Making Baby Jesus Cry

[Replaced_Texan]

I noticed that a Republican president signed a bill passed by a Republican congress today that contained a hell of a lot of spending. You know, guys, those tax cuts do have to sort of kinda balance out at some point.

From the New York Times.

• About 8 percent of the $286.4 billion bill is set aside for more than 6,000 special projects inserted by lawmakers. Many of them were added by senators to an already bulging House version of the bill that passed in March. Setting aside funds for specific roads, in what's called earmarking, was banned by the House in 1914. In 1982, the ban began to crumble.

State by state pork: Taxpayers for Common Sense

And what the hell is up with the Texas delegation? Fuck ya'll. House majority leader, President, and we still came in fifth in allocations? Behind Alaska, of all states? Oh, the humanity! Yet another reason to hate motherfucking asshole Tom DeLay. Can't even effectively bring pork home. Sheesh.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
I agree with what you are saying, but we and they had made decisions on tariffs and other explicitly monetary trade issues, but were working out a deal in which we made promises on those -- so it was a good opportunity to get similarity on other things that are very much related.

Well, yeah, cuz all's fair in love, war, and trade negotiations.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
OK, I so totally don't care about this. Was the point that you are on a first-name basis with these people? Maybe the serbian chick will go for that.

Well then - don't read it.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Well, yeah, cuz all's fair in love, war, and trade negotiations.

To me, it seems legitimately related. Like including tariffs and subsidies. Maybe I got too into that thing where there's the train spewing stuff that kills the grass, and the cows who wander out of the field and onto the tracks, and who pays for the fences and the lack of feed for the cattle, or whatever that thing was. Coase theorem? Anyway.

I also wonder if just maybe US businesses will now say, hey, we can't compete because we have to comply with all these enviro regulations that the other countries in CAFTA don't have, so what say we get rid of this stuff. Not that I'm cynical or anything.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Spanky
Well then - don't read it.

It was like a train wreck.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Spanky
Well then - don't read it.

She wouldn't know it didn't have a point until after she read it. Maybe you could provide some sort of vapidity warning or something to help her out.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
She wouldn't know it didn't have a point until after she read it. Maybe you could provide some sort of vapidity warning or something to help her out.

Something like: "this post exclusively reserved for name dropping".

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
I also wonder if just maybe US businesses will now say, hey, we can't compete because we have to comply with all these enviro regulations that the other countries in CAFTA don't have, so what say we get rid of this stuff. Not that I'm cynical or anything.

Why would they do that when it's much easier simply to send the jobs to the places without those regulations?

The people who can't compete are the union labor. And non-union labor who expect minimum wage.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Spanky
Something like: "this post exclusively reserved for name dropping".

Exactly. You're catching on.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Why would they do that when it's much easier simply to send the jobs to the places without those regulations?

The people who can't compete are the union labor. And non-union labor who expect minimum wage.

yeah, but you might want skills people have here, or without those pesky regulations. This is more on the environmental side than the other stuff. I think.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Spanky
Well then - don't read it.

2. The left needs to knock off the biased hatred. It's that attitude of entitled arrogance and dismissiveness that will continue to lose them national elections for the remainder of the century.

At this rate I don't think the Dims could put a candidate to beat Barbara Jr. (she's the smart one, right?) in 2020.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
That is a good idea. a mistake.

1) You support the idea of free trade

Probably. What do you mean by this?

2) You also support the idea of reducing Tariffs.

Yes.

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

Among other things.

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.

I have seen this said by people whose judgment I trust.

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.

I'm not quite sure I'd put it this way. This is the chance to negotiate a free trade treaty with these countries. What's it going to contain?

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.

Free trade is an ideal. You will never have a level playing field, but you have these opportunities to make it better, and it's important to get them right.

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.

I think I answered this above. We don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good, but we want a good treaty.

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

OK. Whatever.

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.

OK. Whatever.

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.

I think I questioned whether you know what's good for business, and I questioned your argumentative style of simply asserting that business likes something and therefore it is good.

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.

It's an opportunity missed.

The difference between us seems to be that you refuse to compare CAFTA to anything but the status quo, whereas I am comparing it to the sort of free trade agreement we have had before and might have again. You subscribing to a particular framing of the issues, without having stopped to wonder why the issues have been framed in that way. And you can say that I "am not really for free trade," and yet I am talking about provisions that have been a part of free trade agreements until now.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Spanky
I don't see it that way. Cancer and other degenerative diseases destroy citizens lives. Even if the source is within the body, it is still an attack on the body. I want the government to stop these cancer cells or other such bad genes from screwing up my body. Something does not have to be caused by a sentient human to threaten the safety and security of the citizens.

And I can't believe Penske really want to leave this to the marketplace. As I said the market place will eventually get to all of this stuff it will just take a lot longer. I don't want to be worm food when the discover the cure for Alzherimers.

Yes, but every dollar the government spends is a dollar taken out the private sector (via taxes) where I think more good can come without government intervention. Additionally, what if the government doesn't deem the disease I am concerned about worthy of taxpayer dollars? My oldest child has a rare genetic disorder that receives no direct taxpayer dollars. No matter how much money goes to stem cell research, as of now, it is unrelated to her disorder. Why is one more worthy than the other. Are my tax dollars less green than Ron Jr.'s?

I say let the market decide.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
yeah, but you might want skills people have here, or without those pesky regulations. This is more on the environmental side than the other stuff. I think.

1) skills people don't need labor protection. we don't even give it to 'em (fortunately, for some it's a matter of pride to be "exempt"

2) skills people don't pollute, except with their SUVs, so what's the issue? Design the chips in the US; put the chip fab in the 3d world. Win-win.

[Belgrade Bimbo]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
OK, I so totally don't care about this. Was the point that you are on a first-name basis with these people? Maybe the serbian chick will go for that.

If you speak of me I must reply no