so let's show DMD we can stay on "issues"

[Jimmy Neutron]

For now it's still brewed here .

 

I don't think that will change. Current energy costs are putting a dent in relocating many businesses.

 

I ship products that are largely water for a living and the proximity of manufacturing you your major sales demographic is becoming more important.

 

Want to make some money in the long-term? Invest in well-established railroads - Warren just did. Rising fuel costs will drive a lot of freight from OTR trucks to the more efficient rails.

[Chief Dick]

I'm planning on building a water pipeline from Artesia to the southeast.

 

Who's with me?

[Randall]

I don't think that will change. Current energy costs are putting a dent in relocating many businesses.

 

I ship products that are largely water for a living and the proximity of manufacturing you your major sales demographic is becoming more important.

 

Want to make some money in the long-term? Invest in well-established railroads - Warren just did. Rising fuel costs will drive a lot of freight from OTR trucks to the more efficient rails.

 

Yes railroads have been doing real well. With truckers talking about independent truckers getting out due to fuel costs they may do even more business.

[Azazello1313]

So, while I am not a protectionist....I am all for leveling the playing field for the American worker.

 

...via protectionism. saying "we're going to erect trade barriers to protect our workers" is protectionism, whether you justify it by the fact that other countries have different laws and regulatory environments, whether you justify it by the need to protect certain domestic industries, or whatever.

 

if our laws and regulatory environments are forcing jobs to other countries, maybe rather than erect trade barriers that ultimately hurt everyone, we should consider ways to make our laws and regulatory environments more friendly to employers. it's a thought, anyway.

[Azazello1313]

Q. If all the economists look at a free trade agreement and come to a consensus (hypothetically of course) that the end result will be to lower the standard of living in the US by say 20% but increase the standard of living in a a third world nation by a certain percentage, should a President focus on supporting the legislation because the the economy as a whole for the world improves, or should he/she work against the legislation because of an obligation to protect American citizens first?

 

no, because a president's duty is to the people who elected him. it's a dumb hypothetical though, because no free trade agreement ever has lowered the standard of living in any country, let alone by 20%.

[The Irish Doggy]

Free trade with China gives me a job. I get to communicate with people in a different country every day, which I think is cool. But that's just my side.

 

The rest of the picture: We provide a better quality product than any American company can for a lower price. We help support American dock workers in LA and Tacoma, rail workers between those ports and all over America, local delivery truck drivers all over America, and finally the workers at all the businesses we distribute too. I'm OK with free trade.

[Randall]

Free trade with China gives me a job. I get to communicate with people in a different country every day, which I think is cool. But that's just my side.

 

The rest of the picture: We provide a better quality product than any American company can for a lower price. We help support American dock workers in LA and Tacoma, rail workers between those ports and all over America, local delivery truck drivers all over America, and finally the workers at all the businesses we distribute too. I'm OK with free trade.

 

 

Many people benefit from it but many don't. I would like to see the deals re-negotiated not eliminated. If they get free access to our markets i would like to see leveling the playing field so we can compete better(Human rights/environmental standards) or forcing them to open their markets to our products.

[Hugh 0ne]

I'm no expert on this, but here's tha part that hurts my head. Doesn't China tax the ever-living sh*t out of US goods, making it virtually impossible for American products to be sold there? And to make matters worse, we don't tax Chinese goods at a high rate making their products cheaper in the US than American made products. Can someone explain that to me, or better yet, justify the reasoning behind it? Or am I missing something?

[AtomicCEO]

I'm no expert on this, but here's tha part that hurts my head. Doesn't China tax the ever-living sh*t out of US goods, making it virtually impossible for American products to be sold there? And to make matters worse, we don't tax Chinese goods at a high rate making their products cheaper in the US than American made products. Can someone explain that to me, or better yet, justify the reasoning behind it? Or am I missing something?

 

Someone has made the decision that cheap Chinese products are better for our economy than some incredibly low-end labor jobs.

 

I haven't done all the math, but I can't say it's a terrible concept. Leave the menial labor to the 3rd world, and raise our quality of life by extending how much the dollar will buy.

[WaterMan]

Save American jobs or we will be #4 to China and Iran and Dick Cheney.

[Hugh 0ne]

Someone has made the decision that cheap Chinese products are better for our economy than some incredibly low-end labor jobs.

 

I haven't done all the math, but I can't say it's a terrible concept. Leave the menial labor to the 3rd world, and raise our quality of life by extending how much the dollar will buy.

 

Manufacturing jobs aren't necessarily low end labor jobs.

[AtomicCEO]

Save American jobs or we will be #4 to China and Iran and Dick Cheney.

 

What jobs need saving?

[Yukon Cornelius]

What jobs need saving?

potato chip makers.. i love them chips

[Hugh 0ne]

potato chip makers.. i love them chips

 

Potato chips aren't made, they're grown on trees. Dummy.

[Yukon Cornelius]

Potato chips aren't made, they're grown on trees. Dummy.

ah dammitt i didnt know that.. well we need to save the potato chip tree tenders jobs then

[Yukon Cornelius]

This is my favorite Az post ever.

[Clubfoothead]

 

Well here's the deal, all the arguments that support NAFTA and other free trade agreements require me to tell Americans with lives and bills and families that they are dinosaurs because a job they've done for 15 years is obsolete because some dude in the Sudan is willing to do the same job for a euro a day. The lightbulb still needs screwed in so the job is not obsolete. There isn't an American anywhere that couldn't be replaced by someone in a thrid world country willing to work for a fraction of what you make. And what happens to that guy and his family with 15 years left on his mortgage? You are really going to tell me that someone who goes to work everyday, turns in an honest day's work and then goes home to be with his family is a $hitbag because he's not taking night classes on how to build silicone free solar panel? Screw him but we have to bail out Bear Sterns and 3-5 airline companies every decade? I call BS.

 

The next argument in support of "free trade" is to relax government regulations concerning pollution and protection of injured workers, saftey requirements, protection of pensions and minimum wages because those evils restrict "America's" companies from competing with foreign companies. I'm not sure why any rational person would see that as a good thing. American and Delta didn't voluntarily ground those planes yesterday.

 

Finally, huddlers argue that by trading and working with these nations, we force them to be more like us. BS, China still has horrible human rights and environmental policies despite all the trade with the United States and being awarded the Olympics. China even sells weapons and technology to nations we consider our enemies. Or we can look to how our nearly 100 years of dependence on middle eastern oil has brought western culture, democracy and peace to the middle east. Where has that ever worked? And it seems odd to me that many that support "free trade" still support embargoes against Iran and Cuba. Does McCain support those embargoes?

 

If you mean "free trade" in the sense that the companies of other nations and their MNCs should be required to pay wages above the poverty level, to respect the environment, their trading partners can't have foreign policy goals that are in opposition to American foreign policy and so on then fine, I support free trade. But "free trade" under the guise of making it easier for American MNCs to function without any respect for American workers and the environment doesn't seem to benefit anyone, well I guess it probably benefits people who retire and cash in $10,000,000.00 worth of stock options.

 

The federal government is charged with promoting the general welfare and securing the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity. I'm pretty positive the framers were talking about American people not Exxon.

 

Edited March 27, 2008 by Clubfoothead

[Yukon Cornelius]

 

Well here's the deal, all the arguments that support NAFTA and other free trade agreements require me to tell Americans with lives and bills and families that they are dinosaurs because a job they've done for 15 years is obsolete because some dude in the Sudan is willing to do the same job for a euro a day. The lightbulb still needs screwed in so the job is not obsolete. There isn't an American anywhere that couldn't be replaced by someone in a thrid world country willing to work for a fraction of what you make. And what happens to that guy and his family with 15 years left on his mortgage? You are really going to tell me that someone who goes to work everyday, turns in an honest day's work and then goes home to be with his family is a $hitbag because he's not taking night classes on how to build silicone free solar panel? Screw him but we have to bail out Bear Sterns and 3-5 airline companies every decade? I call BS.

 

The next argument in support of "free trade" is to relax government regulations concerning pollution and protection of injured workers, saftey requirements, protection of pensions and minimum wages because those evils restrict "America's" companies from competing with foreign companies. I'm not sure why any rational person would see that as a good thing. American and Delta didn't voluntarily ground those planes yesterday.

 

Finally, huddlers argue that by trading and working with these nations, we force them to be more like us. BS, China still has horrible human rights and environmental policies despite all the trade with the United States and being awarded the Olympics. China even sells weapons and technology to nations we consider our enemies. Or we can look to how our nearly 100 years of dependence on middle eastern oil has brought western culture, democracy and peace to the middle east. Where has that ever worked? And it seems odd to me that many that support "free trade" still support embargoes against Iran and Cuba. Does McCain support those embargoes?

 

If you mean "free trade" in the sense that the companies of other nations and their MNCs should be required to pay wages above the poverty level, to respect the environment, their trading partners can't have foreign policy goals that are in opposition to American foreign policy and so on then fine, I support free trade. But "free trade" under the guise of making it easier for American MNCs to function without any respect for American workers and the environment doesn't seem to benefit anyone, well I guess it probably benefits people who retire and cash in $10,000,000.00 worth of stock options.

 

The federal government is charged with promoting the general welfare and securing the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity. I'm pretty positive the framers were talking about American people not Exxon.

 

[untateve]

the flipside of that is that through freer trade, nations necessarily become allies on a fundamental level through economic interdependence. the chances of us ever going to war with a nation whose economy is deeply connected with our own are basically nil, unless one or the other wants to commit economic suicide. get the whole world thusly connected, every country trying to improve their lot by trading with everyone else, and suddenly you've got a pretty f'n peaceful place. but to get there, we've got to get past a lot of people in a lot of countries who want to be independent of the rest of the world, and to emphasize and protect their parochial "differences". don't get me wrong, a lot of the things that make us cultrurally "different" are awesome, unique things we should always hold on to. just like a chinaman should always hold on to and be proud of HIS cultural heritage, and a russian of his, and so on. but the sooner we all become citizens of the world, first and foremost, the sooner we can stop worrying about destroying each other. economic interdependence through trade is the real, practical means of making this happen.

 

 

This is my favorite Az post ever.

 

 

 

You know, I was serious.

[CaP'N GRuNGe]

...via protectionism. saying "we're going to erect trade barriers to protect our workers" is protectionism, whether you justify it by the fact that other countries have different laws and regulatory environments, whether you justify it by the need to protect certain domestic industries, or whatever.

 

if our laws and regulatory environments are forcing jobs to other countries, maybe rather than erect trade barriers that ultimately hurt everyone, we should consider ways to make our laws and regulatory environments more friendly to employers. it's a thought, anyway.

 

More lead paint in American toys. Good plan.

[CaP'N GRuNGe]

 

Well here's the deal, all the arguments that support NAFTA and other free trade agreements require me to tell Americans with lives and bills and families that they are dinosaurs because a job they've done for 15 years is obsolete because some dude in the Sudan is willing to do the same job for a euro a day. The lightbulb still needs screwed in so the job is not obsolete. There isn't an American anywhere that couldn't be replaced by someone in a thrid world country willing to work for a fraction of what you make. And what happens to that guy and his family with 15 years left on his mortgage? You are really going to tell me that someone who goes to work everyday, turns in an honest day's work and then goes home to be with his family is a $hitbag because he's not taking night classes on how to build silicone free solar panel? Screw him but we have to bail out Bear Sterns and 3-5 airline companies every decade? I call BS.

 

The next argument in support of "free trade" is to relax government regulations concerning pollution and protection of injured workers, saftey requirements, protection of pensions and minimum wages because those evils restrict "America's" companies from competing with foreign companies. I'm not sure why any rational person would see that as a good thing. American and Delta didn't voluntarily ground those planes yesterday.

 

Finally, huddlers argue that by trading and working with these nations, we force them to be more like us. BS, China still has horrible human rights and environmental policies despite all the trade with the United States and being awarded the Olympics. China even sells weapons and technology to nations we consider our enemies. Or we can look to how our nearly 100 years of dependence on middle eastern oil has brought western culture, democracy and peace to the middle east. Where has that ever worked? And it seems odd to me that many that support "free trade" still support embargoes against Iran and Cuba. Does McCain support those embargoes?

 

If you mean "free trade" in the sense that the companies of other nations and their MNCs should be required to pay wages above the poverty level, to respect the environment, their trading partners can't have foreign policy goals that are in opposition to American foreign policy and so on then fine, I support free trade. But "free trade" under the guise of making it easier for American MNCs to function without any respect for American workers and the environment doesn't seem to benefit anyone, well I guess it probably benefits people who retire and cash in $10,000,000.00 worth of stock options.

 

The federal government is charged with promoting the general welfare and securing the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity. I'm pretty positive the framers were talking about American people not Exxon.

 

 

Great post.

[Azazello1313]

I'm no expert on this, but here's tha part that hurts my head. Doesn't China tax the ever-living sh*t out of US goods, making it virtually impossible for American products to be sold there? And to make matters worse, we don't tax Chinese goods at a high rate making their products cheaper in the US than American made products. Can someone explain that to me, or better yet, justify the reasoning behind it? Or am I missing something?

 

we have trade with china, but it's not "free", there are tarriffs and such involved both ways. so that's a slightly different situation, each side trying to negotiate terms by which they get the most advantage. it's still to our advantage to have freer trade with china, but we obviously need to be mindful of what they're doing to try and steer trade terms to their own national advantage.

[Caveman_Nick]

the flipside of that is that through freer trade, nations necessarily become allies on a fundamental level through economic interdependence. the chances of us ever going to war with a nation whose economy is deeply connected with our own are basically nil, unless one or the other wants to commit economic suicide. get the whole world thusly connected, every country trying to improve their lot by trading with everyone else, and suddenly you've got a pretty f'n peaceful place. but to get there, we've got to get past a lot of people in a lot of countries who want to be independent of the rest of the world, and to emphasize and protect their parochial "differences". don't get me wrong, a lot of the things that make us cultrurally "different" are awesome, unique things we should always hold on to. just like a chinaman should always hold on to and be proud of HIS cultural heritage, and a russian of his, and so on. but the sooner we all become citizens of the world, first and foremost, the sooner we can stop worrying about destroying each other. economic interdependence through trade is the real, practical means of making this happen.

 

 

 

 

[Randall]

Does AZ then support opening up trade with Cuba? I do.

 

I do agree with some of his post regarding trade and war but countries have gone to war with trading partners. Especially when one ignores agreed upon rules.

[Azazello1313]

Many people benefit from it but many don't. I would like to see the deals re-negotiated not eliminated. If they get free access to our markets i would like to see leveling the playing field so we can compete better(Human rights/environmental standards) or forcing them to open their markets to our products.

 

so, if I'm mexico, and president obama comes to me and says, "we're gonna toss out the permanent trade treaty we signed with you guys unless you fix your labor and environmental laws", my response would be something like this:

"Ok, you gringos are already getting more out of this deal than anyone. it's given you a bigger market for your exports, cheaper imports, a bigger labor market for your businesses. in the frst 10 years after NAFTA was enacted, your country ADDED hundreds of thousands of manufacturing jobs. now you want to back out of this treaty because WE'RE not 'playing fair'? what do you want us to do? enact a minimum wage that is more than half of the country is willing to work for? how does that make economic sense for anyone? you want us to commit to keeping our carbon emmissions increase under a certain rate of growth? we are a poor country with a relatively tiny economy, you are asking us to willingly assume shackles that will keep us that way for perpetuity. you fat gringos can afford to sit back and have all these morally comforting regulations, we can not -- and you browbeating us is not going to get us there. level playing field, my ass. and then you b*tch at us about immigration, saying 'why can't you improve your working and living conditions so that not everyone in your country is dying to invade ours?' well, mr. president, we would love to make that happen, but that is an impossible goal if you're going to present us with the ultimatum of either enacting regulations that make no sense for our still developing country, or your backing out of our free trade treaty. "