Posted on 02/15/2006 10:42:45 AM PST by SirLinksalot
That really is the choice --simple as that. I'm becoming more and more convinced that the deep inside these Pat-People actually choose to avoid the success they fear, and to hate the rest of us who are successful.
There's another thread going on right now (Republicans happier than rivals) that's considering this very question. It's all about how happy conservatives are and how unhappy the big government types are. Sure seems that the most unhappy people around are the ones that want a government big enough to raise our taxes to pamper union bosses for life.
Isn't the intent of this forum and these threads to discuss political opinion? When a subject is introduced and examined by an author who is political in nature and who does it for political sport, aren't we obliged to discuss its political intent as well?
Although I have stuck to the subject matter in my replies I nevertheless realize that economics is difficult to understand for many on these threads, and the comments, political and otherwise, do not disprove that fact.
1999 would work, too. Or 1975. Just not 1650.
A trade deficit, by itself, means nothing.
It's like an elevated heartbeat. Could be bad. Or you could be jogging.
I believe this miscopetion is a caused by failure to require calculus to graduate high school.
It's based on static, zero-sum, thinking. Essentially, they assume there is a finite of wealth to go around.
This was last true in mercantile Holland when countries hoarded gold.
I believe the concept eludes the same type of people who can't get their mind around the (similiar) concept that lowering taxes increases can increase tax revenue by increasing the size of the pie, albeit it is a disease of non-mathematical minds on the right, as opposed to the limited minds of the left.
To grossly oversimplify (and make static for explaination), if the US economy imports 250 to expand its economy from 500 to 1000, it's up a net 250.
We import to expand more, in other words.
The floating dollar is the natural fix to this --- if we over-import the dollar devalues, so we export more and import less.
Pat is, well, limited, in his mental capacity apparently, or simply does not want to understand.
Yup, thats how it works, I take some of the profit I made on Real estate, and some gets invested elsewhere some gets used to make purchases that would not have been made other wise to grow the economy {economics 101}hope it's not too confusing for some on this thread.
Isn't the intent of this forum and these threads to discuss political opinion? When a subject is introduced and examined by an author who is political in nature and who does it for political sport, aren't we obliged to discuss its political intent as well?
Although I have stuck to the subject matter in my replies I nevertheless realize that economics is difficult to understand for many on these threads, and the comments, political and otherwise, do not disprove that fact.
Interesting how this thread proves the other.
That was the intent, just as Congress has mislabeled several other laws as "civil rights" or "tax reform" which are not really what they purport to be.
We can have free trade any time we want it without negotiating treaties or "agreements" that skirt the Constitution's ratification process. Just drop restrictive tariffs and trade embargoes. My son could go for a good Cuban cigar (I don't smoke, but I do care).
As far as "internationalist-libertarian" wet dreams go, perhaps you've forgotten that both the Cato Institute and the Libertarian Party were fully in support of NAFTA.
We either have a government that believes its citizens should be empowered to buy and sell freely or we don't.
The nature of bipartisan "agreements" on trade over the last decade indicate strongly that we don't.
If the economy is humming along, why is there no money for our infrastructure?
Because the government wastes our money on stupid crap that they shouldn’t be involved in.
I have no idea what this remotely has to do with our trade deficit though, beyond validating my point that the government is a piss poor economic planner and should do less of it.
The Buchananites cannot seem to tackle this inarguable point, so they throw out irrelevancies like how some people in Texas want to finance construction of a road.
I'm afraid your a tad clueless, the Infastructure I refer to in my area would include, just about every major thoughfare being improved, and the huge amount of NEW construction in the Pasco/Hernando/Citrus county I 75, and Suncoast parkway corridors.
Huh? Maybe because they are spending it on other stuff. Are you claiming that Texas is lying about how much it is collecting in taxes?
I think it is more respectful to readers to stick to the topic of the post and not hijack for other agendas. Other topics can be introduced at will for separate discussion.
Of course he is against trade.
Trade necessitates giving credit.
Credit involves "money lenders"
"Money lenders" = Jooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooos
It's also RESPECTFUL of readers to reveal when an author has a political agenda underlying what they're writing...it all goes to the integrity of his current writing.
Exactly! Truly amazing.
Yep...and don't publish cartoons that offend his Muslim friends.
Sure, Pat, we'll just put up a big wall, keep everyone out and keep the American's locked in tight ...
I agree that we don't have true Free Trade. Aside from Cuban cigars, which are a corner case, the NAFTA treaty was 2000 pages long with all sorts of rules for everything. I tried to bring a few cases of Tecate back from a short trip to Ensenada, Mexico and was told the "limit" was six cans per adult.
Imagine that. Post Free-trade agreemnet and GM can move an entire factory to Mexico but a US citizen can't bring back a case of beer.
The full on Free Trade fundamentalists often also support unlimited immigration and other extremely idealistic positions. Because we have little experience, and none in modern times, of what these super-libertarian systems would be like in practice it's hard to judge what the results would be.
Like it or not governments are a big part of the world. I guess I don't think our can unilaterally surrender while others view economics as war.
So your point is that instead of doing the things and making the products they're good at, countries should do the things and make the products that they're bad at?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.