Cadillac Owners Forum banner

1 - 20 of 25 Posts

·
Banned
Cadillac
Joined
·
16,105 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I don't know quite what to make of all this. I guess Free Trade ain't exactly a popular idea in South America these days. Looks like Washington has decided a Free Trade policy with South America is a big issue in order to counteract Hugo Chavez's growing influence there.

So do you guys think all this turmoil is worth Washington's while, or should they just forget about South America and Hugo Chavez? What's an alternative to free trade?

This is all kind of reminiscent of the anti-American riots in the 1960s down in South America (like when Nixon's car got attacked).

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4408804.stm
 

·
Registered
A boat
Joined
·
1,517 Posts
Free Trade = Good.
The only reason I can think of someone opposing it is because of the fact it causes a continual shakedown, and those who can't adopt inevitably get burned. Look at the manufacturing industry, those who are suffering from stuctural unemployment, and refuse to do anything about it except scream for protectionist measures.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,302 Posts
Sinister Angel said:
Free Trade = Good.
The only reason I can think of someone opposing it is because of the fact it causes a continual shakedown, and those who can't adopt inevitably get burned. Look at the manufacturing industry, those who are suffering from stuctural unemployment, and refuse to do anything about it except scream for protectionist measures.
To bad the American government does not do what it peaches
Look at the softwood trade wars between Canada and the US
 

·
Banned
Cadillac
Joined
·
16,105 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
Sinister Angel said:
Free Trade = Good.
The only reason I can think of someone opposing it is because of the fact it causes a continual shakedown, and those who can't adopt inevitably get burned. Look at the manufacturing industry, those who are suffering from stuctural unemployment, and refuse to do anything about it except scream for protectionist measures.
I think they are probably opposing in SA because they are worried that 1) Free Trade would force them to sell their govt. owned national companies which is a point of national pride in these countries-after all, how will FT help a country and its employment if its companies can't really compete, and 2) they may also be worried that after they sign the deal, Washington won't live up to it.

But I'm not sure what you mean by "structural unemployment."
 

·
Registered
A boat
Joined
·
1,517 Posts
Ralph said:
I think they are probably opposing in SA because they are worried that 1) Free Trade would force them to sell their govt. owned national companies which is a point of national pride in these countries-after all, how will FT help a country and its employment if its companies can't really compete, and 2) they may also be worried that after they sign the deal, Washington won't live up to it.
But I'm not sure what you mean by "structural unemployment."
1) That's kinda would be explained by what I said about a "shakedown". It also shows that socialism doesn't work heh.

2) As I mentioned to airbalancer, i make no claims as to what bush says or does heh, I just speak from the standpoint on how things *should* be.

As for the definition of structural employement, it's an economic term used to describe unemployment due to unneeded work skills, and lack of others that are needed. For example, this country is definately turning into a service oriented economy. Structural unemployment might be a machinist who's out of work because he only knows how to machine, and doesn't have any other skills and/or refuses to learn them.
 

·
Banned
Cadillac
Joined
·
16,105 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
Sinister Angel said:
1) That's kinda would be explained by what I said about a "shakedown". It also shows that socialism doesn't work heh.
2) As I mentioned to airbalancer, i make no claims as to what bush says or does heh, I just speak from the standpoint on how things *should* be.
As for the definition of structural employement, it's an economic term used to describe unemployment due to unneeded work skills, and lack of others that are needed. For example, this country is definately turning into a service oriented economy. Structural unemployment might be a machinist who's out of work because he only knows how to machine, and doesn't have any other skills and/or refuses to learn them.
1) Government ownership of business isn't necessarily a hallmark of socialism. Socialism is more redistribution of tax monies. Socialism (not Communism, of course) seems to work just fine in Sweden, Luxembourg, Germany, etc. (And to a lesser degree, Canada). These countries have the world's highest standards of living (not GDPs, though), and maybe that's what a lot of South Americans would like to have. Maybe it's preferable to have slightly less efficient industries, but have better living conditions.

2) Yeah, governments IDEALLY should stick to the agreements they make, but you're right, sometimes they don't. Which may be a reason why Free Trade isn't always a good thing.

Now I understand what you mean by "structural" unemployment. However, I think the term is actually "frictional" unemployment, if I remember my Econ 201 correctly.
 

·
Registered
A boat
Joined
·
1,517 Posts
Ralph said:
1) Government ownership of business isn't necessarily a hallmark of socialism. Socialism is more redistribution of tax monies.
Webster disagrees:
Webster said:
Main Entry: so·cial·ism
Pronunciation: 'sO-sh&-"li-z&m
Function: noun
1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done
Redistribution of taxes is a subset of government controled production and distribution of goods.

Ralph said:
Socialism (not Communism, of course) seems to work just fine in Sweden, Luxembourg, Germany, etc. (And to a lesser degree, Canada). These countries have the world's highest standards of living (not GDPs, though), and maybe that's what a lot of South Americans would like to have. Maybe it's preferable to have slightly less efficient industries, but have better living conditions.
How can you have a high standard of living when you don't have freedom?

ralph said:
2) Yeah, governments IDEALLY should stick to the agreements they make, but you're right, sometimes they don't. Which may be a reason why Free Trade isn't always a good thing.
Now I understand what you mean by "structural" unemployment. However, I think the term is actually "frictional" unemployment, if I remember my Econ 201 correctly.
Why is a concept, such as free trade in this case, bad just because an entity doesn't practice it?

As for frictional vs. structural, it is not frictional. Frictional unemployment is unemployment by someone who does posses the required skills for a job that exists, it's just they are out of work while locating such job. Ref: http://ingrimayne.saintjoe.edu/econ/Labor/TypesUnempl.html
 

·
Banned
Cadillac
Joined
·
16,105 Posts
Discussion Starter #9
Sinister Angel said:
Webster disagrees:

Redistribution of taxes is a subset of government controled production and distribution of goods.


How can you have a high standard of living when you don't have freedom?


Why is a concept, such as free trade in this case, bad just because an entity doesn't practice it?

As for frictional vs. structural, it is not frictional. Frictional unemployment is unemployment by someone who does posses the required skills for a job that exists, it's just they are out of work while locating such job. Ref: http://ingrimayne.saintjoe.edu/econ/Labor/TypesUnempl.html
OMG! To be continued later today, as I have to go out in a few minutes......dude, I thought that after years of my having to defend this country you would have at LEAST realized we have private business and are in some cases even MORE free than you! (yes, I can cite examples but they would upset you, and it's NOT what you want to hear) I thought you might have learned a few things by now about Canada.

This is getting off topic now, but I will answer your questions later...:bigroll: The countries I mentioned answer your question......it works quite fine...
 

·
Banned
Cadillac
Joined
·
16,105 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
Sinister Angel said:
How can you have a high standard of living when you don't have freedom?
#1 We are just as FREE as YOU, (that doesn't even deserve an answer)

#2. Do you see ANY American cities in this recent article for best place to live in the world??

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4306936.stm
 

·
Banned
Cadillac
Joined
·
16,105 Posts
Discussion Starter #11
Sinister Angel said:
Webster disagrees:

Redistribution of taxes is a subset of government controled production and distribution of goods.


How can you have a high standard of living when you don't have freedom?


Why is a concept, such as free trade in this case, bad just because an entity doesn't practice it?

As for frictional vs. structural, it is not frictional. Frictional unemployment is unemployment by someone who does posses the required skills for a job that exists, it's just they are out of work while locating such job. Ref: http://ingrimayne.saintjoe.edu/econ/Labor/TypesUnempl.html
1)Ok, the reason I put "not communism" in brackets was to distinguish between the definition of socialism as Marxism (which is hardly ever used, but is confusing) and Democratic socialism, which is what most people in the world think of when hearing the term. Domocratic socialism has nothing to do with there being "No Private Property" That is a principal of Karl Marx and Communism. Domocratic Socialism has its emphasis on the SOCIAL part. That is, higher taxes to fund social programs. Sometimes it included some production run by the government, but NOT an end to private property. (which is Marxist).

2) Last I checked, Luxenbourg, Denmark, and Sweeden, etc. (the Eurosocialist countries) have MORE FREEDOM than any other COUNTRIES IN THE WORLD. Don't believe me.....check an American thinktank site called freedomhouse.org that measure and rank countries on THAT BASIS. Canada is near the very top, the U.S. is not I'm afraid. (Hey! don't shoot the messenger!)

3) Free trade in its more abstract form undoubtedly has some good features, but you cannot ignore or seperate that from how entities in the real world practice it, or if as you say "don't practice it." So I'd suggest that in some cases Free Trade can hurt a countries economy if the industries cab't compete. The concept implies this, and must be considered.
 

·
Registered
A boat
Joined
·
1,517 Posts
Ralph said:
OMG! To be continued later today, as I have to go out in a few minutes......dude, I thought that after years of my having to defend this country you would have at LEAST realized we have private business and are in some cases even MORE free than you! (yes, I can cite examples but they would upset you, and it's NOT what you want to hear) I thought you might have learned a few things by now about Canada.
This is getting off topic now, but I will answer your questions later...:bigroll: The countries I mentioned answer your question......it works quite fine...
Then cite them.
 

·
Banned
Cadillac
Joined
·
16,105 Posts
Discussion Starter #13
Sinister Angel said:
Then cite them.
In a way I already did. Check out the "Jimmy Carter" thread in the CI forum. Then, it was continued in the "Censorship Discussion Cont. with 1toycad" also in the CI. I provided many examples, but there are always more I could mention, but I fear upsetting you and others. How honest can I really be here??

I recommend also checking out the freedomhouse.org website and let me know what you find....
 

·
Registered
A boat
Joined
·
1,517 Posts
Ralph said:
1)Ok, the reason I put "not communism" in brackets was to distinguish between the definition of socialism as Marxism (which is hardly ever used, but is confusing) and Democratic socialism, which is what most people in the world think of when hearing the term. Domocratic socialism has nothing to do with there being "No Private Property" That is a principal of Karl Marx and Communism. Domocratic Socialism has its emphasis on the SOCIAL part. That is, higher taxes to fund social programs. Sometimes it included some production run by the government, but NOT an end to private property. (which is Marxist).
Last I knew, my money was private and for my use.

2) Last I checked, Luxenbourg, Denmark, and Sweeden, etc. (the Eurosocialist countries) have MORE FREEDOM than any other COUNTRIES IN THE WORLD. Don't believe me.....check an American thinktank site called freedomhouse.org that measure and rank countries on THAT BASIS. Canada is near the very top, the U.S. is not I'm afraid. (Hey! don't shoot the messenger!)
Let me check that site in a minute and let me see what they are ranking in terms of freedom. I'll get back to you.

3) Free trade in its more abstract form undoubtedly has some good features, but you cannot ignore or seperate that from how entities in the real world practice it, or if as you say "don't practice it." So I'd suggest that in some cases Free Trade can hurt a countries economy if the industries cab't compete. The concept implies this, and must be considered.
Ok, let's try to clarify some things. Are you saying that government's should be able to control who companies trade with due to the fact that free trade by that company would kill the economy of that country, or are you saying that free trade between other countries would kill that countries economy.
 

·
Registered
A boat
Joined
·
1,517 Posts
Looks like the US Got a 1 and 1 rating to me on that freedom house site.

As for your statement that Canada is as free as the US, how can that be if your freedom of speech isn't even protected?
 

·
Registered
A boat
Joined
·
1,517 Posts
Also, as for your "Top 10 Cities" link, think about this quote
"Canadian cities scored well, as did Austria's Vienna and Switzerland's Geneva, because they are not seen as targets for terror attacks."
Well, shop owners in the days of gangsters got "protection" if they gave into the extortion, didn't they? Well guess what happens when they don't?
 

·
Banned
Cadillac
Joined
·
16,105 Posts
Discussion Starter #17
Sinister Angel said:
Looks like the US Got a 1 and 1 rating to me on that freedom house site.

As for your statement that Canada is as free as the US, how can that be if your freedom of speech isn't even protected?
Of course our freedom of speech is protected just like every other Liberal democracy in the world. It is in our constitution just like it is in the American one.
 

·
Banned
Cadillac
Joined
·
16,105 Posts
Discussion Starter #18
Sinister Angel said:
Also, as for your "Top 10 Cities" link, think about this quote
"Canadian cities scored well, as did Austria's Vienna and Switzerland's Geneva, because they are not seen as targets for terror attacks."
Well, shop owners in the days of gangsters got "protection" if they gave into the extortion, didn't they? Well guess what happens when they don't?
Then explain why Canada and all the other European countries have so many troops in Afghanistan where the real terrorist threat is. It could also be argued that Canada and the European democracy combat rogue states and terrorism by subtler and more effective means like diplomatic engagement and economic incentive which do not attract the wrath of others.

But the issue here is there is just as much if not more freedom for Canadians and Western Europeans than Americans.
 

·
Banned
Cadillac
Joined
·
16,105 Posts
Discussion Starter #19
Sinister Angel said:
Looks like the US Got a 1 and 1 rating to me on that freedom house site.

As for your statement that Canada is as free as the US, how can that be if your freedom of speech isn't even protected?
Can you post that exact link from that site? I couldn't find that specific page.

Some brief examples of erroding freedoms in the U.S from an international perspective.....

age of consent continually rising due to extreme pressure from Christian fundamentalist groups. See California and many others on this one.

The U.S. Federal system gives individual states more control to set laws and in some cases this leads to curtailing of citizen rights. Utah-(from what I understand) you have to get a type of club membership for drinking. Availability of citizens consuming alcohol restricted.

In Holland and to a lesser degree, Canada, you can smoke as much grass as you want, but NOT under U.S. Federal Law.

How about FCC Restrictions in the U.S. The Federal restrictions for what can be seen on tv, on the U.S. main broadcast channels (ABC, NBC, etc.) there are severe restrictions on sex and language, not so in Europe and Canada. And just wait until you see the full results from Bush's "War on pornography" really take effect. Soon groups will be complaining so much, you won't be allowed to see a chick in a bikini on American television because people claim to be "offended."

these are just off the top of my head....
 
1 - 20 of 25 Posts
Top