Print Page - Union of North America?

Who is Hal Turner and what is this about the "North American Union"?

I think this guy has done flipped or something.

This is some kind of joke, isn't it?

http://www.halturnershow.com/

I don't know what to make of the whole North American Union conspiracy theory. But those coins do have the look of government design to them.

It is amazing what people will do for ratings. This doesn't even pass the laugh test, much less the smell test.
A Union like that has been envisaged for probably well over 100 years. Done the right way I dont think it's a bad idea at all.

Heck, I think we should invade Mexico and annex it as a territory.

That way all the Mexicans that want to live in the USA don't have to travel grin

You joke but if we could export the rule of law that we have in this country and the hostility to monopolies and gov't control (and compared to most of the word we are very unfriendly towards it) the average Mexican would be much better served.

but what about the average American?

Rabbi, I'm only joking because I don't believe in starting wars.

But IMO we would have done much more to improve our "security" by invading Mexico rather than Iraq.

It sure would have made the commute shorter, anyway grin

Why would we want Mexico when we can't even get places like California, New York City and Washington D.C. to join the U S of A.

Well, personally - I'd like to forget the USA just go back to something like the Articles of Confederation Wink

Quote from: nico on August 15, 2007, 05:59:06 AM

but what about the average American?

Also better off.
Each country (US, Canada, Mexico) has some strength and some weakness. In the U.S. we have lots of capital and managerial experience. We have a good system of laws and financial transparancy. We do not have a good labor supply and are so-so on raw materials.
Canada has raw materials but a statist government and fewer qualified citizens. They also dont have much ready labor.
Mexico has some raw materials (oil), not much middle class, little access to capital, and a lot of cheap labor. They also have huge corruption problems and monopoly issues. The richest man in the hemisphere, Carlos Slim, largely profited from gov't monopoly.
Take the best of all of them and you will build a much richer society.

Quote

but what about the average American?

Yeah. Right. Who cares about us?

I really wonder if the average American would be better off overall.

US/Canadian commerce has been, for over 100 years, the world's freest border, and the exchange of goods and services has been bountiful.

I don't see how a North American Union would do much to change that.

Not so free.
There are (unless it's changed recently) heavy tarriffs on Canadian timber. I am sure there are lots of regulations and restrictions going both ways.

Canada is not so open to immigration either, at least by Americans.

Thirty years ago, I tried to get a work permit to work in the timber in northern BC. The logging companies were advertising on the radio for fallers and skidder operators. But at that time tens of thousands were unemployed in Toronto, so you pretty much had to be a doctor or a retiree with a steady income stream to get a residence visa. Not that any of those factory workers would ever leave their unemployment check to go work in the woods in BC rolleyes

Quote from: Tallpine on August 15, 2007, 10:53:30 AM

Canada is not so open to immigration either, at least by Americans.

They have laws to prevent immigrants from "taking jobs from Canadians." There are basically two ways to get in: your employer has to jump through hoops to prove that nobody in Canada can do what you do; or you have to promise that you'll go on welfare and stay on it. The fastest way in to Canada is on the welfare train.

--Len.

Quote

There are basically two ways to get in: your employer has to jump through hoops to prove that nobody in Canada can do what you do; or you have to promise that you'll go on welfare and stay on it.

The very nice gentleman at the immigration (whatever it was called, "ministry of something") office in Prince George admitted that the rule was silly - there was a vast shortage of people willing to work in the northern woods, but there was really nothing that could be done. Canada is a beautiful country with nice people, but since their gun laws have gone the way they have, I'm glad I didn't get admitted back then.

No hard feelings, but what I was really trying to point out is that Canada is no more open to legal immigration from their southern neighbor than is the USA Wink

So this North American Union thing is a farce, right?

But if it were true, you guys would be for it?

Quote from: Michigander on August 16, 2007, 12:32:24 AM

So this North American Union thing is a farce, right?

But if it were true, you guys would be for it?

A) Yes
B) The devil is in the details.

TR assumes that the best would be taken from each country.

I would place my money on a less utopian outcome more akin to Los Angeles* than Middle America with plentiful resources.

In a possible union of the US & Mexico, Los Angeles shows the future today. Canada would be an afterthought.

* Statist, corrupt, large underclass with an upper class crust and no middle class to speak of.

Quote

But if it were true, you guys would be for it?

No, I'm actually for seccession Wink

Quote from: jfruser on August 16, 2007, 02:52:08 AM

TR assumes that the best would be taken from each country.

I would place my money on a less utopian outcome more akin to Los Angeles* than Middle America with plentiful resources.

In a possible union of the US & Mexico, Los Angeles shows the future today. Canada would be an afterthought.

* Statist, corrupt, large underclass with an upper class crust and no middle class to speak of.

As I said, the devil is in the details. Yeah, if such a union involved stripping most of the BOR, statist control of various industries to prevent "profiteering", labor restrictions, etc etc, that is hardly a bargain.

This Hal Turner guy even went so far as to have a fake Amero coin made up. This guy really is a kook.

http://www.halturnershow.com/AmeroCoinArrives.html

http://www.halturnershow.com/IMG_2471.JPG[/img]]

(if someone could reduce the size of the image, I'd appreciate it.)

Microsoft Paint will shrink the image if you have the jpeg. Otherwise, I don't know.

Quote from: RileyMc on August 15, 2007, 04:14:01 AM

I don't know what to make of the whole North American Union conspiracy theory. But those coins do have the look of government design to them.

It's not a conspiracy theory. It's a done deal.
Why do think those in the goobermint will neither confirm nor deny? They aren't going to tip their hand risk opposition before everything is in place and they are avoiding outright lying to the public.

http://www.augustreview.com

OK. I'll bite. Explain how GWB and the U.S. Congress are beholden to, and prepared to do the will of, the Trilateral Commission.

This guy really is a kook. Or at least he doesn't look things up.

You can purchase these coins in bulk from DC Coin, a company that makes fantasy coins and tokens.

See: http://www.dc-coin.com/index.asp?PageAction=VIEWCATS&Category=8

Conspiracy nuts & tinfoil hatters are the social equivalent of a bad, multi-fatality car wreck.

spp.gov is a very real site, basically a propaganda site trying to put a NAU in "nice" terms so people will buy into it.

Other little bits of evidence: "Marge Howell, spokeswoman for the North Carolina DMV, affirmed to WND the state was embedding a hologram of North America on the back of its new driver's licenses.

"It's a security element that eventually will be on the back of every driver's license in North America," Howell told WND." http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57502

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57502

http://www.nbcsandiego.com/mostpopular/14003768/detail.html

"WASHINGTON -- The Teamsters Union said it has been told by officials in the Transportation Department's Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration that the first Mexican trucks will be coming across the border on Saturday.

The union said Wednesday it would ask a federal appeals courts to block the Bush administration's plan to begin allowing Mexican trucks to carry cargo anywhere in the United States.

Teamsters leaders said they planned to seek an emergency injunction Wednesday from the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in San Francisco.

And also consider other things, like the fact that the government has done as little as possible to block illegals from coming across the border."

"Coming soon to U.S.: Mexican customs office

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: June 5, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern

Kansas City is planning to allow the Mexican government to open a Mexican customs office in conjunction with the Kansas City SmartPort. This will be the first foreign customs facility allowed to operate on U.S. soil."

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=50500

NAFTA super corridor:

http://www.nascocorridor.com/

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/june2006/140606Highway.htm

These coins may not be real, but the NAU is very real! But hey, it's got to be just a silly conspiracy theory, politicians wouldn't lie or conspire to destroy our Constitution. And they certainly didn't do the same thing in Europe, did they? rolleyes

I found this "currency" amusing...

Quote from: RileyMc on September 06, 2007, 07:01:30 PM

OK. I'll bite. Explain how GWB and the U.S. Congress are beholden to, and prepared to do the will of, the Trilateral Commission.

Who do you think got them to where they are now?

Any politician on the fast track upwards is a member of the Tri-Lats or CFR.

Quote from: AntiqueCollector on September 07, 2007, 03:52:33 PM

spp.gov is a very real site, basically a propaganda site trying to put a NAU in "nice" terms so people will buy into it.

Other little bits of evidence: "Marge Howell, spokeswoman for the North Carolina DMV, affirmed to WND the state was embedding a hologram of North America on the back of its new driver's licenses.

"It's a security element that eventually will be on the back of every driver's license in North America," Howell told WND." http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57502

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57502

http://www.nbcsandiego.com/mostpopular/14003768/detail.html

"WASHINGTON -- The Teamsters Union said it has been told by officials in the Transportation Department's Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration that the first Mexican trucks will be coming across the border on Saturday.

The union said Wednesday it would ask a federal appeals courts to block the Bush administration's plan to begin allowing Mexican trucks to carry cargo anywhere in the United States.

Teamsters leaders said they planned to seek an emergency injunction Wednesday from the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in San Francisco.

And also consider other things, like the fact that the government has done as little as possible to block illegals from coming across the border."

"Coming soon to U.S.: Mexican customs office

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: June 5, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern

Kansas City is planning to allow the Mexican government to open a Mexican customs office in conjunction with the Kansas City SmartPort. This will be the first foreign customs facility allowed to operate on U.S. soil."

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=50500

NAFTA super corridor:

http://www.nascocorridor.com/

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/june2006/140606Highway.htm

These coins may not be real, but the NAU is very real! But hey, it's got to be just a silly conspiracy theory, politicians wouldn't lie or conspire to destroy our Constitution. And they certainly didn't do the same thing in Europe, did they? rolleyes

You're freakin' kidding, right? These things constitute "proof" that there is a secret move to abolish the U.S.?
I'd like some of what you're smoking please. And make mine a double.

WND The voice of Hysteria.

No thanks.

The council of Foreign Relations has been toying with the idea for many years....

Quote

Sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations in association with the Canadian Council of Chief Executives and the Consejo Mexicano de Asuntos Internacionales.

When the leaders of Canada, Mexico, and the United States met in Texas recently they underscored the deep ties and shared principles of the three countries. The Council-sponsored Task Force applauds the announced Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America, but proposes a more ambitious vision of a new community by 2010 and specific recommendations on how to achieve it.

http://www.cfr.org/publication.html?id=8102

No, I haven't but is is on my "Must Read" list

Quote from: The Rabbi on September 08, 2007, 03:20:48 PM

Quote from: AntiqueCollector on September 07, 2007, 03:52:33 PM

spp.gov is a very real site, basically a propaganda site trying to put a NAU in "nice" terms so people will buy into it.

Other little bits of evidence: "Marge Howell, spokeswoman for the North Carolina DMV, affirmed to WND the state was embedding a hologram of North America on the back of its new driver's licenses.

"It's a security element that eventually will be on the back of every driver's license in North America," Howell told WND." http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57502

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57502

http://www.nbcsandiego.com/mostpopular/14003768/detail.html

"WASHINGTON -- The Teamsters Union said it has been told by officials in the Transportation Department's Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration that the first Mexican trucks will be coming across the border on Saturday.

The union said Wednesday it would ask a federal appeals courts to block the Bush administration's plan to begin allowing Mexican trucks to carry cargo anywhere in the United States.

Teamsters leaders said they planned to seek an emergency injunction Wednesday from the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in San Francisco.

And also consider other things, like the fact that the government has done as little as possible to block illegals from coming across the border."

"Coming soon to U.S.: Mexican customs office

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: June 5, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern

Kansas City is planning to allow the Mexican government to open a Mexican customs office in conjunction with the Kansas City SmartPort. This will be the first foreign customs facility allowed to operate on U.S. soil."

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=50500

NAFTA super corridor:

http://www.nascocorridor.com/

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/june2006/140606Highway.htm

These coins may not be real, but the NAU is very real! But hey, it's got to be just a silly conspiracy theory, politicians wouldn't lie or conspire to destroy our Constitution. And they certainly didn't do the same thing in Europe, did they? rolleyes

You're freakin' kidding, right? These things constitute "proof" that there is a secret move to abolish the U.S.?
I'd like some of what you're smoking please. And make mine a double.

Can you refute any of the facts or not? If all of these facts are true it certainly suggests our leaders are trying to create the next European Union here in North America. And that's exactly what they're doing. The EU started the same way we have, with trade agreements. Ours are NAFTA and CAFTA. Things will slowly progress to being a political union like the EU has become instead of just for trade.

I don't understand why people don't think this is possible when the very same thing has been done in Europe?

The move to "abolish the U.S." isn't secret.

It doesn't have to be.

The real plan is to swap out the population that cares about such old white guy nonsense as the Founding Fathers and those yucky yellowing pieces of paper called the Declaration of Independence and Constitution for newer, fresher, more bright-eyed faces.

The faces of consumers. Because this is going to be the United States of Consumers and whoever heard of boundaries and sovereignty when it came to Buying Stuff, senor.

The Benetton United Colors school system will take care of the rest, dumbing down the ones that can't be replaced and making sure they shut up.

For the people pulling the strings it was always and will always be about money.

Quote from: AntiqueCollector on September 15, 2007, 04:07:08 AM

Can you refute any of the facts or not? If all of these facts are true it certainly suggests our leaders are trying to create the next European Union here in North America. And that's exactly what they're doing. The EU started the same way we have, with trade agreements. Ours are NAFTA and CAFTA. Things will slowly progress to being a political union like the EU has become instead of just for trade.

I don't understand why people don't think this is possible when the very same thing has been done in Europe?

If every fact quoted was true it still doesn't amount to a hill of beans, except for the tin foil hat crowd, who would see Bush's bathroom habits as proof.

Oh, and please note that Ronald Reagan proposed a N.American union in his speech announcing his candidacy in 1978. But I guess he was anti-American too.

Quote from: The Rabbi on September 15, 2007, 03:42:12 PM

Quote from: AntiqueCollector on September 15, 2007, 04:07:08 AM

Can you refute any of the facts or not? If all of these facts are true it certainly suggests our leaders are trying to create the next European Union here in North America. And that's exactly what they're doing. The EU started the same way we have, with trade agreements. Ours are NAFTA and CAFTA. Things will slowly progress to being a political union like the EU has become instead of just for trade.

I don't understand why people don't think this is possible when the very same thing has been done in Europe?

If every fact quoted was true it still doesn't amount to a hill of beans, except for the tin foil hat crowd, who would see Bush's bathroom habits as proof.

Oh, and please note that Ronald Reagan proposed a N.American union in his speech announcing his candidacy in 1978. But I guess he was anti-American too.

So, all the NAFTA and CAFTA stuff, the CFR and Trilateral Commission, spp.gov promoting this, the history of the EU, etc., all mean nothing?

And Reagan signed the 86 MG ban, and was as much a globalist traitor as Carter before him and Bush after him in my opinion.

Could you explain to me how the history of the EU means anything to what goes on here?
Preferably without relying on innuendoes and unproven assertions.

Quote from: The Rabbi on September 15, 2007, 04:15:45 PM

Could you explain to me how the history of the EU means anything to what goes on here?
Preferably without relying on innuendoes and unproven assertions.

Because it started like the NAU is starting. Free trade agreements, slowly moving towards political agreements. The EU went from being about free trade to being a political union. Our politicians seem intent on doing the same.

Quote from: AntiqueCollector on September 16, 2007, 01:31:22 AM

Quote from: The Rabbi on September 15, 2007, 04:15:45 PM

Could you explain to me how the history of the EU means anything to what goes on here?
Preferably without relying on innuendoes and unproven assertions.

Because it started like the NAU is starting. Free trade agreements, slowly moving towards political agreements. The EU went from being about free trade to being a political union. Our politicians seem intent on doing the same.

Actually NATO started out like that too. Lots of things started out like that. That doesn't mean anything.
Next.

Quote from: The Rabbi on September 16, 2007, 04:27:39 AM

Quote from: AntiqueCollector on September 16, 2007, 01:31:22 AM

Quote from: The Rabbi on September 15, 2007, 04:15:45 PM

Could you explain to me how the history of the EU means anything to what goes on here?
Preferably without relying on innuendoes and unproven assertions.

Because it started like the NAU is starting. Free trade agreements, slowly moving towards political agreements. The EU went from being about free trade to being a political union. Our politicians seem intent on doing the same.

Actually NATO started out like that too. Lots of things started out like that. That doesn't mean anything.
Next.

Red herring. There are several "unions" in the world, starting now with free trade and working towards a political union, in Africa, Asia, Europe is already about done, North and South America, etc. They're driving at a single world government. Look how even politicians want to give the UN more power, such as taxation powers and making UN rules/resolutions legally binding laws...it's like boiling a frog, do it slowly so it doesn't notice...

"North and South America"

Please specify any plan with any broad appeal for South America.
You are making gross leaps of logic without any evidence whatsoever. It is tin foil hatism, not argumentation. Next you'll be saying to "connect the dots."

Quote from: The Rabbi on September 16, 2007, 01:50:18 PM

"North and South America"

Please specify any plan with any broad appeal for South America.
You are making gross leaps of logic without any evidence whatsoever. It is tin foil hatism, not argumentation. Next you'll be saying to "connect the dots."

A reasonably decent summary of some information on the NAU: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_Task_Force_on_North_America

Here is the CFR's report/plan: http://www.cfr.org/pub8102/independent_task_force_report/building_a_north_american_community.php

Let me see...some others around the world:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_Union

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asian_Union

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Asian_Union

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Union

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_of_South_American_Nations

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caribbean_Community

None of this stuff is just "tin foil hat" talk, it's all very real and out there in plain sight and easily researched.

It is a far far cry from a report/study group to a world-wide conspiracy to abolish the U.S.
But I guess nothing will convince you, since I am "one of them."

I must say, as kooky as it sounds, AntiqueCollector has provided truckloads of evidence supporting his views whereas The Rabbi has not shown any of what AC has posted to be untrue.

No, he has provided zero evidence.
What he has provided is circumstantial evidence that some people some where are considering an idea that involves more open trade relations among Canada, Mexico, and the U.S. This was an idea also floated by that notorious anti-American Ronald Reagan.
As evidence that there is a conspiracy to dissolve the U.S. and abrogate the Constitution it hardly rises to the level of risible.

Quote from: The Rabbi on September 17, 2007, 01:09:26 AM

What he has provided is that some people some where are considering an idea that involves more open trade relations among Canada, Mexico, and the U.S. This was an idea also floated by that notorious anti-American Ronald Reagan.
As evidence that there is a conspiracy to dissolve the U.S. and abrogate the Constitution it hardly rises to the level of risible.

Then ante up and provide some circumstantial evidence to refute it. Sure, that is not a logically correct procedure, but it's much more advanced than minimization and name calling, Rabbi.

Quote from: The Rabbi

innuendoes (sic) and unproven assertions
tin foil hat crowd
some of what you're smoking please

I agree, the original post showing the "Minty stolen coin" is over the top, and the links provided quash the idea, but really, where is some honest refutation of the underlying .....

oh wait,

Quote from: The Rabbi

A Union like that has been envisaged for probably well over 100 years. Done the right way I dont think it's a bad idea at all.

On the first page you offer historical (anecdotal) support of the premise of a union of north american states, going so far as to offer conditional support, and on page two, you take the other side of the table.

Share the information that made you change your mind.
Please?

Soakers

Some people need a refresher course in logic and evidence.

The tin-foil hat crowd seems to be maintaining there is a giant conspiracy by parties unknown (Big Corporations? Polticians? George Bush? The dreaded Neo Cons?) to dismantle the U.S. and the Constitution and somehow merge this country politically and economically with Mexico and Canada.
It is impossible to refute that since that means proving a negative. On the other hand, it is impossible to support that with the evidence cited so far. Some of that "evidence" is simply laughable on its face. Even 100 such citations would not amount to anything credible.

What they have shown is that there is a proposal (and has been for some time) to create an economic interest zone based on shared markets among the 3 countries. That does not involve dissolving the union or abrogating the Constitution.
Being a traditional free-trading Republican I heartily support a proposal like that. Anyone who understands economics should.

Quote from: The Rabbi on September 17, 2007, 06:51:24 AM

.....dissolving the union or abrogating the Constitution.
Being a traditional free-trading Republican I heartily support a proposal like that. Anyone who understands economics should.

You said it.

Quote from: Two Cold Soakers on September 17, 2007, 05:37:57 AM

.....

Wow, you can cut a quotation too to make the poster say the opposite. Gee, what a brilliant stroke.
I see the quality of argumentation and mind set on the other side.

And that's different from name calling and accusations in what way?

I'm new here...

Does anyone take this guy

The Rabbi

seriously?

Quote from: Two Cold Soakers on September 17, 2007, 08:02:09 AM

And that's different from name calling and accusations in what way?

I'm new here...

Does anyone take this guy

The Rabbi

seriously?

Wait, you change his quote to make him say something completely opposite of what he believes, then get mad when he calls you on it? rolleyes

Quote

What they have shown is that there is a proposal (and has been for some time) to create an economic interest zone based on shared markets among the 3 countries. That does not involve dissolving the union or abrogating the Constitution.
Being a traditional free-trading Republican I heartily support a proposal like that. Anyone who understands economics should.

You have even admitted yourself that they want some sort of union. But what CFR and the Trilateral Commission and others want is far more than just an economic thing. That is how they'll sell it to people though, a political union is harder to sell so they'll do it slowly as they did in Europe. And as I gave examples of, there are several unions or proposed unions being created worldwide. Connect the dots...

Your suggestion that those opposed to free trade don't understand economics is false too. While free trade may make a small minority very wealthy, the majority and this country are harmed by it. I take an approach more like Hamilton, supporting actions to protect our own economy and our own manufacturers and such (tariffs that is). My own country first rather than helping foreigners at our own expense.

Quote from: auschip on September 17, 2007, 09:04:27 AM

Quote from: Two Cold Soakers on September 17, 2007, 08:02:09 AM

And that's different from name calling and accusations in what way?

I'm new here...

Does anyone take this guy

The Rabbi

seriously?

Wait, you change his quote to make him say something completely opposite of what he believes, then get mad when he calls you on it? rolleyes

It looks to me like they messed up in their cutting of the rest of the post out of the quote and intended to focus on his admission that he supports the ideas of the CFR/etc. Though of course I may be wrong on that...

Quote from: AntiqueCollector on September 17, 2007, 09:43:32 AM

Quote

What they have shown is that there is a proposal (and has been for some time) to create an economic interest zone based on shared markets among the 3 countries. That does not involve dissolving the union or abrogating the Constitution.
Being a traditional free-trading Republican I heartily support a proposal like that. Anyone who understands economics should.

You have even admitted yourself that they want some sort of union. But what CFR and the Trilateral Commission and others want is far more than just an economic thing. That is how they'll sell it to people though, a political union is harder to sell so they'll do it slowly as they did in Europe. And as I gave examples of, there are several unions or proposed unions being created worldwide. Connect the dots...

Your suggestion that those opposed to free trade don't understand economics is false too. While free trade may make a small minority very wealthy, the majority and this country are harmed by it. I take an approach more like Hamilton, supporting actions to protect our own economy and our own manufacturers and such (tariffs that is). My own country first rather than helping foreigners at our own expense.

Ah yes, connect the dots. The last refuge of people unable to muster facts.
As for free trade, I'd strongly suggest looking at Thomas Sowell's Economics for the citizen book. You might learn a thing or two.

Quote from: The Rabbi on September 17, 2007, 06:51:24 AM

Being a traditional free-trading Republican I heartily support a proposal like that. Anyone who understands economics should.

I'm all for free trade; my objection to North American union is that it isn't nearly free enough. It's highly regulated, strictly supervised "free trade." It might be that half a loaf is better than none, but Ij can't decide if it's really half a loaf or not, because along with the not-really-free trade comes another regulatory structure, with all its attendant gears and levers for politicians to monkey with.

--Len.

Quote from: The Rabbi on September 17, 2007, 10:17:44 AM

Quote from: AntiqueCollector on September 17, 2007, 09:43:32 AM

Quote

What they have shown is that there is a proposal (and has been for some time) to create an economic interest zone based on shared markets among the 3 countries. That does not involve dissolving the union or abrogating the Constitution.
Being a traditional free-trading Republican I heartily support a proposal like that. Anyone who understands economics should.

You have even admitted yourself that they want some sort of union. But what CFR and the Trilateral Commission and others want is far more than just an economic thing. That is how they'll sell it to people though, a political union is harder to sell so they'll do it slowly as they did in Europe. And as I gave examples of, there are several unions or proposed unions being created worldwide. Connect the dots...

Your suggestion that those opposed to free trade don't understand economics is false too. While free trade may make a small minority very wealthy, the majority and this country are harmed by it. I take an approach more like Hamilton, supporting actions to protect our own economy and our own manufacturers and such (tariffs that is). My own country first rather than helping foreigners at our own expense.

Ah yes, connect the dots. The last refuge of people unable to muster facts.
As for free trade, I'd strongly suggest looking at Thomas Sowell's Economics for the citizen book. You might learn a thing or two.

I've already posted several facts. You see no connection between them?

As for free trade, I've learned enough from history (including recent and not so recent history) to base my opinions on. I imagine you are getting some sort of benefit from free trade for you to have such strong support for it?

No. There is no connection except the one you are trying to make to justify a paranoid view. There is no grand conspiracy. Elvis is dead.

And you haven't learned anything about trade from history if you still think its a bad thing.

Quote from: The Rabbi on September 17, 2007, 10:41:03 AM

No. There is no connection except the one you are trying to make to justify a paranoid view. There is no grand conspiracy. Elvis is dead.

And you haven't learned anything about trade from history if you still think its a bad thing.

Free trade is good and useful but only to a point. Allowing our manufacturing jobs to be exported to foreign countries on a large scale is not beneficial to this country overall in the long run, for example. We're going to be pretty well screwed if we ever go to war with China, for example. We became an industrial giant while placing tariffs on imports and keeping our industry here. Of course, we also had less socialist interference in internal matters to make manufacturing here more expensive but that's another problem...

You need to go read Sowell. Don't comment on free trade until you have.

Quote from: The Rabbi on September 17, 2007, 10:54:56 AM

You need to go read Sowell. Don't comment on free trade until you have.

Perhaps you should open your eyes to the results of free trade and outsourcing in America.

Quote from: AntiqueCollector on September 17, 2007, 11:19:11 AM

Quote from: The Rabbi on September 17, 2007, 10:54:56 AM

You need to go read Sowell. Don't comment on free trade until you have.

Perhaps you should open your eyes to the results of free trade and outsourcing in America.

Yeah. The result is that the U.S. is a net importer of jobs from overseas.
Like I said, go read Sowell before commenting again.

Quote from: The Rabbi on September 17, 2007, 11:33:41 AM

Quote from: AntiqueCollector on September 17, 2007, 11:19:11 AM

Quote from: The Rabbi on September 17, 2007, 10:54:56 AM

You need to go read Sowell. Don't comment on free trade until you have.

Perhaps you should open your eyes to the results of free trade and outsourcing in America.

Yeah. The result is that the U.S. is a net importer of jobs from overseas.
Like I said, go read Sowell before commenting again.

Last I heard, we're in the negatives as far as jobs created...

Quote from: AntiqueCollector on September 17, 2007, 11:36:40 AM

Quote from: The Rabbi on September 17, 2007, 11:33:41 AM

Quote from: AntiqueCollector on September 17, 2007, 11:19:11 AM

Quote from: The Rabbi on September 17, 2007, 10:54:56 AM

You need to go read Sowell. Don't comment on free trade until you have.

Perhaps you should open your eyes to the results of free trade and outsourcing in America.

Yeah. The result is that the U.S. is a net importer of jobs from overseas.
Like I said, go read Sowell before commenting again.

Last I heard, we're in the negatives as far as jobs created...

You heard wrong.
What you heard was the total job creation report from last month, showing a net loss of jobs. That has nothing to do with this particular point. The U.S. has benefited from outsourcing from other countries far more than it has been hurt by it.

Quote from: The Rabbi on September 17, 2007, 11:38:48 AM

Quote from: AntiqueCollector on September 17, 2007, 11:36:40 AM

Quote from: The Rabbi on September 17, 2007, 11:33:41 AM

Quote from: AntiqueCollector on September 17, 2007, 11:19:11 AM

Quote from: The Rabbi on September 17, 2007, 10:54:56 AM

You need to go read Sowell. Don't comment on free trade until you have.

Perhaps you should open your eyes to the results of free trade and outsourcing in America.

Yeah. The result is that the U.S. is a net importer of jobs from overseas.
Like I said, go read Sowell before commenting again.

Last I heard, we're in the negatives as far as jobs created...

You heard wrong.
What you heard was the total job creation report from last month, showing a net loss of jobs. That has nothing to do with this particular point. The U.S. has benefited from outsourcing from other countries far more than it has been hurt by it.

You see nothing wrong with a net loss of jobs? You should see communities where most are unemployed because of outsourcing, and there's not sense in any of them moving when there aren't enough jobs elsewhere for them. And we're not even getting into the whole issue of depending on foreign countries for our production of goods when these countries may turn on us or the trade may be interrupted relatively easily by a determined enemy.

And I would like to see what you believe backs up the statement that the U.S. has benefitted from outsourcing...

China gets a huge market for her exports (while keeping her own tariffs in place and a deflated currency). Mexico gets an outlet for its unwanted population. The narcotrafficantes wrap their tentacles around more and more of America.

And we get? More toys for our addicted consumers to buy with credit cards. Lots more welfare costs. And the subversion of our cultural legacy and values.

Now that's what I call a great trade.

Quote from: The Rabbi on September 17, 2007, 10:54:56 AM

You need to go read Sowell. Don't comment on free trade until you have.

You mean Thomas Sowell? PhD University of Chicago?

Quote

Greed for power is more dangerous than greed for money and has shed far more blood in the process. Political authorities have often had revolutionary values that were devastating to the general population.

Yup, I've read him, as well as Leo Strauss, the ideological mentor of the Chicago Kids.

Have you read the Statement of Principles of the Project for a New American Century?
http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm

" we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global
responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;

" we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;

" we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;

" we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.

Have you read last weeks assignment?
http://www.cfr.org/publication.html?id=8102

Quote

North America is vulnerable on several fronts: the region faces terrorist and criminal security threats, increased economic competition from abroad, and uneven economic development at home. In response to these challenges, a tri-national, Independent Task Force on the Future of North America has developed a road map to promote North American security and advance the well-being of citizens of all three countries.

Perhaps you should, for a view of the policy being crafted from the philosophy you espouse.
At least three of the P for the NAC founders are current members of the CFR, and thats only high profilers, ie Dick Cheney, Fred Ikle and Paul Wolfowitz. Im not trying for the seven degrees of Leo Strauss but a legitimate unified front of the western world will make the goals of the neoconservative philosophy easier to realize.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0377/is_n121/ai_17489596

Irving Kristol (of the CFR) self proclaimed godfather of neoconservatism writes

Quote

People have always preferred strong government to weak government, although they certainly have no liking for anything that smacks of overly intrusive government.

Who stands to gain from all this? That is the 64 thousand dollar question. Who stands to gain?

Yes, you can call me a tin foil hatter and conspiracy nut all you want, I laugh at your reluctance to educate yourself with the roots of current political philosophy and policy therein rooted. Who stands to gain? Rabbi answered 75% correctly in reply post 48 #

Quote from: The Rabbi on September 17, 2007, 10:54:56 AM

(Big Corporations? Polticians? George Bush? The dreaded Neo Cons?)

All the same, except GW, hes nothing. Again, look at the list of members of the CFR, The P for a NAC, and the Tri Lateral commission.

The constitution is written to uphold the rights of the people. There has been no overt assault on that goddamned piece of paper, rather, we see a gradual erosion and chipping away.

Why these erosions?
To protect us from terrorists? To ensure domestic tranquility? To foster continued economic growth?
Who stands to gain?

Not a conspiracy theory, this North American Union, but perhaps a hypothesis. What I find disturbing is the number of fawning sycophants willing to ignorantly call names, espouse contradictory points of view and deny the validity of even trying it under scientific method.

Who stands to gain? Look at their philosophy and their methods.
Is it feasible? Is it possible?

The fox will find the hen house. If we build a bigger, stronger hen house in a private location, do we sit back assuming the fox will never find it, or is even looking for it? There is no feeling quite like waking in the morning and finding the place ransacked by a thief in the night. Whose tracks are those?

Some call it paranoia,
Realists call it situational awareness.

Soakers

ps. my earlier quote attempt was a cheap shot. I'll try to control myself.

Quote from: AntiqueCollector on September 17, 2007, 11:42:23 AM

You see nothing wrong with a net loss of jobs? You should see communities where most are unemployed because of outsourcing...

It's true that temporary dislocations can occur, just as they would when a town's biggest employer closes down--whether that's a steel mill or a stagecoach factory. That's a human problem that does need to be taken into account.

However, in the long run there's no such thing as a "loss of jobs," because the amount of work to be done in the universe is infinite. In the 18th century, something like 80% of the people worked on farms. Today less than 5% work on farms--yet the other 75% aren't just sitting there idle wishing they could find a job milking cows. Instead the economy has grown to include jobs unimaginable to 18th-century farmers. In the same way, "outsourcing" can't eliminate work, because humans always want more. Because they want more, someone will provide it for a price. And so on.

Trying to "protect" jobs is, in the long run, the same as if the congress of 1900 had "protected" the buggy-whip industry, or if the congress of 1800 had "protected" hand-picked cotton from the "unfair" competition of the cotton gin. It's an act of force to make people pay for what they don't want--and its foolishness becomes increasingly apparent over time. If the early Americans had thought like people today, there'd still be a government-subsidized buggy-whip industry, and US cotton plantations would still pick the stuff by hand. And there'd be massive tariffs on cotton to "protect" America from ginned cotton at $0.60/lb, forcing us to "buy America" at $25/lb.

As for outsourcing, I work in the IT industry where there was a genuine possibility that outsourcing would eventually leave me, personally, jobless. Lots of IT guys ran around in a blind panic, imagining that all programming would soon be done in Bangledesh for $3/hr. They're ignorant of economics. The demand for outsourcing drives prices upward. Already, outsourcing is slowing or stopping growth, because Indians in call centers are making more money, which reduces their edge over American staff. Meanwhile, as Rabbi mentioned, the Americans aren't sitting around jobless because they've lost their (crappy!) call-center jobs. They have other jobs.

--Len.

As for position documents existing for speculative unions.

I would remind those that regard the existence of a document as proof of intent to follow through, to read up on military war planning exercises. Here's a little info from the past. They do the same sort of thing today.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Color-coded_War_Plans

Quote from: Two Cold Soakers on September 17, 2007, 03:21:37 PM

Quote from: The Rabbi on September 17, 2007, 10:54:56 AM

You need to go read Sowell. Don't comment on free trade until you have.

You mean Thomas Sowell? PhD University of Chicago?

Quote

Greed for power is more dangerous than greed for money and has shed far more blood in the process. Political authorities have often had revolutionary values that were devastating to the general population.

Yup, I've read him, as well as Leo Strauss, the ideological mentor of the Chicago Kids.

Have you read the Statement of Principles of the Project for a New American Century?
http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm

" we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global
responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;

" we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;

" we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;

" we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.

Have you read last weeks assignment?
http://www.cfr.org/publication.html?id=8102

Quote

North America is vulnerable on several fronts: the region faces terrorist and criminal security threats, increased economic competition from abroad, and uneven economic development at home. In response to these challenges, a tri-national, Independent Task Force on the Future of North America has developed a road map to promote North American security and advance the well-being of citizens of all three countries.

Perhaps you should, for a view of the policy being crafted from the philosophy you espouse.
At least three of the P for the NAC founders are current members of the CFR, and thats only high profilers, ie Dick Cheney, Fred Ikle and Paul Wolfowitz. Im not trying for the seven degrees of Leo Strauss but a legitimate unified front of the western world will make the goals of the neoconservative philosophy easier to realize.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0377/is_n121/ai_17489596

Irving Kristol (of the CFR) self proclaimed godfather of neoconservatism writes

Quote

People have always preferred strong government to weak government, although they certainly have no liking for anything that smacks of overly intrusive government.

Who stands to gain from all this? That is the 64 thousand dollar question. Who stands to gain?

Yes, you can call me a tin foil hatter and conspiracy nut all you want, I laugh at your reluctance to educate yourself with the roots of current political philosophy and policy therein rooted. Who stands to gain? Rabbi answered 75% correctly in reply post 48 #

Quote from: The Rabbi on September 17, 2007, 10:54:56 AM

(Big Corporations? Polticians? George Bush? The dreaded Neo Cons?)

All the same, except GW, hes nothing. Again, look at the list of members of the CFR, The P for a NAC, and the Tri Lateral commission.

The constitution is written to uphold the rights of the people. There has been no overt assault on that goddamned piece of paper, rather, we see a gradual erosion and chipping away.

Why these erosions?
To protect us from terrorists? To ensure domestic tranquility? To foster continued economic growth?
Who stands to gain?

Not a conspiracy theory, this North American Union, but perhaps a hypothesis. What I find disturbing is the number of fawning sycophants willing to ignorantly call names, espouse contradictory points of view and deny the validity of even trying it under scientific method.

Who stands to gain? Look at their philosophy and their methods.
Is it feasible? Is it possible?

The fox will find the hen house. If we build a bigger, stronger hen house in a private location, do we sit back assuming the fox will never find it, or is even looking for it? There is no feeling quite like waking in the morning and finding the place ransacked by a thief in the night. Whose tracks are those?

Some call it paranoia,
Realists call it situational awareness.

Soakers

ps. my earlier quote attempt was a cheap shot. I'll try to control myself.

Wow, you can Google an author's name and correctly list his degree. I'm impressed.
This is typical tin foil speak.
You havent read Sowell. If you did you would understand what free trade means.
Trying to "connect the dots" (there's that term again!) to show a conspiracy by students of Leo Strauss doesn't pass the laugh test.
Your entire post is a rambling bunch of disjointed half-thoughts, spewing names and random quotations, a veritable word salad of paranoid fantasy.

Where is your evidence to the contrary Rabbi?

Pony up Rabbi, disprove everything without namecalling and I'll have the inclination to respect your position. Simply slandering opposing views and not providing your own is not gaining you credibility.

"go read Sowell" is not nearly enough.

It seems that the only concrete steps that have been taken thus far for the "one-world-government," of which the tinfoil brigade have been warning us about for years now, has been the creation of the UN and the creation of the EU.

It would appear to me that if this one-world-government was going to happen, it ain't happening any time too soon. I mean the UN has been around for a number of decades now and it is hardly a force to be reckoned with. The EU was a long time in coming. I don't see how the "one-worlders" are supposed to get China, India, Japan, Indonesia, Russia, Turkey, Brazil, Chile, Venezuela, Sudan, Chad, the USA, Philippines, New Zealand, etc., etc., etc., to comply with this one government program.

Many people have written novels about a future in which there would be a one-world-government. Were they in on the plan too? Just because an individual or organization would like something to happen, or even plans to try to bring it about, doesn't mean it is going to happen and doesn't mean it is some vast conspiracy. If the EAU were such a conspiracy, how is it that we can read so much about it?

Quote from: Len Budney on September 17, 2007, 04:04:50 PM

Quote from: AntiqueCollector on September 17, 2007, 11:42:23 AM

You see nothing wrong with a net loss of jobs? You should see communities where most are unemployed because of outsourcing...

It's true that temporary dislocations can occur, just as they would when a town's biggest employer closes down--whether that's a steel mill or a stagecoach factory. That's a human problem that does need to be taken into account.

However, in the long run there's no such thing as a "loss of jobs," because the amount of work to be done in the universe is infinite. In the 18th century, something like 80% of the people worked on farms. Today less than 5% work on farms--yet the other 75% aren't just sitting there idle wishing they could find a job milking cows. Instead the economy has grown to include jobs unimaginable to 18th-century farmers. In the same way, "outsourcing" can't eliminate work, because humans always want more. Because they want more, someone will provide it for a price. And so on.

Trying to "protect" jobs is, in the long run, the same as if the congress of 1900 had "protected" the buggy-whip industry, or if the congress of 1800 had "protected" hand-picked cotton from the "unfair" competition of the cotton gin. It's an act of force to make people pay for what they don't want--and its foolishness becomes increasingly apparent over time. If the early Americans had thought like people today, there'd still be a government-subsidized buggy-whip industry, and US cotton plantations would still pick the stuff by hand. And there'd be massive tariffs on cotton to "protect" America from ginned cotton at $0.60/lb, forcing us to "buy America" at $25/lb.

As for outsourcing, I work in the IT industry where there was a genuine possibility that outsourcing would eventually leave me, personally, jobless. Lots of IT guys ran around in a blind panic, imagining that all programming would soon be done in Bangledesh for $3/hr. They're ignorant of economics. The demand for outsourcing drives prices upward. Already, outsourcing is slowing or stopping growth, because Indians in call centers are making more money, which reduces their edge over American staff. Meanwhile, as Rabbi mentioned, the Americans aren't sitting around jobless because they've lost their (crappy!) call-center jobs. They have other jobs.

--Len.

Incorrect. There is a loss of a jobs and the statistics prove it. We're not just talking temporary dislocations anymore, because outsourcing is getting to the point where there are losses everywhere or will be. Perhaps some people will enjoy a "manufacturing job" flipping burgers but that sort of economy is not going to work too long. There may be jobs being created, but if they're in other countries they're useless to Americans. And your comparisons on the issue of protective tariffs are incorrect. Protective tariffs were designed to protect all American industries. They may not have protected the buggy whip makers against the automobile industry, but they protected both the whip makers and car makers from foreign companies making the same products to a degree.

And I still haven't seen any of the free traders address the issues inherent in depending on other countries for our goods...

Quote from: AntiqueCollector on September 18, 2007, 01:23:33 AM

Incorrect. There is a loss of a jobs and the statistics prove it. We're not just talking temporary dislocations anymore, because outsourcing is getting to the point where there are losses everywhere or will be.

That's where economics sheds light on the problem. It is absolutely, completely impossible for there to be a permanent "loss of jobs." The loss of jobs in buggy whip factories is probably permanent, but because human want is infinite, there is always something else to be done.

Quote

Perhaps some people will enjoy a "manufacturing job" flipping burgers but that sort of economy is not going to work too long.

If you could prove that everyone who ever worked in a call center is now flipping burgers, you'd have posted a link to the proof. Some people do end up in lower-paying jobs, it's true: the guy who only knows how to make buggy whips, and who works as a well-paid buggy-whip-factory foreman, will have a tough time getting a comparable job; he's too old to go back to school, and his only skill is no longer in demand. However, others will get better jobs. The burden is on you to prove that everyone dislocated by a market shift is made permanently (i.e., for the rest of his life) worse off.

Quote

There may be jobs being created, but if they're in other countries they're useless to Americans.

Burden of proof. It's on you. Post the evidence. (As Rabbi has pointed out, your claim is not true anway.)

Quote

And your comparisons on the issue of protective tariffs are incorrect. Protective tariffs were designed to protect all American industries.

Um, no. A tariff on cotton protects the cotton industry, at the expense of the textile industry. A tariff on steel protects the steel industry, at the expense of construction, auto-making, etc. A tariff on sugar protects the corn-syrup producers at the expense of the makers of soft drinks. And so on. It's just plain silly to suggest that a tariff "protects all American industries." It indirectly robs some Americans for the benefit of other Americans.

Regulations limiting outsourcing, or quotas limiting imported goods, or other such measures, are exactly like tariffs in every way.

Quote

And I still haven't seen any of the free traders address the issues inherent in depending on other countries for our goods...

That's the only argument you've raised that, at least on the surface, carries some weight. The first response to this argument, however, is that trade itself discourages war. Would you open a store, reap tremendous profit, and then, when you judged the time was right, start shooting your best customers? As Bastiat put it, "If goods do not cross borders, then armies will."

--Len.

Quote from: jeepmor on September 18, 2007, 12:42:03 AM

Where is your evidence to the contrary Rabbi?

Pony up Rabbi, disprove everything without namecalling and I'll have the inclination to respect your position. Simply slandering opposing views and not providing your own is not gaining you credibility.

"go read Sowell" is not nearly enough.

Eviednce of what? That there is no grand conspiracy? I dont need to post evidence. The people making this absurd claim need to post something other than the design on the back of NC drivers licenses if they want any credibility. I can just sit here and point out that "connect the dots" is not a logical argument.

As said, the U.S. is a net importer of jobs from abroad. Outsourcing works both ways. If we have had massive job losses, why is the unemployment rate well under 5%? And that includes illegals supposedly taking jobs from fine Americans.

As for loss of manufacturing capacity, we still manufacture plenty. What we dont do is cheap mass manufacturing, in part because workers here wont do that for 25 cents an hour, having far better opportunities.

Quote from: The rabbi on September 18, 2007, 01:57:37 AM

As for loss of manufacturing capacity, we still manufacture plenty. What we dont do is cheap mass manufacturing, in part because workers here wont do that for 25 cents an hour, having far better opportunities.

Aha, he can reason!!!
Gold star for the Rabbii!!!

Very good point. I'll concede.

The "Tin Foil Hatters" you disparage are in large part the "buggy whip foremen" who know the job they did is gone and they are "too old to re-educate"

Quote from: the rabbi

As said, the U.S. is a net importer of jobs from abroad. Outsourcing works both ways.

Numbers! Sources! Lies? Well instead of spouting out mouth diarrhea, show some numbers, with a source.
I showed my respect by Yahooing (dont use google, dont shop wal mart, either)Sowell.

I suggest that it is not a good idea to tell a large portion of the populous "Go eat cake, you're too stupid to understand the big picture" (your restructuring of the economy).

Sowell is impressive not because of his writings, he's another fool who parrots the money trail. "Fawning sycophant". One who likes to agree with, not question and pal up to those who hold power. Maybe in hopes of being tossed a few crumbs.

Quote from: Two Cold Soakers on September 18, 2007, 02:47:26 AM

The "Tin Foil Hatters" you disparage are in large part the "buggy whip foremen" who know the job they did is gone and they are "too old to re-educate"

It's legitimate to discuss what should be done about people like that, because it's a genuine human problem. But it's a big mistake to assume, without discussion, that the thing to do is prop up the buggy whip industry forever. With that sort of thinking, we'll end up with starships required by law to include a trained buggy-whipper in every crew. We already have diesel locomotives required to carry a fireman, although most fireman haven't even ridden on a coal-fired locomotive in their lives.

It would be less harmful to the economy to give a government check directly to every dislocated buggy-whip worker: at least that way, when the last one dies, the market will finally be allowed to stop worrying about a product that nobody wants anymore. It would even cut out some middlemen and lower the cost to the taxpayers.

--Len.

Quote

That's the only argument you've raised that, at least on the surface, carries some weight. The first response to this argument, however, is that trade itself discourages war. Would you open a store, reap tremendous profit, and then, when you judged the time was right, start shooting your best customers? As Bastiat put it, "If goods do not cross borders, then armies will."

Same was said before WWI. All the trade going on between Germany and Britain and the U.S. and so on didn't stop that war. It's a discredited argument. All we're doing now with China is giving them money to build their military up, giving them technology and factories and tools to make it possible for them to wage a war and supply themselves, etc.

Quote

That's where economics sheds light on the problem. It is absolutely, completely impossible for there to be a permanent "loss of jobs." The loss of jobs in buggy whip factories is probably permanent, but because human want is infinite, there is always something else to be done.

You're putting words in my mouth. I didn't say permanent loss of jobs, I stated: "There is a loss of a jobs and the statistics prove it. We're not just talking temporary dislocations anymore, because outsourcing is getting to the point where there are losses everywhere or will be."

The loss is entirely reversible if we get our heads out of the sand and quit drinking the Chinese kool aid. Human want may be infinite, but the means of fulfilling those wants isn't necessarily so at any given time period.

Quote

If you could prove that everyone who ever worked in a call center is now flipping burgers, you'd have posted a link to the proof. Some people do end up in lower-paying jobs, it's true: the guy who only knows how to make buggy whips, and who works as a well-paid buggy-whip-factory foreman, will have a tough time getting a comparable job; he's too old to go back to school, and his only skill is no longer in demand. However, others will get better jobs. The burden is on you to prove that everyone dislocated by a market shift is made permanently (i.e., for the rest of his life) worse off.

You're trying to set up a straw man sort of argument here. And, FWIW, when flipping burgers is reclassified as a "manufacturing" job to make the numbers on the govt. reports look better, there's something wrong. And it's not simply a matter of education when it comes to getting new jobs. Even those with plenty of education are not getting jobs. Outsourcing isn't just a problem with unskilled workers.

Quote

Burden of proof. It's on you. Post the evidence. (As Rabbi has pointed out, your claim is not true anway.)

Enough has already been posted. There is a net loss of jobs, the jobs being lost in this country are being sent elsewhere. Therefore, simply enough, they are of no use to people in this country.

Quote

Um, no. A tariff on cotton protects the cotton industry, at the expense of the textile industry. A tariff on steel protects the steel industry, at the expense of construction, auto-making, etc. A tariff on sugar protects the corn-syrup producers at the expense of the makers of soft drinks. And so on. It's just plain silly to suggest that a tariff "protects all American industries." It indirectly robs some Americans for the benefit of other Americans.

Regulations limiting outsourcing, or quotas limiting imported goods, or other such measures, are exactly like tariffs in every way.

How so? If consumers aren't led to believe artificially low prices are correct there wouldn't be a problem. This outsourcing amounts to welfare, making plenty of cheap garbage available so people think their standard of living is good due to the amount of stuff they have, when in fact it's lower and only made possible by near slave labor in third world countries. All American industries would actually be on a level playing field, no one would be hurt more than another, and no American worker would need to compete with a Chinese slave.

Quote from: AntiqueCollector on September 18, 2007, 03:24:34 AM

Quote

That's where economics sheds light on the problem. It is absolutely, completely impossible for there to be a permanent "loss of jobs." The loss of jobs in buggy whip factories is probably permanent, but because human want is infinite, there is always something else to be done.

You're putting words in my mouth. I didn't say permanent loss of jobs, I stated: "There is a loss of a jobs and the statistics prove it. We're not just talking temporary dislocations anymore, because outsourcing is getting to the point where there are losses everywhere or will be."

"Not temporary" is "permanent." Your own quote illustrates that I wasn't putting any words in your mouth.

Quote

Human want may be infinite, but the means of fulfilling those wants isn't necessarily so at any given time period.

Doesn't matter: the point is that there's always something else to be done. That's always true in every given time period. The dislocation is always due to one (or more) of three reasons: the worker doesn't know yet what there is to do; or he doesn't know how to do it; or he refuses to do it. The first thing a laid-off steel worker says is, "What else can I do? I've worked in a mill all my life! There aren't any other jobs..." eventually, he learns about other jobs. Some he isn't qualified for. Some he refuses to do. Some pay less than he used to make.

But what is always true, at every point in history, is that there's something else out there for him to do.

Quote

Even those with plenty of education are not getting jobs. Outsourcing isn't just a problem with unskilled workers.

Proof? And how about more specificity? When I was in grad school, one of the morning bus drivers had a PhD in English--but so what? He picked a (practically) useless major, and found that the market didn't want him... but that isn't proof of any systemic problem.

Quote

Burden of proof. It's on you. Post the evidence. (As Rabbi has pointed out, your claim is not true anway.)

Enough has already been posted. There is a net loss of jobs...

You've posted the claim, repeatedly, but never posted the proof. Repeated assertions don't prove anything.

Quote

Regulations limiting outsourcing, or quotas limiting imported goods, or other such measures, are exactly like tariffs in every way.

How so? If consumers aren't led to believe artificially low prices are correct there wouldn't be a problem.

You keep opening economic cans of worms. If you try to define "artificially low prices," you'll discover that you can't define it. Worse, you'll discover that there is, in general, no such thing: you're trying to accuse China of "predatory pricing," in the same way that folks like to accuse Walmart, but you don't realize that this subject is well-researched. On one hand, claimed examples of "predatory pricing" have all evaporated under scrutiny; on the other hand, solid economic proof is already out there that "predatory pricing" is always a losing game. Anyone foolish enough to try it will lose his shirt. In particular, if China really were selling us goods below cost, in the belief that it gave them some sort of advantage, then (1) they're wrong, and (2) they're benefiting us at their own expense. It would mean they were giving us cheap steel (or whatever) but absorbing the cost themselves. They would be starving their own people to give us steel.

Consider the limiting case in which I decide I hate the local pizza man, and decide to drive him out of business by giving away free pizza. For starters, he can generally bankrupt me simply by going on vacation until I've gone broke giving out free pizza. He can also collect my free pizzas, through straw buyers perhaps, and then sell them for money in another town or freeze them for later use. He can compete on quality, by making pizza twice as good as mine, or by selling only gourmet pizza. He can hire dancing girls as waitresses. He can get a liquor license. He can even switch to the wholesale market and sell pizza shells to restaurants (as a local pizza place actually did). If all else fails, and he goes out of business, I still lose: if I crank up the price of my pizza to recover the millions I spent, nothing stops the same or another pizza man from immediately opening a store and competing on price. "Predatory pricing" is a losing game, and any businessman with an ounce of sense knows it.

But the other thing I want you to note is that, while my "predatory pricing" was underway, I was giving the people pizza at my own expense. I was draining my bank account so others could eat pizza. I was benefiting others and hurting myself--and in the long run, I failed to achieve my objective anyway.

Quote

This outsourcing amounts to welfare...

No, I'm not going to let you get away with that. "Welfare" is money taken from Peter by force and handed over to Paul, with the excuse that "Paul really needs it." "Outsourcing" is when Peter decides to hire Paul, of his own free will, and Paul accepts the job, of his own free will, but Mary is enraged because, if only Paul were dead, Mary might get the job at a higher wage. That sort of thing happens all the time in the market, because employers (like everyone else) shop around for the best deal. You're proposing that the government threaten to arrest Peter unless he fires Paul and hires Mary at the higher salary. THAT, my friend, is welfare.

--Len.

Len, we are dealing with economic naifs. Anyone who could post this

Quote

How so? If consumers aren't led to believe artificially low prices are correct there wouldn't be a problem. This outsourcing amounts to welfare, making plenty of cheap garbage available so people think their standard of living is good due to the amount of stuff they have, when in fact it's lower and only made possible by near slave labor in third world countries. All American industries would actually be on a level playing field, no one would be hurt more than another, and no American worker would need to compete with a Chinese slave.

has no right to be posting at all. They certainly have no credibility.
I bring up Sowell's excellent discussion of Law of Comparative Advantage and all I get are ad hominems (against Sowell) and weird conspiracy theories.
This is explaining red to a blind man. I don't think it is our responsibility to educate others in basic (very basic) econ.

But here is the BLS for August:

Quote

THE EMPLOYMENT SITUATION: AUGUST 2007

Nonfarm payroll employment was essentially unchanged (-4,000) in August, and the unemployment rate remained at 4.6 percent, the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U.S. Department of Labor reported today. Over the last 3 months, total pay-roll employment changes have averaged 44,000 per month and private sector employ-ment changes have averaged 72,000 per month (as revised). In August, employment in manufacturing, construction, and local government education declined, while job growth continued in health care and food services.

Note that the economy had been adding 72,000 private sector jobs a month over the last 3 months. Massive job losses? No, I think not.
Again, with an unemployment rate of under 5% it is difficult to find "massive job losses due to outsourcing" anywhere.
We will see increasing unemployment and job loss over the next 12 months, but that has to do with the economic cycle rather than any structural change. That won't prevent people from making the charge though, blaming outsourcing, illegal workers, and the Trilateral Commission for all I know.

Quote from: Len Budney on September 18, 2007, 02:56:03 AM

It's legitimate to discuss ......
.... lower the cost to the taxpayers.
--Len.

Excellent point. I agree subsidies are not the answer. Welfare checks won't really address the problem, simply treat a symptom. I suppose the human chattel issue is one that we as humans need to continue educate ourselves and rise above.

Quote from: The Rabbi on September 18, 2007, 04:39:36 AM

Len, we are dealing with economic naifs.
....all I get are ad hominems ....

Ad hominem - marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made

Examples....

Quote from: The rabbi

...you haven't learned anything about trade from history if you still think...
..This is typical tin foil speak....
I'd like some of what you're smoking please&
.. nothing will convince you..
Elvis is dead.

Pot, kettle, etc&
Doublespeak don't work so good in writing, rabbi.

Quote from: Two Cold Soakers on September 18, 2007, 05:16:42 AM

I agree subsidies are not the answer. Welfare checks won't really address the problem, simply treat a symptom.

Subsidies aren't the answer, that's true. Neither are tariffs, and neither is the stifling of free trade.

To put it simply, an out-of-work buggy whipper is in a comparable position to someone disabled on the job--if he is truly unable to get another job, that is. In that case, he should be turning first to his family; second to his church; and third to his fraternal society or insurance provider. Government can't solve his problems and it shouldn't even try.

Quote

I suppose the human chattel issue is one that we as humans need to continue educate ourselves and rise above.

That's a bit of a snarky comment. However, refusing to buy Chinese goods is certainly your prerogative. Forcing others to do the same is not. Your pity for the poor Chinese worker seems to come in conflict with your desire to "protect American industry" though. What if "keeping the jobs here" and "helping the poor Chinese" are conflicting goals? Which will you sacrifice for the sake of the other? And doesn't that suggest that your expressions of concern serve a different purpose?

The fact is that living standards in China ARE rising. The Chinese are losing manufacturing jobs to Vietnam and Cambodia, because at current wages they can't afford to produce cheap junk anymore. Just like Indian outsourcing, Chinese manufacturing cannot escape the laws of supply and demand. But if their wages and living standards are rising, which they are, this calls in question your description of them as "slaves" or "chattel."

Of course if you were really so terribly moved by the plight of the Chinese, why aren't you invading China and "liberating" them? That's the American way anymore. If you aren't even willing to take up arms for the downtrodden, please don't try and claim the moral high ground here.

--Len.

Rabbi said:

Quote

What they have shown is that there is a proposal (and has been for some time) to create an economic interest zone based on shared markets among the 3 countries

Except that it's not just 3 countries. The Mexican deep water port of Lazaro Cardenas is preparing to receive shipments not only from China, but other parts of Asia as well. Lazaro Cardenas will eventually supplant the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. Cargo containers will then be loaded onto Mexican trucks and carried-uninspected- up through the Trans Texas Corridor.

Now the TTC doesn't exist yet, but will be built on land confiscated by government under Eminent Domain (there's a 'free market' principle for ya). Much of this land will then be handed over to private 'investors' who will profit from toll charges.

The trade deficit with China will continue to grow as they (and other countries) accumulate more and more of our money. Then they use our money to buy our debt

Borrowing increases and more and more of our money goes to pay interest. This debt will continue long after the crap we bought from China went to the landfill. It's like an individual charging all his living expenses to his credit card, but only making the minimum payment. In 2007 he's still paying for a taco he ate back in 1997. But the instant gratification of rapacious consumerism overrides any of these petty concerns, doesn't it?

I now return you to Free Market Fantasyland where dreams come true, and there are Always Low Prices. Always.

"Ad hominem - marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made"

Incorrect.

It was an observation based on the categorization of previous statements provided in the discussion. Rabbi's opinion, based on the statements you have made, is that you are unknowledgable about macroeconomic issues...

Quote from: RileyMc on September 18, 2007, 06:59:12 AM

Rabbi said:

Quote

What they have shown is that there is a proposal (and has been for some time) to create an economic interest zone based on shared markets among the 3 countries

Except that it's not just 3 countries. The Mexican deep water port of Lazaro Cardenas is preparing to receive shipments not only from China, but other parts of Asia as well. Lazaro Cardenas will eventually supplant the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. Cargo containers will then be loaded onto Mexican trucks and carried-uninspected- up through the Trans Texas Corridor.

Now the TTC doesn't exist yet, but will be built on land confiscated by government under Eminent Domain (there's a 'free market' principle for ya). Much of this land will then be handed over to private 'investors' who will profit from toll charges.

The trade deficit with China will continue to grow as they (and other countries) accumulate more and more of our money. Then they use our money to buy our debt

Borrowing increases and more and more of our money goes to pay interest. This debt will continue long after the crap we bought from China went to the landfill. It's like an individual charging all his living expenses to his credit card, but only making the minimum payment. In 2007 he's still paying for a taco he ate back in 1997. But the instant gratification of rapacious consumerism overrides any of these petty concerns, doesn't it?

I now return you to Free Market Fantasyland where dreams come true, and there are Always Low Prices. Always.

I think you're the one in Fantasyland. Your first comment is that it is not the 3 countries involved. Then you devolve into something about the TransTexas Corridor. Hello? Logical disconnect anyone?
The Corridor sounds like a great idea. Best of all, it will be built and funded by private capital, so no tax increases required. Count me on board there.
Of course, it is projected to take 50 years to complete, so I might be around to see it.
The trade deficit with China might grow. It might not. Back in the 1970s everyone was screaming about the Arabs and Japanese taking all our money and lending it back to us. But no disaster actually occurred. And it won't this time either.

So you support stealing private property by the government and turning it over to private investors so the investors can make more money off it?

Quote

has no right to be posting at all.

Interesting idea. Who else has no right to speak?

Quote from: Mike Irwin on September 18, 2007, 07:06:13 AM

"Ad hominem - marked by or being an attack on an opponent's character rather than by an answer to the contentions made"

Incorrect.

It was an observation based on the categorization of previous statements provided in the discussion. Rabbi's opinion, based on the statements you have made, is that you are unknowledgable about macroeconomic issues...

Actually I think Rabbi's comment was directed towards me, and it was most likely intended as an attack because he obviously dislikes my opinions on this, but, no matter really, because I do believe in free speech, someone is only discrediting themselves when resorting to such comments...

Damn, egg on my face time.

Sorry, I skipped right over a line of what was posted.

I retract my statement and agree that what Rabbi posted is an ad hominem.

Not nice, Rabbi.

Quote

That's a bit of a snarky comment. However, refusing to buy Chinese goods is certainly your prerogative. Forcing others to do the same is not. Your pity for the poor Chinese worker seems to come in conflict with your desire to "protect American industry" though. What if "keeping the jobs here" and "helping the poor Chinese" are conflicting goals? Which will you sacrifice for the sake of the other? And doesn't that suggest that your expressions of concern serve a different purpose?

Taxing imports to make American goods more competitive isn't forcing anyone to buy or not buy Chinese goods, though I would hope given several recent examples (lead paint, poison in food, etc.) people have woken up to the fact that buying cheap junk isn't such a good idea.

We are responsible for ourselves, the Chinese for themselves. The slavery like conditions over there for many are but one good reason to not support their oppressive government.

Quote from: AntiqueCollector on September 18, 2007, 07:53:06 AM

We are responsible for ourselves, the Chinese for themselves.

Can you explain how this morally justifies you preventing me from striking a voluntary agreement to buy goods at a mutually agreed price because one of the parties is yellow and lives far away?

--Len.

Quote from: AntiqueCollector on September 18, 2007, 07:40:33 AM

So you support stealing private property by the government and turning it over to private investors so the investors can make more money off it?

If it provides needed infrastructure that would otherwise require heavy taxes to build, then yes.

Quote from: auschip on September 18, 2007, 08:04:40 AM

Quote from: AntiqueCollector on September 18, 2007, 07:40:33 AM

So you support stealing private property by the government and turning it over to private investors so the investors can make more money off it?

If it provides needed infrastructure that would otherwise require heavy taxes to build, then yes.

EEP!

The answer is always "no." What isn't clear is where AntiqueCollector gets the idea that anyone is advocating the theft of private property. If the highway he's referring to will be built using eminent domain, then that's wrong--but nobody here has advocated that, and neither has he proven that this is intended.

If something provides needed infrastructure, then the private individuals who need it will pay for it. If it "requires heavy taxes to build," then it must not have been needed in the first place.

--Len.

Quote from: Len Budney on September 18, 2007, 08:08:16 AM

Quote from: auschip on September 18, 2007, 08:04:40 AM

Quote from: AntiqueCollector on September 18, 2007, 07:40:33 AM

So you support stealing private property by the government and turning it over to private investors so the investors can make more money off it?

If it provides needed infrastructure that would otherwise require heavy taxes to build, then yes.

EEP!

The answer is always "no." What isn't clear is where AntiqueCollector gets the idea that anyone is advocating the theft of private property. If the highway he's referring to will be built using eminent domain, then that's wrong--but nobody here has advocated that, and neither has he proven that this is intended.

If something provides needed infrastructure, then the private individuals who need it will pay for it. If it "requires heavy taxes to build," then it must not have been needed in the first place.

--Len.

Of course, it isn't stealing if someone is compensated for it, but that was a leading question anyway. The TTC is needed to relieve congestion on I35 and other travel and shipping lanes. Anytime you build an entire new extended highway and shipping system it was take lots of capital (especially when that corridor encompasses approximately 4000 miles) . That capital can come from the people through taxes, or through private investment from companies who will then recoop their investment through tolls. Either way, the people pay, but one requires a large chunk up front, while the other is done on a usage basis.

Taxes split the cost equally among all taxpayers who may or may not actually get equal utility out of the project.

Tolls pass the costs to those who benefit, first directly (shippers/travelers) and then indirectly (consumers of shipped materials, products or products produced from shipped materials) as they occur.

The toll is the more just (versus the playground concept of "fair").

Quote from: auschip on September 18, 2007, 08:21:22 AM

Of course, it isn't stealing if someone is compensated for it...

No. It's stealing unless both parties agree voluntarily to the transaction. "Compensation" doesn't matter.

Quote

The TTC is needed to relieve congestion on I35 and other travel and shipping lanes. Anytime you build an entire new extended highway and shipping system it was take lots of capital (especially when that corridor encompasses approximately 4000 miles) . That capital can come from the people through taxes, or through private investment from companies who will then recoop their investment through tolls. Either way, the people pay, but one requires a large chunk up front, while the other is done on a usage basis.

"Up front" versus "usage basis" is also irrelevant. All that matters is that all parties are acting of their own free will. In the case of tax dollars, the taxpayer is acting under duress, so it's theft. In the case of private investment companies, anyone is free to refuse to do business with them, so assuming they get no assistance from the government--such as eminent domain--they aren't stealing.

--Len.

Len Budney said:

Quote

What isn't clear is where AntiqueCollector gets the idea that anyone is advocating the theft of private property. If the highway he's referring to will be built using eminent domain, then that's wrong--but nobody here has advocated that, and neither has he proven that this is intended.

The land upon which the TTC will be built is now under private ownership. It will be necessary for the government to 'acquire' that land. The Governor of Texas says eminent domain will be used, is that enough proof for you?

From http://www.governor.state.tx.us/priorities/transportation/ttc_factsheet/view :

Quote

Contention: The state will use eminent domain to take private land.

(Governor Perry's) Reality : Under any scenario, the state will need to purchase land to build more roads over the next 50 years. The 5th amendment of the U.S. Constitution and state law require the state to pay fair market value when purchasing private land for public purposes. If a landowner doesn't believe an offer to purchase is fair, the law provides they can appeal to special commissioners and even a district judge who will decide what is fair.

Several other protections exist in state law to ensure that landowners are fairly compensated. Landowners may retain the development rights of any property purchased by the state, and state law also allows landowners to accept an equity interest in the road rather than a cash payment for their land. Landowners whose land is severed by the corridor are required to receive damages caused by the severance including inaccessibility.

Contention: Huge amounts of private land will be taken by the state through eminent domain for superhighway, train, and utility rights of way.

(Governor Perry's) Reality: Over the next 50 years, the state, railroads, and utilities will all need to purchase private land for expansion. By using the Trans Texas Corridor to combine many of these rights of way into one corridor, less total land will be needed. The Corridor will ultimately result in the purchase of less public land than would otherwise be needed to keep up with growth, and all the needed land will be purchased during one process, instead of on a piecemeal basis as we need to build out infrastructure one project at a time.

Len Budney said:

Quote

It's stealing unless both parties agree voluntarily to the transaction. "Compensation" doesn't matter.................All that matters is that all parties are acting of their own free will. In the case of tax dollars, the taxpayer is acting under duress, so it's theft

The current owners of the land will be forced to surrender it to the state in order to construct the TTC. Also, the men, women and children working in the Chinese and other third world sweatshops, sometimes under slave labor conditions, can hardly be said to be acting 'of their own free will'.

Non-coercion principle anyone?

Quote from: RileyMc on September 18, 2007, 08:58:58 AM

The land upon which the TTC will be built is now under private ownership. It will be necessary for the government to 'acquire' that land. The Governor of Texas says eminent domain will be used, is that enough proof for you?

From http://www.governor.state.tx.us/priorities/transportation/ttc_factsheet/view

That is pure theft.

--Len.

Quote from: Len Budney on September 18, 2007, 09:02:24 AM

Quote from: RileyMc on September 18, 2007, 08:58:58 AM

The land upon which the TTC will be built is now under private ownership. It will be necessary for the government to 'acquire' that land. The Governor of Texas says eminent domain will be used, is that enough proof for you?

From http://www.governor.state.tx.us/priorities/transportation/ttc_factsheet/view

That is pure theft.

--Len.

No, that's eminent domain. You might want to review the differences.

Quote from: The Rabbi on September 18, 2007, 09:33:40 AM

Quote from: Len Budney on September 18, 2007, 09:02:24 AM

Quote from: RileyMc on September 18, 2007, 08:58:58 AM

The land upon which the TTC will be built is now under private ownership. It will be necessary for the government to 'acquire' that land. The Governor of Texas says eminent domain will be used, is that enough proof for you?

From http://www.governor.state.tx.us/priorities/transportation/ttc_factsheet/view

That is pure theft.

No, that's eminent domain. You might want to review the differences.

It is taking property without consent. That's theft. I realize many people believe that renaming it "eminent domain" cleanses it of immorality. They believe in effect that a popular vote to steal makes the stealing legitimate. If you ask them to explain how it does that, exactly, you'll realize that there is no moral justification: it boils down to might making right.

--Len.

Well, if you take someone out of his home and force him to work for you, that's called slavery. Except if it's the U.S. government, in which case it's called the draft.
If you can't distinguish between the actions of the government and the actions of private individuals, then you've got a big problem.

Quote from: The Rabbi on September 18, 2007, 09:41:22 AM

Well, if you take someone out of his home and force him to work for you, that's called slavery. Except if it's the U.S. government, in which case it's called the draft. If you can't distinguish between the actions of the government and the actions of private individuals, then you've got a big problem.

I couldn't have made my point better! When the government enslaves, it's called "the draft," and it's perfectly moral. When the government steals, it's called "eminent domain" and it's perfectly moral. When the government mass-murders, it's a "preemptive strike" or a "defensive war" or a "struggle for the survival of western culture," and it's perfectly moral.

In short, anything that's a crime when one man does it, becomes sanctified and moral when a large mob does it.

That's just wrong. But it's so egregiously wrong that I can't believe you could fall for that for one second! The Shoah was a government program. If you see the slightest difference between the government killing Jews and individual skinheads killing Jews, you've got a big problem.

--Len.

Quote from: Len Budney on September 18, 2007, 05:33:33 AM

Soakers sed...
I suppose the human chattel issue is one that we as humans need to continue educate ourselves and rise above.

My apology. Typing slower than I think..(leaving myself wide open cheesy

)

My thought was "We need to educate ourselves and rise above being human chattel" -
That, my friends, I think we all can agree on. And in this county, something that is available to us all.

Quote from: Len Budney

That's a bit of a snarky comment

It certainly read that way. That is not where i am coming from, however.
Cheers

Quote from: Two Cold Soakers on September 18, 2007, 10:01:32 AM

Quote from: Len Budney on September 18, 2007, 05:33:33 AM

Soakers sed...
I suppose the human chattel issue is one that we as humans need to continue educate ourselves and rise above.

My apology. Typing slower than I think..(leaving myself wide open cheesy

)

My thought was "We need to educate ourselves and rise above being human chattel" -
That, my friends, I think we all can agree on. And in this county, something that is available to us all.

Thanks for the clarification! Yes, I agree completely.

--Len.

Quote from: Len Budney on September 18, 2007, 09:58:04 AM

Quote from: The Rabbi on September 18, 2007, 09:41:22 AM

Well, if you take someone out of his home and force him to work for you, that's called slavery. Except if it's the U.S. government, in which case it's called the draft. If you can't distinguish between the actions of the government and the actions of private individuals, then you've got a big problem.

I couldn't have made my point better! When the government enslaves, it's called "the draft," and it's perfectly moral. When the government steals, it's called "eminent domain" and it's perfectly moral. When the government mass-murders, it's a "preemptive strike" or a "defensive war" or a "struggle for the survival of western culture," and it's perfectly moral.

In short, anything that's a crime when one man does it, becomes sanctified and moral when a large mob does it.

That's just wrong. But it's so egregiously wrong that I can't believe you could fall for that for one second! The Shoah was a government program. If you see the slightest difference between the government killing Jews and individual skinheads killing Jews, you've got a big problem.

--Len.

Oh, so there's no difference between a military draft and the Holocaust?
There's no difference between eminent domain and the Holocaust?
Gee, Len. I think you've gone past anything I could find reasonable to argue about. Good luck out there, you'll need it.

Quote from: The Rabbi on September 18, 2007, 10:06:11 AM

Oh, so there's no difference between a military draft and the Holocaust?

Sigh. That's not what I said and you know it. Please don't do that.

Quote

There's no difference between eminent domain and the Holocaust?

You state, without proof, that the government is allowed to steal, to enslave and to murder, even though it's immoral for individuals to do so. You haven't begun to try and justify it, and judging by your replies so far, you won't even try. You'll just assume it and suggest that anyone who questions your assumption has a screw loose.

But by your own reasoning, governments aren't bound by the same morality as individuals. AND, you refuse to limit that statement in any way--because if you did set any boundaries, it would be easy to demonstrate that the US has crossed them in Iraq. But if there are no boundaries, then there's nothing immoral about the Shoah; the government was simply exercising its authority to eliminate those they considered undesirable.

Once you've explained why the Shoah was immoral, you'll have a damn hard time proving that invading Iraq was moral. It's too bad you won't try, because I would thoroughly enjoy watching you.

--Len.

Kay,

I'm gonna step outta this one for a while. I may chime in if so moved.

Have fun.
(I did)

Soakers

Quote from: Len Budney on September 18, 2007, 10:10:35 AM

Quote from: The Rabbi on September 18, 2007, 10:06:11 AM

Oh, so there's no difference between a military draft and the Holocaust?

Sigh. That's not what I said and you know it. Please don't do that.

Quote

There's no difference between eminent domain and the Holocaust?

You state, without proof, that the government is allowed to steal, to enslave and to murder, even though it's immoral for individuals to do so. You haven't begun to try and justify it, and judging by your replies so far, you won't even try. You'll just assume it and suggest that anyone who questions your assumption has a screw loose.

Sigh. That's not what I said and you either know it and are being disingenuous or dont know it and can't read.

Quote from: Len Budney on September 18, 2007, 10:10:35 AM

But by your own reasoning, governments aren't bound by the same morality as individuals. AND, you refuse to limit that statement in any way--because if you did set any boundaries, it would be easy to demonstrate that the US has crossed them in Iraq. But if there are no boundaries, then there's nothing immoral about the Shoah; the government was simply exercising its authority to eliminate those they considered undesirable.

Governments arent bound by morality period. I never said they were. This is some fantasy you have that a government is just a very big person.

Quote from: Len Budney on September 18, 2007, 10:10:35 AM

Once you've explained why the Shoah was immoral, you'll have a damn hard time proving that invading Iraq was moral. It's too bad you won't try, because I would thoroughly enjoy watching you.

--Len.

So the Iraq War is equivalent to the Holocaust? Oy.
I have to say, when someone has to invoke the Holocaust to justify his position he has pretty well eliminated any argument he might make from consideration. It is the cheapest of the cheap shots.

Quote from: The Rabbi on September 18, 2007, 10:48:39 AM

Governments arent bound by morality period. I never said they were. This is some fantasy you have that a government is just a very big person.

I can't begin to guess what you mean by that statement: start by explaining how you aren't justifying the Holocaust. After all, if governments "aren't bound by morality period," then what objection can we possibly raise to the Holocaust except that we personally disapprove of it? You aren't making a shred of sense.

Quote

So the Iraq War is equivalent to the Holocaust? Oy.

Yet again, you attempt to ridicule an argument to avoid having to reply to it. They are both cases of mass murder. They differ in many details, but you'll have a devil of a time justifying one mass murder while condemning the other.

--Len.

Quote from: Len Budney on September 18, 2007, 10:53:13 AM

Quote from: The Rabbi on September 18, 2007, 10:48:39 AM

Governments arent bound by morality period. I never said they were. This is some fantasy you have that a government is just a very big person.

I can't begin to guess what you mean by that statement: start by explaining how you aren't justifying the Holocaust. After all, if governments "aren't bound by morality period," then what objection can we possibly raise to the Holocaust except that we personally disapprove of it? You aren't making a shred of sense.

Quote

So the Iraq War is equivalent to the Holocaust? Oy.

Yet again, you attempt to ridicule an argument to avoid having to reply to it. They are both cases of mass murder. They differ in many details, but you'll have a devil of a time justifying one mass murder while condemning the other.

--Len.

Here you are again, likening something you disapprove of to the Holocaust, the cheapest of the cheap arguments.
I think the onus is on you to justify how a declared war between two sovereign states is in any way shape or form equivalent to the mass murder of unarmed civilians, many of them citizens of that state, purely on the grounds of heredity.

HTH do we get from Union of North America to arguing about the Holocaust?

This is just bizarre. rolleyes

Quote from: RileyMc on September 18, 2007, 11:44:41 AM

HTH do we get from Union of North America to arguing about the Holocaust?

This is just bizarre. rolleyes

See, Riley; if we don't shoot them Mexicans at the border it will become just like the Holocaust here. We need to watch out for attempts to inculcate the notion of One World by introducing threads on the topic. The biggest one-worlder is GW. So the Bush Administration is evil, just like Hitler was.
See it now?

Quote from: The Rabbi on September 18, 2007, 11:22:52 AM

Here you are again, likening something you disapprove of to the Holocaust, the cheapest of the cheap arguments.

Sigh. You avoid substantiating your support of one mass murder (in Iraq) by arguing about the validity of my analogy. Once again:

1) Please state the limits of legitimate government power.
2) Please identify what determines those limits, since you've stated that it isn't morality.
3) Please justify mass murder in Iraq on the basis of #1 and #2.

Quote

I think the onus is on you to justify how a declared war between two sovereign states is in any way shape or form equivalent to the mass murder of unarmed civilians, many of them citizens of that state, purely on the grounds of heredity.

"Declared war between two sovereign states" is again begging the question. Where did we get the right to go slaughtering tens of thousands of Iraqis who have done nothing to us? You haven't even attempted to substantiate it; you've instead dodged the question using straw men, appeals to authority, question-begging and simple mockery.

--Len.

Just an aside...

A declaration of war by a sovereign state is a decision by the individuals of that state. They elect representatives according to rules they agree upon (if they didn't agree they'd change them or leave), those representatives act on their behalf.

If the individuals later decide their chosen action was a mistake, they elect new representatives who will rescind that action. Representative Government 101.

This (of course) does not address the Constitutional questions around this particular use of force.

Quote

1) Please state the limits of legitimate government power.

OK, in a democracy or parliamentary system the limits are defined the the constitution, or charter, or whatever documents define the authority of that government. In a dictatorship, there are no limits.

Quote

2) Please identify what determines those limits, since you've stated that it isn't morality.

See #1.

Quote

3) Please justify mass murder in Iraq on the basis of #1 and #2.

What 'mass murder'? There has been no concerted effort on anybody's part to commit mass murder in Iraq.

Wow, Riley has assimilated my thought processes. Scary.

Quote from: RileyMc on September 18, 2007, 02:14:19 PM

Quote

1) Please state the limits of legitimate government power.

OK, in a democracy or parliamentary system the limits are defined the the constitution, or charter, or whatever documents define the authority of that government. In a dictatorship, there are no limits.

Oh. OK, then, game over: in Stalin's Russia, it was acceptable to kill ten million kulaks; in Hitler's Germany, it was acceptable to kill six million Jews; and in Nero's Rome, it was acceptable to feed Christians to lions. After all, "in a dictatorship, there are no limits."

Quote

3) Please justify mass murder in Iraq on the basis of #1 and #2.

What 'mass murder'? There has been no concerted effort on anybody's part to commit mass murder in Iraq.

So if I kill 30,000 people who had done nothing wrong, but I wasn't making a "concerted effort" to do so, then no harm, no foul? Your answer, and the Rabbi's, make no sense unless I theorize that you're taking a moral relativist position: whatever they do is what they do; there's no framework within which to judge the actions of governments.

The founders believed very differently, however. They believed that governments exist to protect life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and when they fail to do so, the people have an inalienable right to change it or abolish it. That alone implies strict limits on governments, and indicates that even a dictatorship, if it fails to secure those rights, is immoral and subject to overthrow. Legal thought since at least the Magna Carta has focused on the principle that there are laws transcending the authority of government, and that government is in the wrong if it violates those laws.

You're taking the paradoxical position of claiming allegiance to the founders' vision, while denying the very principle that there's such a thing as unjust government.

--Len.

Quote from: Len Budney on September 18, 2007, 02:51:50 PM

Quote from: RileyMc on September 18, 2007, 02:14:19 PM

Quote

1) Please state the limits of legitimate government power.

OK, in a democracy or parliamentary system the limits are defined the the constitution, or charter, or whatever documents define the authority of that government. In a dictatorship, there are no limits.

Oh. OK, then, game over: in Stalin's Russia, it was acceptable to kill ten million kulaks; in Hitler's Germany, it was acceptable to kill six million Jews; and in Nero's Rome, it was acceptable to feed Christians to lions. After all, "in a dictatorship, there are no limits."

That's obvious that it was acceptable as no one much put up a fuss.

Quote from: Len Budney on September 18, 2007, 02:51:50 PM

Quote

3) Please justify mass murder in Iraq on the basis of #1 and #2.

What 'mass murder'? There has been no concerted effort on anybody's part to commit mass murder in Iraq.

So if I kill 30,000 people who had done nothing wrong, but I wasn't making a "concerted effort" to do so, then no harm, no foul? Your answer, and the Rabbi's, make no sense unless I theorize that you're taking a moral relativist position: whatever they do is what they do; there's no framework within which to judge the actions of governments.

The founders believed very differently, however. They believed that governments exist to protect life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and when they fail to do so, the people have an inalienable right to change it or abolish it. That alone implies strict limits on governments, and indicates that even a dictatorship, if it fails to secure those rights, is immoral and subject to overthrow. Legal thought since at least the Magna Carta has focused on the principle that there are laws transcending the authority of government, and that government is in the wrong if it violates those laws.

You're taking the paradoxical position of claiming allegiance to the founders' vision, while denying the very principle that there's such a thing as unjust government.

--Len.

The difference between murder and war is intent. War is messy. People get killed. Too bad. In some part they were complicit since they allowed the country to get to a certain point. But even if they were, people get killed in wars. Even defensive wars. How would you justify civilian deaths in a "defensive" war (assuming there is such a thing)?

Quote from: The Rabbi on September 18, 2007, 02:56:19 PM

Quote from: Len Budney on September 18, 2007, 02:51:50 PM

Quote from: RileyMc on September 18, 2007, 02:14:19 PM

Quote

1) Please state the limits of legitimate government power.

OK, in a democracy or parliamentary system the limits are defined the the constitution, or charter, or whatever documents define the authority of that government. In a dictatorship, there are no limits.

Oh. OK, then, game over: in Stalin's Russia, it was acceptable to kill ten million kulaks; in Hitler's Germany, it was acceptable to kill six million Jews; and in Nero's Rome, it was acceptable to feed Christians to lions. After all, "in a dictatorship, there are no limits."

That's obvious that it was acceptable as no one much put up a fuss.

Are you being facetious, or confirming my guess that you're a moral relativist?

Quote

The difference between murder and war is intent. War is messy. People get killed. Too bad.

Just wow. "Too bad"? So if your wife and kids are killed in a gang war, and they reply, "War is messy. People die. Too bad!" you'll understand perfectly? Oh, I forgot: gangs aren't "nations," and hence lack the mystical power to kill innocent people and then say, "Too bad!" But you still haven't attempted to prove these special powers you speak of.

But the difference between a good shoot and murder is not intent. If I shoot Tom Clancy intending to save the world from alien invasion, it's still murder. If I invade a country that had nothing to do with the terrorist attack I accused it of, and that had none of the weapons I claimed they had, nor even a program to develop them, and I slaughter a bunch of innocents to "save America from the imaginary Islamabomb," that's murder too.

--Len.

OK, that's all.

Even I'm tired of this one. For the last three pages it's been more "Less filling, tastes great" than anything else.

I highly encourage you to go back and forth, and get nowhere, via private message.

Armed Polite Society

Main Forums => The Roundtable => Topic started by: Michigander on August 15, 2007, 02:53:42 AM