Making Baby Jesus Cry

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
I hear that argument a lot for businesses generally--they underinvest in things for which the return comes too slowly. While there may be such a systematic bias, I don't see how one can distinguish between using taxpayer dollars to overcome that bias with respect to stem cells, but not with respect to a host of other things that business purportedly irrationally fail to invest in.

Moreover, even within the medical research arena, the distribution of federal funding is influenced more by interest group politics than any rational calculus of risk and reward. I'm not sure how one can pick out stem cell research for some favored treatment just because it offers such promise.

1) Research into disease prenetion and cures is just not another business. It is a national security issue. We spend all this money to protect the health of Americans from attacks but what about protecting americans from disease.

2) Just because most money is distributed by political influence does not make this wrong because there is no political interest. That is crazy. Stem Cell research does offer promise so it should be funded.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I think I already said that the question is not whether the bill is better than the status quo -- it is whether the bill is better than a different bill. Under the status quo, we were negotiating a free trade bill. With CAFTA adopted, there will be no will to return to these questions, I think.

The question is whether this bill is better than the status quo. Any other criterion is just naive stupid politics. There is always a bill you may like better but it is just the bill that can be passed. If you always waited for a better bill nothing would get past. And in any case this bill was introduced under Fast Track. This is the deal Bush negotiated. The negotiations were concluded. There could be no turning back and renogotiating. Either it is good or bad. That is what Fast Track is all about. There was no chance for another bill or another negotiation. The Democrats that voted against were saying that this bill is worse than the status quo.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I swear to God, it's like you're not bothering to read my posts. Please, show me some sign that you've read what I said re this.

I don't understand what you think I missed. I remember reading this.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop

OK, I can play the game your way. Business wants to compete on a level playing field with foreign businesses. That's what they all want. Why do you want American businesses to try to compete with one hand behind their back? Why do you hate America?

If businesses don't want the help why give it to them. They know what they need and they ask for it. Why do you think you know what is better for them.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Spanky
1) Research into disease prenetion and cures is just not another business. It is a national security issue. We spend all this money to protect the health of Americans from attacks but what about protecting americans from disease.

It's not a national security issue. It's a public health issue, which is ultimately is a distribution of scarce resources issue.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
The question is whether this bill is better than the status quo. Any other criterion is just naive stupid politics.

Why is that the question? It certainly is the only question you're willing to entertain, but a no vote hardly precluded a future deal with different terms.

I don't understand what you think I missed. I remember reading this.

Let's review. I explained why businesses often have a stake in regulatory regimes, and want them strengthened. A moderate Republican like yourself should understand this. Suppose that the government introduces an emissions trading program. Businesses that make an investment in reducing pollution can then trade credits to other businesses for money. Those business have an interest in ensuring that the regulations are enforced, etc. Similarly, if you are a business competing with a business in a foreign country, and you have to pay for (e.g.) complying with environmental protections, you want your competitors to face those costs as well. Otherwise, they pollute, and charge lower prices. They get the business, and the citizens in that country get more pollution. Our business doesn't get the business.

Now, if your response to anything in this whole conversation is going to be, well, business likes CAFTA, so CAFTA is good, I can't argue with that. It's a wonderful little logical construct, not that it has much relation to the real world. I can play that game, too. I'll just tell you that business wants foreign counties to have to enforce their labor laws, etc.

If businesses don't want the help why give it to them. They know what they need and they ask for it. Why do you think you know what is better for them.

Indeed. Look in the mirror and ask yourself this.

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Moreover, even within the medical research arena, the distribution of federal funding is influenced more by interest group politics than any rational calculus of risk and reward. I'm not sure how one can pick out stem cell research for some favored treatment just because it offers such promise.

Not favored status - just an opportunity to compete on equal terms with other Federally funded projects.

The specific exclusion of new ES cell work from federal funding (note that many stem cell projects are funded and ongoing, usually the area of somatic stem cells) has led to odd politics.

The decision by the people of California to spend billions of dollars specifically on unfunded stem cell research, without allowing competition for grant money from other areas of research, makes little economic sense, although it packed a political punch.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
It's not a national security issue. It's a public health issue, which is ultimately is a distribution of scarce resources issue.

Those are just labels. The government is supposed to protect us from threats both international and domestic. I find disease a threat to me and everyone else. National defense and diesease prevention are very similar.

That is why viruses can be used as a weapon.

Originally posted by Spanky
I find disease a threat to me and everyone else. National defense and diesease prevention are very similar.

That is why viruses can be used as a weapon.

Stem cell research is not going to help in any likely scenario of bioterrorism. The most likely beneficiaries are cancer patients, diabetics, and the elderly suffering from degenerative diseases. A worthy humanitarian goal, but not national defense.

Funding research in antibiotic resistance, development of neutralyzing antibodies against common toxins, enhancing resistance to radiation poisoning are the types of research the army likes to fund.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Spanky
2. And you are part of the fourth column if you disagree because you want Americans to stay weak and diseased so the Chinese can take us over.

I am not sure I agree with the substance, but I like the construction.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
It's not a national security issue. It's a public health issue, which is ultimately is a distribution of scarce resources issue.

2. And I have faith in the babyjesus that the marketplace will efficiently allocate those scarce resources.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Why is that the question? It certainly is the only question you're willing to entertain, but a no vote hardly precluded a future deal with different terms.

That is so ridiculous I don't know how to respond. If the bill is better than the status quo why not vote it in? And then try and come up with a better one later. That way if you aren't successful later you still are better off because of the old bill. If you are always waiting for the perfect bill nothing would get passed. No one liked the Constitution when it was finished. It was full of compromises. But people voted it in because it was better than the status quo. All laws are compromise.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Let's review. I explained why businesses often have a stake in regulatory regimes, and want them strengthened.

Sometimes yes. But not very often. Just because some businesses have a stake in some regulatory regimes does not mean all of a sudden that common regulations are suddenly at the top of every businesses wish list.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop A moderate Republican like yourself should understand this. Suppose that the government introduces an emissions trading program. Businesses that make an investment in reducing pollution can then trade credits to other businesses for money. Those business have an interest in ensuring that the regulations are enforced, etc. Similarly, if you are a business competing with a business in a foreign country, and you have to pay for (e.g.) complying with environmental protections, you want your competitors to face those costs as well. Otherwise, they pollute, and charge lower prices. They get the business, and the citizens in that country get more pollution. Our business doesn't get the business.

Yes this may be the case in some specific instances. But this is putting the cart before the horse. First they just want access to more markets. If the choice is access to markets without the equalized regulations or the unfair regulations with open acess businesses will take the latter any day. And this equalized regulation is not nearly as important as market access. We would all like pennies from heaven but having equalized regulations across the Globe is a long way off. And companys understand that. Their much higher priority is free markets. That is why businesses haven't put together a huge lobbying effort in other countrys to increase regulations.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop Now, if your response to anything in this whole conversation is going to be, well, business likes CAFTA, so CAFTA is good, I can't argue with that. It's a wonderful little logical construct, not that it has much relation to the real world. I can play that game, too. I'll just tell you that business wants foreign counties to have to enforce their labor laws, etc..

I am not saying CAFTA is good because business wants it. I am saying it is good for American Businesses because American businesses want it. That is a huge, huge distinction. And that statement should end the conversation. For you to say that you understand what is better for American businesses than they do is just absurd. All the thousands of executives in every American business have figured out that CAFTA would be good for them wihthout the regulatory additions and you are going to second guess that decision. If you are going to say that you know what is better for American business than they do we simply have no common reference point to have a discussion. That is like saying the sky is Green.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Indeed. Look in the mirror and ask yourself this.

I did. So...... If Business tells me access to markets is the priority and not regulation equalization why should I not believe them?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Spanky
That is so ridiculous I don't know how to respond.

and yet RT felt compelled to give him a vote of support to continue his moderator position which essentially involves tearing the heart out of all the more compelling post by Republicans, and she did it the week she found your board unworthy of the electrons. Spanky- which color pill will you take?

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Spanky

I am not saying CAFTA is good because business wants it. I am saying it is good for American Businesses because American businesses want it.

If, at this late date, this is all that you're truly arguing about, then it's beyond me why y'all are expending so much energy screaming at each other about it.

Yes, if American Business wants a particular law, then the law is probably good for the American Business that lobbied for it. But that in itself doesn't make the law good policy. I won't speak for Ty, but I think he's been arguing the latter.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Gattigap
If, at this late date, this is all that you're truly arguing about, then it's beyond me why y'all are expending so much energy screaming at each other about it.

Yes, if American Business wants a particular law, then the law is probably good for the American Business that lobbied for it. But that in itself doesn't make the law good policy. I won't speak for Ty, but I think he's been arguing the latter.

He is not arguing the latter. He said that he knew what is better for American business. Otherwise I would not object.

And we are not screaming at eachother. It is an online debate. If you don't like it then don't read it. We are big boys and if we get sick of it we will stop.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
I am not sure I agree with the substance, but I like the construction.

Somehow I knew you would.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Let's review.

That is a good idea. Pick out the specific sentense where I make a mistake.

1) You support the idea of free trade

2) You also support the idea of reducing Tariffs.

3) CAFTA reduces Tariffs between the CAFTA countrys and the U.S. (and eventually eliminates them).

Possible reasons why a person would still not support the treaty considering the above.

1) On balance the treaty does not promote free trade because the negative effects on Free Trade in the treaty outweigh the positive effects.

2) The treaty does promote free trade, but it does not include other provisions that would make it a good treaty. In other words, free trade treaties also need other stuff in them to be considered good.

In support of number one you have said that without a level playing field you do not have free trade. Your idea of a level playing field includes the fact that both sides need to have the same , environmental, safety and labor regulations. So in order to have a true free trade agreement you must include provisions that require the less regulated country to match the regulations of the more stringent countries. Since CAFTA does not have such regulation enforcement scheme (or does have it but you think they are not stringent enough) this lack of an even playing field makes the treaty less free thereby on balance making this not a free trade agreement. You have also pointed out that business support this idea because they trade pollution credits and like such systems.

My counter argument to this is that

1) You can never have a level playing field (under your definition), especially if two countrys have different PCIs. So under your rule not two countrys with differenct PCIs could really have a trade treaty.

2) No other economist I know thinks regulations need to be equal to make a tariff reduction beneficial.

3) Free trade is a good thing even if the playing field is not even. Perfect example is the US. California and Alabama do not have an even playing field (under your definition because Alabam has less stringent health, labor and environmental rules) and yet California and Alabama are considered to have free trade. No one would argue to set up tariffs to get Alabama to adopt our stricter rules. It would be nice to have Alabama have stricter rules but it is not worth sacrificing the free trade status to get those rules.

4) I also said that Business would not support the treaty if it did not, on balance, make trade freer. American businesses generally act in their own self interest and they all support the treaty. You stated earlier that you could come up with a reason why American business would support the treaty if it did not increase free trade, but we are still waiting for that reason. You also said that it would be in business best interest to push for your definition of a level playing field. That may be true but clearly they think that reducing tariffs is a lot more important because they support CAFTA. Then you questioned if businesses really knew what is good for them. I said that was ridiculous.

Your argument in support of #2 is that these environmental provisions and labor provisions are necessary to make it a good treaty.

My only response to that is that a treaty without those provisions still reduces trade barriers and makes a good treaty. Just reducing tariffs on its own is a good think without including that other stuff. In adidtion, my response is that if you think this other stuff needs to be added to make a free trade agreement any good then you really are not for free trade.