SI
SI
discoversearch

 Pastimes | CNBC -- critique.


Previous 10 | Next 10 
To: Yogizuna who wrote (12805)12/16/2003 8:21:55 PM
From: Dan B.
   of 17535
 
First of all, you claim that "once again" I ignore the "enrichment of China's military machine," leaving it out of the equation. That's simply untrue, as I specifically addressed that issue from my point of view earlier, and you have not responded on point to in any way suggest why my notion that working closely with China via free trade would not foster peace(not one reason have you offered me).

But that's just MY point, not a point made by Hazlitt in the bit you just quoted back to me. Hazlitt most certianly does NOT ignore your concern as you suggest, either. As the man Hazlitt said, his explanation points out what really happens when employing tariffs, and does not attempt to wipe out all reasons one might want tariffs. You didn't read it, did you? You don't need a perfect world for the reality of the situation to be just what it is. So if you wish to prevent us from being dependent upon foriegn steel, that is a reason for tariffs on incoming steel, but it does not negate the fact that consumers and workers will be hurt in the process(knowing this, I understand if you still want to employ tariffs, I just don't agree).


Facts are facts, and surely the enrichment of China's military machine may result from free trade with China. It is my opinion that we can achieve peace with China by employing free trade and developing interdependencies. Even while you and President Bush or whomever may disagree, it does NOT alter the fact that the tariffs which CAN accomplish YOUR ends, WILL harm ordinary citizens of both countries in the long run, at once(save to the extent which, as you surmise, they should actually prevent war. Economically speaking, tariffs only harm us all).

Freedom Works,

Dan B.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)


To: Jeff Jordan who wrote (12803)12/17/2003 9:05:35 AM
From: Jeff Jordan
   of 17535
 
Maria: "LFC is a Who's who of China...."


Doesn't she mean Hu's Hu of China?

Webzen: LOL, capitalist pig internet stock w/ attitude


....if I had a penny for every shareholder?<g>
Ho Man, all those people need 10% GDP from us!

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)


To: Dan B. who wrote (12807)12/17/2003 4:51:55 PM
From: Yogizuna
   of 17535
 
Ignoring the enrichment of one's future enemies in the name of "free trade" in absolutely insane, no more, no less...
Dependency on other countries for necessities, if it can be avoided, is also insane.
It is a fact there are many within China's military structure who desire future conflict with the United States, and they will gladly keep taking our dollars to help their dream come true... It is only a matter of time now, and I wonder how people like you will feel if you are still alive when Americans are dying because their parents and grandparents only cared about finding the cheapest price, not about our national security.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)


To: Jeff Jordan who wrote (12808)12/18/2003 9:15:41 AM
From: Jeff Jordan
   of 17535
 
China has it's own oil reserves! Ask APA...XCL,etc.

Price gouging! You know Cramer owns Exxon<g> He owns everything!

Let's spend taxpayer dollars for more supply....oh we are!

Well, then let's release to greedy oil barrons when supplies are squeezed? I mean it's just about supply demand..."We have to create one or the other"<g>

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read


To: Lazarus_Long who wrote (12756)12/18/2003 4:21:18 PM
From: tsigprofit
   of 17535
 
just once Laz...LOL
whatever you say...

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)


To: Yogizuna who wrote (12809)12/18/2003 8:03:24 PM
From: Dan B.
   of 17535
 
Re: "Ignoring the enrichment of one's future enemies in the name of "free trade" in absolutely insane, no more, no less"

I'm not one to do that. Just try by looking, you won't find me saying, implying, nor much less agreeing to such a thing. I'll note that your ability to be certain of a very negative future relationship with China is far greater than mine. Of course, I well understand the threat China is. I happen to feel that without Free Trade in place, the threat from China will become larger and more certain.

Re: "Dependency on other countries for necessities, if it can be avoided, is also insane."

Just for the record, we are hugely dependent on other countries(as they are on us) in general. So I must say that where anything less than necessities are concerned, we should absolutely recognize and know that this inter-dependency which trade has brought is in fact very good for all of us. Otherwise both sides would do without many things. Speaking of necessities, sure, if a certain enemy were our only source of supply for a true necessity like steel, that enemy(Japan?) could cut us off(or have its plants destroyed by China?) hoping to gain advantage. Sure, one might then wish we'd protected our steel industry. But in that hypothetical case, I'm simply confident we'd manage to produce all the steel we need for war despite the extra cost of doing it ourselves. Please note, of course I have NOT supported selling China war technology. But when it comes to non-necessities, we'll help China feel much happier and better about their own lot and us, if we trade freely. In conclusion it should be noted that it would be insane to attempt to be totally self-sufficient as a country. We would suffer tremendously. Something as simple as a pencil requires effort from many countries to produce, and it is a great thing that countries in fact have cooperated via trade so well in the past as to make pencils and a myriad of everyday products possible(note: even non-necessities can be impossible to have without the help of many countries..

Re: "I wonder how people like you will feel if you are still alive when Americans are dying because their parents and grandparents only cared about finding the cheapest price, not about our national security."


See here, you started out by falsely implying I ignore the enrichment of one's "future enemies," which I do not, and here you re-double that by implying I only care about finding the cheapest price and not about national security. I wonder if you are reading someone else! You should have gathered from early on here that I'm very much concerned about national security. You thoroughly misrepresent my thoughts. I did in fact inform you I believe free trade can improve national security. Suggesting "people like" me don't care about national security is ridiculous, since national security was obviously on my mind from early on in this conversation.

For the record, my view is more about creating a larger total productivity and abundance(for people everywhere to share in), than it is about the cheap prices which also tend to go hand in hand with unfettered trade. As for China providing us with low prices, low prices can enrich US as much or more than them, all the while, without a doubt. One thing is certain, my opinion most definitely does not ignore national security.

Dan B.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)


To: Yogizuna who wrote (12804)12/18/2003 8:15:22 PM
From: Dan B.
   of 17535
 
For the record, I believe that estimate would have been destined to be terribly high had we moved into Baghdad last time around, despite the better condition of Iraq's military then(which wasn't so great at the point where we quit).

Dan B.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read


To: tsigprofit who wrote (12811)12/18/2003 8:20:20 PM
From: Lazarus_Long
   of 17535
 
Hey, we're talking one thread here, Nazi, not your entire career in crime.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)


To: Lazarus_Long who wrote (12814)12/19/2003 10:44:32 AM
From: tsigprofit
   of 17535
 
Heil Laz!

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)


To: tsigprofit who wrote (12815)12/19/2003 1:10:47 PM
From: Lazarus_Long
   of 17535
 
Tsk, tsk. You're pissed because I banned you after you banned me. My heart bleeds for you.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read
Previous 10 | Next 10 

Copyright © 1995-2014 Knight Sac Media. All rights reserved.Stock quotes are delayed at least 15 minutes - See Terms of Use.