So lets say your worst enemy comes up to you and says, "I'll sell you this brand new Corvette for $10000." Do you say, "no, I think you're trying to hurt me by selling me things for less than they're worth?"
>>>unrealistic so I'm not gonna bother responding. A new/good car for 10K is like Obama and Clinton being an effective President. I presented my facts previously. Reading further, nowhere in my comments do I demand all our products be sold at cheaper prices. I'm more focused on jobs. In fact, 90% of my last response was based on that.
If I'm trying to make an argument against totally free trade, I might carry on the analogy. Now your enemy starts selling you everything you want at pennies on the dollar. The strategy is that eventually you will quit your job because you don't need the money because they are selling you everything cheap. Some time after you quit your job, your enemy will stop selling you all your needs and you will be ruined. That's either diabolical or really stupid on the enemy's part.
>>>a lot of items are overpriced so they get the better end of the deal. Hooray for free trade. But I'm evil for wanting to do the same from our side to some extent.
In this analogy, quitting your job would be like the US closing (and demolishing maybe) factories because China will sell us the stuff cheaper than we can make it. As a nation, we are doing this, so the analogy doesn't extend to saying that you just wouldn't quit because you don't trust your enemy (though that would be the protectionist scheme). The analogy continues then, that some day China will stop selling us stuff and we will be ruined. Maybe I'm just to optimistic,
>>>maybe. I'm being realistic
but I don't think we would be ruined. I think things might be shaky for a while, but we would rebuild those factories that we need (possibly using robotics (ala the Japanese) if we no longer have workers willing/wanting to go back to factory work).
>>>i find it funny so many engineers forget the fact that robotics, technology etc....it's all shit without humans. They don't turn on by themselves.
Even just counting the amount of cheap goods we have gotten from China in the last ten years, if they stopped selling us stuff tomorrow, I think that on balance we would be ahead. We've been able to use that money we saved by buying their cheap goods to invest and increase our standard of living.
>>>? We're in a trade deficit. What money? Factually speaking wages in the US hasn't increased or increased very little over the years
Maybe (probably) our standard of living would fall if they suddenly stopped selling us stuff, but I don't see that it would fall farther than where it would have been it we never had the opportunity to take their money in the first place. I say "take their money" because that's what it comes down to for me.
>>>in order to "take their money," we have to give them ours and we're already witnessing what our money is helping them with.
For the sake or argument, lets say that China does think they are being diabolical and their leaders are manipulating their currency so as to devalue it
>>>again, which is what's happening. Let's lay that to rest already
(not that every other country on earth doesn't try and manipulate their currency to their own advantage),
>>>I supposed you free tradists are happy with this
in the end it comes down to them giving us money.
>>>and us giving them ours
What about South Korea, India, etc., are they all going to stop selling us cheap factory goods at the same time? I tend to agree that China wants to become the "big kid on the block." Or the next solitary superpower if you prefer, I'm still willing to take their money.
>>>one more time: And they're taking ours....MUCH more than us taking. But I guess you're optimistic and willing to risk this.
You suggested (facetiously i think) that the answer to too many managers is outsourcing (I guess to give the managers people to manage).
>>>not facetious, it's fact for a tremendous amount of CEOs in this day and age. And this is not my point of view. It's the other side. After all, y'all don't seem to see any problems with this.
I don't think that's correct. The answer is fewer managers.
>>>? Of course this is the answer but it's not happening for a lot of sectors. I'm presenting the grim reality for you thanks to this free haphazard trading
Corporate America is a little too good at spawning managers, occasionally they hire another manager to suggest they need to "operate lean" and they fire a bunch of managers right before starting to accumulate them again... The free market isn't the problem there, the problem is that the managers, who are of course in charge, think that more of their own is a good thing.
On then to retraining. I don't suggest that retraining is easy. None the less, if I had to retrain to support a family I would. I think most people would.
>>>people can get to first base but what's the goal? Home plate. And for 80% of the people, it's not happening.
Given that retraining is going to be required anyway,
>>>yeah, and we're seeing why.....
I don't think it's a worthy trade-off to sacrifice free trade to save on some retraining that was likely to happen latter regardless. I'm not trying to belittle people's discomfort, I just don't think you can avoid retraining without halting progress.
>>>Well, at least no one hasn't denied the fact that "just change skills" is easy. So again, keep supporting free trade and most legitimate hard-working Americans are gonna suffer. anyways, my next response won't come til probably Sunday at the earliest, so I'm not ignoring.
Thursday, February 21, 2008
Trade and stuff
So lets say your worst enemy comes up to you and says, "I'll sell you this brand new Corvette for $10000." Do you say, "no, I think you're trying to hurt me by selling me things for less than they're worth?" If I'm trying to make an argument against totally free trade, I might carry on the analogy. Now your enemy starts selling you everything you want at pennies on the dollar. The strategy is that eventually you will quit your job because you don't need the money because they are selling you everything cheap. Some time after you quit your job, your enemy will stop selling you all your needs and you will be ruined. That's either diabolical or really stupid on the enemy's part. In this analogy, quitting your job would be like the US closing (and demolishing maybe) factories because China will sell us the stuff cheaper than we can make it. As a nation, we are doing this, so the analogy doesn't extend to saying that you just wouldn't quit because you don't trust your enemy (though that would be the protectionist scheme). The analogy continues then, that some day China will stop selling us stuff and we will be ruined. Maybe I'm just to optimistic, but I don't think we would be ruined. I think things might be shaky for a while, but we would rebuild those factories that we need (possibly using robotics (ala the Japanese) if we no longer have workers willing/wanting to go back to factory work). Even just counting the amount of cheap goods we have gotten from China in the last ten years, if they stopped selling us stuff tomorrow, I think that on balance we would be ahead. We've been able to use that money we saved by buying their cheap goods to invest and increase our standard of living. Maybe (probably) our standard of living would fall if they suddenly stopped selling us stuff, but I don't see that it would fall farther than where it would have been it we never had the opportunity to take their money in the first place. I say "take their money" because that's what it comes down to for me. For the sake or argument, lets say that China does think they are being diabolical and their leaders are manipulating their currency so as to devalue it (not that every other country on earth doesn't try and manipulate their currency to their own advantage), in the end it comes down to them giving us money. Just like if your enemy sells you a new Corvette for ten grand, he basically gave you money. The only way we loose in this is if we really are ruined, if our economy collapses because we can't buy cheap stuff from China. Are we really that unstable? What about South Korea, India, etc., are they all going to stop selling us cheap factory goods at the same time? I tend to agree that China wants to become the "big kid on the block." Or the next solitary superpower if you prefer, I'm still willing to take their money.
You suggested (facetiously i think) that the answer to too many managers is outsourcing (I guess to give the managers people to manage). I don't think that's correct. The answer is fewer managers. Corporate America is a little too good at spawning managers, occasionally they hire another manager to suggest they need to "operate lean" and they fire a bunch of managers right before starting to accumulate them again... The free market isn't the problem there, the problem is that the managers, who are of course in charge, think that more of their own is a good thing.
On then to retraining. I don't suggest that retraining is easy. None the less, if I had to retrain to support a family I would. I think most people would. The fact that most don't suggests that it hasn't (in the majority) been necessary. The fact is that technology is going to continue to advance. If you don't have to retrain because of cheap labor today you'll probably have to because of technology tomorrow. If it isn't cheap labor today it will be robotic labor tomorrow. Photocopiers replaced typing pools. Should we have continued to artificially employ legions of typists just so they wouldn't have to retrain? I too wish no one had to retrain, I'm sure it sucks. I just think that the reality is that people we need to learn new skills as time goes on. Given that retraining is going to be required anyway, I don't think it's a worthy trade-off to sacrifice free trade to save on some retraining that was likely to happen latter regardless. I'm not trying to belittle people's discomfort, I just don't think you can avoid retraining without halting progress.
You suggested (facetiously i think) that the answer to too many managers is outsourcing (I guess to give the managers people to manage). I don't think that's correct. The answer is fewer managers. Corporate America is a little too good at spawning managers, occasionally they hire another manager to suggest they need to "operate lean" and they fire a bunch of managers right before starting to accumulate them again... The free market isn't the problem there, the problem is that the managers, who are of course in charge, think that more of their own is a good thing.
On then to retraining. I don't suggest that retraining is easy. None the less, if I had to retrain to support a family I would. I think most people would. The fact that most don't suggests that it hasn't (in the majority) been necessary. The fact is that technology is going to continue to advance. If you don't have to retrain because of cheap labor today you'll probably have to because of technology tomorrow. If it isn't cheap labor today it will be robotic labor tomorrow. Photocopiers replaced typing pools. Should we have continued to artificially employ legions of typists just so they wouldn't have to retrain? I too wish no one had to retrain, I'm sure it sucks. I just think that the reality is that people we need to learn new skills as time goes on. Given that retraining is going to be required anyway, I don't think it's a worthy trade-off to sacrifice free trade to save on some retraining that was likely to happen latter regardless. I'm not trying to belittle people's discomfort, I just don't think you can avoid retraining without halting progress.
trade and McCain
John McCain:
about torture, this is the main reason why I don't support Ron Paul. Paul believes as long as we leave them alone, they will leave us alone. Study Islamic terrorism. Take years if you have to. It is well factualized they want the end for Christians, Jews, and Americans. Period. For the election, there are no full-fledged conservatives left majority-speaking: Clinton, Obama, McCain, Huckabee, Paul. I think the biggest conservative in the 2008 election is gonna come from a third party, like Constitution. Reagan did win big in the past. Bush barely won both of his elections. Since I don't think this election is gonna promote a real conservative, I guarantee it's gonna be another close victory for one candidate. But again, I'm gonna end up voting for him for the simple reason that he's the conservative (he still is in many issues, let's not forget this) that has the best chance of winning. I simply do - not - want 4 years of Clinton or Obama. Ugh, this is a nightmare for me. There goes my tax rates.....I understand not voting for McCain. If most people follow this, this would simply mean a victory for Clinton or Obama. Here comes 4 years of extreme socialism. Again, Obama frightens me. He makes Clinton look normal.
Trade:
After reading everything, I guess I need to talk more. Before I do, I'll focus on a few sentences that caught my eye. Y'all's (if that's a word) sentences start with >>>
>>>Let's consider this idea that totally free trade is "crushing" the little guy. If you believe that,
it is, period. and if you keep reading to the end of what I need to say, you'll see why. I understand all the comments brought forth here, but no one has yet to deny what's been happening. But again, "tough shit," I know. No solutions have been presented, rather "little man: go somewhere and find something else." I mentioned several times already what the alternative ways are, actually I've been asking for them. Throughout the trade talk it almost seems like no one believes what's going on with China. Words like "IF China devalues its currency." So how can I debate any of this when some of you automatically do not believe what is going on? That's why it's been tough debating this.
>>>The theme is personal responsibility. So long as everyone is willing to take personal responsibility and learn new skills as required to keep up with new technologies and a dynamic world, free trade is best for everyone.
this basically opens up to what I'm mostly gonna talk about here and that is just so easy to switch skills. Tell that to the displaced workers who had no choice but to accept the layoff. This is why if it wasn't for Christians, Bush would've lost Ohio...and the election. I think Americans, in all walks of life, liberal or conservative, are getting a little sick and tired of our country being put in the back burner in all these trade deals. This free trade you support is allowing dangerous equipment and people to freely come here. If you don't believe this is going on, just look south of us. China is just one piece of the pie really (there you go, I'm looking at the whole pie, I guess that doesn't make me a liberal anymore). There are many lazy Americans, granted yes, but there are just as many, if not more really, that are primed for a few areas. Most of us here on this board are brilliant and I respect that, but take yourselves out of engineering and see how you'll do. Think about it. And perhaps maybe you can come up with one skill, think of two more. You can't just say this guy that got displaced is lazy and simply needs to learn a new task...like say the medical field or law perhaps mm? Examples please........ of skills they can go to. Because jobs being outsourced include engineers, scientists, programmers, internet specialists, accountants, analysts, research, designers, etc etc. Sure you can do it here, there's plenty available, but the evidence shows since Clinton/Gingrich, more and more of these jobs are shipped every year. And it keeps going up. I've already said we should not trade countries that pose as a threat to us. This includes China (I said it, again). You really think they're building up their military for peaceful purposes? But your theory is basically if we free trade everyone, there is that somewhat of a possibility they'll be buddy buddy with us.
>>>one phrase in your response led me to think that this is argument is just going to be intractable.
I can simply say the same for the other side.
>>>You said "it's not competition anymore, though, when one side is totally benefiting and nothing is happening on the other side".
but this is simply what's happening now - particularly us vs China. Okay sure we're receiving products, albeit a lot of them are shit, over-priced, etc....
>>>If you just don't want to benefit China - say that, but don't use any of the other arguments you are using.
you yourself mentioned the essence is being #1....so that's what I'm looking for on our side. The fact is that no matter how lax and free our policies are vs them, their policies vs us are hurting us.
>>>If you do say that you don't want to benefit China, then you must admit that it is hurting us in the process.
yeah it's hurting me they're building their military machine...we're trading with commies...let's not forget this.
>>>Since you supposedly "asked it twice",
I did, but it was probably a long email no one read, my bad
>>>I'll tell you. When we "lose" manufacturing jobs to China, we gain cheaper products over here. They have a lower labor cost than we do. It's cheaper to make stuff there. When it's cheaper to make stuff there, it's cheaper for us to buy it here.
on the contrary, if it's cheaper to make over there which is the case, they can charge more here, which is the case. Did you look at most countries' export laws vs us?
>>>Higher skills mean higher productivity,
true in some cases, but not always the case. This is like saying if someone goes through training, they can do the job.
>>>(for some reason protectionists forget about productivity, they only look at wages)
You mean you and I, engineers, are supposed to work for a shit living then? Damn right I'm looking at wages. You have people overseas that work just as good, better, and worst than Americans willing to receive a dollar a day. I'm actually gonna wait to see if any of us on this board is willing to take a huge pay cut.
>>>For some reason, you keep saying you don't see the benefits to free trade (even going so far as saying "there is no empirical evidence"), but since we've opened up our trade policy (during the Clinton/Gingrich years) we've had an enormous expansion in the economy. If the massive growth of those years isn't proof enough for you...ok. You're glancing over your shoulder at China, Japan, and the EU.
There's more to an expanding economy than just one principle. This is like Clinton taking credit for the economy on his own. It's like a car. Everything on the car needs to work for it to be efficient. Didn't I tell you what's happening now? The only conservatives really that support all this extreme-free trading are the Bush/McCain/neoconservatives. Even Lou Dobbs and Donald Trump disagree with free trade. Granted, Trump isn't a conservative for the most part, but like your essence of #1, that's exactly what Trump feels too and who in here would really turn down an offer to become Trump for a lifetime.
>>>Let me tell you, looking at their slice of the pie instead of the size of the entire pie is what a liberal does - that's how they justify higher taxes and such.
and I never said anything about raising taxes
Anyways, I'm seeing one side from you guys. Look at the other side. I've already explained it...but I'll talk further. Jobs that are leaving the US, say programming and manufacturing, go to countries like China, India, the Middle East. All a terrorist group needs to do, rather than missile or bomb us, is to disrupt the flow of goods (always happening in Africa, why else is all the equipment used there to terrorize come from us?) and services. They could easily fire missiles from some ships coming to our shores. I know I talk about China a lot and you mentioned to me how about India? Exactly. India and Pakistan aren't exactly the best of friends and Pakistan is just one Musharaff away from firing their nukes (oh yeah, these two countries have nukes, I forgot) to India and destroying the very places that help us and our economy. Then there's Taiwan. Taiwan is one independence billboard away from China destroying them. You do realize we depend on China now financially? Due to Bush's wild spendings, we've been relying on China heavily (how else is Iraq funded?). I guess that's "free trade." But do you really think China is gonna sit quietly with the IOUs?
Frankly, we've been relying on foreign nations for quite some time now and I'm aware of your "look for other skills" ideal. In fact, several here now mention "look for other skills" like that *snaps fingers* The "basic" jobs are quickly becoming a dying breed in the US. Not everyone can become a manager, CEO. I've already gone through contractor teams that are basically all managers and no engineers. It's a disaster. Which means we need more *voila* "workers." And I know what you're thinking: outsource! Where does that exacly leave the middle and lower class then? Mm? It's a pyramid after all where only the few can be at the top. I can't see why the CEO is the devil though. If I was in his position and with our trade laws that y'all freely support, it's mighty tempting to just give up a huge portion of your sector to areas that'll do it for nickles and dimes.
Somehow my view of fair trade is liberal according to y'all, even though it's being accepted by numerous conservatives now...fair trade is basically allowing trade and to promote competition and diversity at the same time not eliminating industries and professions. We've already had an Asian crisis in the late 90s and all the economists say this is about to turn the whole world into a recession. Why did they say that? Because industries rely on them so much. The only reason why there was no depression here was because of the dot-com bubble. Diversity of jobs here is the key. Interdependence increases risks.
My labor point was pseudo-ignored. Simply put, again, most engineers can't compete vs Asians when their living condition is pure shit. Hell, engineers are better off becoming bathroom repair or work at Burger King. And I know, look for another skill. Even the Economist (conservatives by the way) say it's not as easy to simply just "switch skills." The very own Labor Department (numbers don't lie) during the Bush years stated that only about 20% of displaced workers actually ended up in jobs they retrained for. Bush says in his state of the union addresses many times about 6 million, 7 million, 8 million jobs being created. You can't ignore the fact that he lost even more. I honestly hate to say this for Bush, but it's fact that he's about leave his presidency with a net loss of jobs. His tax cuts displayed the same effect. Tax cuts are great, but not if you're spending at the highest rate ever and our gas prices near killing us every other week. And with gas prices high, look at what it'll effect: truckers. And how do things get transported around America? Exactly. Thus resulting in higher prices of groceries for one example.
America historically does not do well creating jobs for displaced workers. I know, it's very simple to "switch." You realize how expensive it is these days to go to school? Almost any school? I guess if you're a farmer, you can just easily switch to mining and manufacturing or perhaps retail services. Nah, these farmers can easily become doctors after 8 years. With the way you talk about switching, we might as well get 4 college degrees while we were in. How about some of us that are a little more intelligent brain-wise? We run the risk of being overqualified if we go down. When I was job searching you realize how many times I was considered overqualified and risk of getting overpaid? Yes, in the past I actually for the hell of it decided to look at "basic" jobs and see what would happen. It's easy for CEOs to say "get more education." Hell even Alan Greenspan suggested this. But when asked specifically, they'll never specify. One thing also ignored is...well, let's just be blunt, most engineers and programmers aren't necessarily the best when it comes to people skills. Where are they gonna learn this? College? Reading a book? I guess we can try to be a manager, but for every manager, you really need at least 5 more workers and most engineers cannot be entrepreneurs. Yes, there are exceptions, but it's not the majority - period. Fact is most new businesses fold within a decade of starting. It's just the way it is. I guess they can try "looking for new skills." And since I'm speaking of education so much, you think our education system is that top notch in this day and age for the most part? What a joke, this is why I advocate privatizing education and allow vouchers. The public system is embarrasing. There are bright spots but it's like 1 in every 1,000 public schools. It's only the select few (I think us for example) that went to crap schools but took the time on our own to better ourselves. Besides that, look at our good ol' *drum roll* NMT for example. Why the hell did we take analog electronics? Analog didn't help me in any other class at tech unless if you're taking advanced analog (and boy does this school know nothing about connecting to industries for our graduates to get jobs but that's besides the point). With how crappy our education system is from the beginning, that's the reason why when you look at the grad school population in America - it's virtually all foreigners. Take a look at NMT's (and elsewhere) commencement for the graduate section and you see a bunch of Waleed Al Hamud's and Yan Li's. The only reason why US grad schools look great is because of the money being poured in. Top research jobs really are not in this country and if they are, foreigners are in it. In fact, really only 10% of tech jobs are the highest of cutting edge. If these foreigners aren't in these positions, there are plenty of them willing to do similar jobs for a few bucks a day back home.
Okay, I went off on education, back to trade. I'm beating on the "new skills" a lot, but I'm proving my point here. I guess all that's left to switch to is physically demanding jobs, like moving stuff, technicians, plumbers, etc. Wow. So from Genesis to Revelations, we went from top engineer to basically packing boxes. Is that your idea of switching skills? That may work for you and Muz and Donald considering how ripped you are but for most engineers....I doubt this'll be good for them. And for you, are you really......are you really willing to do something like this? Mm?
You guys keep mentioning everyone benefits in the end. How again? No specifics mentioned except a bunch of boats rising with tides. Sure we do allow a few guest workers into the country but do you think China and other countries will allow American to just walk in? You realize how it's virtually impossible to start a business in China? My very own co-worker mentioned that this job (this can apply to many areas) is quickly becoming all managers and no engineers. TRUE free trade would allow us all to cross paths anytime we wish, but the world we live in today? It'd be a miracle to get out of a foreign country once you're in it (pray you have a passport).
Finally, it may seem like I don't support capitalism. But we really didn't have the full gamut of free trade before Clinton and do you consider those Americans in the past anti-capitalist? I think not.
about torture, this is the main reason why I don't support Ron Paul. Paul believes as long as we leave them alone, they will leave us alone. Study Islamic terrorism. Take years if you have to. It is well factualized they want the end for Christians, Jews, and Americans. Period. For the election, there are no full-fledged conservatives left majority-speaking: Clinton, Obama, McCain, Huckabee, Paul. I think the biggest conservative in the 2008 election is gonna come from a third party, like Constitution. Reagan did win big in the past. Bush barely won both of his elections. Since I don't think this election is gonna promote a real conservative, I guarantee it's gonna be another close victory for one candidate. But again, I'm gonna end up voting for him for the simple reason that he's the conservative (he still is in many issues, let's not forget this) that has the best chance of winning. I simply do - not - want 4 years of Clinton or Obama. Ugh, this is a nightmare for me. There goes my tax rates.....I understand not voting for McCain. If most people follow this, this would simply mean a victory for Clinton or Obama. Here comes 4 years of extreme socialism. Again, Obama frightens me. He makes Clinton look normal.
Trade:
After reading everything, I guess I need to talk more. Before I do, I'll focus on a few sentences that caught my eye. Y'all's (if that's a word) sentences start with >>>
>>>Let's consider this idea that totally free trade is "crushing" the little guy. If you believe that,
it is, period. and if you keep reading to the end of what I need to say, you'll see why. I understand all the comments brought forth here, but no one has yet to deny what's been happening. But again, "tough shit," I know. No solutions have been presented, rather "little man: go somewhere and find something else." I mentioned several times already what the alternative ways are, actually I've been asking for them. Throughout the trade talk it almost seems like no one believes what's going on with China. Words like "IF China devalues its currency." So how can I debate any of this when some of you automatically do not believe what is going on? That's why it's been tough debating this.
>>>The theme is personal responsibility. So long as everyone is willing to take personal responsibility and learn new skills as required to keep up with new technologies and a dynamic world, free trade is best for everyone.
this basically opens up to what I'm mostly gonna talk about here and that is just so easy to switch skills. Tell that to the displaced workers who had no choice but to accept the layoff. This is why if it wasn't for Christians, Bush would've lost Ohio...and the election. I think Americans, in all walks of life, liberal or conservative, are getting a little sick and tired of our country being put in the back burner in all these trade deals. This free trade you support is allowing dangerous equipment and people to freely come here. If you don't believe this is going on, just look south of us. China is just one piece of the pie really (there you go, I'm looking at the whole pie, I guess that doesn't make me a liberal anymore). There are many lazy Americans, granted yes, but there are just as many, if not more really, that are primed for a few areas. Most of us here on this board are brilliant and I respect that, but take yourselves out of engineering and see how you'll do. Think about it. And perhaps maybe you can come up with one skill, think of two more. You can't just say this guy that got displaced is lazy and simply needs to learn a new task...like say the medical field or law perhaps mm? Examples please........ of skills they can go to. Because jobs being outsourced include engineers, scientists, programmers, internet specialists, accountants, analysts, research, designers, etc etc. Sure you can do it here, there's plenty available, but the evidence shows since Clinton/Gingrich, more and more of these jobs are shipped every year. And it keeps going up. I've already said we should not trade countries that pose as a threat to us. This includes China (I said it, again). You really think they're building up their military for peaceful purposes? But your theory is basically if we free trade everyone, there is that somewhat of a possibility they'll be buddy buddy with us.
>>>one phrase in your response led me to think that this is argument is just going to be intractable.
I can simply say the same for the other side.
>>>You said "it's not competition anymore, though, when one side is totally benefiting and nothing is happening on the other side".
but this is simply what's happening now - particularly us vs China. Okay sure we're receiving products, albeit a lot of them are shit, over-priced, etc....
>>>If you just don't want to benefit China - say that, but don't use any of the other arguments you are using.
you yourself mentioned the essence is being #1....so that's what I'm looking for on our side. The fact is that no matter how lax and free our policies are vs them, their policies vs us are hurting us.
>>>If you do say that you don't want to benefit China, then you must admit that it is hurting us in the process.
yeah it's hurting me they're building their military machine...we're trading with commies...let's not forget this.
>>>Since you supposedly "asked it twice",
I did, but it was probably a long email no one read, my bad
>>>I'll tell you. When we "lose" manufacturing jobs to China, we gain cheaper products over here. They have a lower labor cost than we do. It's cheaper to make stuff there. When it's cheaper to make stuff there, it's cheaper for us to buy it here.
on the contrary, if it's cheaper to make over there which is the case, they can charge more here, which is the case. Did you look at most countries' export laws vs us?
>>>Higher skills mean higher productivity,
true in some cases, but not always the case. This is like saying if someone goes through training, they can do the job.
>>>(for some reason protectionists forget about productivity, they only look at wages)
You mean you and I, engineers, are supposed to work for a shit living then? Damn right I'm looking at wages. You have people overseas that work just as good, better, and worst than Americans willing to receive a dollar a day. I'm actually gonna wait to see if any of us on this board is willing to take a huge pay cut.
>>>For some reason, you keep saying you don't see the benefits to free trade (even going so far as saying "there is no empirical evidence"), but since we've opened up our trade policy (during the Clinton/Gingrich years) we've had an enormous expansion in the economy. If the massive growth of those years isn't proof enough for you...ok. You're glancing over your shoulder at China, Japan, and the EU.
There's more to an expanding economy than just one principle. This is like Clinton taking credit for the economy on his own. It's like a car. Everything on the car needs to work for it to be efficient. Didn't I tell you what's happening now? The only conservatives really that support all this extreme-free trading are the Bush/McCain/neoconservatives. Even Lou Dobbs and Donald Trump disagree with free trade. Granted, Trump isn't a conservative for the most part, but like your essence of #1, that's exactly what Trump feels too and who in here would really turn down an offer to become Trump for a lifetime.
>>>Let me tell you, looking at their slice of the pie instead of the size of the entire pie is what a liberal does - that's how they justify higher taxes and such.
and I never said anything about raising taxes
Anyways, I'm seeing one side from you guys. Look at the other side. I've already explained it...but I'll talk further. Jobs that are leaving the US, say programming and manufacturing, go to countries like China, India, the Middle East. All a terrorist group needs to do, rather than missile or bomb us, is to disrupt the flow of goods (always happening in Africa, why else is all the equipment used there to terrorize come from us?) and services. They could easily fire missiles from some ships coming to our shores. I know I talk about China a lot and you mentioned to me how about India? Exactly. India and Pakistan aren't exactly the best of friends and Pakistan is just one Musharaff away from firing their nukes (oh yeah, these two countries have nukes, I forgot) to India and destroying the very places that help us and our economy. Then there's Taiwan. Taiwan is one independence billboard away from China destroying them. You do realize we depend on China now financially? Due to Bush's wild spendings, we've been relying on China heavily (how else is Iraq funded?). I guess that's "free trade." But do you really think China is gonna sit quietly with the IOUs?
Frankly, we've been relying on foreign nations for quite some time now and I'm aware of your "look for other skills" ideal. In fact, several here now mention "look for other skills" like that *snaps fingers* The "basic" jobs are quickly becoming a dying breed in the US. Not everyone can become a manager, CEO. I've already gone through contractor teams that are basically all managers and no engineers. It's a disaster. Which means we need more *voila* "workers." And I know what you're thinking: outsource! Where does that exacly leave the middle and lower class then? Mm? It's a pyramid after all where only the few can be at the top. I can't see why the CEO is the devil though. If I was in his position and with our trade laws that y'all freely support, it's mighty tempting to just give up a huge portion of your sector to areas that'll do it for nickles and dimes.
Somehow my view of fair trade is liberal according to y'all, even though it's being accepted by numerous conservatives now...fair trade is basically allowing trade and to promote competition and diversity at the same time not eliminating industries and professions. We've already had an Asian crisis in the late 90s and all the economists say this is about to turn the whole world into a recession. Why did they say that? Because industries rely on them so much. The only reason why there was no depression here was because of the dot-com bubble. Diversity of jobs here is the key. Interdependence increases risks.
My labor point was pseudo-ignored. Simply put, again, most engineers can't compete vs Asians when their living condition is pure shit. Hell, engineers are better off becoming bathroom repair or work at Burger King. And I know, look for another skill. Even the Economist (conservatives by the way) say it's not as easy to simply just "switch skills." The very own Labor Department (numbers don't lie) during the Bush years stated that only about 20% of displaced workers actually ended up in jobs they retrained for. Bush says in his state of the union addresses many times about 6 million, 7 million, 8 million jobs being created. You can't ignore the fact that he lost even more. I honestly hate to say this for Bush, but it's fact that he's about leave his presidency with a net loss of jobs. His tax cuts displayed the same effect. Tax cuts are great, but not if you're spending at the highest rate ever and our gas prices near killing us every other week. And with gas prices high, look at what it'll effect: truckers. And how do things get transported around America? Exactly. Thus resulting in higher prices of groceries for one example.
America historically does not do well creating jobs for displaced workers. I know, it's very simple to "switch." You realize how expensive it is these days to go to school? Almost any school? I guess if you're a farmer, you can just easily switch to mining and manufacturing or perhaps retail services. Nah, these farmers can easily become doctors after 8 years. With the way you talk about switching, we might as well get 4 college degrees while we were in. How about some of us that are a little more intelligent brain-wise? We run the risk of being overqualified if we go down. When I was job searching you realize how many times I was considered overqualified and risk of getting overpaid? Yes, in the past I actually for the hell of it decided to look at "basic" jobs and see what would happen. It's easy for CEOs to say "get more education." Hell even Alan Greenspan suggested this. But when asked specifically, they'll never specify. One thing also ignored is...well, let's just be blunt, most engineers and programmers aren't necessarily the best when it comes to people skills. Where are they gonna learn this? College? Reading a book? I guess we can try to be a manager, but for every manager, you really need at least 5 more workers and most engineers cannot be entrepreneurs. Yes, there are exceptions, but it's not the majority - period. Fact is most new businesses fold within a decade of starting. It's just the way it is. I guess they can try "looking for new skills." And since I'm speaking of education so much, you think our education system is that top notch in this day and age for the most part? What a joke, this is why I advocate privatizing education and allow vouchers. The public system is embarrasing. There are bright spots but it's like 1 in every 1,000 public schools. It's only the select few (I think us for example) that went to crap schools but took the time on our own to better ourselves. Besides that, look at our good ol' *drum roll* NMT for example. Why the hell did we take analog electronics? Analog didn't help me in any other class at tech unless if you're taking advanced analog (and boy does this school know nothing about connecting to industries for our graduates to get jobs but that's besides the point). With how crappy our education system is from the beginning, that's the reason why when you look at the grad school population in America - it's virtually all foreigners. Take a look at NMT's (and elsewhere) commencement for the graduate section and you see a bunch of Waleed Al Hamud's and Yan Li's. The only reason why US grad schools look great is because of the money being poured in. Top research jobs really are not in this country and if they are, foreigners are in it. In fact, really only 10% of tech jobs are the highest of cutting edge. If these foreigners aren't in these positions, there are plenty of them willing to do similar jobs for a few bucks a day back home.
Okay, I went off on education, back to trade. I'm beating on the "new skills" a lot, but I'm proving my point here. I guess all that's left to switch to is physically demanding jobs, like moving stuff, technicians, plumbers, etc. Wow. So from Genesis to Revelations, we went from top engineer to basically packing boxes. Is that your idea of switching skills? That may work for you and Muz and Donald considering how ripped you are but for most engineers....I doubt this'll be good for them. And for you, are you really......are you really willing to do something like this? Mm?
You guys keep mentioning everyone benefits in the end. How again? No specifics mentioned except a bunch of boats rising with tides. Sure we do allow a few guest workers into the country but do you think China and other countries will allow American to just walk in? You realize how it's virtually impossible to start a business in China? My very own co-worker mentioned that this job (this can apply to many areas) is quickly becoming all managers and no engineers. TRUE free trade would allow us all to cross paths anytime we wish, but the world we live in today? It'd be a miracle to get out of a foreign country once you're in it (pray you have a passport).
Finally, it may seem like I don't support capitalism. But we really didn't have the full gamut of free trade before Clinton and do you consider those Americans in the past anti-capitalist? I think not.
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
McCain
Here's Tigerhawk's take on the election, and why we need to support McCain:
He says earlier that all the vigorous and innovative ideas are on the left, but I don't agree with that. The presentation just happens to be better. Obama, in particular, is very good at clearly voicing what he believes in. The problem is, his ideas aren't new, they're rehashes of failed ideas from the '60s.
Conservatives need to man up, support McCain like they mean it, and get
back to building the intellectual case for the conservative point of view.
Otherwise, it will be 1960 all over again.
He says earlier that all the vigorous and innovative ideas are on the left, but I don't agree with that. The presentation just happens to be better. Obama, in particular, is very good at clearly voicing what he believes in. The problem is, his ideas aren't new, they're rehashes of failed ideas from the '60s.
Engicon
Thanks, now I don't have to write too much.
By the way, if you are ever in the NE, Jay Peak in Vermont is about as close to Wolf Creek that you can get in terms of snow. We had fresh snow all day Friday from continuous snowfall. The tree runs (for some reason, in the east they are called glades) were as good as Wolf Creek. If you don't mind being around a bunch of Quebecois then it really is the best place to snowboard in the east (esp. if you are a freerider).
I do have a problem with you saying "it's not tough noogies". It really is. The world advances, and it's up to you to keep up. When Thomas Edison invented the light bulb, he put thousands of people out of work. The advent of the personal computer also put a ton of people out of work. If those people didn't figure out how to get a new job in an advancing economy, then they starved. But if their jobs were "protected" by quashing these new innovations, then overall the economy (including the holders of the "protected" jobs) suffered.
Anyway, LtCarp, one phrase in your response led me to think that this is argument is just going to be intractable. You said "it's not competition anymore, though, when one side is totally benefiting and nothing is happening on the other side". So, for some reason, you believe that international economies are a zero-sum game. I do not, and Engicon's example is similar to my examples in illustrating that point. What I find mind-boggling is that as a conservative, I expect you harbor sentiments completely opposite those when it comes to the domestic economy. I just find that inconsistent. If you just don't want to benefit China - say that, but don't use any of the other arguments you are using. If you do say that you don't want to benefit China, then you must admit that it is hurting us in the process. In fact, it might be enriching other potential competitors, like Japan and the EU.
All this gnashing of teeth and moaning about jobs being shipped overseas really doesn't hold much water when you look at some of the major employers here in the US - Siemens, Toyota, Philips, BP - they are foreign owned. Heck, doesn't one of our buds, E, work for Lafarge? A FRENCH-owned company?
Since you supposedly "asked it twice", I'll tell you. When we "lose" manufacturing jobs to China, we gain cheaper products over here. They have a lower labor cost than we do. It's cheaper to make stuff there. When it's cheaper to make stuff there, it's cheaper for us to buy it here. That wasn't too bad, now, was it? So, you may harrumph, "but our workers are out of work and they suffer!" No, they don't. There is a readjustment, but in the long run, they are more highly skilled workers than the ones in China. Higher skills mean higher productivity, and higher productivity (for some reason protectionists forget about productivity, they only look at wages) means a better, more productive job and higher living standard in the long run - not just for themselves, but for everyone else. You want a concrete example, here it is. A steelworker loses his job because the Japanese or German steel industry puts his plant out of business. He can handle machinery, some of it even high tech - so he gets a job at the new Toyota plant they are building in the state next door. It's cheaper for the Japanese to make steel, and for Toyota, it's best to take advantage of a pool of highly skilled labor, especially in a country like America, where you can rely on the rule of law.
For some reason, you keep saying you don't see the benefits to free trade (even going so far as saying "there is no empirical evidence"), but since we've opened up our trade policy (during the Clinton/Gingrich years) we've had an enormous expansion in the economy. If the massive growth of those years isn't proof enough for you...ok. You're glancing over your shoulder at China, Japan, and the EU. Let me tell you, looking at their slice of the pie instead of the size of the entire pie is what a liberal does - that's how they justify higher taxes and such.
Well, I guess I wrote a little more than expected...oh well.
By the way, if you are ever in the NE, Jay Peak in Vermont is about as close to Wolf Creek that you can get in terms of snow. We had fresh snow all day Friday from continuous snowfall. The tree runs (for some reason, in the east they are called glades) were as good as Wolf Creek. If you don't mind being around a bunch of Quebecois then it really is the best place to snowboard in the east (esp. if you are a freerider).
I do have a problem with you saying "it's not tough noogies". It really is. The world advances, and it's up to you to keep up. When Thomas Edison invented the light bulb, he put thousands of people out of work. The advent of the personal computer also put a ton of people out of work. If those people didn't figure out how to get a new job in an advancing economy, then they starved. But if their jobs were "protected" by quashing these new innovations, then overall the economy (including the holders of the "protected" jobs) suffered.
Anyway, LtCarp, one phrase in your response led me to think that this is argument is just going to be intractable. You said "it's not competition anymore, though, when one side is totally benefiting and nothing is happening on the other side". So, for some reason, you believe that international economies are a zero-sum game. I do not, and Engicon's example is similar to my examples in illustrating that point. What I find mind-boggling is that as a conservative, I expect you harbor sentiments completely opposite those when it comes to the domestic economy. I just find that inconsistent. If you just don't want to benefit China - say that, but don't use any of the other arguments you are using. If you do say that you don't want to benefit China, then you must admit that it is hurting us in the process. In fact, it might be enriching other potential competitors, like Japan and the EU.
All this gnashing of teeth and moaning about jobs being shipped overseas really doesn't hold much water when you look at some of the major employers here in the US - Siemens, Toyota, Philips, BP - they are foreign owned. Heck, doesn't one of our buds, E, work for Lafarge? A FRENCH-owned company?
Since you supposedly "asked it twice", I'll tell you. When we "lose" manufacturing jobs to China, we gain cheaper products over here. They have a lower labor cost than we do. It's cheaper to make stuff there. When it's cheaper to make stuff there, it's cheaper for us to buy it here. That wasn't too bad, now, was it? So, you may harrumph, "but our workers are out of work and they suffer!" No, they don't. There is a readjustment, but in the long run, they are more highly skilled workers than the ones in China. Higher skills mean higher productivity, and higher productivity (for some reason protectionists forget about productivity, they only look at wages) means a better, more productive job and higher living standard in the long run - not just for themselves, but for everyone else. You want a concrete example, here it is. A steelworker loses his job because the Japanese or German steel industry puts his plant out of business. He can handle machinery, some of it even high tech - so he gets a job at the new Toyota plant they are building in the state next door. It's cheaper for the Japanese to make steel, and for Toyota, it's best to take advantage of a pool of highly skilled labor, especially in a country like America, where you can rely on the rule of law.
For some reason, you keep saying you don't see the benefits to free trade (even going so far as saying "there is no empirical evidence"), but since we've opened up our trade policy (during the Clinton/Gingrich years) we've had an enormous expansion in the economy. If the massive growth of those years isn't proof enough for you...ok. You're glancing over your shoulder at China, Japan, and the EU. Let me tell you, looking at their slice of the pie instead of the size of the entire pie is what a liberal does - that's how they justify higher taxes and such.
Well, I guess I wrote a little more than expected...oh well.
Free Trade
Let's consider this idea that totally free trade is "crushing" the little guy. If you believe that, then you can not believe that "a rising tide raises all boats." Protectionist policy that keeps a non-competitive factory operational also keeps the tide from rising. Thereby keeping all boats (including that of laid off factory workers) from rising. If ChinaFactory can produce a good for half the cost of USFactory and the government keeps USFactory afloat somehow, then American citizens loose money. There's no way around it, those goods are produced and bought at higher cost, and you can bet that the Chinese didn't just send us money to offset our loss for not buying from them. I'm describing the breakdown of market capitalism. If you don't think that free market capitalism is the best system yet devised my man to make efficient use of our resources, then I can understand being against completely free trade. But what alternative system do you want?
The conservative/libertarian view isn't "tough nouggies" to the factory worker who is laid off because China devalues its currency (not that I know they do, I'm just willing to accept the premise for now). The free trade argument is that while there will be people who are disadvantaged in the short term (as with any system), _everyone_ will be advantaged in the long term. Everyone who is willing to work for it, that is. If that factory worker is unwilling to learn a new skill, then he/she may well have to accept a lower standard of living. This is their choice. The theme is personal responsibility. So long as everyone is willing to take personal responsibility and learn new skills as required to keep up with new technologies and a dynamic world, free trade is best for everyone.
The conservative/libertarian view isn't "tough nouggies" to the factory worker who is laid off because China devalues its currency (not that I know they do, I'm just willing to accept the premise for now). The free trade argument is that while there will be people who are disadvantaged in the short term (as with any system), _everyone_ will be advantaged in the long term. Everyone who is willing to work for it, that is. If that factory worker is unwilling to learn a new skill, then he/she may well have to accept a lower standard of living. This is their choice. The theme is personal responsibility. So long as everyone is willing to take personal responsibility and learn new skills as required to keep up with new technologies and a dynamic world, free trade is best for everyone.
Google Accounts Rant
Well, I've finally gotten going on the new Blogger. Took so long because it rather bugs me that my Google overlords forced me to use a Google Account. Thereby neatly linking my identity across all emails and blogs. Going for a job interview in ten years? Well, I'm sorry, our records show that you make this inflammatory statement, don't call us, we'll call you. I don't want to have to be totally serious and think about possible ramifications of every rant I want to make on a blog. Ok, that rant is done. On to free trade.
Saturday, February 16, 2008
trading
Majority of states have the political mix. Urban areas and academia are typically liberal. Suburban areas and the rest are typically conservative. Look at all the counties that vote. Typically counties that contain cities vote liberal.
Yes, for the most part immigrants are here to succeed. When people watch the Hispanics that went through the so-called boycott in California 2 years ago, that's really the minority (no pun intended, I mean in numbers). About half the minorities there are against Prop 187. Pete Wilson was against it and they thought it was gonna be his downfall. Nope. Schwarzenegger went with similar props and he got flattened and he woke up after that.
Yes, overall, I support free trade, concept-wise...as long as there's at least some oversight, and there really is nothing wrong with it, as long as it's not at socialistic levels or we're not getting benefited. I guess that defeats the fact I support FREE trade. Kinda like those gun supporters. They support the 2nd Amendment but they don't think it really hurts anyone to have background checks for purchasers.
Now...don't get me wrong, competition is good, as well as for education, health care, etc. It's not competition anymore, though, when one side is totally benefiting and nothing is happening on the other side. With trade, we need to be careful that we don't be too free on it, because there are certain things that don't need to go elsewhere. It's like business, there's nothing wrong with leveraging where we get the better end of the deal. That's not happening now for the most part.
For Japan, I don't view them as enemies, but rather economic competitors. Japan did the same thing to us back in the 80s. Oh, I said "union" as in EU. The EU is one big union and there really is no sovereignty in Europe anymore.
Examples with China? 'bless...space, technology, and military is all that's needed. I guess I could talk about other things. I predicted the Islamic terrorists were gonna strike us and it happened. I'm predicting the Chinese will try as well. They really don't care about anyone's considerations with their military tests. Plenty of their missile tests have near contacted US and Russian sources as well as the space shuttle itself. Actually, China is just plain reckless in everything, period.
I'll keep beating this which is annoying everyone. The Chinese keep undervaluing their currency for the last 2 decades which makes it more expensive for us to export there and cheaper the other way around, which helps them. But...that's free trade for you. We can always stop trading with them, but wait, that disrupts free trade. US capital is freer now than ever before in this globalization, which makes companies here to ship jobs across to save money...and regulations...and taxes...and lawsuits...etc.
I fully understand your viewpoint of "tough shit." I'm fully aware American labor now has to compete. But I asked this before, again, how? What? We start working for less? Thus making our living costs and mortgages suffer? Or in my previous blog do we just look for another career instead of engineering, manufacturing, trucking, warehousing, high-tech, analysts, researchers, designers, accountants, etc.? This whole time these foreigners are working US capital and technology, what do we do? All this being said, China and India will become superpowers and we will probably slip behind.
Again, I asked this twice, what is really being traded when our jobs are going elsewhere? You ask me for specifics, I ask you now, how are we benefiting? Because that's the essence you describe right? I think what free tradists are overlooking now is that today's events are disproportional to the assumptions, theories, and definitions of free trade back in who knows when.
Principles of free trade just does not hold when all production is considered mobile. The factors, capitals, technologies, etc. will go to countries that have the best advantage (huge supplies of cheap/willing labor) and those countries will gain - everyone else will lose. This in turn drives down wages, salaries, employment here. The dollar is already losing value (why else would all these gold commercials keep popping up), as wages go down, prices won't (not directly related), so our living standards decline.
There is no empirical evidence supporting free trade as advantageous. It's all from the past. This is why I keep questioning Bush's conservatism. Sure, he cut taxes and is a proponent of free trade (obvious with the biggest deficit ever, but I know, that doesn't matter), but spending is out of control and there's huge wage differences between us and most of Asia. You can cut so much taxes and lower interest rates, but it won't compensate.
Yes, I'm fully aware we shouldn't trade military deals with China, but it's obvious we're helping them financially to develop their own or scrap our parts. People seem to forget how Clinton dealt with China and how it hurt us. But hey, that's free trade you support. I'm kidding there :) - he basically gave them money - in turn he got votes.
About CEOs, I use this consistently beacuse the majority of them are looking to save money - understandable. If that means freely trading with everyone to save money in their pockets as the goal, so be it. Just stating facts when I mention "CEO" to exemplify what free trade is doing.
So again, finally, how are we benefiting from this? Since you say free trade is making everyone smile. The essence is being #1? Then why am I getting stomped on when I say we should try to get the better deal?
About Iran...it was as recent as the 90s when the people (oops, citizens, I try to sway away from the govt) were pro-American, probably weren't gung-ho, but they were moderate, like Turkey. Tehran was flourishing. Did we have major problems with Iran between Khomeini being in the media and Ahmadinejad being in the media? My bad saying pro-American, but they were moderate, and almost westernizing.
Yes, for the most part immigrants are here to succeed. When people watch the Hispanics that went through the so-called boycott in California 2 years ago, that's really the minority (no pun intended, I mean in numbers). About half the minorities there are against Prop 187. Pete Wilson was against it and they thought it was gonna be his downfall. Nope. Schwarzenegger went with similar props and he got flattened and he woke up after that.
Yes, overall, I support free trade, concept-wise...as long as there's at least some oversight, and there really is nothing wrong with it, as long as it's not at socialistic levels or we're not getting benefited. I guess that defeats the fact I support FREE trade. Kinda like those gun supporters. They support the 2nd Amendment but they don't think it really hurts anyone to have background checks for purchasers.
Now...don't get me wrong, competition is good, as well as for education, health care, etc. It's not competition anymore, though, when one side is totally benefiting and nothing is happening on the other side. With trade, we need to be careful that we don't be too free on it, because there are certain things that don't need to go elsewhere. It's like business, there's nothing wrong with leveraging where we get the better end of the deal. That's not happening now for the most part.
For Japan, I don't view them as enemies, but rather economic competitors. Japan did the same thing to us back in the 80s. Oh, I said "union" as in EU. The EU is one big union and there really is no sovereignty in Europe anymore.
Examples with China? 'bless...space, technology, and military is all that's needed. I guess I could talk about other things. I predicted the Islamic terrorists were gonna strike us and it happened. I'm predicting the Chinese will try as well. They really don't care about anyone's considerations with their military tests. Plenty of their missile tests have near contacted US and Russian sources as well as the space shuttle itself. Actually, China is just plain reckless in everything, period.
I'll keep beating this which is annoying everyone. The Chinese keep undervaluing their currency for the last 2 decades which makes it more expensive for us to export there and cheaper the other way around, which helps them. But...that's free trade for you. We can always stop trading with them, but wait, that disrupts free trade. US capital is freer now than ever before in this globalization, which makes companies here to ship jobs across to save money...and regulations...and taxes...and lawsuits...etc.
I fully understand your viewpoint of "tough shit." I'm fully aware American labor now has to compete. But I asked this before, again, how? What? We start working for less? Thus making our living costs and mortgages suffer? Or in my previous blog do we just look for another career instead of engineering, manufacturing, trucking, warehousing, high-tech, analysts, researchers, designers, accountants, etc.? This whole time these foreigners are working US capital and technology, what do we do? All this being said, China and India will become superpowers and we will probably slip behind.
Again, I asked this twice, what is really being traded when our jobs are going elsewhere? You ask me for specifics, I ask you now, how are we benefiting? Because that's the essence you describe right? I think what free tradists are overlooking now is that today's events are disproportional to the assumptions, theories, and definitions of free trade back in who knows when.
Principles of free trade just does not hold when all production is considered mobile. The factors, capitals, technologies, etc. will go to countries that have the best advantage (huge supplies of cheap/willing labor) and those countries will gain - everyone else will lose. This in turn drives down wages, salaries, employment here. The dollar is already losing value (why else would all these gold commercials keep popping up), as wages go down, prices won't (not directly related), so our living standards decline.
There is no empirical evidence supporting free trade as advantageous. It's all from the past. This is why I keep questioning Bush's conservatism. Sure, he cut taxes and is a proponent of free trade (obvious with the biggest deficit ever, but I know, that doesn't matter), but spending is out of control and there's huge wage differences between us and most of Asia. You can cut so much taxes and lower interest rates, but it won't compensate.
Yes, I'm fully aware we shouldn't trade military deals with China, but it's obvious we're helping them financially to develop their own or scrap our parts. People seem to forget how Clinton dealt with China and how it hurt us. But hey, that's free trade you support. I'm kidding there :) - he basically gave them money - in turn he got votes.
About CEOs, I use this consistently beacuse the majority of them are looking to save money - understandable. If that means freely trading with everyone to save money in their pockets as the goal, so be it. Just stating facts when I mention "CEO" to exemplify what free trade is doing.
So again, finally, how are we benefiting from this? Since you say free trade is making everyone smile. The essence is being #1? Then why am I getting stomped on when I say we should try to get the better deal?
About Iran...it was as recent as the 90s when the people (oops, citizens, I try to sway away from the govt) were pro-American, probably weren't gung-ho, but they were moderate, like Turkey. Tehran was flourishing. Did we have major problems with Iran between Khomeini being in the media and Ahmadinejad being in the media? My bad saying pro-American, but they were moderate, and almost westernizing.
Thursday, February 14, 2008
Last for a couple days
Don't have a lot of time (going to VT in about an hour, and won't be back till Sunday) but since you've answered my question, I think I should respond.
First off, don't get the idea that NJ is a hyperliberal state. It's pretty moderate with a diverse range of viewpoints - South Jersey has some hicks that seriously put Clovis to shame. The problem is being in a hellhole like Princeton, where everyone is either an academic, an elitist, and usually both. There are a lot more conservatives out here than you would think. One thing that warms my heart is seeing young 1st generation immigrant kids at my church who are conservative. That's why I have a soft spot for Latin American immigrants (among other ethnicities, of course) - they come here to succeed the right way, for the most part.
I'm glad because you answered my question. Basically, you say you are a pro-free-trade guy, except when it comes to someone who can be viewed as "competition", meaning a potential enemy - you specifically call out China, Japan, and the EU.
First off, I'm a little flummoxed as to why you still view Japan as a potential enemy - I thought the Japanese were supposed to be running things here 10 years ago! Sorry, but the fearmongering about Japan was really big when I was in junior high, and right now it's looking a little silly. Also, why do you think Japan, the EU, and China are suddenly this "one big union"? What the heck is that supposed to mean? Since when do those three have this super-secret treaty that nobody's heard of? Do you honestly think they ganged up together and said "let's pick on the Americans"?
So to the meat of the response - you implied that trading with (specifically) China is somehow enriching them at our expense, and that we were bound to pay for it down the line. One problem here - you failed to cite examples. Just saying "these guys will do anything to be #1" isn't enough. The essence of free trade is the essence of the free market - that human wants and needs can be satisfied through the free exchange of goods and services. That means both parties benefit! It's all about opportunity cost - relatively speaking, the Chinese can produce some goods at lower cost than we can. If that means that we "lose jobs" to them, so be it - the job you lost should be replaced with a better one (not necessarily for you, but for the economy and everyone else in it) because your time is better spent elsewhere. You're falling into the trap that liberals fall into when discussing economic matters domestically. Economics is not a zero-sum game!
Speaking of this, if you say you are anti-trade with China (what about that other "outsourcing" bugaboo, India?) but still agree with the theory of free trade (as you implied), then I think it's disingenuous for you to use any of the "CEO fatcat" type arguments against. You shouldn't be able to use an argument if you don't believe it.
I should add a qualifier on China. When it comes to military technology, obviously, we can't just trade that with them willy-nilly, just like we don't even trade all our military technology with our closest allies. I don't trust their government any more than you do, but it is possible to favor trade liberalization without sacrificing military advantage.
One last thing - I don't like it when people get history wrong, so I have to tell you that you're off by about 20 years on Iran. When the Shah was in power, yeah, they were pro-American. But we sided with Saddam Hussein for a reason back in the '80s. I actually worked with a tech who was the son of a diplomat under the Shah, and he had to ski to freedom after the Ayatollah took power.
First off, don't get the idea that NJ is a hyperliberal state. It's pretty moderate with a diverse range of viewpoints - South Jersey has some hicks that seriously put Clovis to shame. The problem is being in a hellhole like Princeton, where everyone is either an academic, an elitist, and usually both. There are a lot more conservatives out here than you would think. One thing that warms my heart is seeing young 1st generation immigrant kids at my church who are conservative. That's why I have a soft spot for Latin American immigrants (among other ethnicities, of course) - they come here to succeed the right way, for the most part.
I'm glad because you answered my question. Basically, you say you are a pro-free-trade guy, except when it comes to someone who can be viewed as "competition", meaning a potential enemy - you specifically call out China, Japan, and the EU.
First off, I'm a little flummoxed as to why you still view Japan as a potential enemy - I thought the Japanese were supposed to be running things here 10 years ago! Sorry, but the fearmongering about Japan was really big when I was in junior high, and right now it's looking a little silly. Also, why do you think Japan, the EU, and China are suddenly this "one big union"? What the heck is that supposed to mean? Since when do those three have this super-secret treaty that nobody's heard of? Do you honestly think they ganged up together and said "let's pick on the Americans"?
So to the meat of the response - you implied that trading with (specifically) China is somehow enriching them at our expense, and that we were bound to pay for it down the line. One problem here - you failed to cite examples. Just saying "these guys will do anything to be #1" isn't enough. The essence of free trade is the essence of the free market - that human wants and needs can be satisfied through the free exchange of goods and services. That means both parties benefit! It's all about opportunity cost - relatively speaking, the Chinese can produce some goods at lower cost than we can. If that means that we "lose jobs" to them, so be it - the job you lost should be replaced with a better one (not necessarily for you, but for the economy and everyone else in it) because your time is better spent elsewhere. You're falling into the trap that liberals fall into when discussing economic matters domestically. Economics is not a zero-sum game!
Speaking of this, if you say you are anti-trade with China (what about that other "outsourcing" bugaboo, India?) but still agree with the theory of free trade (as you implied), then I think it's disingenuous for you to use any of the "CEO fatcat" type arguments against. You shouldn't be able to use an argument if you don't believe it.
I should add a qualifier on China. When it comes to military technology, obviously, we can't just trade that with them willy-nilly, just like we don't even trade all our military technology with our closest allies. I don't trust their government any more than you do, but it is possible to favor trade liberalization without sacrificing military advantage.
One last thing - I don't like it when people get history wrong, so I have to tell you that you're off by about 20 years on Iran. When the Shah was in power, yeah, they were pro-American. But we sided with Saddam Hussein for a reason back in the '80s. I actually worked with a tech who was the son of a diplomat under the Shah, and he had to ski to freedom after the Ayatollah took power.
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
blah
Tim:
Well, the level response probably comes from debating liberals foryears. My style is more of a respond back with a smirk or makefactually snide remarks to them and it always got under their skin. They have my full respect and it's not me that blows up and start thepersonal attacks. Dom kinda did the same thing with the smirks, so itwas almost like a see-saw between us, but I would always throw in alittle starter like "okay Dom, let's be factual for a second because you haven't been." The rest was typical because they would blow up a lot. DannyQ and all his friends (not much Danny, but those CS dudes that lived nearby), random people from NMT since I wrote to that dirtrag, I even had Dr Minschwaner (Physics) get into this debate with me. That was actually a little tough for me. How do I respond to someone that I may have to take a class from in the future? LOL. Francis wasn't bad but his gf-at-the-time was ultra liberal. I wouldn't say anything, do my homework, and she'd just come into the room and rat away on random topics and I'm like "keep your emotions low and we'll debate" without even looking at her. Of all people, Will would be the most sensible liberal I debated with. I was debating Jim Moore's roommate (I did not start it), he ended up throwing a phone at me. He was a staunch libertarian. But he was passionately anti-porn. How can you be anti-porn and be a libertarian? So that was an easy one vs. him. Then there was Nina (Jewish). I ended up meeting her dad who was extreme liberal and he found out my stances...
You remind me of Michael Savage in the sense that he too is stuck in a liberal area (Bay Area - it can't get worse than that in America...maybe Santa Fe) and every now and then when I end up driving home at 9PM (have grad class on certain nights), his show would be on and I'd listen every now and then. This guy is ready to kill someone with the amount of anger he displays over the radio. So my theory pans out in that passionate conservatives living in an area full of liberals that are in power (and that's the key - in mass and power) can lead to cynicism. Which is why I don't feel any of it in Alabama, yet I do when in California. There is one area that Savage I think is liberal on and that's environmentalism. I think I can push his buttons to the point where I'll end up on the obituary list.
About Pat Buchanan, before I label him as a conservative, he, Bill O'Reilly, and many others in his mold are really America First types. There have been several elections where this party (or American Independence or simply just American) ran and they're conservatives. But when it comes to issues of foreign policy (including immigration,trade, etc.) they're extreme isolationists, to the point that there probably is no dialogue with other nations, no less trade. I'm at least for trading for goodness sakes and we live in a global economy, whether Buchanan likes it or not. This isn't the 50s anymore Pat. Isolationism may have worked back then when xenophobia ran rampant (and still kinda does now).
For trade, bottom overall line, my biggest issue is mainly security. In all actuality, it's only a select few countries, sorry, governments, in the world that cause the issues for me. For the most part, I'm all for the trade that's going on with countries that aren't considered industrial megapowers (Korea, Peru, Colombia, Central America, etc.). It's just to me, the 3 biggest culprits of (time for the favorite word) screwing us the worse are China, Japan, and the EU (those countries aren't sovereign anymore, they're one big union). Mainly China. Historically researching China since who knows when, these guys are not our economic partners. These guys will do anything to be the #1 and theonly #1 in the world. And if that means getting money from us, then so be it. I only shy away from protectionism because I feel they're total isolationists. That's not the case for me. But in a way, you can say I am.
I understand about providing the boost for other nations, but again, that's where my "nitpicking" comes in because certain countries don't need or should not get the boost for a lot of reasons. Luckily, that's in the minority. At this rate though (almost a "might-as-well"), Americans in this age need to strive for better then, and make sure the careers they choose end up paying them above a certain amount. The potential problem here, is frankly, it's just I know not everyone, to be blunt, is smart enough to do the "high" level jobs. Most high-level jobs are engineering, medical field, law, etc. Be honest, most high-paying jobs require a lot of skills and intuitive knowledge. Often I hear stories of "I took the engineering route, I hated it, so I ended up as a _____." In a way, the "problem" we're facing today is that technology is growing. We might as well accept now that things are going to get more advanced as years go by, which is why math and science are highly emphasized now. And on the "desire" sector, everyone wants all these products that are being advertised. But only people that can afford it, get them, so people want higher paying jobs, and to get higher paying jobs, they need to strive higher. Now, who makes these products? Ask a lot of Americans in this day and age and they'll say "no way, I don't wanna slave away. Ain't gonna roll up my sleeves to compose chips or wash dishes for shit wages." But there are plenty that would. This is where the foreigners come in for the ones that don't want to. And then when the bosses hear about how a lot of them would do it for minimum wage, their eyes start to glow. Maybe even ship the jobs out so they stay there and not get in trouble. But don't get me wrong, there are other reasons why they ship jobs out - taxes being one of them. It's not all just to save a buck, but it is a reason. When I say repeatedly I see what you're saying, I see what you're saying. I understand about your beliefs for #2 but it's a hit or miss for me. It's taking chances to think countries will be liberalized through trade. China (again) is just taking advantage of this, that's all, to build their industrial and military strength. We keep talking Communist nations and we ignore (unintentional I'm sure) the Middle East. We trade with them and there is no liberalization there. Hell, we're helping them flourish and at the same time you got the select few that run the country (which is always the case) going a little too extreme with their book of law to deem us as bad. I say the few because before Ahmadinejad took over, Iran really was a very moderate country that was almost pro-American actually. Bottom line, we stop getting oil from them, and those countries will be third world nations.
We're viewed as heartless because you just said it. We typically tell people to suck it up. Conservatives and libertarians for the most part feel responsibility is the key to success. Liberals create this huge welfare state.....actually it goes like this. When a conservative is in power, a liberal will run a campaign like the conservative is destroying this country (that trickle down, yuck). And if the liberal wins, it's because the masses of poor will vote because as you know, they outnumber the "CEOs." Once the liberal is in power, they create this huge welfare state that relies on the government. Then come re-election time, they create all these ads' saying the country is good again thanks to big government (not in those words though, otherwise, kiss of death). Vote for us and we'll keep it going, where in reality the country is worse. Look at Detroit, New Orleans, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Boston, DC, Oakland, etc. So they vote for them again. Liberals will win if they do a good enough job showing some guy on the street that no one loves. Either all that said or some third party does a good job siphoning votes away from conservatives.
About immigration, I support it fully. It's just we need to do a better job showing the world that our borders are secure. You wanna become a citizen? Come to our country, speak/read/write English (my philosophy is if you do 2 out of the 3 for English, that's all that's needed), and we'll take it from there. It made me laugh a little that Florida shut down this one very popular Mexican restaurant in the conservative part of the state because its hosts, waiters, and cooks were all non-citizens. Once it opened again, the owner had a tough time hiring new people and everyone complained that it's just "not the same" anymore. It does make me laugh when everyone says they cause all the crimes, when you look at our prisons or people getting arrested and majority of them are our citizens. Simple fact is this, majority of immigrants come here because their previous life sucked (in their home country), that doesn't mean let the borders open, but allow the ones that come clean with no history to enter if they qualify. The risk we run here is there are people completely clean...that'll only convert to some operative once they come here. This still doesn't mean we should close our borders.
About Bush, he didn't really preach the big government side in 2000. That's why I got attracted to his message. The way he ran in 2000 made it look like we just might see a full conservative in the office for the first time in a long time, but I still had my reservations in my head. He was an outsider and I think he got caught up in Washington. He thought his bipartisan talk would solve things (that's why I laugh everytime Ross Perot made it sound like it's easy to work with the otherside). He did do just fine with justices, I'll give you that, but there are a whole lot of things that's better left unsaid (education, healthcare, environment, foreign affairs - again, depending on who you ask but I personally felt he did fine here on an overall scale, etc.).
Donald:
Frankly, I'm a little pessimistic about McCain. I'm only voting for him because I refuse Clinton and Obama. Obama's grotesque lack of knowledge is just plain unacceptable for the presidency. With McCain, we're gonna see more of the same while he was a Senator. Also expect Russ Feingold to be his Treasury Sec, Ted Kennedy to be his Education Sec, and Joe Lieberman to be his Defense Sec as well.
You ask about immigration, there actually are certain conservatives out there against immigration. I mean full immigration. There are some that are so pro-American that they want the borders shut down altogether, solve the immigration issues we're having now (i.e. ship them out), and keep the borders closed. I at least, again, support immigration, just not the way of swimming across a river.
Well, the level response probably comes from debating liberals foryears. My style is more of a respond back with a smirk or makefactually snide remarks to them and it always got under their skin. They have my full respect and it's not me that blows up and start thepersonal attacks. Dom kinda did the same thing with the smirks, so itwas almost like a see-saw between us, but I would always throw in alittle starter like "okay Dom, let's be factual for a second because you haven't been." The rest was typical because they would blow up a lot. DannyQ and all his friends (not much Danny, but those CS dudes that lived nearby), random people from NMT since I wrote to that dirtrag, I even had Dr Minschwaner (Physics) get into this debate with me. That was actually a little tough for me. How do I respond to someone that I may have to take a class from in the future? LOL. Francis wasn't bad but his gf-at-the-time was ultra liberal. I wouldn't say anything, do my homework, and she'd just come into the room and rat away on random topics and I'm like "keep your emotions low and we'll debate" without even looking at her. Of all people, Will would be the most sensible liberal I debated with. I was debating Jim Moore's roommate (I did not start it), he ended up throwing a phone at me. He was a staunch libertarian. But he was passionately anti-porn. How can you be anti-porn and be a libertarian? So that was an easy one vs. him. Then there was Nina (Jewish). I ended up meeting her dad who was extreme liberal and he found out my stances...
You remind me of Michael Savage in the sense that he too is stuck in a liberal area (Bay Area - it can't get worse than that in America...maybe Santa Fe) and every now and then when I end up driving home at 9PM (have grad class on certain nights), his show would be on and I'd listen every now and then. This guy is ready to kill someone with the amount of anger he displays over the radio. So my theory pans out in that passionate conservatives living in an area full of liberals that are in power (and that's the key - in mass and power) can lead to cynicism. Which is why I don't feel any of it in Alabama, yet I do when in California. There is one area that Savage I think is liberal on and that's environmentalism. I think I can push his buttons to the point where I'll end up on the obituary list.
About Pat Buchanan, before I label him as a conservative, he, Bill O'Reilly, and many others in his mold are really America First types. There have been several elections where this party (or American Independence or simply just American) ran and they're conservatives. But when it comes to issues of foreign policy (including immigration,trade, etc.) they're extreme isolationists, to the point that there probably is no dialogue with other nations, no less trade. I'm at least for trading for goodness sakes and we live in a global economy, whether Buchanan likes it or not. This isn't the 50s anymore Pat. Isolationism may have worked back then when xenophobia ran rampant (and still kinda does now).
For trade, bottom overall line, my biggest issue is mainly security. In all actuality, it's only a select few countries, sorry, governments, in the world that cause the issues for me. For the most part, I'm all for the trade that's going on with countries that aren't considered industrial megapowers (Korea, Peru, Colombia, Central America, etc.). It's just to me, the 3 biggest culprits of (time for the favorite word) screwing us the worse are China, Japan, and the EU (those countries aren't sovereign anymore, they're one big union). Mainly China. Historically researching China since who knows when, these guys are not our economic partners. These guys will do anything to be the #1 and theonly #1 in the world. And if that means getting money from us, then so be it. I only shy away from protectionism because I feel they're total isolationists. That's not the case for me. But in a way, you can say I am.
I understand about providing the boost for other nations, but again, that's where my "nitpicking" comes in because certain countries don't need or should not get the boost for a lot of reasons. Luckily, that's in the minority. At this rate though (almost a "might-as-well"), Americans in this age need to strive for better then, and make sure the careers they choose end up paying them above a certain amount. The potential problem here, is frankly, it's just I know not everyone, to be blunt, is smart enough to do the "high" level jobs. Most high-level jobs are engineering, medical field, law, etc. Be honest, most high-paying jobs require a lot of skills and intuitive knowledge. Often I hear stories of "I took the engineering route, I hated it, so I ended up as a _____." In a way, the "problem" we're facing today is that technology is growing. We might as well accept now that things are going to get more advanced as years go by, which is why math and science are highly emphasized now. And on the "desire" sector, everyone wants all these products that are being advertised. But only people that can afford it, get them, so people want higher paying jobs, and to get higher paying jobs, they need to strive higher. Now, who makes these products? Ask a lot of Americans in this day and age and they'll say "no way, I don't wanna slave away. Ain't gonna roll up my sleeves to compose chips or wash dishes for shit wages." But there are plenty that would. This is where the foreigners come in for the ones that don't want to. And then when the bosses hear about how a lot of them would do it for minimum wage, their eyes start to glow. Maybe even ship the jobs out so they stay there and not get in trouble. But don't get me wrong, there are other reasons why they ship jobs out - taxes being one of them. It's not all just to save a buck, but it is a reason. When I say repeatedly I see what you're saying, I see what you're saying. I understand about your beliefs for #2 but it's a hit or miss for me. It's taking chances to think countries will be liberalized through trade. China (again) is just taking advantage of this, that's all, to build their industrial and military strength. We keep talking Communist nations and we ignore (unintentional I'm sure) the Middle East. We trade with them and there is no liberalization there. Hell, we're helping them flourish and at the same time you got the select few that run the country (which is always the case) going a little too extreme with their book of law to deem us as bad. I say the few because before Ahmadinejad took over, Iran really was a very moderate country that was almost pro-American actually. Bottom line, we stop getting oil from them, and those countries will be third world nations.
We're viewed as heartless because you just said it. We typically tell people to suck it up. Conservatives and libertarians for the most part feel responsibility is the key to success. Liberals create this huge welfare state.....actually it goes like this. When a conservative is in power, a liberal will run a campaign like the conservative is destroying this country (that trickle down, yuck). And if the liberal wins, it's because the masses of poor will vote because as you know, they outnumber the "CEOs." Once the liberal is in power, they create this huge welfare state that relies on the government. Then come re-election time, they create all these ads' saying the country is good again thanks to big government (not in those words though, otherwise, kiss of death). Vote for us and we'll keep it going, where in reality the country is worse. Look at Detroit, New Orleans, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Boston, DC, Oakland, etc. So they vote for them again. Liberals will win if they do a good enough job showing some guy on the street that no one loves. Either all that said or some third party does a good job siphoning votes away from conservatives.
About immigration, I support it fully. It's just we need to do a better job showing the world that our borders are secure. You wanna become a citizen? Come to our country, speak/read/write English (my philosophy is if you do 2 out of the 3 for English, that's all that's needed), and we'll take it from there. It made me laugh a little that Florida shut down this one very popular Mexican restaurant in the conservative part of the state because its hosts, waiters, and cooks were all non-citizens. Once it opened again, the owner had a tough time hiring new people and everyone complained that it's just "not the same" anymore. It does make me laugh when everyone says they cause all the crimes, when you look at our prisons or people getting arrested and majority of them are our citizens. Simple fact is this, majority of immigrants come here because their previous life sucked (in their home country), that doesn't mean let the borders open, but allow the ones that come clean with no history to enter if they qualify. The risk we run here is there are people completely clean...that'll only convert to some operative once they come here. This still doesn't mean we should close our borders.
About Bush, he didn't really preach the big government side in 2000. That's why I got attracted to his message. The way he ran in 2000 made it look like we just might see a full conservative in the office for the first time in a long time, but I still had my reservations in my head. He was an outsider and I think he got caught up in Washington. He thought his bipartisan talk would solve things (that's why I laugh everytime Ross Perot made it sound like it's easy to work with the otherside). He did do just fine with justices, I'll give you that, but there are a whole lot of things that's better left unsaid (education, healthcare, environment, foreign affairs - again, depending on who you ask but I personally felt he did fine here on an overall scale, etc.).
Donald:
Frankly, I'm a little pessimistic about McCain. I'm only voting for him because I refuse Clinton and Obama. Obama's grotesque lack of knowledge is just plain unacceptable for the presidency. With McCain, we're gonna see more of the same while he was a Senator. Also expect Russ Feingold to be his Treasury Sec, Ted Kennedy to be his Education Sec, and Joe Lieberman to be his Defense Sec as well.
You ask about immigration, there actually are certain conservatives out there against immigration. I mean full immigration. There are some that are so pro-American that they want the borders shut down altogether, solve the immigration issues we're having now (i.e. ship them out), and keep the borders closed. I at least, again, support immigration, just not the way of swimming across a river.
Now this is what I was talking about
And I found it on a sports blog to boot.
For many, Barack Obama isn't really about just his politics, it's about the "Get out of racism free" card. It's sickening, actually - people treating him like he's some messianic figure. I especially love the "now I don't have to use the 'I have black friends' excuse anymore".
For many, Barack Obama isn't really about just his politics, it's about the "Get out of racism free" card. It's sickening, actually - people treating him like he's some messianic figure. I especially love the "now I don't have to use the 'I have black friends' excuse anymore".
Responses all around!
Carps,
I appreciate the level response, especially since my cynicism often boils over into my writing - like I said, it's a product of being stuck in this hellhole called "academia". Plus, I'm not usually the nicest writer anyway. I actually really enjoy discussing free trade, because it's an argument that we need to continue having on the conservative side. The US has actually historically been pretty protectionist when it comes to trade, so you have a lot of people on your side - don't be ashamed of the "protectionist" label, or disguise it with "sovereignty" (that sounds like Pat Buchanan, who is a conservative I've grown to despise). There are different degrees of protectionism, certainly, but I think your arguments place you firmly in that camp.
The arguments you raise, I think, are a couple - 1) free trade screws people and 2) free trade is dangerous for national security. There are many other arguments against free trade, but I believe these are the most common conservative arguments against them.
Many (modern) liberals believe in argument 1, and conservative opponents usually replace "people" with "Americans". I think that's what you mean, because it is obvious that lack of free trade would screw developing countries. In my toy example - if Coca Cola builds a factory in Guatemala in order to take advantage of cheaper labor there, they are "screwing" American factory workers out of jobs, but they are also providing a major boost to Guatemalans. (Incidentally, "fair trade"-ists would support the building of the factory, but also the regulation with respect to working conditions, wages, etc. -yay socialism!) Argument 2 is one that I may fall out of favor with more than a few on - I just believe that trade liberalization between all nations would lead to liberalization on many other levels. That includes Cuba, China, and other nations we see as dangers to national security. When you create interdependence, I think that reduces the likelihood of hostility.
But I want to know more about where you would stand with respect to free trade, and which argument against is more important to you (or if it's another one, then tell me). Do you favor NAFTA/CAFTA/free trade zones in our own hemisphere? Would you favor a free trade zone with close allies like our Anglospheric ones? Would it bother you less if you lost your job to an Aussie in Sydney instead of a "wog" in Bombay? If you didn't think free trade was enriching potential enemies like China, would you support it?
Personally, as I mentioned earlier, I don't understand the "you want to screw the American worker" position on free trade, when a liberal could use many of those same arguments (and indeed, does) when it comes to domestic policy. We conservatives are viewed as heartless jerks who could care less about Americans when we say "suck it up" to small business owners who can't compete with Wal-Mart. Replace Sprawl-Mart with "Wanliang Xu in Beijing" and suddenly it's time to start tut-tutting?
On immigration - you're right, amnesty might (and probably will) make things worse, unless we actually do something substantial with border security itself. It's still the most realistic thing to do, in my opinion, and I think it'd be hard to disagree there. Anyway, immigration is a subject that I tend to leave reason behind on sometimes, seeing how I'm the son of a naturalized citizen and my wife's grandmother was nearly deported half a century ago. That's why my compromise is to make special exceptions for Latin Americans in terms of legal immigration and just do what it takes to execute the law at the border itself. You can't just blindly reject anti-immigrant (not necessarily racist, there is a distinction) bias from the equation either - the US has a history of this deplorable bias with every major immigrant group - Irish, Germans, Italians, Chinese, eastern Europeans, and now Latin Americans.
I'd just like to add a little about Bush - yeah, he hasn't lived up to a lot, but in reality, we kinda got what we paid for. He never really shied away from his "big government conservatism" like I hoped he would. At least I got an excellent chief justice and a superb (Jersey born-and-bred) associate justice out of it. Not to mention outstanding justices like Janice Rogers Brown, Priscilla Owen, and William Pryor on the appellate courts. I can live with that. Like D says, we're probably forgoing some green chile on the McCain turd sandwich, but it's better than munching on pure liquid cowpie goodness that Obama or Clinton would give us.
I appreciate the level response, especially since my cynicism often boils over into my writing - like I said, it's a product of being stuck in this hellhole called "academia". Plus, I'm not usually the nicest writer anyway. I actually really enjoy discussing free trade, because it's an argument that we need to continue having on the conservative side. The US has actually historically been pretty protectionist when it comes to trade, so you have a lot of people on your side - don't be ashamed of the "protectionist" label, or disguise it with "sovereignty" (that sounds like Pat Buchanan, who is a conservative I've grown to despise). There are different degrees of protectionism, certainly, but I think your arguments place you firmly in that camp.
The arguments you raise, I think, are a couple - 1) free trade screws people and 2) free trade is dangerous for national security. There are many other arguments against free trade, but I believe these are the most common conservative arguments against them.
Many (modern) liberals believe in argument 1, and conservative opponents usually replace "people" with "Americans". I think that's what you mean, because it is obvious that lack of free trade would screw developing countries. In my toy example - if Coca Cola builds a factory in Guatemala in order to take advantage of cheaper labor there, they are "screwing" American factory workers out of jobs, but they are also providing a major boost to Guatemalans. (Incidentally, "fair trade"-ists would support the building of the factory, but also the regulation with respect to working conditions, wages, etc. -yay socialism!) Argument 2 is one that I may fall out of favor with more than a few on - I just believe that trade liberalization between all nations would lead to liberalization on many other levels. That includes Cuba, China, and other nations we see as dangers to national security. When you create interdependence, I think that reduces the likelihood of hostility.
But I want to know more about where you would stand with respect to free trade, and which argument against is more important to you (or if it's another one, then tell me). Do you favor NAFTA/CAFTA/free trade zones in our own hemisphere? Would you favor a free trade zone with close allies like our Anglospheric ones? Would it bother you less if you lost your job to an Aussie in Sydney instead of a "wog" in Bombay? If you didn't think free trade was enriching potential enemies like China, would you support it?
Personally, as I mentioned earlier, I don't understand the "you want to screw the American worker" position on free trade, when a liberal could use many of those same arguments (and indeed, does) when it comes to domestic policy. We conservatives are viewed as heartless jerks who could care less about Americans when we say "suck it up" to small business owners who can't compete with Wal-Mart. Replace Sprawl-Mart with "Wanliang Xu in Beijing" and suddenly it's time to start tut-tutting?
On immigration - you're right, amnesty might (and probably will) make things worse, unless we actually do something substantial with border security itself. It's still the most realistic thing to do, in my opinion, and I think it'd be hard to disagree there. Anyway, immigration is a subject that I tend to leave reason behind on sometimes, seeing how I'm the son of a naturalized citizen and my wife's grandmother was nearly deported half a century ago. That's why my compromise is to make special exceptions for Latin Americans in terms of legal immigration and just do what it takes to execute the law at the border itself. You can't just blindly reject anti-immigrant (not necessarily racist, there is a distinction) bias from the equation either - the US has a history of this deplorable bias with every major immigrant group - Irish, Germans, Italians, Chinese, eastern Europeans, and now Latin Americans.
I'd just like to add a little about Bush - yeah, he hasn't lived up to a lot, but in reality, we kinda got what we paid for. He never really shied away from his "big government conservatism" like I hoped he would. At least I got an excellent chief justice and a superb (Jersey born-and-bred) associate justice out of it. Not to mention outstanding justices like Janice Rogers Brown, Priscilla Owen, and William Pryor on the appellate courts. I can live with that. Like D says, we're probably forgoing some green chile on the McCain turd sandwich, but it's better than munching on pure liquid cowpie goodness that Obama or Clinton would give us.
Monday, February 11, 2008
rebuttal, however you spell it
Tim:
I'm not gonna respond to each one, but rather write all my responses here. I had this feeling I'd disagree with lots of conservatives concerning immigration and trade. The interesting aspect of these two issues (and I said this already) is that these two areas divide conservatives the most (maybe foreign affairs as well). I actually support immigration, but there are legal ways to get into this nation. The illegal activities only promote the world to do the same. I support it, just not illegally. As for trade, I do support the concept, but this is the one area I'm slowly in the middle if not fair. Since the early 90s, we've seen what free trade is doing, and there are plenty of conservatives now that are swaying away from free trade. It's protectionism to a degree (if it's full, I'd be saying buy American only, which is not what I'm saying, so that's why when you say protectionism, I keep going away from it), it's sovereignty.
All that said, I'm not proving you wrong when it comes to trade. It's not that I don't understand what you're saying, I fully believe what I say is correct as well as you. There is no hidden agenda with yours. Your policy basically screws people - and you're okay with it. So there. It's interesting that these workers, as I said already, really have little-to-no say in the workplace. To call them lazy is almost laughable. Not all of them are. So it's not like they can adjust. Well, they may. They can go back to college and get another degree or something to that affect. All trade should be seen closely initially and negotiated well in the beginning. And I gotcha with free trade from the very beginning, but I will not trade with a country that poses as a security threat to us. It's not just liberals that argue the "CEO, displacement of jobs" point. Plenty of the Republican or conservative debates out there show they take this side. We don't want total restriction, but there needs to be something to retain our sovereignty. Free trade is effective to a degree, but if (if) we get attacked by China anytime in the next few decades, this free trade allowed it. If there's outrage, unfortunately, I will bring this point up again. I know this may be a laughable situation, but it really isn't.
We see somewhat eye-to-eye as social conservatives. I do support the agenda, but it's bottom of my list compared to other aspects of conservatism. I already said in my early emails how I feel about social conservatives. A lot of them feel abortion and gay rights are the only issues out there. This is why I see a lot of conservatives supporting Huckabee blindly.
I understand your amnesty viewpoint, but it's deja vu. Reagan did the same thing and there were predictions millions more are gonna follow in the footsteps. What happened? Excatly, the 12 million today everyone's talking about. Amnesty will simply produce more people to just freely walk in, realizing they could.
I enjoy debating people that disagree with me 90% of the time, even if they use stupid reasonings (you spelt "is" wrong). I remembered the days debating Dom. I actually came close to being frustrated because, well, at least when you support free trade, you do present your facts. His case is just pure emotion (sorry). But I still enjoy "debating" liberals.
Donald:
I'm more than likely going to vote for McCain at this rate. Another Clinton and Obama just plain scare me. My family lost their job thanks to Bill in 1997 and apparently Bill felt we made enough money (HA) to pay near 40% of our income to the IRS. All for a surplus. Just 2 examples, but even if this didn't happen to us, I still disagreed with 70%+ of what he did. Yes, George W Bush isn't a disaster, but there are plenty of areas he didn't live up to his creed. And yes, most definitely the Democratic Congress didn't help any. This is why I said to myself during the Bush-Gore debates "noooo, no bipartisan talk, the liberals will gut you alive." They near did. The main areas he didn't live up to his preaching include health care. He endorsed billions more in health care funding. His views on the environment dramatically changed. It's a mix actually, but he still pandered. I already talked about immigration and trade, but that's up to debate. His spending....I won't even go there. It's debatable how it's justified. There are a few more issues. McCain is viewed as a conservative to many is because he is a lot of times. Of course, he's also liberal as well. I said this already, but he'll be a liberal one day of the week, then a few days later he's a conservative. You ask how he's a conservative, well, he's actually pretty pro-life, he's conservative on crime issues, guns, Social Security, education, taxes, and the armed forces/Iraq, and a few more. Other than that, he's a liberal.
About the war, I'm confident, except I'm fully aware he's against "torture," time will definitely tell, but for now, I think he'll carry through. Ask me again 4 years from now.
I'm not gonna respond to each one, but rather write all my responses here. I had this feeling I'd disagree with lots of conservatives concerning immigration and trade. The interesting aspect of these two issues (and I said this already) is that these two areas divide conservatives the most (maybe foreign affairs as well). I actually support immigration, but there are legal ways to get into this nation. The illegal activities only promote the world to do the same. I support it, just not illegally. As for trade, I do support the concept, but this is the one area I'm slowly in the middle if not fair. Since the early 90s, we've seen what free trade is doing, and there are plenty of conservatives now that are swaying away from free trade. It's protectionism to a degree (if it's full, I'd be saying buy American only, which is not what I'm saying, so that's why when you say protectionism, I keep going away from it), it's sovereignty.
All that said, I'm not proving you wrong when it comes to trade. It's not that I don't understand what you're saying, I fully believe what I say is correct as well as you. There is no hidden agenda with yours. Your policy basically screws people - and you're okay with it. So there. It's interesting that these workers, as I said already, really have little-to-no say in the workplace. To call them lazy is almost laughable. Not all of them are. So it's not like they can adjust. Well, they may. They can go back to college and get another degree or something to that affect. All trade should be seen closely initially and negotiated well in the beginning. And I gotcha with free trade from the very beginning, but I will not trade with a country that poses as a security threat to us. It's not just liberals that argue the "CEO, displacement of jobs" point. Plenty of the Republican or conservative debates out there show they take this side. We don't want total restriction, but there needs to be something to retain our sovereignty. Free trade is effective to a degree, but if (if) we get attacked by China anytime in the next few decades, this free trade allowed it. If there's outrage, unfortunately, I will bring this point up again. I know this may be a laughable situation, but it really isn't.
We see somewhat eye-to-eye as social conservatives. I do support the agenda, but it's bottom of my list compared to other aspects of conservatism. I already said in my early emails how I feel about social conservatives. A lot of them feel abortion and gay rights are the only issues out there. This is why I see a lot of conservatives supporting Huckabee blindly.
I understand your amnesty viewpoint, but it's deja vu. Reagan did the same thing and there were predictions millions more are gonna follow in the footsteps. What happened? Excatly, the 12 million today everyone's talking about. Amnesty will simply produce more people to just freely walk in, realizing they could.
I enjoy debating people that disagree with me 90% of the time, even if they use stupid reasonings (you spelt "is" wrong). I remembered the days debating Dom. I actually came close to being frustrated because, well, at least when you support free trade, you do present your facts. His case is just pure emotion (sorry). But I still enjoy "debating" liberals.
Donald:
I'm more than likely going to vote for McCain at this rate. Another Clinton and Obama just plain scare me. My family lost their job thanks to Bill in 1997 and apparently Bill felt we made enough money (HA) to pay near 40% of our income to the IRS. All for a surplus. Just 2 examples, but even if this didn't happen to us, I still disagreed with 70%+ of what he did. Yes, George W Bush isn't a disaster, but there are plenty of areas he didn't live up to his creed. And yes, most definitely the Democratic Congress didn't help any. This is why I said to myself during the Bush-Gore debates "noooo, no bipartisan talk, the liberals will gut you alive." They near did. The main areas he didn't live up to his preaching include health care. He endorsed billions more in health care funding. His views on the environment dramatically changed. It's a mix actually, but he still pandered. I already talked about immigration and trade, but that's up to debate. His spending....I won't even go there. It's debatable how it's justified. There are a few more issues. McCain is viewed as a conservative to many is because he is a lot of times. Of course, he's also liberal as well. I said this already, but he'll be a liberal one day of the week, then a few days later he's a conservative. You ask how he's a conservative, well, he's actually pretty pro-life, he's conservative on crime issues, guns, Social Security, education, taxes, and the armed forces/Iraq, and a few more. Other than that, he's a liberal.
About the war, I'm confident, except I'm fully aware he's against "torture," time will definitely tell, but for now, I think he'll carry through. Ask me again 4 years from now.
Oh yeah, read this
My bad, I guess Google is useful when you want to find a succinct statement of something you want to say without actually typing it. Here's a link to an article written by the NCPA defining classical liberalism.
To me, an anti-free trade and an anti-immigration (I know you guys probably aren't anti-immigration, but some conservatives are) stance is not consistent with classical liberalism. Thatisall.
To me, an anti-free trade and an anti-immigration (I know you guys probably aren't anti-immigration, but some conservatives are) stance is not consistent with classical liberalism. Thatisall.
My politics, and stuff we may disagree on as conservatives
(Good thing I'm running a few long term experiments and the annoying as hell undergrads are out of my hair for today, and I can actually think and write about this stuff. Sorry for being so acerbic lately, but it comes with the bitterness of being surrounded by obnoxious douchebag libruls all freakin day. My apologies.)
So, with the conservative movement looking a little fractured nationwide (and also in our little microcosm of a group) - I thought I'd lay out my worldview so you can see how well yours matches up. I'm particularly interested in points where we will likely disagree, so I'll focus on those the most.
When I read all the books about conservatism and the history of the conservative movement, I found out about a whole lot of groups and worldviews that all lumped themselves under this label in order to form a coherent national movement and win elections. They've all got their respective labels (paleocons, neocons, etc) but I think the major unifier was the Cold War. I think the watershed moment of conservatism was RR's election and the defeat of communism - after that, we started to see some of the coalition beginning to fracture.
Anyway, of these worldviews, the one that resonated with me the most was termed "classical liberalism". This worldview is, to me, the most "true" to the Founders' intent, as they built the Constitution based upon principles laid out by some of the great 'classical liberal' thinkers of their time like Smith and Paine. Hayek is probably the first to revive it in the modern world, although all the Austrian school were vocal supporters. I could write for days about this worldview, but in a nutshell it is this: individual liberty and free markets.
Individual liberty and free markets - simple and to the point. The 'free markets' part is really just an extension of individual liberty, if you ask me. Whatever the case, first and foremost to me is the importance of the Constitution, because I believe it to be a document constructed with this worldview in mind. To me, the problem of the past 100 years has been a lack of respect for the Constitution, especially from the folks whose role it is to interpret it - the courts. Since dictator-for-life FDR's reign, we've had these guys running roughshod all over the Constitution to promote what they believe is right. The damn thing has a mechanism for change built into it, but sometimes democracy can be a bitch, eh?
For this reason, I had my issues ranked the way I did. 1) Justices, 2) War (there isn't a bigger outside threat to our liberty than this), and 3) free markets.
So, where do I think I would fall in disagreement with many conservatives? Let's see - one big area would probably be social conservatism. I just don't place the weight on it that others do. I think banning gay marriage would be a good thing, but only in the state I live in. I'd rather a couple queens up in Vermont be able to get "married" than have an unconstitutional law. I'm a NIMBY conservative when it comes to social issues, which dovetails nicely with my stance on the Constitution. Doesn't really place me at odds with other conservatives on principles, just on methods, so it probably isn't a big point of difference.
The big areas of disagreement I see would be immigration and trade. I'm a free-trade advocate. That means free trade with anybody and everybody. I can see only benefits from the free exchange of goods and services. If you believe that something is good enough to have domestically, then it should be good enough to apply internationally. If Johnny American is better at making widgets and Joon-Bok-Thai is better at making whatchamacallits, then it behooves you to allow the free exchange of those to benefit both parties. The latest arguments that have been raised against it - displacement for American workers, CEOs "getting rich" while we "slave away".......those are all arguments that are used by modern liberals to support their anti-business policies domestically. Using them to support an argument against free trade on the international level is a little inconsistent, if you ask me.
When it comes to immigration, I'm a whole lot more "open borders" than most conservatives, primarily because of what I believe on free trade. I was pretty laissez-faire on the border, even pre-9/11, because I think that one of the big problems we have is Mexicans "do the jobs we won't do" because we make it difficult for Americans to do those jobs (minimum wage laws, taxes). Anything that could help move people in the direction of removing barriers to business is a good thing, in my opinion. After 9/11, though, it's obviously different. My compromise is to really loosen up legal immigration (particularly for the Latin Americans) and beef up security on the border - both borders, actually. A little weak, because that's what I should have been saying before, but whatever - there are some things regarding what we should do now (like amnesty) that I probably disagree with conservatives on. At least I'm on the side of many conservatives now regarding the border, so that's not really an argument. However, I suspect a prime reason for anti-immigrant sentiment isn't just the "law-and-order" aspect of it. There is a certain fear of different cultures and languages and the lack of assimilation, and it exists all the way up here in New Jersey, unfortunately. Yeah, it's the same fear that led to anti-immigrant sentiment towards the Irish, Italians, Chinese, and eastern Europeans. Look, those guys turned out all right, and so will the Latin Americans.
Well, I've said my piece for now. Enjoy!
So, with the conservative movement looking a little fractured nationwide (and also in our little microcosm of a group) - I thought I'd lay out my worldview so you can see how well yours matches up. I'm particularly interested in points where we will likely disagree, so I'll focus on those the most.
When I read all the books about conservatism and the history of the conservative movement, I found out about a whole lot of groups and worldviews that all lumped themselves under this label in order to form a coherent national movement and win elections. They've all got their respective labels (paleocons, neocons, etc) but I think the major unifier was the Cold War. I think the watershed moment of conservatism was RR's election and the defeat of communism - after that, we started to see some of the coalition beginning to fracture.
Anyway, of these worldviews, the one that resonated with me the most was termed "classical liberalism". This worldview is, to me, the most "true" to the Founders' intent, as they built the Constitution based upon principles laid out by some of the great 'classical liberal' thinkers of their time like Smith and Paine. Hayek is probably the first to revive it in the modern world, although all the Austrian school were vocal supporters. I could write for days about this worldview, but in a nutshell it is this: individual liberty and free markets.
Individual liberty and free markets - simple and to the point. The 'free markets' part is really just an extension of individual liberty, if you ask me. Whatever the case, first and foremost to me is the importance of the Constitution, because I believe it to be a document constructed with this worldview in mind. To me, the problem of the past 100 years has been a lack of respect for the Constitution, especially from the folks whose role it is to interpret it - the courts. Since dictator-for-life FDR's reign, we've had these guys running roughshod all over the Constitution to promote what they believe is right. The damn thing has a mechanism for change built into it, but sometimes democracy can be a bitch, eh?
For this reason, I had my issues ranked the way I did. 1) Justices, 2) War (there isn't a bigger outside threat to our liberty than this), and 3) free markets.
So, where do I think I would fall in disagreement with many conservatives? Let's see - one big area would probably be social conservatism. I just don't place the weight on it that others do. I think banning gay marriage would be a good thing, but only in the state I live in. I'd rather a couple queens up in Vermont be able to get "married" than have an unconstitutional law. I'm a NIMBY conservative when it comes to social issues, which dovetails nicely with my stance on the Constitution. Doesn't really place me at odds with other conservatives on principles, just on methods, so it probably isn't a big point of difference.
The big areas of disagreement I see would be immigration and trade. I'm a free-trade advocate. That means free trade with anybody and everybody. I can see only benefits from the free exchange of goods and services. If you believe that something is good enough to have domestically, then it should be good enough to apply internationally. If Johnny American is better at making widgets and Joon-Bok-Thai is better at making whatchamacallits, then it behooves you to allow the free exchange of those to benefit both parties. The latest arguments that have been raised against it - displacement for American workers, CEOs "getting rich" while we "slave away".......those are all arguments that are used by modern liberals to support their anti-business policies domestically. Using them to support an argument against free trade on the international level is a little inconsistent, if you ask me.
When it comes to immigration, I'm a whole lot more "open borders" than most conservatives, primarily because of what I believe on free trade. I was pretty laissez-faire on the border, even pre-9/11, because I think that one of the big problems we have is Mexicans "do the jobs we won't do" because we make it difficult for Americans to do those jobs (minimum wage laws, taxes). Anything that could help move people in the direction of removing barriers to business is a good thing, in my opinion. After 9/11, though, it's obviously different. My compromise is to really loosen up legal immigration (particularly for the Latin Americans) and beef up security on the border - both borders, actually. A little weak, because that's what I should have been saying before, but whatever - there are some things regarding what we should do now (like amnesty) that I probably disagree with conservatives on. At least I'm on the side of many conservatives now regarding the border, so that's not really an argument. However, I suspect a prime reason for anti-immigrant sentiment isn't just the "law-and-order" aspect of it. There is a certain fear of different cultures and languages and the lack of assimilation, and it exists all the way up here in New Jersey, unfortunately. Yeah, it's the same fear that led to anti-immigrant sentiment towards the Irish, Italians, Chinese, and eastern Europeans. Look, those guys turned out all right, and so will the Latin Americans.
Well, I've said my piece for now. Enjoy!
Sunday, February 10, 2008
in response...
Muz:
Yes, McCain is more than likely going to follow Bush Sr’s footsteps in judges but I really wouldn’t sweat it because I don’t think we’ll be choosing a judge in the next 4 years. I’m also predicting we’ll be heavily “involved” with Iran during McCain’s tenure if he gets it.
Donald:
I respect your opinion, but I’m gonna throw my vote to McCain (or even Huckabee vs Clinton/Obama) for the simple reason that I will not suffer through another 4 years of a Clinton. The assumption (again, assumption) that we’ll see this theory of fired-up conservatives with Clinton in the White House come 2010/2012 is just that – an assumption. I’m not willing to take another chance. Sure, we saw it in 1994, but we saw Clinton again in 1996. McCain is not my ideal candidate (I haven’t had an ideal presidential candidate since I could vote), but I’m not willing to put a Clinton or Obama even more. He’s really not reaching out to conservatives, rather he’s seeking liberals and “independents” – problem is he’s alienating the conservative field which frankly is the biggest field out there. Bush Jr tried it since 2000, and I will say this again: bipartisanship does not work. Follow in the T Roosevelt/Reagan footsteps! Anyways, we did survive 8 years of Clinton, but if you think my emails are long now, I could write a book about how Clinton near-destroyed this nation in 8 years. Not as bad as Carter or LBJ, but nonetheless.
Tim:
I did say I agreed with you about voting McCain. We are in agreement here. But, the topic about free trade…call it protectionism, but essentially free trade you’re supporting is all the facts I’ve described in the past emails. Since you freely support this, then let the country continue to slide. I know, it’s tough cookies to be the CEO that’s willing to shelve quality just to increase his salary. It’s not as easy as you say with your recommendations previously. We simpletons can’t just simply “adjust.” Yes, I can freely choose to not buy, you’re right…but tell all this to the CFR that’ll sink this country for the essence of “free trade.” You’re asking how are we getting screwed? I already answered that, or maybe I just type too much. But anyways, okay, we’ll adjust. We’ll work for a dollar an hour and ship out crap products for the most part. That way we can compete with our competitors. In the meantime while making a dollar an hour, I’ll live like crap to compensate for free trade’s happiness.
Yes, McCain is more than likely going to follow Bush Sr’s footsteps in judges but I really wouldn’t sweat it because I don’t think we’ll be choosing a judge in the next 4 years. I’m also predicting we’ll be heavily “involved” with Iran during McCain’s tenure if he gets it.
Donald:
I respect your opinion, but I’m gonna throw my vote to McCain (or even Huckabee vs Clinton/Obama) for the simple reason that I will not suffer through another 4 years of a Clinton. The assumption (again, assumption) that we’ll see this theory of fired-up conservatives with Clinton in the White House come 2010/2012 is just that – an assumption. I’m not willing to take another chance. Sure, we saw it in 1994, but we saw Clinton again in 1996. McCain is not my ideal candidate (I haven’t had an ideal presidential candidate since I could vote), but I’m not willing to put a Clinton or Obama even more. He’s really not reaching out to conservatives, rather he’s seeking liberals and “independents” – problem is he’s alienating the conservative field which frankly is the biggest field out there. Bush Jr tried it since 2000, and I will say this again: bipartisanship does not work. Follow in the T Roosevelt/Reagan footsteps! Anyways, we did survive 8 years of Clinton, but if you think my emails are long now, I could write a book about how Clinton near-destroyed this nation in 8 years. Not as bad as Carter or LBJ, but nonetheless.
Tim:
I did say I agreed with you about voting McCain. We are in agreement here. But, the topic about free trade…call it protectionism, but essentially free trade you’re supporting is all the facts I’ve described in the past emails. Since you freely support this, then let the country continue to slide. I know, it’s tough cookies to be the CEO that’s willing to shelve quality just to increase his salary. It’s not as easy as you say with your recommendations previously. We simpletons can’t just simply “adjust.” Yes, I can freely choose to not buy, you’re right…but tell all this to the CFR that’ll sink this country for the essence of “free trade.” You’re asking how are we getting screwed? I already answered that, or maybe I just type too much. But anyways, okay, we’ll adjust. We’ll work for a dollar an hour and ship out crap products for the most part. That way we can compete with our competitors. In the meantime while making a dollar an hour, I’ll live like crap to compensate for free trade’s happiness.
Wednesday, February 06, 2008
What Say You
So, it's been awhile. I haven't paid much attention to politics ever since that satisfying 2004 win (imagine being in a room full of Ivy League grad school liberal pricks and watching state after state fall to Bush......ahhh, memories). However, election cycle is really heating up, what with the primaries yesterday and all, so I figured I'd get my piece in to lay out my voting rationale.
I have 3 issues that I care deeply about. I will vote for the candidate who will best further these issues in the direction I want - Democrat, Republican, Green, whatever. The likelihood of a Democrap doing this is almost nil, so of course I will likely choose a Republican. I'm a realist too - so I won't pull one of those wuss moves like voting for a turd party candidate with no realistic shot at winning.
Anyway, here are the issues:
We'll see how things turn out. For now, let me tell you, it's disgusting to see the way these east coast liberals are all slobbering over Obama. He's like their pet black mascot so that they can all pretend they're not racist.
I have 3 issues that I care deeply about. I will vote for the candidate who will best further these issues in the direction I want - Democrat, Republican, Green, whatever. The likelihood of a Democrap doing this is almost nil, so of course I will likely choose a Republican. I'm a realist too - so I won't pull one of those wuss moves like voting for a turd party candidate with no realistic shot at winning.
Anyway, here are the issues:
- Judges - I care about this more deeply than anything else. Judges have been legislators for nigh on 80 years now, and the unelected, appointed-for-life dictators were never intended to have the power to write new law. I have my issues with Bush, but his appointments of John Roberts as Chief and Samuel Alito were both the greatest things he has done in his term, meaning I give him an upper passing grade.
- GWOT - Yeah, many have fallen by the wayside with the civilizing "project" looking to be a bust in Iraq, but remember - that was a secondary goal. The primary goal of the GWOT was to bring the war to their shores, not to ours, and it's been a success in that regard. So I fully support expansion of the war on terror. Pull out of Iraq when they have a little bit more stability and head on into the next project - Iran, Pakistan, whatever.
- Taxes and Spending, Free Trade - all economic type issues. Many may support one of these while opposing one of the others, in words or deeds. Personally, as y'all know, I think we oughta cut taxes and cut spending, just like any other small government conservative. When it comes to free trade, I believe in it - one of the only reasons I think Bill Clinton wasn't actually the worst president ever was because of his staunch support of free trade. The more free trade the better. End the Cuban embargo, form a free trade zone with our other Anglosphere allies, and continue to expand free trade agreements in our hemisphere.
We'll see how things turn out. For now, let me tell you, it's disgusting to see the way these east coast liberals are all slobbering over Obama. He's like their pet black mascot so that they can all pretend they're not racist.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)