On Jan 24, 2008 12:58 PM, Von Fugal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Oh boy... > > * Michael L Torrie [Thu, 24 Jan 2008 at 12:26 -0700] > <quote> > > Bryan Sant wrote: > > > On Jan 24, 2008 10:38 AM, Nathan Blackham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> I agree that we shouldn't force democracy on everybody. That isn't the > > >> part > > >> that I call isolationist. It is that Ron Paul ( at least from his > > >> presidential bid website) thinks that all the international organizations > > >> are bad : > > >> > > >> "So called free trade deals and world governmental organizations like the > > >> International Criminal Court (ICC), NAFTA, GATT, WTO, and CAFTA are a > > >> threat > > >> to our independence as a nation." > > >> "We must withdraw from any organizations and trade deals that infringe > > >> upon > > >> the freedom and independence of the United States of America." > > > > > > Wow. I like Ron Paul even more now. > > > > Hmm. Given that the US is a country with a massive trade deficit, this > > is quite possibly one of the most bizarre ideas I have ever heard. And > > no, enacting protectionist policies will not change this trade deficit, > > and I don't think it benefits American industry. If anything it puts > > them at a disadvantage because they will be cut off from access to the > > world's markets. > > OK, since we are in a trade deficit precisely _because_ we are so > stretched thin, our dollar is failing (and has been for a long long long > time) and we're borrowing trillions to fund a war (both from other > countries and from the value of our own economy). If people are willing > to pay 5 bucks for a coconut, and five bucks was worth what it was 20 > years ago, other countries would be insane to not jump on that. Nobody > wants to sell a coconut here for 5 bucks because the american dollar > just sucks, so we have no leverage, we have to let them trade free. And > even then probably lots don't because it's simply not worth it. And with > a pending economic crisis it's just going to get worse. WE NEED TO FIX > IT!! Then we'll do what we will with trade policy. We can't do nothing > right now in terms of that, you're right, because of the god aweful > position we're in. I honestly don't know about trade tarrifs, but I > could see rather paying a little extra for foreign products to fund a > modest government than paying insane income and sales taxes for DOMESTIC > products to fund an out of control government. Especially if we had a > healthy economy where we probably could buy most things domestic. > </rant> > > > But I guess all empires have to fall sometime. > Or we could stop being an empire. > > > > >> He also includes the UN as part of those organizations. I would call > > >> this > > >> an isolationist. I feel that we need to work within some of these > > >> organizations to resolve conflicts peacefully. > > > > > > Can it get any better? Go Ron! The UN is THE most corrupt cesspool > > > of dog vomit. They are 100% anti-American, pro-world government, and > > > their taking up prime real estate in NYC. Kick them out!! > > > > > >> I do understand that not everyone views him as an isolationist. From my > > >> reading on his website, it has led me to this conclusion. I understand > > >> that > > >> he still wants to trade with the rest of the world, he just doesn't want > > >> to > > >> do it in a framework that has been built to promote fair trade. > > > > > > That would be consistent with the framework of our founding fathers. > > > The government should have power to tax profits (income is not profit > > > it is a trade) via corporate tax, and apply tariffs to incoming goods. > > > America is the largest SHOPPING MALL in the world. Countries who > > > want to sell goods in the world's largest shopping mall should pay for > > > the privilege to do so -- not unlike a vendor having to rent a store > > > front in a real mall. I know it's not quite this simple, but "fair > > > trade" laws exist so that globalized corporations can make a product > > > in China, India, etc., and then bring it into America without having > > > to pay a dime. This produces a trade imbalance, blah, blah, blah... > > > It's bad. Bad business model for Americans. Good business model for > > > global corporations... Of which I'm a minor share holder... Woohoo!! > > > Go 401k go! > > > > Wow. That's amazing. You want to pay for things twice, eh? First of > > all, the reason that foreign countries can sell their goods to us is > > because we the collective people want those goods. I mean are you for > > or against the free market? Seems ironic to me that the country that > > espouses freedom and the idea that the government should get out of the > > business of running peoples lives could be so protectionist. On this > > point Ron Paul is totally contradicting his own position on the role of > > government. I think this point of view completely contradicts the > > intent of the founding fathers. > > Well, if you pay a little tax on foreign goods (indirectly, through the > importers) then they would still have to compete with domestic products, > and if domestic products are then cheaper, then I guess you'll just buy > the domestic ones, and the importers would just have to lower their > prices anyway. Add to that that you have a ton more money because you > don't pay exhorbitant taxes AND YOUR MONEY IS ACTUALLY WORTH SOMETHING, > then well, sounds pretty good to me. > > > Also I think you (Ron Paul perhaps?) grossly overestimate America's > > future impact on the world economy. The moment OPEC starts trading oil > > in Euros instead of dollars, we are in serious, serious trouble. To say > > nothing of the looming food crisis (two bad years in a row will cause > > food prices here in america to go up dramatically because the supply is > > now zero-sum). > > Again, OPEC WILL start trading in euros unless we do something FAST. > You're basically arguing that we should help our economy because it's > already not worth anything, but that's exactly why we should help it. > Add to the food crisis the money crisis and that's a double wammy, and > then you're really paying for things twice. > > > Protectionism destroys competition and stifles innovation, leading to > > higher costs and ultimately inflation, all of which affect us here > > domestically, not globally. > > We already have inflation, and it has nothing to do with trade policy. > > Let me draw in as an example late medeivel england. They simply stopped > going to war, imposed a tax on passing through their seas (any sea, they > had a powerful navy) and it was a glorious time for england. Granted, > the privateers were less than a wholesome approach. But stopping the > wars was probably the best thing they could have done. And they never > could have kicked spain in the butt if they hadn't. > > > Now as for the subject line, given Ron Paul's position, he *has* to > > oppose linux. After all, large parts of linux itself were developed > > *outside america* and they can come in and compete without paying a > > single dime to the American government (or people, it's unclear what > > you're talking about here) in the so-called "American Shopping Mall." > > What about our poor, beleaguered, home-grown Microsoft? How can they > > possibly stay in business? > > FUD > Nobody is standing in a mall kiosk selling you linux. > Microsoft can just get their butt in gear and make viable products. > > And if the government was by the people and for the people, then the > government would be the people and you wouldn't be making that > distinction. > > Von Fugal
+1 Ninjaful /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
