Posted on 08/19/2003 10:51:25 AM PDT by MonroeDNA
Edited on 07/12/2004 4:06:58 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
I personally am an advocate for low, uniform tarrifs.
And further, I don't need to "admit" things as if they were something to be ashamed of. The Cato Institute is a public policy think tank and one of ther most respected in the world. I have never heard a single responsible knowledgeable person accuse them of using cooked statistics. Even the liberals haven't done that.
They don't need to mislead, they put all their cards on the table and try to convince people to advance civil society instead of government intervention. People agree or not.
I'm glad you finally figured that out. BTW, what you believe is irrelevant as well. As is what anyone believes. Address what was said and you will finally be able to address matters in an adult manner.
I was eeking common ground not asking for an admission of any culpabilty of anything.
They don't need to mislead, they put all their cards on the table and try to convince people to advance civil society instead of government intervention. People agree or not.
Now I think it is clear to anyone who visits their web site the do try to mislead and they do not put all their cards on the table. I in other words think your opinion not clearly labeled as such is unsupported by a a visit to their web site.
Now you favor low uniform tariffs. I presume you have a reason. Can you show how low uniform tariffs provide a quantifiable net benefit or is based upon your person philosphical beliefes . If the later I will forego further discussion of the quantifiable arguments. If the former I will ask for some hard numbers that support a net benefit from that policy. At least one case looking at both sides of the issue would be sufficient to continue a rational discussion. If the latter then I would suggest that your personal philosophical beliefs have little relationship to formulating sound public policy unless you can show how they do.
Like I said, no reputable, knowledgeable respected person has ever accused them of using false numbers. Your charge is not backed by anything except your personal opinion. If you want to cite the articles listed there and dispute the footnotes let me know. Until then your opinions are irrelevant to me.
If the latter then I would suggest that your personal philosophical beliefs have little relationship to formulating sound public policy unless you can show how they do.
And now you are getting personal again. It gets you in trouble everytime. Try not asking personal questions and just stick to the facts and you will be more adult in your approach. Further, freedom is good public policy.
I think tarrifs are taxes and should never be used to bully some people to benefit other people for political power. I don't get caught in the trap of debating the details of policies with which I disagree.
It's like saying that if the question is theft you don't want to talk about the morality of it, only the question of who benefits from the plunder.
NO person associated with teh Cato institute has ever accused tehm of using false numbers and if you define anyone who opposes their use of numbers as not being reputable, knowledegable then your charge is true. They used unreferenced numbers that are not verifiable by reasy means in support of questionable claims. This fact alone indicts them we have multiiple examples on many threads.
Clearly I advise anyone to go to teh Cato Institutes web site and see if you can find any fair treatment of opposing viewpoints see if all their numbers are sourced. The presumption is an unsoyrced number is false unless easily verifiable from public sources. Cato uses unsourced numbers taht are not easily verifiable from public sources. They have republished a study of teh Steel tariffs that does a regression analysis of only the cost side of the equation as a complete evaluation aof the Steel tariffs.
I think tarrifs are taxes and should never be used to bully some people to benefit other people for political power.
If we were limiting the "bullying" to just people in teh USA I would agree philosophically but when we are talking overall benefit of the USA then I strongly disagree. If I were just advocating tariffs on the basis of my personal philosophical or religous beliefs then I would be subject to teh same dismissal for the same reason.
I don't get caught in the trap of debating the details of policies with which I disagree. Clearly your right to refuse. And we are free to make any inference we wish from that refusal.
First of all, you are stuttering again. It must be a blood pressure thing. Unreadable posts make no points.
Second, all their numbers are all footnoted on their policy papers. If you don't have copies you can obtain them. If that's not easy enough for you, oh well. It doesn't mean they are lying, it means you are lazy.
Clearly I advise anyone to go to teh Cato Institutes web site and see if you can find any fair treatment of opposing viewpoints
It's not a debating society, they have no responsibility to present opposing viewpoints. You clearly have a skewed view of what a think tank does.
If we were limiting the "bullying" to just people in teh USA I would agree philosophically but when we are talking overall benefit of the USA then I strongly disagree.
So it's ok to bully anyone other than US citizens. Or even them if the "overall benefit" is to the USA? (in your opinion)
And we are free to make any inference we wish from that refusal.
WE? You have a frog in your pocket?
Ah, the first shot in a brand new flame war. Here we go again. I guess the mods will be called again as soon as you get your A-- kicked again. Maybe you can give them a heads up now that you will soon be whining for posts to be removed. That way they can be ready with the delete button.
If what everyone believes is irrelevant then why do you bother to post or respond?
I am not being juvenile. I don't think you are either. I have beliefs based on what I have experienced in life. How my experiences shape my beliefs in economics, despite what the "economists" say are relevant to me.
Should you choose to consider yourself irrelevant you are welcome to it. I hope someday that you find yourself relevant, at least to those around you who care for you. One who believes that everyone is irrelevant cannot have faith in their fellow man. Is that you? I doubt it. Learn to respect others and their opinions and you will find yours respected in return. Unless, of course, you don't care.
Learn to respect others and their opinions and you will find yours respected in return. Unless, of course, you don't care.
So you are saying if I give your beliefs respect even if I don't respect them you will respect mine? LOL
And no, I don't care what anyone on this forum thinks of me personally. The debate centers on what someone says, not on who they are. Dispute their points if you disagree with them and leave the personal BS out of it if you want respect.
Their scholarship is often on par with Belleslies(sp) on the gun debate.
It's not a debating society, they have no responsibility to present opposing viewpoints. You clearly have a skewed view of what a think tank does.
All I said in the first place is Cato institute is clearly advocating the anti-tariff position and as part of that advocacy presents skkewed data and unreliable numbers.
So it's ok to bully anyone other than US citizens. Or even them if the "overall benefit" is to the USA? (in your opinion)
The purpose of the US government is to protect americans and if that means "bullying" your term foreign governments so be it. It is not only okay it is the duty of the US government. IMHO and in teh opinion of most who support our government. Clearly that was the intent of teh Constitution as stated in the preamble.
Now as to being free to make any refernce we wish from that refusal since when in the USA does anyone have any right not to draw any inference they wish from a refusal to debate an issue? We meaning myself and anyone els ewho reads the post you wrote.
Ah, the first shot in a brand new flame war. Here we go again. I guess the mods will be called again as soon as you get your A-- kicked again. Maybe you can give them a heads up now that you will soon be whining for posts to be removed. That way they can be ready with the delete button.
Please tell me what flame is implied. Your inference of a flame is your business. But that is not evidence of a flame. I wa spolite. I did not state a number of obvious inferences from a refusal to debate the details of a policy you disagree with.
Some reasonable inferences are:
You know you can not prevail. You do not have the time to devote to such a debate You do not wish to debate because you realize your beliefs may be shaken You do not feel you can control your temper in such a debate. Other perhaps less charitable inferences may also be freely drawn since I do not wish to start a flame war I will not state them.
Do you honestly think you have a right to determine what inferences people draw from your words. You control what you imply.
Now as to my typing errors that make it through to my posts since my business is using to much of my machine's memory for business tasks I am forced to forego word processor support most of teh time I posting while working. My apologies for that.
However I expect you to show where precisely I am starting a flame war. Since I have decided I will not start flaming any poster no matter how outragous teh flames they post. I made that decision last night.
Now as to your charcateization of our flame war I will state I do not admit starting it do not admit you were any kind I winner but will state that I did issue an apology to you to try and end it and keep the discussion issue ortiented.
Here is a link to the Cato institute's web site CATO please show where the footnote is on the economic article linked on the Front page for the following quote American companies invest less than $2 billion a year in China, and far less in India
I reiterate all their numbers are all footnoted on their policy papaers. Here we have a link from their homepage which contains no footnotes. Now I further note there is no distinction made about policy papers on theiur home page. Yes I have been in their refernce area and some of that data is good schalarship but the problem is when good schalarship that happens to support an agenda is included with some unrefernced works and some of that schlorship when one traces down the footnmates leads to an unreferenced work. I have presented a link that makes a claim on numbers that contains no refernce from the Cato institute website. i will clearly state not all teh scholarship presented on their wevbsite is bad. Clearly they have some good schalarship that is totally supportive of their stand but that does not imply that because a number comes from teh Cato institute taht it should be trusted.
The best way to do that is to never ask any personal questions and never refer to someone personally.
But here is a more important question; if their numbers were correct, would opponents change their mind about all this? I think we both know the answer to that.
Which is why some take the easy way, attack the veracity of the numbers. Because if the numbers are correct, they have a philosophical problem with their postiton.
I have often stated that I would change my mind about tariffs whenever anyone can provide a fully documented valid multiple regression analysis for at least one tariff that shows that that tariff was in net bad for the USA I would concede that at least that has been shown that in one case said tariff had cause harm. I would then try to discuss a the differnces between that case and other cases that show a net benefit from tariffs. To see if we could determine which analysis was of the fluke. If I could be shown multiple cases of tariffs being harmful I would of course hbe forced to adapt my views that tariffs were harmful to the USA.
Now in the absence of having anyone present such evidence and since I have in the past posted a multiple regression analysis that shows one case of a lack of traiffs resulting in net harm to the USA.
I ask you "would you revise your position on seeing such evidence." If so why have you not followed the link provide to everyone on other threads and now here. Link One case for your consideration. One case does not make a generalization granted but it is one start at determining the nature of tariffs.
Goody
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.