Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
You just entirely misunderstand the dynamic driving these treaties. They are not about dropping our own tariffs as an act of altruism. We give to get. Other countries are making concessions to get better access to our markets. If you're going to give up your chips, you want to get what you can for them.
|
The idea in the beginning was the dropping all tariffs benefits everyone. The dynamic has changed because of the need to appease liberals. When Reagan was asked why he didn't institute retaliatory tariffs his response was - why should I stick holes on my side of the boat if he is sticking holes on his side of the boat. He understood economics much better than you do.
Quote:
Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
My point -- and it was a fairly simple one -- is that you compare a trade in baseball not just to the status quo ante, but to other trades you might have made for the same players.
By your analogy, here the Bush Administration "didn't even bring up the issue" of getting the same sorts of enforcement provisions that were in prior free-trade bills. Since you haven't said they're a bad idea, maybe you should ask, why not?
|
There are two possiblilities. Either the Bush administration does not think they are good or they were asked and turned down. Either way they are not going to be included. If they didn't ask they have a different view of trade policy than I do. But that really does not matter. I am not President. And the treaty has already been signed and is on the Fast Trak. So when the option is up or down you need to make the call. CAFTA does the main thing it is intended for - reducing tariffs. It would have been nice to ad labor and environmental stuff but those are just extras. It would also be nice if he forgave some of their debt. But that aint happening either.
Threaded Mode