Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Vulcan on July 24, 2006, 08:20:14 PM
-
Beetle woulda luved this, from the WTO talks:
the United States of "stone-walling" by refusing to offer deeper cuts in US trade-distorting domestic farm subsidies, which now total about $US20 billion ($NZ32.2 billion) annually.
It smells of socialism (lazs?)
And lets not forget the steel industry, and timber industry. So much for free trade!
-
Protectionism is retarded, but it's not socialism. Don't they have economics in college in NZ? Kill of -vlkn- by funked
-
Protectionism is retarded from a strictly economic point of view, but from a national security point of view it makes sense. Outsourcing our manufacturing capability is retarded enough (see steel). I'm usually quick to ***** about government subsidies and how they undermine the free market (and our entire political system), but I look at farm subsidies as national security spending. Outsourcing our food production could be disasterous in wartime.
-
Besides, when everyone works for $500/mo in pay and benefits, there'll be no need for protectionism. We'll be able to compete with the Chinese then!
-
Protectionism, socialism, and communism are basically the same plant in three different stages of its growth.
- Frederic Bastiat
-
Originally posted by Toad
Besides, when everyone works for $500/mo in pay and benefits, there'll be no need for protectionism. We'll be able to compete with the Chinese then!
IIRC average earnings in RF are now about $200 monthly, including a crowd of guys who occasionally buy English football clubs or go to jail for stealing several billion dollars. And we still can't compete with the Chinese!
-
Well, you have to work, not pretend you're working. Even if they only pretend to pay you. ;)
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
- Frederic Bastiat
Who's that brilliant guy? I bet he didn't read Marx.
It's funny how people who don't have an idea of what Marx wrote about 150 years ago keep reasonong about "socialism" and "communism". Using cheap propaganda instead of real meanings of the words is silly. But how else could they distract people from taking this terms seriously? ;)
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Who's that brilliant guy? I bet he didn't read Marx.
It's funny how people who don't have an idea of what Marx wrote about 150 years ago keep reasonong about "socialism" and "communism". Using cheap propaganda instead of real meanings of the words is silly. But how else could they distract people from taking this terms seriously? ;)
Ah, propaganda, from the guy whose country used to live by it, and the residual effects still linger. Gotta love it! :)
-
Originally posted by Toad
Well, you have to work, not pretend you're working. Even if they only pretend to pay you. ;)
For "pretending that they pay me" I earn less then $100 monthly, running a network and support in two huge Academic institutes. In any commercial company I'll get about ten times more for the same job. And yes, I come to work whenever I want because all I run really works. My other earnings are outside of state interests. I suppose they are satisfied with what I do on government money. I like my job. And it' no anyone's freaking business why I don't go and find myself a better one.
BTW, an ISP where I have a share since 2000AD got sold again. Maybe it's time to go and finally ask how much does my share cost?...
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Ah, propaganda, from the guy whose country used to live by it, and the residual effects still linger. Gotta love it! :)
Define "socialism" and "communism" please.
What I read in American "Macroeconomics" school-book back in 1989 is quite far from original definition.
-
Money spent on the preservation of strategic assets is money well spent. Trade protectionism is nearly always a good thing for the contry doing it, though it gets bad publicity because the corporate fat cats hate it. Stuff like farm assistance is the sort of thing a good government is supposed to do.
J_A_B
-
"What they're saying is that for every dollar that they strip out of their trade-distorting farm subsidies they want to be given a dollar's worth of market access in developing country markets," he said.
I've always said that no deal is better than a bad deal, and a 'Doha light' deal would be a bad deal," he said. I'm glad our trade negotiators held their ground." (Senator Charles Grassley)
:aok
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Who's that brilliant guy? I bet he didn't read Marx.
It's funny how people who don't have an idea of what Marx wrote about 150 years ago keep reasonong about "socialism" and "communism". Using cheap propaganda instead of real meanings of the words is silly. But how else could they distract people from taking this terms seriously? ;)
Boronda
I think the great communicator said it best:
“How do you tell a communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin.”
Ronald Reagan
And I own and have read "Das Kapital"...oh and I understand it.
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
Protectionism is retarded, but it's not socialism. Don't they have economics in college in NZ? Kill of -vlkn- by funked
Protectionism is import tarrifs on competitive products, our beef products into the US get heavily tarrifed, this money goes into the goverment coffees but not necessarily back to US beef farmers. Subsidies is taking your taxes and giving them to the farmers as a sort of social-welfare system.
Its still socialism comrade funked.
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
Protectionism is import tarrifs on competitive products, our beef products into the US get heavily tarrifed, this money goes into the goverment coffees but not necessarily back to US beef farmers. Subsidies is taking your taxes and giving them to the farmers as a sort of social-welfare system.
Its still socialism comrade funked.
Because we do subsidize farmers and support many with welfare does make us socialistic but that still has nothing to do with protectionism.
-
Originally posted by Tarmac
Protectionism is retarded from a strictly economic point of view, but from a national security point of view it makes sense. Outsourcing our manufacturing capability is retarded enough (see steel). I'm usually quick to ***** about government subsidies and how they undermine the free market (and our entire political system), but I look at farm subsidies as national security spending. Outsourcing our food production could be disasterous in wartime.
I agree with that
Same here really. We have always had a high import tax on foreign foods to maintain foodproduction. There is no way in hell we could maintain landbased food production here if we did not protect it. Other countries further south have a warmer climate and bigger fields that gives more and larger harvests. It is not a good idea to be dependant on others for the basics like food and water. Farming without subsidies would have been killed many years ago.
-
"Protectionism" LOL...
No one wants to give market access to the USA but expects the USA to give up their farm subsidies. What kind of good deal is that? That line of thinking seems to be more like socialism. Expect the rich to bend over for the poor. If the USA is to give up a dollar they should expect a dollar worth in return.. Now that's fair.. And is much more like capitalism...
:D
-
In most states there is no tax on foodstuffs.
I would be happy with no subsidies but no taxes on farmers for anything.
Food is important.. the government should not be able to extort them.
lazs