! Bob, ! ! After reading your post, I really don't understand why you support the ! "war" in Iraq.
Because I view Islamofascism as a bigger threat than I ever thought it was previously, I think it's a clash of civilizations and one of them has to lose, and I prefer it be them. It trumps many of my other views. I don't think you understand or appreciate just how dangerously out of whack ME culture is with modernity (and not just its negative aspects, but its good aspects as well), and I think we've learned how un-sensible policies of containment and appeasement in the past have proven to be in terms of compromising our principles as well as in terms of actually helping the average arab on the street live a better life without hate. I know I didn't really grasp that until 9/11. Some (albeit precious few) sensible lefties are also able to put their usual policy positions aside in recognition of this fact. One I point out especially is Christopher Hitchens, who in the past I simply couldn't tolerate. Now thanks to his shockingly realistic perspective about what's at stake in the war against radical Islam, I read his articles with more interest even though he writes predominantly for left-wing rags. ;) Does this mean I entirely trust our leaders and the folks around them? No. Certainly I am aware of their beliefs on the issues I articulated and they couldn't be further from mine. That doesn't change no matter which side gets in. So I have to choose by other criteria. ! ! A "Calco administration", as you put it, would be a government ! defending interests of its economy as a whole, its people AND its ! businesses. In a world where private matters overcome even sovereign ! nations, this type of administration will never happen. Which is why I'm a software engineer and not a politician. :) Although I gather Jim Eddins is leading an exploratory committee to convince me to run anyway. ;) "If the people ask..." LOL! Just kidding... Don't worry there's no threat of a "Calco administration" until and unless one of my sons decides to run for something. Which I would probably discourage given the corrupting nature of power. - Bob ! ! ! On 6/14/06, Bob Calco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: ! > ! > ! ! > ! On 6/13/06, Bob Calco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: ! > ! > You can't have trade, let alone genuine division of labor (which ! > is ! > ! > what free trade really is), with regimes that can ! compel people to ! > ! > work against their will for next to nothing. ! > ! > ! > ! ! > ! What's your opinion on "regimes that compel people to work against ! > ! their will for next to nothing" that are supported by other ! > countries ! > ! and their respective business corporations? ! > ! ! > ! I'm appalled to see that you have no idea on how big companies ! > operate ! > ! in third world countries. ! > ! > I *do* see how they operate, and I *don't* approve of it. ! > ! > Bad enough they are taking advantage of slave labor, they are also ! > screwing their fellow homeland citizens out of the ! per-capita capital ! > investment that would raise standards of living in their country of ! > origin (I assume you understand that there are big corporations that ! > do this from other countries besides the US) if they were ! engaging in ! > division of labor with their fellow citizens, as they should be. ! > Instead that investment is leaving their country and going to the ! > third world country under the false banner of "trade" (free, fair or ! > otherwise). ! > ! > The only clarification to that position I wish to make is ! that of the ! > two, the slave labor has it better off. Why? Because they ! are at least ! > getting a measure of capital investment they would otherwise not be ! > getting, albeit under adverse and frankly inhumane conditions, so ! > their wages are rising even if they don't feel it because of the ! > cooperation between local thugs/dictators and the ! multinationals. The ! > citizens of the home country of that corporation are realizing real ! > drop in their standard of living, even if this drop has been managed ! > and gradual so as to be imperceptible by lowering prices of goods ! > imported along with that. But the bottom line is, wages and ! prices are ! > falling in the home countries of those corporations and are ! rising in ! > the "slave labor" country. Their standards of living are being ! > negotiated away with every "free trade" treaty. ! > ! > Under a Calco administration, there would be no foreign tax ! credit, no ! > "free trade", and any importation of goods from abroad would be ! > subject to an ad valorem tariff to ensure that the labor of the home ! > market remains attractive to capital investment. (not picking and ! > choosing industries, nor favoring any particular company, nor ! > establishing quotas or any of that). Just make it ! disadvantageous for ! > companies to import into the US and advantageous for them instead to ! > produce in and export from the US. That policy is doing wonders for ! > china. ! > ! > Note China's outstanding "growth"---it has been entirely of this ! > variety. Foreign companies investing their capital in Chinese labor ! > (even though most of it ends up in the Communist Party coffers). A ! > win-win for the dictators and the CEOs of these companies. ! > ! > There would also be no income tax on persons or businesses operating ! > in the US. The IRS would be sent out exclusively to collect tariffs ! > and go after the corporations that attempt to engage in division of ! > labor with foreign governments outside our social compact. ! > ! > I would advise every country to do the same. Trade is trade ! and that's ! > great, but division of labor is something that should happen between ! > citizens of a country under that country's laws. I am not a ! > free-trader or one-worlder in any sense of the term (I'm ! fine with the ! > nation-state concept and believe the world can tolerate many diverse ! > cultures and traditions as long as people mind their fences ! and behave ! > themselves). I find all the hot air hooey about the "inevitability" ! > of the global economy to be the real cause of global warming. (Just ! > like the "inevitability" of a grand socialist utopia eventually ! > morphing into pure communism and ridding the world of pain ! and poverty ! > forever was also pure nonsense.) ! > ! > On a lot of levels the ideological underpinnings of free ! trade have a ! > lot in common with socialist thinking, which is why ! neo-conservatives ! > (who are, lest we forget, "former liberals" for the most part) all ! > seem to go for it. It's simply a different way to the same utopia. ! > Neither of which are realizable in this life in a world of finite ! > resouces. ! > ! > That having been said it also explains why both liberals and ! > neo-conservatives are "for" free trade "in the abstract" ! (note it was ! > Al Gore who "defated" the comical Ross Perot in the Larry King Live ! > debate over NAFTA) -- the former is for it if is "fair" the ! latter if ! > it is "free". Both are wrong, and a pox on both their houses. ! > ! > This is one issue where I'm totally out of joint with both ! parties on ! > ever level. I like our Founders' approach, and all that ! nonsense about ! > "can't retreat to Fortress America" and "tariffs caused the great ! > depression" is utter, total rhetorical balderdash. ! > ! > I think rather than talk about the war or any of that I'll take some ! > time in the coming weeks to flesh out all my views on this ! instead. At ! > least it will be a change of pace and something interesting, if only ! > to myself. ;) ! > ! > - Bob ! > ! > ! ! > ! [excessive quoting removed by server] _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
