[Clove]

Most definitely. But I suspect we are about to get a detailed lesson on what you’ve Googled. The floor is yours, sir.Well, no you don't. And it's amusing (not to mention revealing) that you disapprove of researching before making the most ignorant statement ever heard on these boards. Trust me, Google is your best friend you fucking retard.

[Warriorbird]

Funny. I don't find that capitalism and democracy conflict at all.

[Stanley Burrell]

As it pertains to this thread: http://theinsultmaster.ytmnd.com/

[Clove]

Funny. I don't find that capitalism and democracy conflict at all.Because you're not fucking retarded.

[Gan]

Because capitalism is at best amoral, and in its current manifestation, is immoral?
LOL - here it goes. Speak it from on high Comrade!

Still waiting for you to show us a better system that actually works in the real world.
Dont hold your breath.

I'd say the democratic Socialist states of Scandanavia are a pretty good example.
LOL - NOT.

One day, the revolution will come, and you'll see.
Are you wearing a red beret yet?

We are the only nation that combines two very distinctly different systems.

Capitalism which is every man for himself and Democracy which is every voice heard.

Its no wonder we are at odds with ourselves.
Thanks for demonstrating you still know shit about economics.

Fucking retard.
Yep

Start the revolution then! Give away your wealth, advise your Daddy that he is a capitalist pig and that you want no part of his money, even after he dies.. and then live the life you go on about here.

But let's be honest.. that would be difficult and it's far easier to preach the greatness of socialism as long as you really don't have to practice it.

You are a shining example of why it's never worked.
HAHAHA

Winner so far.
Wait until he ditches the DA's office and pimps out as a high priced defense lawyer. Let him speak about the ills of wealth from all the blood money he takes in as fees.

[Back]

Well, no you don't. And it's amusing (not to mention revealing) that you disapprove of researching before making the most ignorant statement ever heard on these boards. Trust me, Google is your best friend you fucking retard.

I do not disapprove of researching anything. Certainly thats the mainstay of progress. But realistically my statement still stands. Capitalism and Democracy are two distinctly different systems. I don’t have to Google to make that point.

[Gan]

I do not disapprove of researching anything. Certainly thats the mainstay of progress. But realistically my statement still stands. Capitalism and Democracy are two distinctly different systems. I don’t have to Google to make that point.

Nice to see you're reverting back to your black/white no grey argument style.

[Clove]

Capitalism and Democracy are two distinctly different systems. I don’t have to Google to make that point.Well you're right about that (retard) democracy is a style of government, capitalism is an economic system. No need to Google any of it. Your statement DOESN'T still stand as we are NOT the only democracy in the world that utilizes a fundamentally capitalist system.

Google isn't necessary to learn this; an education is.

[Back]

Well you're right about that (retard) democracy is a style of government, capitalism is an economic system. No need to Google any of it. Your statement DOESN'T still stand as we are NOT the only democracy in the world that utilizes a fundamentally capitalist system.

Google isn't necessary to learn this; an education is.

Go research it a bit more. America is unique in it’s political and capital system.

And I prefer just straight up insults on my character over pathetic vague semantic discourses trying to argue my points peppered with not-so-veiled name calling.

[Clove]

Go research it a bit more. America is unique in it’s political and capital system.

And I prefer just straight up insults on my character over pathetic vague semantic discourses trying to argue my points peppered with not-so-veiled name calling.Actually I think you need to research it more. We are not unique.

[longshot]

Because capitalism is at best amoral, and in its current manifestation, is immoral?

You're right. Self-determination is terrible. I would much rather have someone else make decisions for me.

I also believe the Columbian people should pay higher prices for goods that they themselves might not have access to without open markets.

If we can get them to keep those barriers up, or even raise them, the more expensive goods will help them by making them poorer. Necessities like food and water will take up a greater share of their income, but that's not a big deal because I'm sure they can just fill their stomachs with the sweet sounds of bongo drums.

Columbians can isolate themselves from the world economy, and be far, far worse off. But, I think it's worth it if we can say cool things like, "They're so against capitalism."

To celebrate their bold move, you can paddle down there in a canoe and knit them some hacky sacks.

Oh, and be sure to stop off at Cuba on the way. I have some friends that went there for Spring break. They said that for the 1960's, it's a really beautiful place.

You should be careful though. They also told me they saw budding signs of capitalism. Some people actually stopped playing dominoes twelve hours a day and setup a fruit stand. There were only four apples on it, but I think it's a pretty dangerous step in the wrong direction.

[Back]

Actually I think you need to research it more. We are not unique.

Really?

No doubt you have some Googled article in your copy memory ready to paste.

Let me save you the trouble. I get it. You do not like me or my ideas or my posts for whatever reason. Just call me a fag, or an asshole, or a douchebag, or a retard and get on with your life.

[Keller]

Really?

No doubt you have some Googled article in your copy memory ready to paste.

Let me save you the trouble. I get it. You do not like me or my ideas or my posts for whatever reason. Just call me a fag, or an asshole, or a douchebag, or a retard and get on with your life.

Take a deep breath and don't jump off the deep end.

Either post something -- anything -- that implies we're unique for mixing democracy and capitalism or stop acting like a retard.

Sorry, a fucking retard.

- Keller, I choo-choo-choose to have Tourettes.

[Warriorbird]

I sadly deleted my Hillary against Backlash photoedit.

[Clove]

No doubt you have some Googled article in your copy memory ready to paste.Would you rather I get you some Econ. or Poly Sci textbooks from UConn?http://ihasahotdog.wordpress.com/files/2008/04/funny-dog-pictures-caring-dog-is-here-to-talk.jpg

[Back]

Take a deep breath and don't jump off the deep end.

Either post something -- anything -- that implies we're unique for mixing democracy and capitalism or stop acting like a retard.

Sorry, a fucking retard.

- Keller, I choo-choo-choose to have Tourettes.

You advise moi to take a deep breath? Ha! I’m not randomly insulting people over generic truthful statements. Someone else in this thread could use that advice.

What can I post that a second grader would not already (I hope) know?

[Back]

I sadly deleted my Hillary against Backlash photoedit.

I felt like you do a while ago. Then I realized that was yesterday and today is today and tomorrow is tomorrow.

[Clove]

...generic truthful statements...What can I post that a second grader would not already (I hope) know?Unfortunately it isn't a true statement- it's a ridiculously stupid statement. You could post confirming opinions from published experts in economics and/or political science (you might need to use Google though, but you'll be alright). You could even start with the list of countries I provided and detail what makes the USA's market and government different in any meaningful way.

I can't dispute that a 2nd grader might agree with you. When I was in 2nd grade my class believed that George Washington couldn't tell a lie. But the average 5th grader would tell you (as I have) that you're full of shit.

So in summary, when you're called on making a bullshit statement please attempt to validate it with sources and argument. If you can't do that then...
http://icanhascheezburger.files.wordpress.com/2007/08/shaddup-i-doan-wanna-hear-it.jpg

[TheEschaton]

Back, you made the statement that we're the only country which has democracy and capitalism. Blatantly false.

Now, if you said we're the only country without a significant socialist presence in its democracy, along with one of the least regulated major capitalist markets, you'd be closer to the truth, but still not even quite there.

[Back]

If you don’t see our (American) paradoxical systems of economics and democracy as unique then I don’t know what to say. Perhaps its just my own opinion...

When the country was founded it was most certainly unique. By virtue of that it continues to be. There are countries that follow similar systems... sure.

Anyway, here is a good interview by Bill Moyers.

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/12212007/watch.html

[Clove]

...Perhaps its just my own opinion...Perhaps, but you made a statement. One that has no support, namely that the USA is the only nation that combines democracy with capitalism.

...When the country was founded it was most certainly unique. By virtue of that it continues to be. There are countries that follow similar systems... sure.Yes, a lot has changed in over 230 years. What on Earth makes you think that because we were unique when we began it somehow ensures that we have remained unique? Other countries have emulated our government and market in the two centuries that followed (to varying degrees of success). Are the countries that share our style of government and market exact copies? Of course not, but that doesn't mean they aren't democracies that don't rely on a capitalistic focused mixed market.


Anyway, here is a good interview by Bill Moyers.

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/12212007/watch.htmlInteresting interview. I was particularly taken by Bill Moyers introduction of Benjamin Barber and grateful for the convenient transcript.


BILL MOYERS: Watching all this, it seemed a good time to put in a call to Benjamin Barber. Like WordGirl, he's standing athwart history and shouting stop.

You may remember Benjamin Barber from his international best seller, JIHAD VERSUS MCWORLD. Among other things, he's a renowned political theorist and a distinguished senior fellow at Demos — a public policy think tank here in New York City.

His latest book is CONSUMED, about how the global economy produces too many goods we don't need, too few of those we do need, and, to keep the racket going, targets children as consumers in a market where shopping is a twenty-four hour business. Capitalism, he says, "seems quite literally to be consuming itself, leaving democracy in peril and the fate of citizens uncertain." Benjamin Barber answered my call - and he's with me now.If you want to make an argument that rampant capitalism is threatening democracy- you're in good company. But that in no way resembles your original statement which is (opinion or not) flatly incorrect (not to mention, fucking retarded).
We are the only nation that combines ...Capitalism...and Democracy.

[Back]

I see what happened and how it was misconstrued.

Mainly, my point (or opinion) was that the combination of capitalism and democracy, two very disparate systems at the core, are a unique western invention.

[Gan]

LOL @ thinking you were misconstrued.

Try this.



"I see what happened and how I was mistaken."

[Back]

LOL @ thinking you were misconstrued.

Try this.

ROFL @ you.

[Parkbandit]

It's:

:rofl: @ you.

Fucking retard.

[Clove]

I see what happened and how it was misconstrued.

Mainly, my point (or opinion) was that the combination of capitalism and democracy, two very disparate systems at the core, are a unique western invention.You weren't misconstrued by anyone.

Nation (NEY-shun) a large body of people, associated with a particular territory, that is sufficiently conscious of its unity to seek or to possess a government peculiarly its own: The president spoke to the nation about the new tax.

Western (WEST-urn) (usually initial capital letter) of or pertaining to the non-Communist countries of Europe and the Americas: Western trade agreements.

See, how different they are? Everyone understood what you wrote perfectly. Write what you mean.

[Parkbandit]

You weren't misconstrued by anyone.

Nation (NEY-shun) a large body of people, associated with a particular territory, that is sufficiently conscious of its unity to seek or to possess a government peculiarly its own: The president spoke to the nation about the new tax.

Western (WEST-urn) (usually initial capital letter) of or pertaining to the non-Communist countries of Europe and the Americas: Western trade agreements.

See, how different they are? Everyone understood what you wrote perfectly. Write what you mean.


I don't think you have taken into account that this is a written medium and you cannot hear the inflection or emphasis on his words.

[Clove]

I don't think you have taken into account that this is a written medium and you cannot hear the inflection or emphasis on his words.Yeah my bad. I'm still trying to figure out what his problem is with capitalism married to democracy. Aside from the problem of comparing a government system to an economic system (apples to oranges anyone). Questions like, if they are so paradoxically in opposition, why do democracies tend to favor capitalist markets? What sort of economic system does he think would be a better match? Should all our assets be held by the government and then we vote on how they're to be used? I'm totally voting for Mercedes for everyone in Connecticut.

[Back]

Yeah my bad.

Technically it was my bad so grats.


I'm still trying to figure out what his problem is with capitalism married to democracy. Aside from the problem of comparing a government system to an economic system (apples to oranges anyone). Questions like, if they are so paradoxically in opposition, why do democracies tend to favor capitalist markets?

The answer to that is in my original post.

Capitalism is an every person for themselves system. Democracy is an everyone gets a say system. Yes, I boiled them both down to bare basics. Yes, there are grey areas such as corporate responsibility and what the people who the people elect do.


What sort of economic system does he think would be a better match? Should all our assets be held by the government and then we vote on how they're to be used?

Would you like a say in how your tax dollars are spent? We all pay taxes of all kinds... Federal, sales, income, property, estate... would like a list of expenditures on your tax form that you could check off so that your money could go to what you feel our country needs most?

Of course, voting for the representative that you think will allocate your tax dollars wisely is how we’ve been doing things for a while. I think it’s pretty obvious that that is not always the case.

How do we correct that human element? Nationalizing “commons” seems like a pretty good start. I’m going to pull out an analogy here. Consider the human race, as a whole, a crop. Water it, feed it, nurture it and you will have great reward. Yes, it takes capitol to do it. Yes, there will be weeds. Yes there will be pests and plagues and bad weathers. But, as a whole, we are better suited to survival when we protect our crops rather than neglect them.

Call me a communist. Call me a socialist. Call me an asshole. Call me ignorant. Regardless of how you want to label me, for whatever reason, I really don’t care. Unless you are down. Then I’m willing to lend you a helping hand.


I'm totally voting for Mercedes for everyone in Connecticut.

Provincial elitist!

PS. Cab drivers in Israel drive Mercedes.

[Keller]

Capitalism is an every person for themselves system. Democracy is an everyone gets a say system. Yes, I boiled them both down to bare basics. Yes, there are grey areas such as corporate responsibility and what the people who the people elect do.


First. Corporations, the major economic "entity" upon which American capitalism is built, are democratic institutions by nature. They have shareholders (citizens) who elect a board of directors. The board of directors then appoint officers to run the corporation. Shareholders can gain a majority of the shares of a corporation, to be sure, but I'm not sure how that makes them any less democratic.

Second. Capitalism, by its very nature, is vulnerable to democratic action. People choose, with their currency, what to support. I am moving to the east coast because I believe in public transportation. In Los Angeles, my tax dollars go to building highways. I'm not ok with that. So I made a concious choice to move from LA to DC -- where I can own one car and rely mainly on the metro.

[Gan]

How do we correct that human element? Nationalizing “commons” seems like a pretty good start. I’m going to pull out an analogy here. Consider the human race, as a whole, a crop. Water it, feed it, nurture it and you will have great reward. Yes, it takes capitol to do it. Yes, there will be weeds. Yes there will be pests and plagues and bad weathers. But, as a whole, we are better suited to survival when we protect our crops rather than neglect them.

As most countries who have attempted to nationalize industry relating to natural resources can demonstrate... They are so far from being efficient that the burden upon that society is even greater than the profit taking characteristics of that industry being privately held/run. Not to mention a nationalized industry tends to be monopolistic which is also contrary to being efficient unlike an industry that operates in a competetive market. Especially in markets as large in scope and size as our current national (and now global) market.

The rest of your red banner post has been addressed by Clove and Keller, so I leave you with words of socialistic encouragement - "Speak it from on high comrade!".

[Back]

First. Corporations, the major economic "entity" upon which American capitalism is built, are democratic institutions by nature. They have shareholders (citizens) who elect a board of directors. The board of directors then appoint officers to run the corporation. Shareholders can gain a majority of the shares of a corporation, to be sure, but I'm not sure how that makes them any less democratic.

Second. Capitalism, by its very nature, is vulnerable to democratic action. People choose, with their currency, what to support. I am moving to the east coast because I believe in public transportation. In Los Angeles, my tax dollars go to building highways. I'm not ok with that. So I made a concious choice to move from LA to DC -- where I can own one car and rely mainly on the metro.

You make good points that also magnify the disparity. Not everyone is a shareholder. If it weren’t for people actually speaking up for themselves no one would have benefits and would be working for 60¢ an hour to be generous.

If America were actually working like a corporation you describe, with the workers actually having a say in the matter, that would be different. That might be golden. That might be called something else.

PS. I apologize, Keller. My initial response was much better, and I was full of steam from watching John Adams, but the effects of having woken up early, working a full day, and beers for respite have taken their tolls.

[TheEschaton]

Not to mention shareholders rarely exercise their power unless they're significant percentage owners.

[longshot]

Not to mention shareholders rarely exercise their power unless they're significant percentage owners.

It's called "selling."

If management does a shitty job, people "sell." When enough people "sell," the price goes "down." I hope I didn't lose you...

If assets are not allocated efficiently, people don't earn an acceptable return based on the risk that they take. So they "sell."

Those with a large percentage of shares have the most to lose. So they are going to have the power to appoint board members, etc.

You're a hippie douchebag, and part of the problem plaguing society. The only way democracy will fail is because of self-loathing assholes like you that reject all of the freedoms that it provides.

You take advantage of all it offers while criticizing the very foundations that allow you to bitch.

Please explain to me why your socialist paradise is so awesome. I'd really like to hear about it.

There is nothing contradictory about capitalism and democracy. Capitalism says that the optimal, efficient outcome will be achieved when everyone acts in their own self-interest. Having a government dictate the organization of structures and the allocation of assets does not produce a favorable outcome.

So while you criticize the Columbian trade agreement, because you're "against any sort of globalization," why don't you think for a minute about what that means.

Let's pretend I agree with you.

I also believe the Columbia people should pay more for goods that they might otherwise not have access. Think it's great that they have to spend a greater share of their income on these things, leaving them less to spend on food and other necessities. This will make them poorer, but they can feed their stomachs on the sweet sounds of bongo drums.

I also think that Columbia should erect prohibitive trade barriers, and begin to manufacture everything domestically. This way they can have their own steel mills, make their own cars, build their own computers, and grow all of their own food. Everything will be inefficient, and everyone will be far, far worse off.

But, they will be able to say that they gave the finger to the capitalist pigs and their "globalization."

You can even paddle down their in your canoe and celebrate with them. I'm sure they'll be very appreciate of the time you took to knit all of those hackey sacks.

But be sure to stop at Cuba along the way down there. I had some friends that went there for Spring break, and they said that for the 1960's it's a really beautiful place.

I should warn you though: they told me they saw signs of budding capitalism. Some people actually stopped playing dominoes 12 hours a day and setup a fruit stand. Granted, the stand only had four apples on it, but I think this is a dangerous step in the wrong direction...

[Daniel]

I'm gonna go with Longhsot winning this thread.

[Gan]

Yep.

[Keller]

longshot, the fundamental flaw in the argument is that TheE doesn't care about efficiency, but instead "fairness".

Also, didn't you use all of those references in a previous post? It had the longshot seething anger we've come to expect -- but lacked the novel imagery.

[Stanley Burrell]

There are a lot of potentials out there too in Columbia for the MLB and I don't want that shit to get fucked up because of politics.

Baseball is more important than me, you, or even the both of us combined.

[longshot]

Also, didn't you use all of those references in a previous post? It had the longshot seething anger we've come to expect -- but lacked the novel imagery.

You're right. For some reason, I thought that last post didn't go through. I even edited it too.

This one sounds better... I'll stick with this one. I'm an idiot.

[Parkbandit]

You're a hippie douchebag, and part of the problem plaguing society. The only way democracy will fail is because of self-loathing assholes like you that reject all of the freedoms that it provides.

You take advantage of all it offers while criticizing the very foundations that allow you to bitch.

Please explain to me why your socialist paradise is so awesome. I'd really like to hear about it.


http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e6/belike53/untitled-1.jpg

:yes:

[Clove]

First. Corporations, the major economic "entity" upon which American capitalism is built, are democratic institutions by nature...

Second. Capitalism, by its very nature, is vulnerable to democratic action. People choose, with their currency, what to support... So I made a concious choice to move from LA to DC -- where I can own one car and rely mainly on the metro.Those were going to be my next points- well expressed, thanks for saving me the effort.

Good choice concerning DC. IMHO the Metro is definitely the best public transportation system between SEPTA, the T and whatever they call it in NYC.

[Clove]

You make good points that also magnify the disparity. Not everyone is a shareholder.Yes but anyone interested can be a shareholder- simply by electing to purchase a corporation's stock.

Not to mention shareholders rarely exercise their power unless they're significant percentage owners.Not everyone who is elegible to vote registers to vote, or bothers to vote. What is your point?

[TheEschaton]

I have neither the time nor the energy to respond, but suffice to say my objections to capitalism are not based on how good it is as an economic system, but how good it is morally.

Those people who would argue capitalism is morally superior to socialist systems (like Ayn Rand) argue that the freedom to choose outweighs any other social good socialism provides. However, they fail to recognize the vast difference between socialism and communism. The latter requires ALL industry to be owned by the state, all revenue collected by the state, and distributed equally. Socialism merely requires the government socialization of necessary services. It doesn't even mandate that the government be the sole source of those services. It simply says that if there is some barrier to a private, necessary service (IE, health care) there should be a gov't option affordable and available to a person - even if it means it is free.

And yes, even if you choose to opt out and spend privately, it would be your duty to shoulder the burden of taxes for that system; not because it's beneficial to you (it isn't), but because it's beneficial to the common good.

There's lots of criticism of socialism subjugating freedom of a right here, but I am unconvinced economic prosperity is a right that supercedes a person's right to economic need. The Founding Fathers specifically changed the "life, liberty, property" formulation of both Rousseau and the later French Revolution to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness..", implying that one was only entitled to the necessities of the property right, and not more.

And last, but not least, socialism and democracy have no conflicts like people insist they do.

(Edit: I happen to think it's capitalists like you, longshot, who are the douchebags ruining this country. But, again, that's just me.)

-TheE-

[Parkbandit]

There's lots of criticism of socialism subjugating freedom of a right here, but I am unconvinced economic prosperity is a right that supercedes a person's right to economic need. The Founding Fathers specifically changed the "life, liberty, property" formulation of both Rousseau and the later French Revolution to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness..", implying that one was only entitled to the necessities of the property right, and not more.


NOT that I don't enjoy your big post Comrade.. but "Life, Liberty and Property" was changed to "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" because they knew slavery was going to be a huge issue later on down the road and didn't want to give any slave owners, who considered slaves as property, any advantage when the issue had to be addressed.

And everytime I see you post how 'immoral' capitalism is.. I laugh a little bit.

[Clove]

longshot, the fundamental flaw in the argument is that TheE doesn't care about efficiency, but instead "fairness".

Also, didn't you use all of those references in a previous post? It had the longshot seething anger we've come to expect -- but lacked the novel imagery.


(Edit: I happen to think it's capitalists like you, longshot, who are the douchebags ruining this country. But, again, that's just me.)

-TheE-http://icanhascheezburger.wordpress.com/files/2008/04/funny-pictures-angry-weasel-soup.jpg

[longshot]

I have neither the time nor the energy to respond, but suffice to say my objections to capitalism are not based on how good it is as an economic system, but how good it is morally.



That's convenient...




I'm an anti-globalization type, so I'm all for protectionist policies, and thus the opposition of this bill. ;)

Can you explain this one then? Or does that one also take too much energy?

[TheEschaton]

Simple - globalization is not a moral system. Especially as practiced now. Protectionism is necessary to some extent not because it's best for the global market, but because it is the best for the country in question. Your hyperbole in suggesting Colombia should make everything itself is in response to my suggestion that protection of individual markets should take a higher priority than the "success" of a global market which is actually only dominated by a few players.


-TheE-

[longshot]

Simple - globalization is not a moral system. Especially as practiced now. Protectionism is necessary to some extent not because it's best for the global market, but because it is the best for the country in question. Your hyperbole in suggesting Colombia should make everything itself is in response to my suggestion that protection of individual markets should take a higher priority than the "success" of a global market which is actually only dominated by a few players.


-TheE-

Please explain why protectionism is necessary, and what circumstances create the "to some extent" scenario, and those which do not.

Look, if you're going to argue using normative terms, then there's no way to dispute what you believe as incorrect. I cannot argue with your beliefs. You've exited the realm of economics, and moved into your own bullshit world of morality and judgment.

You can keep talking about what is "best" for the rest of eternity. That doesn't mean it makes sense on any grounds outside of what you personally believe.

If you wish to take a position based on something other than "the way things ought to be," then feel free to do so.

Everyone knows you're full of shit. You can talk in circles about morality all you want, yet you dance around these excuses because you know fuck all about anything.

[Gan]

NOT that I don't enjoy your big post Comrade.. but "Life, Liberty and Property" was changed to "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" because they knew slavery was going to be a huge issue later on down the road and didn't want to give any slave owners, who considered slaves as property, any advantage when the issue had to be addressed.

And everytime I see you post how 'immoral' capitalism is.. I laugh a little bit.

I laugh at his hypocrisy all the time. ;)

[Daniel]

While I don't believe globalization is amoral, I do believe that it is pursued too haphazardly and should be a goal to work towards instead of something that needs to be done RIGHT THIS SECOND.

[Gan]

While I don't believe globalization is amoral, I do believe that it is pursued too haphazardly and should be a goal to work towards instead of something that needs to be done RIGHT THIS SECOND.

/agreed

I view it as an evolution. Something that gradually evolves as other societies, markets, and countries mature. Because natural resources are finite and not uniformly disbursed - a globalized market will demonstrate a large example of comparative advantage (notwithstanding the interferrence of laws and borders). The challenge to those living in already advanced societies will be to adapt to what best suits where that person lives - or to move where they can be of most use or benefit.

Its funny to watch protectionist advocates scream about their natural right to protect a trade that has demonstrated greater efficiency elsewhere. Protectionism equates to nothing but fear and selfishness. Fear of having to adapt and selfishness in an unwillingness to do so.

The challenge to globalization is to bring all the participating markets (societies and governments) onto the same playing field with respect to laws governing trade, workforce, and production. [Getting everyone on the same *moral footprint]
* I used moral for lack of a better word to describe a societal norm accepted across cultures and societies.

Its not like we're building the tower of babel or anything...

[Daniel]

This is true, but it's not as if these countries don't have anything to fear. Globalization has done a lot of good, but it's done a lot of bad too. Glossing over that fact doesn't help the case either.

[Clove]

Globalization will experience growing pains for a long time to come. Ultimately a level playing field is what's needed. Until all nations follow the same rules it's simply unfair and unworkable. It's like playing a game of baseball where one team gets 4 outs and the other gets 3.

[Parkbandit]

Please explain why protectionism is necessary, and what circumstances create the "to some extent" scenario, and those which do not.

Look, if you're going to argue using normative terms, then there's no way to dispute what you believe as incorrect. I cannot argue with your beliefs. You've exited the realm of economics, and moved into your own bullshit world of morality and judgment.

You can keep talking about what is "best" for the rest of eternity. That doesn't mean it makes sense on any grounds outside of what you personally believe.

If you wish to take a position based on something other than "the way things ought to be," then feel free to do so.

Everyone knows you're full of shit. You can talk in circles about morality all you want, yet you dance around these excuses because you know fuck all about anything.


WELCOME TO TheE's FANTASY ISLAND! Where you can live in an idealist world as long as you want, when the real world is an unjust one.

http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e6/belike53/039_20026Fantasy-Island-Posters.jpg

[TheEschaton]

The problem is, Clove, countries can never be on an even playing field. The Middle East will have oil, the United States will have political power, and Southern Africa will have casava, which nobody wants.

longshot, I could argue the economic downfalls of capitalism/globalization, but then you'd simply run around in circles as well, saying "That's all your beliefs, la la la." You think making witty retorts, and saying in an edgy way I'm full of bullshit, somehow makes you correct - but it doesn't. Capitalism would consume itself if it wasn't for socialist regulations. Globalization doesn't want an even playing field, because it cuts into profit. The fundamental fallacy of both these systems is: A) you need an even playing field to compete equally, B) no one is on an equal playing field currently (and there's some contention whether everyone can ever be on an equal playing field - the Middle East has natural resources Africa doesn't, and we want those resources, we don't want African casava), and C) the ones in the position of advantage don't want the playing field to be even because that cuts into their profit, which is the goal of the system.

Now, in terms of C), rational actors would want to even the playing field, because that would theoretically enhance competition, forcing corporations/nation-states to be more innovative and efficient. In reality, if there's no even playing field (IE, workers' rights, health conditions, nonlead paint vs lead paint), they can make far more for-sure profit than the risk of innovation. Why innovate when you can simply cut costs by paying your workers pennies?

You accuse me of living in a fantasy world, but if you believe that we want to make things even on the international market....or even within our own country's market, you're the one inhabiting some sort of island. My main contention is that the government should implement some degree of economic equality because corporations will NEVER want that, and it's what is required for sustainable growth.

-TheE-

[Clove]

The problem is, Clove, countries can never be on an even playing field. The Middle East will have oil, the United States will have political power, and Southern Africa will have casava, which nobody wants.Uh, yes they can. It isn't a question of natural resources, it's a question of simple trade. Everyone has something, someone wants- that's not what we mean by a level playing field. It has more to do with legislation such as minimum wages, dumping practices, tariffs, occupational health and safety requirements, etc.

Casava is delicious, as a breading on fried fish btw.

[Gan]

Uh, yes they can. It isn't a question of natural resources, it's a question of simple trade. Everyone has something, someone wants- that's not what we mean by a level playing field. It has more to do with legislation such as minimum wages, dumping practices, tariffs, occupational health and safety requirements, etc.

Casava is delicious, as a breading on fried fish btw.

Level Playing Field = where all societies/governments regulate their populations the same with respect to the laws governing therein.

In other words... what Clove said.