Cafta - terrible idea

[Shparticus]

I'm not really bright enough to enter into this discussion, but just pour des merdes et rit nerveusement, lemme just say that I think this was a bad time for this vote to happen. I feel like a lot of the folks, particularly Dems, who gave it the thumbs-up were probably feeling the pressure to try to make nice with other nations. I feel like if we weren't in a situation where we felt it necessary to engender pro-American sentiment abroad, we might have thought a bit more about how this will wash on the home front. I suppose that there might be a general consensus that, while this isn't really tantamount to going back and fixing past mistakes, it's as close as we're likely to get in the near future. I just hate that panicky sense of, "oh, well, we've got to do SOMETHING, so we might as well do this, because we'll never be able to do the right thing." It seems like a political trend.

[Nimrod's Son]

Originally posted by homechicago


that's cool.

he got pretty far for a third party. had he not quit and then rejoined the fight for the presidency (he did quit at one point, right?) i wonder if america would be in better economic shape.

He briefly decided not to run in 96, but in 92 (the NAFTA election) he got a much higher percentage of the vote

[Nimrod's Son]

Originally posted by Debaser
a few thoughts since i'm short of time:

- It's not fair to blame the workers for accepting these shitty jobs that exploit them. They don't have the same opportunities growing up that we're use to. For most, I suspect it's either work at the sweat factory or starve to death.

Debaser prefers they starve to death

Awesome

[WFMU]

you're a piece of shit zeroman

[Trotskilicious]

Originally posted by Debaser


It's not about American entitlement. It's about fairness - It's not an equal playing field.

You're right. It's not fair to dirt poor Hondurans that Americans think they're entilted to jobs they don't care about.

You anti-globalization pukes make me sick.

[Trotskilicious]

Globalization is a major step to the dictatorship of the proletariat.

[jczeroman]

Originally posted by Trotskilicious
Globalization is a major step to the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Actually, you are correct.

[pastry sharp]

Originally posted by Trotskilicious


You're right. It's not fair to dirt poor Hondurans that Americans think they're entilted to jobs they don't care about.

You anti-globalization pukes make me sick.

where are you from? i got the impression you were from texas.

[jczeroman]

debaser and pastry sharp -- I appreciate your arguments, I really do. But I think the disconnect is with the source of American prosperity. You both seem to think that our middle class lifestyle (jobs, standard of living) has come from simply legislating it all into existence and/or inflating our standard through protectionism. But legislation could only distribute that which was first created. Why is it that we tax the rich and give to the poor and not the other way around? The rich didn't just get money out of thin air -- they created it. They wanted profit and they were able to get it. The poor create wealth, but they create considerably less than the rich, so much that to tax them would be pretty much fruitless.

Protectionism and corporate welfare ensure that certain industries stay afloat even when other businesses and or nations could sell a better product. When we allow our companies to pusue business in Guatemala they are able to pass those savings onto us. For example, with American Steel, our companies have to pay, say, $500 a ton for steel because of protectionism while Chinese companies only have to pay $200 because their steel is made more efficently. American companies could make more profit, create more wealth, and raise our standard of living if they could take that $300 difference and invest it elsewhere. Instead they take a $300 loss to the Chinese which gains an advantage over us, also the non-steel industries (including workers) loose on that wealth which isn't created.

Protectionism is only hurting us. Legislation inflating our economy is only hurting us. Only by allowing the best ideas and the best production, no matter where it originates, can we see our standard of living rise the fastest. When we "protect" America, were only protecting ourselves for ideas, goods, services, wealth that could improve our lives.

[Debaser]

Originally posted by Nimrod's Son
Debaser prefers they starve to death

Awesome

how you figure that? my "work at a sweatshop or starve" comment is in response to jczeroman saying that they should just find a better job...

[pastry sharp]

Originally posted by jczeroman
debaser and pastry sharp -- I appreciate your arguments, I really do. But I think the disconnect is with the source of American prosperity. You both seem to think that our middle class lifestyle (jobs, standard of living) has come from simply legislating it all into existence and/or inflating our standard through protectionism.

i would not presume to speak for debaser (although i usually respect his opinion), but you've vastly misunderstood my point if you think that it is my opinion that my middle class lifestyle is a result of having something handed to me via legislation. i think most people work hard for the things they have; i am positive that i do. my point is this; the corporation that i work for, did not create it's success at an executive level; it created it's success at a grass roots level. having said that, my corporation shows zero loyality to it's non management level workforce. i consider myself lucky; i'm managment, and i've beat 3 layoffs in the last two years. my point is that my corporation should not be aloud to exploit third world labor to further line its' own pockets. let me make this clear. i have no problem losing my job to someone who makes a comperable wage but simply does the job better than me. what i have a problem with is losing my job to a site in mexicali that vastly underperforms in its' service levels and to a guy who is literally going to make 5.00 a day. that arrangement is not beneficial to anyone but the short term needs of the stock holder. there is no evidence that globalization is leading to the dictatorship of the proletariat (the most naive conclusion i've ever heard on this board); the oppositte is true. all the evidence points to the fact that the world is becoming increasingly beholden to shadowy figures who are all too willing to enrich themselves at the expense of everyone in their path.

[jczeroman]

Originally posted by pastry sharp

my point is that my corporation should not be aloud to exploit third world labor to further line its' own pockets. let me make this clear. i have no problem losing my job to someone who makes a comperable wage but simply does the job better than me. what i have a problem with is losing my job to a site in mexicali that vastly underperforms in its' service levels and to a guy who is literally going to make 5.00 a day. that arrangement is not beneficial to anyone but the short term needs of the stock holder.

The corporation exists to serve it's own interests! Your job exists to meet the company's end! Everything they do is for themselves and rightly so! Your job is not an entitlement -- it's an agreement that benefits both you and the company. If someone is not benefiting then the contract needs to be re-negotiated or terminated. I have a right to desire my own preservation and interests. No one has any right to make a claim for themselves on my interests. I am my own.

If the company would rather pay less for unskilled workers they're stupid and they'll get what's coming to them. They're business will fail and their reputation will be shot.

[pastry sharp]

Originally posted by jczeroman


The corporation exists to serve it's own interests! Your job exists to meet the company's end! Everything they do is for themselves and rightly so! Your job is not an entitlement -- it's an agreement that benefits both you and the company. If someone is not benefiting then the contract needs to be re-negotiated or terminated. I have a right to desire my own preservation and interests. No one has any right to make a claim for themselves on my interests. I am my own.

If the company would rather pay less for unskilled workers they're stupid and they'll get what's coming to them. They're business will fail and their reputation will be shot.

at this point, i can't tell if i'm just spineless, or if you benefit from having less of an obligation to creditors and family than i do. there is a time that i would have walked away from any job that i felt was taking advantage of me, and that time was called "prior to being married with children". it's not as if i lack ambition, education, or intellect. i'm relatively well respected within my organization, but so were the last two guys that it took to fill my position. the difference between them and me is that i am younger and require less compensation.

[The Omega Concern]

part of the problem is big companies eskewing Nationalism.

part of the problem is the powers that be in these companies are too busy with a simple phenomena I like to call "Noah's Race".

Noah's Race refers to the reality of a greater demand for diminishing recources (Energy, as the prime example).

So, governments and big companies are scrambling to grab, grab, grab what can be had for today because no one is sure what's going to be left for tomorrow.

Its a funnel we are all caught up in and the slow-motion catastrophe is visible at a gas station near you.


thanks for playing the game of "Noah's Race", last ones to realize what it is lose.

[DeadSwan]

Originally posted by Trotskilicious
Globalization is a major step to the dictatorship of the proletariat.

i couldn't agree more


and i don't understand why pastry sharp refutes this and then confirms it? he must be interpreting it as "the dictatorship BY the proleteriat"

in any case, all i have to say are trite syllogisms and so i will just bow out gracefully

[DeadSwan]

Originally posted by The Omega Concern
part of the problem is big companies eskewing Nationalism.

part of the problem is the powers that be in these companies are too busy with a simple phenomena I like to call "Noah's Race".

Noah's Race refers to the reality of a greater demand for diminishing recources (Energy, as the prime example).

So, governments and big companies are scrambling to grab, grab, grab what can be had for today because no one is sure what's going to be left for tomorrow.

Its a funnel we are all caught up in and the slow-motion catastrophe is visible at a gas station near you.


thanks for playing the game of "Noah's Race", last ones to realize what it is lose.

i like that.

on a related note: when did the world lose its faith in being able to direct its future? why is everything a scramble for scraps of out-moded resources and ideas? where is the innovation and our faith in it? i don't understand how 300 years of revolutionary and technological zeal could have come to such a sudden end.

[pastry sharp]

Originally posted by DeadSwan



i couldn't agree more


and i don't understand why pastry sharp refutes this and then confirms it? he must be interpreting it as "the dictatorship BY the proleteriat"

in any case, all i have to say are trite syllogisms and so i will just bow out gracefully

indeed i was, based on his previous post. i'm not familiar enough with him to since whether or not he is being sarcastic.

[Trotskilicious]

Originally posted by jczeroman


Actually, you are correct.

Actually, I know.

[Trotskilicious]

Originally posted by pastry sharp


where are you from? i got the impression you were from texas.

I am. San Antonio.

[jczeroman]

Originally posted by DeadSwan


i like that.

on a related note: when did the world lose its faith in being able to direct its future? why is everything a scramble for scraps of out-moded resources and ideas? where is the innovation and our faith in it? i don't understand how 300 years of revolutionary and technological zeal could have come to such a sudden end.

When the philosophy of the greatest country the world has ever know went from "serve thyself" to "serve thy neighbor." No one places faith in innovation anymore because innovators have become outlaws. They are greedy, selfish, heartless, profiteers seeking their own ends and refusing to care for the rest of humanity. The media and the government have slandered them, branded them as immoral because they seek their own interests above those of others.

The following is an article.

On December 17, 1903, the Wright brothers launched their fragile first plane, catapulting us into the Century of Flight. Starting with a linen-and-fabric machine barely controllable aloft, aviation's giants have given us routine jet travel as an everyday convenience--a necessity even.

The pioneers we celebrate today would be thrilled at the extent to which flight has transformed the world. But they would also be shocked at the extent to which our culture has abandoned the values and attitudes that made their feats possible. Where Americans once embraced progress and admired the innovators who brought it, today we want the benefits of progress without its costs or risks, and we condemn the profit motive that drives innovation.

A century ago Americans understood that progress comes at a price and were willing to pay it. Orville Wright was hospitalized after a crash that killed his first passenger; Clyde Cessna, the founder of Cessna Aircraft Company, only earned his wings after 12 crashes. "If you are looking for perfect safety, you will do well to sit on the fence and watch the birds," wrote Wilbur Wright. But the risks these early aviators took were calculated and deliberately accepted. They stemmed not from irrational folly, but from their willingness to accept the responsibility of independent judgment.

Today, we seek to escape the responsibility of judgment while demanding that progress be risk-free. New products are expected to be instantly perfect, to last forever and to protect us from our own failings--or else we sue. By the late 1970s, general aviation accidents reached their lowest point in 29 years--yet liability lawsuits were up five-fold, and manufacturers were sued for even such obvious pilot errors as running out of fuel. Companies like Cessna were spending more to defend themselves in court than on research--and production of small planes dropped from almost 20,000 planes in 1978 to under 1,000 by the late 1980s.

With reliance on one's independent judgment goes an unwillingness to be coddled by an over-protective nanny-state. Aviation was born in a culture that valued the entrepreneurial spirit of its pioneers, and respected their right to pursue their work unhindered by government controls. The Wrights and the innovators who followed them--giants like Boeing, Cessna, and Lear--were motivated by more than just the challenge of overcoming scientific obstacles: they sought to make money and profit from their achievements. Courts protected the pioneers' intellectual property rights--granting the Wright brothers a broad patent for their invention--and government left the field of aviation free to innovate. Prior to 1926 there were no pilot's licenses, no aircraft registrations, not even any rules governing the carrying of passengers--and the aviation industry took off. By 1927, the year Lindbergh made the first non-stop transatlantic solo flight, Wichita, Kansas, alone could boast of more than 20 airplane companies.

In this climate of political freedom, airplanes evolved from wooden, scary deathtraps to capable traveling machines. The pace of innovation was rapid as planes improved, in under 25 years, from the Wright brothers' rickety contraption, which flew 852 feet, to Lindbergh's plane, which crossed an ocean.

Yet by the 1930s the government had begun regulating the airlines, master planning route structures and suppressing competition. Today, innovation has ground to a halt under the weight of government control. Unlike the first 25 years of flight, the last 25 have seen few major advances--and regulatory barriers suppress the adoption of new technology. For instance, most FAA-certified aircraft today are still the same aluminum-and-rivets construction pioneered more than 50 years ago, while for at least a decade non-certified experimental aircraft builders have preferred composite materials, which make their aircraft stronger, roomier, cheaper, and faster at the same time.

Even after the supposed airline "deregulation" in the 1970s, FAA requirements, TSA standards, antitrust regulation, municipal airport regulations, environmental restrictions, and a multitude of taxes and fees have crippled American aviation. Instead of the growth and innovation one might expect from a dynamic industry safely providing an invaluable service, aviation has stagnated--mired in billion-dollar losses and bankruptcy.

The symbol of flight in America today is no longer the Wright brothers, but Icarus. Where once we venerated the bold exploration of new frontiers, we now condone bureaucrats putting shackles on anyone who seeks to test the untried--to soar too high or succeed too well.

On this historic 100-year anniversary of flight, we should rededicate ourselves to the cultural values that made aviation possible and that made America great. If we truly want to see continued progress--in aviation and elsewhere--we must embrace it wholeheartedly, and we must leave our giants of industry free to innovate without being taxed, regulated, and sued out of existence.

[jczeroman]

Originally posted by Trotskilicious


Actually, I know.

Well a lot of socialists and communists do not know that the first step to bringing down the bourgeoisie is to support them.

[Trotskilicious]

It's frustrating.

[Trotskilicious]

Advanced stages of capitalism must exist everywhere because the communist revolution must be global. Marx talks about this.

[jczeroman]

Originally posted by Trotskilicious
It's frustrating.

One almost wonders if some of the greatest proponents of capitalism in this day are actually communists and socialists seeking to quicken the dictatoriship of the proletariat.

[Trotskilicious]

Originally posted by jczeroman


On this historic 100-year anniversary of flight, we should rededicate ourselves to the cultural values that made aviation possible and that made America great. If we truly want to see continued progress--in aviation and elsewhere--we must embrace it wholeheartedly, and we must leave our giants of industry free to innovate without being taxed, regulated, and sued out of existence.

pfft

I think America needs to embrace the arts again for a while.

[Trotskilicious]

Originally posted by jczeroman


One almost wonders if some of the greatest proponents of capitalism in this day are actually communists and socialists seeking to quicken the dictatoriship of the proletariat.

[pastry sharp]

Originally posted by Trotskilicious


I am. San Antonio.

being from texas, it's easy to say that jobs are being exported that americans don't want anyway. in the midwest, jobs that would normally be handled by migrant workers are done by american workers. i think you might be wrongly assuming that the economy of texas applies to the entire country.

[Mayfuck]

[The Omega Concern]

Trots, jczero...

I was gonna try to answer DeadSwan, but thanks for essentially covering the Marxist terrority i would have come about to, but prolly less eloquently and succinct.

i know in Italy and select parts of Europe, there a gas fuel that is half the price of the other fuels. I understand this is because certain cars are equipped with something that allows it to run efficiently on the cheaper gas.

such innovation is stifled anymore in America. period...and the big lobbyist who control just about all Senators and most congresspeople have run roughshod over the avenues that used to allow the innovations to occur.

disturbing trend. im gonna eat a Hostess Cupcake now.

[jczeroman]

Originally posted by The Omega Concern

disturbing trend. im gonna eat a Hostess Cupcake now.

The cup cake of the bugeoise. I only eat little debbie.