Page 26 of 27 < 1 2 ... 24 25 26 27 >
Topic Options
#525468 - 11/17/03 01:05 PM Re: Nutty laws in Vermont....?
Dean R Milburn Offline
Member

Registered: 07/06/99
Posts: 2043
Loc: Indianapolis
Quote:
Originally posted by Samuel Catalino:


1. That is true, but after that event, there is no mention of property dividing or the practice being continued, which is why I reject your view that the early church was a communal by the definition you cited and further readings about the early church in the Bible does not support that.
2. I do not. I believe it is a very short span of time and see nothing that goes contrary to that conclusion.
3. I also disagree, I believe it may have been the first act of the early church and did not last but for a short period of time. Nor are there any places in the New Testament that continue this practice beyond those two days in question.
4. I see that it is a warning not to lie or deceive the Holy Spirit, that is what it looks like to me. To think anything else could mean to infer something that is not there or to place your own meaning there. The transgression mentioned there was "deceiving the Holy Spirit", not a failure of sharing the proceeds of the property.


We're just going to have to disagree on this one.

Top
#525469 - 11/17/03 07:54 PM Re: Nutty laws in Vermont....?
Samuel Catalino Offline
Member

Registered: 04/04/99
Posts: 4447
Dean, before I get around to answering all of your responses, I found something of great interest to me taking place in your state with reguard to what we have been discussing.

http://www.computerworld.com/careertopic...l?SKC=news87183

Care to comment?
_________________________
"If we lose a hundred troops a week, then Dean will be our next Prez." Jack V, avid Dean supporter with no concern for the troops.

Top
#525470 - 11/18/03 12:19 AM Re: Nutty laws in Vermont....?
Samuel Catalino Offline
Member

Registered: 04/04/99
Posts: 4447
Quote:
Originally posted by Dean R Milburn:
A couple of issues.

1. If the meaning of moral (as both a noun and an adjective) has been consistent since the middle ages, it has consitently had to do with isssues of right vs. wrong. Given a position that morals are subjective, then they could indeed be considered to be customs, but not all customs rise to the level of morals. For example, it is customary in the United States to put ketchup on french fries. This is a custom with no moral content as it isn't right or wrong to put ketchup on french fries.

2. I think this is an example where we have two words from the same root, mores and morals, that no longer mean the same thing. Happens all the time as language evolves. A driver can be both a golf club and a chaffeur.

It sounds more like customs to me. Which is where we get the word mores.

Quote:
Originally posted by Dean R Milburn:
Provided that the one who is suffering more is a US citizen.


Well, if you prefer that the US citizen should suffer more, that is your opinion.

Quote:
Originally posted by Dean R Milburn:
I know you said patriotism. I want to get at what that means exactly. Can you provide an underlying statement of what it means to you? And why my policy is unpatriotic?

I addressed GHWBush's use of New World Order above, let me know if there are any additional points from Bush that need addressed. We may just disagree with what Bush meant by the term.


It means what it says.

As I have said, I do not favor globalism or New World Order or anything like that.


Quote:
Originally posted by Dean R Milburn:
Wrong again. If you raise the price of my SAP R3 implementation, then you are taking away from me the amount of that increased price. That's redistributive. If you want to say, its justified because I was never entitled to that lower price to begin with, that's one thing (although it really doesn't jibe with your stance on "theft"), but to deny it's redistributive is illogical.


We have discussed this before. My stance on theft has to deal with you distribution of wealth after the wealth has been created. Again, the visa was the tinkering within the market that made it unfair. There should be no tinkering within the market or it is not a free market. The tinkering is what made the problem to begin with.

Quote:
Originally posted by Dean R Milburn:
Charitable contributions are fully deductible up to $139,500 in adjusted gross income (married filing jointly), they are typically 80% deductible after that, so for the vast majority of Americans, their tax bill should play no part in their decision to give to charity. People do have choice in the matter, at the ballot box. Just like everyone does in our society.

You see the government as wasteful, yet you are calling for what would have to be a massive bureaucracy to administer the many varied tariffs your policy implies.


I also see the government as inefficient to do what you favor, the redistribution of wealth.
My policy would not administer the redistribution of wealth, it would just even the playing field.

As for your first point, I just say it could play a role in that.


Quote:
Originally posted by Dean R Milburn:
Of course you want a lot of government involvement in the form of deciing what is and isn't fair. The WTO already exists to look into what is and isn't a fair tariff, and it looks as if we may be clobbered over the Bush steel tariff.


No, I want government involvement to deal with what is fair within their economic framework. I reject the WTO and do not believe that they can fairly decide what it is a fair and unfair tariff. Also there are more ways than just to impose than a tariff to level the playing field.

Quote:
Originally posted by Dean R Milburn:
I'd disagree. Killing in a "just war" (to open up a different ball of wax) would not rise to the level of murder. Neither does self defense. All murder is killing, but not all killing is murder.


Well, I doubt that some civilians who are killed would consider their deaths anything but murder. At least their surviving relatives for that matter.

Quote:
Originally posted by Dean R Milburn:
Actually the definition of Christianity that would be relevant here is Lewis', since he's the one who said Tolkein brought him to Christianity. I'm fairly certain Lewis occaisionally wrote on the topic, so if you are that interested, I'm sure his books are available at your local library.

And Sam, if we can't agree on the definition of simple terms like "moral" or "redistributive" or "progressive tax", I fail to see how discussing a defintion of Christianity will get us anywhere at all. Such discussion inevitably devolve into a "no true Scotsmen" type situation.


Well, you brought it up. If you are not going to share your definition, that is fine with me.
Of course, I shall opt to likewise in the future.


Quote:
Originally posted by Dean R Milburn:
Yeah, I think I know where you're going. Prinicple of non coersion and all that. Sounds like Libertarianism to me (classic liberalism). Combine that with your economic isolationism, and you get something a lot like Pat Buchanan.


That is another problem. People try to fit other people with their various labels to identify them with. I have a major problem with that because it is short sighted and very subjective. I also have a problem with your labeling me as favoring (which is a false representation of my position) economic isolation, when all I have stated that I favor a fair trade within the system.
Throwing the comparison with Pat Buchanan is ridiculous.
_________________________
"If we lose a hundred troops a week, then Dean will be our next Prez." Jack V, avid Dean supporter with no concern for the troops.

Top
#525471 - 11/18/03 12:57 AM Re: Nutty laws in Vermont....?
Samuel Catalino Offline
Member

Registered: 04/04/99
Posts: 4447
Quote:
Originally posted by Dean R Milburn:
You're responsible for supporting your own assertions. If this is so pervasive you should have not problem coming up with some links. I've conceded that the treatment of the visa holders isn't always the best (the one that sticks out in my mind from looking at the topic a few years ago was tight living quarters (8 guys in a 2 bedroom apartment, often hot bunking). But this was because 1. They couldn't seek another job without going home and 2. They preferred staying here to going home.


I have wearied of citing sources, than have the individual then say: Oh, that is so biased or something along like that. One could post a number of links and it will not amount to anything. That is why I prefer the person to do the research themselves. Naturally biases play a significant role in this matter. What you cited happens a great deal though, but that is a tip of it.

Quote:
Originally posted by Dean R Milburn:
The laws became more restrictive as the immigrants became less Northern European Protestant. It was xenophobia plain and simple. In terms of jobs, I'm not at all sure that the 2nd and 3rd generation Irish Americans were at all happy to see boats come ashore from Italy. But in time, the economy grew and there were enough jobs for all.


I doubt that the 2nd and 3rd generation Irish Americans really concerned themselves with seeing boats coming ashore from Italy. Again, they became citizens unlike the special visa that has only one purpose and one alone.

Quote:
Originally posted by Dean R Milburn:
Mind giving me the broad strokes on your immigration policy and border protection policy?


Right after you give me your definition of Christianity.

Quote:
Originally posted by Dean R Milburn:
My point is this. You said that immigrants can go through the same thing everybody else did. My point being that the rule have shifted overtime. Not everyone has (or ever had) the same opportunity. Our ancestors (the ones who weren't here when the Europeans landed), had opportunities that don't exist today.


I reject that argument. The situation here has changed as you know. If that is the case, then why should not the same laws that condemned those who practiced sodomy be enforced the same way as they are today? They aren't. Things have changed.

Quote:
Originally posted by Dean R Milburn:
I said, Pat Buchanan, perhaps Ayn Rand is more appropriate. While I reject self interest as a virtue, in the long run, your policy is counter to self interest, in that it results in a lower standard of living. You are also rather altruistic in your calls to reduce the pain of those displaced by the market. Under the virtue of selfishness, I should only care if it affects me, and frankly I'm more affected by higher IT prices than I am by Joe Programmer losing his job to an Indian national. Your "doctrine" is demonstrably false.


Again, if you fail to take care of yourself, you will be unable to take care of others, if such is your goal. To reject self interest as a virtue also invites a self esteem issue. I merely exposed the weaknesses of your altruistic views with regard to redistribution of wealth.
My "doctrine" (although it is you who has labeled it as such) is hardly false when I have not even stated it.


Quote:
Originally posted by Dean R Milburn:
Sorry to trouble you so. Even under your own criteria of favoring US citizens as workers, your policy is lacking since it will cost jobs in other parts of the economy. You have to deal with the unintended consequences.


You may feel that you do not live within borders, but I do. Your views will eventually have someone across the continents deciding the fate of people here. Those consequences may not be what you desire or wish.

Quote:
Originally posted by Dean R Milburn:
Nothing is sure Sam, but we have 150 years of economic theory and case studies to tell us what the likely effect is. Considering how much you agonize over the pain inflicted by the visa program, for you to shrug off the potential effects as "we'll see" is astonishing.


Because it was something that was not needed and a tinkering with the market that served the interests of corporate greed. I think we have beaten this one to death.

Quote:
Originally posted by Dean R Milburn:
Yep, its backfired, and it will backfire again if the WTO allows retaliation for the tariffs. Retaliation specifically targeted at Pennsylvanian exports. Not that it has anything to do with whether or not the tariffs cost more jobs than they saved, which they did.


Again, you do not take into account how many jobs these tariffs cost were actually due to the downturn. You actually think that all of the nations in the world comply with the WTO?

Quote:
Originally posted by Dean R Milburn:
Wow, a Florida paper supporting a tariff that helps a local industry while decrying one that doesn't. Will wonders never cease?

If there is fear of long term effects, then the products should be banned outright, not just made more expensive.


But what about the consumer, isn't the price the almighty here? Do you actually think these products will be banned outright? We have no control over what is done in South America to their lands while growing their citrus.
This is also a method that many US products are prevented from entering the European market.
Of course, I have no problem with these methods.
As I stated in the past, tariffs are not the only method, actually it is a short sighted method, when other methods should be used.


Quote:
Originally posted by Dean R Milburn:
Agreed, but folks holding down 100k IT jobs would likely have the aptitude for a great number of things, I'm sure they already possess good general management and project management skills, are probably conversant in other business functions and so on. I'll concede it's harder to find something for the high school drop out working in a textile mill.


Yes, but where will they go to get these jobs and who makes the decisions? Will they have to relocate across the country and leave loved ones behind? You will have to start at the bottom again, and after losing all that you had, you may someday get back to the economic ladder you were at, but at that time, you will go through the whole thing again.
_________________________
"If we lose a hundred troops a week, then Dean will be our next Prez." Jack V, avid Dean supporter with no concern for the troops.

Top
#525472 - 11/18/03 08:55 AM Re: Nutty laws in Vermont....?
Samuel Catalino Offline
Member

Registered: 04/04/99
Posts: 4447
Quote:
Originally posted by Dean R Milburn:
I saw nothing in GHWBush's use of the term "New World Order" nor the dictionary definition of "globalism" (which actually specified "national" policy) that says anything about UN dictates. Is there some additional definition I need to be aware of? Was I incorrect in using GHWB's definition of it?

When other nations enact policies to put their citizens first, you decry that as unfair, and want to counter. That's all well and good, but then they counter and we counter and so on. Ultimately, nobody is trading, and we are all worse off.


It was GHWB who gave the term currency. He was a globalist, even more so than his son.

That is another false assumption on your part. I never said that I decry that as unfair. As a matter of fact, I have said the opposite. Every nation should look after its self interests. and if you want fair trade, you need an even playing field.


Quote:
Originally posted by Dean R Milburn:
Being that the call centers are outsource or expat operations of American firms, the point is not at all moot.


Well, only to you.

Quote:
Originally posted by Dean R Milburn:
Until some intrepid entrepreneur sees the market need and jumps into the breach. Where or where will we find him? Sarcastic? Sure, but that's what market theory says will happen. Why don't you think so?


By that time the market will collapse, consumers will leave it, and finally the forces set in motion who desired to save a few dollars lose it all. Sounds wonderful to me.

Quote:
Originally posted by Dean R Milburn:
You're right, the consumer chooses, and what happens if they don't buy the product at a higher cost? What happens to the jobs you saved then? You need to think this through Sam. You see saved jobs, end of story.

I see that as just the beginning of a sad tale that leads to higher prices (which leads to lower spending on other items, which leads to reduced output which leads to lost jobs), I see lower output (caused by higher input costs, leading to lost jobs). I would rather stop those things before they happen.


Dean, you need to see this through. Your way leads to pain and suffering, people losing their homes, people driven to despair and some to suicide. I see CEOs getting large bonuses because they looked at the short term picture and see the consumers suffering because of shoddy products at the same high prices these actions were to prevent.

Companies cut costs to raise profits. Seldom it is passed to the consumer. Those $100 sneakers that are produced at 15 dollars, well the savings sure aren't passed to the consumer. Your conclusion is flawed and false in practice.


Quote:
Originally posted by Dean R Milburn:
Thanks. What about a company held by an American who takes Indian citizen ship?


If it is all Indian owned by an citizen of India, is falls under the nation of India.

Quote:
Originally posted by Dean R Milburn:
The main benefit of foreign oil is production cost. The price of oil goes high enough, and it will begin to outweigh the effective value placed on the ANWR and so on. We've also got a lot of oil shale in the Rockies that has too high an extraction cost today.


Most of the cost comes in dealing with environmentalists who have no concern about economic matters or free markets.

Quote:
Originally posted by Dean R Milburn:
Actually they're mostly economic. SUV's exist because gasoline is so cheap (look at it historically adjusted for inflation), that gasoline cost is not that much of a consideration. Compare that to the 1970s when gasoline was very high compared to historical values, and there was a shift toward more economical cars. You're right, until gasoline becomes comparatively more expensive, you will see few attempts to replace gasoline engines on a large scale (unless R&D makes the the non gas cars as good, but cheaper). Environmental considerations are also market driven. There is a value placed on a clean environment. When the costs of having that patch of forest outweigh the benefits society places on it, it will be cut down.

Whether we drill in the ANWR or not, I doubt my great grandchildren will be driving cars for which gasoline derived from crude oil is the primary source of propulsion. The cheapest available supplies will be drilled first, leading to higher and higher gas prices from about 2020 on out. At some point a different fuel will be substituted, because it is more cost effective.


None of which hurts my argument.
As for different fuel substitutions, they have been saying that for decades.
_________________________
"If we lose a hundred troops a week, then Dean will be our next Prez." Jack V, avid Dean supporter with no concern for the troops.

Top
#525473 - 11/18/03 09:08 AM Re: Nutty laws in Vermont....?
Dean R Milburn Offline
Member

Registered: 07/06/99
Posts: 2043
Loc: Indianapolis
Quote:
Originally posted by Samuel Catalino:
Dean, before I get around to answering all of your responses, I found something of great interest to me taking place in your state with reguard to what we have been discussing.

http://www.computerworld.com/careertopic...l?SKC=news87183

Care to comment?


Sure -

1. I don't have a problem with it.
2. 84 companies were asked to submit bids, including local firms, only 5 submitted bids and two of those withdrew. So there were plenty of chances for US based firms to go after the work if they wanted to. No Indiana firm even submitted a bid, the next lowest bid was over 50% higher in cost ($8.1 million).
3. The only other companies that submitted bids also outsource to India (Accenture and Deloitte), so it's not even like the state had a choice of keeping all the jobs in state or even in country.
4. This is an interesting case because the Indiana DWD is the agency responsible for administering many of the programs (however inadequate) for aiding displaced workers. The system in question is to aid with that process. So the state had a choice, buy the system for $23.3 million dollars or buy it for $15.2 million dollars. Same system. Only in one case you have $8.1 million left over. 1% of the total budget for the agency. Money that can be used for programs to aid a large number of displaced workers, not just a few dozen programmers. You decry the redistributive policies as wasteful, well this is a case when they decided to be efficient.

Top
#525474 - 11/18/03 09:45 AM Re: Nutty laws in Vermont....?
Dean R Milburn Offline
Member

Registered: 07/06/99
Posts: 2043
Loc: Indianapolis
Quote:
It sounds more like customs to me. Which is where we get the word mores.


Well, Sam, you use the word however you want it.
Just about every dictionary definition of the term I've encountered raises it above the level of mere custom to contain a element of right vs. wrong. Mores may be customs, but not all customs are mores.

When you use the term immoral, I'll just assume it means going against custom. When I use it, assume I mean "wrong" as opposed to "right".

Quote:
Well, if you prefer that the US citizen should suffer more, that is your opinion.


I don't prefer that ANYBODY suffer. That's why the expanded safety net is part of my policy. You seem to have problems caring about those who would lose their jobs (foreign and American) because of your policy.

Quote:
It means what it says.


The word you're looking for is Jingoism.

Quote:
As I have said, I do not favor globalism or New World Order or anything like that.

I'm not even sure you know what the terms mean, since you the characteristics you apply to those terms are not the same ones GHWB applied, a man you said supported such things. Like I said, if you have a different definition that the ones I provided, I'd like to hear it.

Quote:
We have discussed this before. My stance on theft has to deal with you distribution of wealth after the wealth has been created. Again, the visa was the tinkering within the market that made it unfair. There should be no tinkering within the market or it is not a free market. The tinkering is what made the problem to begin with.


Okay, we're going in circles here. You've never been able to justify your position that the visa programs create a less free market than the one that exists with them. It's utterly nonsensical. The problem is this, apparently you are philosophically opposed to both market intervention and redistributive policies. Your "patriotism" makes you philosophically opposed to guest workers and offshoring. Your policy prescription to remove the visas, while consistent with your "patriotic" philosphy, is utterly inconsisted with your opposition to intervention and redistribution, so you are forced to create the notion that the natural state of the labor market is one of US labor only so that market freeing moves by the government are seen as interventions and that no redistribution occurs.

You'd make more sense if you just admitted that the principles are at odds with each other, but that the "patriotic" principle (combined with the altruistic pain stopping principle) outweigh your committment to fewer government interventions and your opposition to redistribution.

Quote:
I also see the government as inefficient to do what you favor, the redistribution of wealth.
My policy would not administer the redistribution of wealth, it would just even the playing field.

No, I want government involvement to deal with what is fair within their economic framework. I reject the WTO and do not believe that they can fairly decide what it is a fair and unfair tariff. Also there are more ways than just to impose than a tariff to level the playing field.



Like I said, although you refuse to go into specifics, it would take quite a bureaucracy to administer the program you wish to undertake. I don't see why you think this particular bureaucracy would be any less wasteful. The only group in the world who does anything like what you suggest is the WTO and you find them incapable.

You are the one suggesting your policy as a cure all, I've pointed out the general flaws with it, you seem to imply that specifics will address those issues, but you don't want to go into them. So be it.

Quote:
Well, I doubt that some civilians who are killed would consider their deaths anything but murder. At least their surviving relatives for that matter.


And some Indian nationals would consider your plan unfair to them. Murder can occur during a war. But war is not inherently murder. That's all I'm saying.


Quote:
Well, you brought it up. If you are not going to share your definition, that is fine with me.
Of course, I shall opt to likewise in the future.


Take your ball and go home. My remark on Lewis and Tolkein was parenthetical to the discussion at best (as was the fact you brought Tolkein into the discussion at all or gave your opinion as to how good a comic book writer he might have been). If you have an argument to make on whether or not Lewis credited Tolkein with bringing him to what he (Lewis) defined as Christianity, go for it. I opened that door.

My definition (or lack there of) of Christianity is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Your refusal to define your "fair trade" policy is not.

If you have additional points to make on Christianity feel free to do so, irrelevant as they may be.

Your distaste for labels makes me think that whether one calls oneself a Christian or not, is of no concern to you.

Quote:
That is another problem. People try to fit other people with their various labels to identify them with. I have a major problem with that because it is short sighted and very subjective. I also have a problem with your labeling me as favoring (which is a false representation of my position) economic isolation, when all I have stated that I favor a fair trade within the system.
Throwing the comparison with Pat Buchanan is ridiculous.


You asked if I saw where you were going with that, I'm telling what I saw. If I'm wrong, please make yourself clearer next time. If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, I'm going to call it a duck until I see evidence to the contrary.

Economic isolation is the end result of your policy. Trade only occurs when one party or another has an advantage in production. You want to level the playing field. No advantage, no trade.

Top
#525475 - 11/18/03 10:46 AM Re: Nutty laws in Vermont....?
Dean R Milburn Offline
Member

Registered: 07/06/99
Posts: 2043
Loc: Indianapolis
Quote:
I have wearied of citing sources, than have the individual then say: Oh, that is so biased or something along like that. One could post a number of links and it will not amount to anything. That is why I prefer the person to do the research themselves. Naturally biases play a significant role in this matter. What you cited happens a great deal though, but that is a tip of it.


Biases do have a great deal to do with these things. But if these things are so pervasive, it shouldn't be any problem to find a citation in a newspaper, a national news magazine, a wire story, and so on. You mentioned lawsuits, if there are some there should be court filings and so on.


Quote:
I doubt that the 2nd and 3rd generation Irish Americans really concerned themselves with seeing boats coming ashore from Italy. Again, they became citizens unlike the special visa that has only one purpose and one alone.

I reject that argument. The situation here has changed as you know. If that is the case, then why should not the same laws that condemned those who practiced sodomy be enforced the same way as they are today? They aren't. Things have changed.


Whether any of those immigrants watched the boats or not, I don't know. Revoke my poetic license. I'll state that the history of immigration policy is pretty clear in that it favored immigrants from the nations who had immigrated under less stringent conditions. The Irish were favored over the Italians, Italians over Asians.

You are right, the H1-B and L-1 visa holders are not immigrants since they are not permitted to stay in the US permanently. They are guest workers. My response on immigration history was to your original sentiments regarding that guest workers should do it the same way our non native ancestors did. I'm saying that they don't have that opportunity.

When you say things have changed, your main position is that global terrorism has changed things, but you don't use this position to exclude all foreigners. Given that you allow some form of immigration/guest status, there is no reason the criteria used to separate threats from non threats could be used for guest workers.

Quote:
Again, if you fail to take care of yourself, you will be unable to take care of others, if such is your goal. To reject self interest as a virtue also invites a self esteem issue. I merely exposed the weaknesses of your altruistic views with regard to redistribution of wealth.


I never said I wasn't self interested, merely that I don't consider my inherent self interest a virtue. You've exposed no weakness. People help each other all the time despite not having their "houses in order" (kind of a vague phrase). People give money to charity rather than paying down their mortgages. Such things happen up to a national and international policy level. You've proved nothing.

Quote:
My "doctrine" (although it is you who has labeled it as such) is hardly false when I have not even stated it.


Your "doctrine" as YOU labelled it, goes (and I quote "you can not help others while your house is not in order". Like I said, it happens all the time. Demonstrably false. It's not a doctrine, it's a cliche.


Quote:
You may feel that you do not live within borders, but I do. Your views will eventually have someone across the continents deciding the fate of people here. Those consequences may not be what you desire or wish.


I don't buy your scenario, but I am convinced that your views will ultimately leave both the US and the entire world worse off. If you really don't want international input into our lives, you would favor an isolationist stance. So long as we are dependent on the flow of goods from other nations, it will have an impact on our policies.

Quote:
Because it was something that was not needed and a tinkering with the market that served the interests of corporate greed. I think we have beaten this one to death.


We've beaten all this to death, but what you have not dealt with are the consequences of your policy for the job security of other Americans. You have such great sympathy for those who've lost their jobs to guest workers, but you dismiss those who will lose their jobs out of hand, apparently because the only reason they had those jobs to begin with was an injustice. It won't lessen the pain it causes Sam. A pain which you say can't be ameliorated, because the programs designed to help wont work. The best you can say is "We'll see". Your policy fails even by its own standards. The only advantage you gain is some illusion of greater sovreignty. If that's what you want to put as the primary factor in your decision, fine. But don't tell me my policy is flawed because of the pain it inflicts, yours will inflict everybit as much if not more.

Quote:
Again, you do not take into account how many jobs these tariffs cost were actually due to the downturn. You actually think that all of the nations in the world comply with the WTO?


The studies do take the downturn into account Sam. When they say "jobs lost due to the tariff" they aren't taking all the jobs lost in the industry and attributing them to the tariff. You can isolate the effect of variables using regression analysis.

Not all nations comply with the WTO, but so far the EC has, and has not retaliated for the steel tariffs without WTO approval.

Quote:
But what about the consumer, isn't the price the almighty here? Do you actually think these products will be banned outright? We have no control over what is done in South America to their lands while growing their citrus.


Well a true free market would allow for the importation provided that the consumer was made aware of the nature of the chemicals used and their risk, then the consumer could decide if any price advantage was worth the risk. The fact that its a tariff and not a ban, just indicates the hypocrisy of the reason for the tariff. What is really going on is that the citrus growers want a price support for their product.


Quote:
This is also a method that many US products are prevented from entering the European market.
Of course, I have no problem with these methods.
As I stated in the past, tariffs are not the only method, actually it is a short sighted method, when other methods should be used.


Yes, you've spoken of deregulation. By leveling the playing field you want to sink to the level of the developing nations. That's all well and good, but then you have the human toll of those reduced regulations to place on your ledger. Reduce safety regs= more factory deaths. Reduce polution regs = higher lund disease, earlier deaths and lower IQs.

Quote:
Yes, but where will they go to get these jobs and who makes the decisions? Will they have to relocate across the country and leave loved ones behind? You will have to start at the bottom again, and after losing all that you had, you may someday get back to the economic ladder you were at, but at that time, you will go through the whole thing again.


None of this is unique to my plan as it happens today. Look at the migration from the rust belt to the sun belt. Look at layoffs caused not by foreign workers. You want to protect a special class of citizens, high paid, white collar workers, who have found themselves replaceable by foreign workers. Look at the identical problems caused for those who pay the price for your policy.

Like I said, losing a job sucks no matter why it happens. We ought to help, but we can never eliminate all of the harm.

Top
#525476 - 11/18/03 11:15 AM Re: Nutty laws in Vermont....?
Dean R Milburn Offline
Member

Registered: 07/06/99
Posts: 2043
Loc: Indianapolis
Quote:
It was GHWB who gave the term currency. He was a globalist, even more so than his son.


I'm just puzzled because you attach things to the term (UN control) that I don't see in GHWBs usage. Is there something I'm missing?

Quote:
That is another false assumption on your part. I never said that I decry that as unfair. As a matter of fact, I have said the opposite. Every nation should look after its self interests. and if you want fair trade, you need an even playing field.


1. But if a nation gives advantage to its business, seeing it in its self interests, you wish to neutralize that advantage. I thought the rationale for that was because it would be unfair to do otherwise. Sorry if I put words in your mouth.
2. Your idea of an even playing field is inherently uneven. You don't have a problem with geographic advantages, or natural resource advantages, or development advantages. But you seem to have a problem with labor force size advantages and you definitely have a problem with advantages stemming from regulatory environment. So you ignore the advantages the US has, while trying to nullify the advantages held by foreign nations. That sounds unfair to me.
3. If you truly achieve a level playing field, then there will be no propensity to trade.

Quote:
By that time the market will collapse, consumers will leave it, and finally the forces set in motion who desired to save a few dollars lose it all. Sounds wonderful to me.


Leave it for what? There will still be a demand for whatever utility was granted by the product in question. Sure customers may leave the company, but they will go to another company. They may even find that the best alternative is to use trained monkeys on roller skates rather than SAP R3. It's a huge advantage for the monkey trainers. You seem to think that if all that are brought to market are inferior shoes, then people will stop wearing shoes. They won't. Some will see the inferior shoes as preferable, and some will begin to make superior shoes and sell them. That's how it works. Your myopia is once again apparent.

Quote:
Dean, you need to see this through. Your way leads to pain and suffering, people losing their homes, people driven to despair and some to suicide. I see CEOs getting large bonuses because they looked at the short term picture and see the consumers suffering because of shoddy products at the same high prices these actions were to prevent.

Companies cut costs to raise profits. Seldom it is passed to the consumer. Those $100 sneakers that are produced at 15 dollars, well the savings sure aren't passed to the consumer. Your conclusion is flawed and false in practice.


1. Your policy causes the same economic displacement problems, just on a different group of people.
2. My policy creates resources to ameliorate the problems caused by economic displacement, you see these programs as wasteful at best and theft at worst.
3. My redistributive policies would take much of those CEO bonuses and redistribute them.
4. In a competitve market, cost cutting leads to price cuts. If cost cuts are not reflectedin price cuts, then the abnormal profits in the market will attract entrants, who will then compete the prices down. That's why we need the anti-trust enforcement, to ensure competition.
5. Your sneaker analogy is bogus, the manufacturing cost may only be $15. But it's total costs average around 95% of sales. You want to look at the cost of the leather and sweatshop worker, but you need to include all the costs (including huge marketing budgets) that allow them to sell the sneakers for $100.

Quote:
Most of the cost comes in dealing with environmentalists who have no concern about economic matters or free markets.


They may not think they have a concern, but what they are doing is placing a very high value on the resource as is, vs. the value that could be derived from exploiting it. Then they go out and convince the populace generally, and legislators particularly that they are right. Watch gasoline go up to $4 a barrel and fewer folks will see the value in protecting the ANWR.

Quote:
None of which hurts my argument.
As for different fuel substitutions, they have been saying that for decades.


You argued the issues weren't economic in nature, I argued they were.

Adjusted for inflation, Gasoline is not any more expensive than it was in the 1950s, it is quite a bit cheaper than it was in the 1980s. Until the inflation adjusted rate climbs and remains high, there will be little incentive to switch fuels.

http://www.cato.org/dailys/09-06-03.html

Top
#525477 - 11/19/03 10:36 AM Re: Nutty laws in Vermont....?
Samuel Catalino Offline
Member

Registered: 04/04/99
Posts: 4447
Quote:
Originally posted by Happy:
you 2 blow each other yet?


Hello Jack.

Dean, when I get enough time, I will answer your posts. Please be patient.

Thanks.
_________________________
"If we lose a hundred troops a week, then Dean will be our next Prez." Jack V, avid Dean supporter with no concern for the troops.

Top
Page 26 of 27 < 1 2 ... 24 25 26 27 >