BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model

Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model
From: Sawzaw
Date: 26 Nov 10 - 09:51 PM

Hummmmmmmm. Bobert blames the "mean 'ol gov-mint" for letting the Japanese steal our steel industry:

"The theft of our steel industry is a prime example of what can happen when government has it's blinders on and refuses to participate pro-actively in the global economy"

But then he says the tea baggers are wrong for blaming things on the government.

He complains about the government and then he denounces others for complaining about the government.

What we need is shit load of enforcement of the existing regulations and laws. If we cannot enforce them how can we enforce new ones?

Whose responsibility is it to enforce regulations and laws?

You know like regulations about offshore oil drilling and the regualtions about the response to an oil spill?

Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model
From: Sawzaw
Date: 26 Nov 10 - 09:54 PM

In his nomination speech in July, Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry told the nation he was "reporting for duty." But when it comes to shaping America's trade policy toward China and the rest of the world, it remains unclear which John Kerry would report for duty next January if he's elected president.

As a four-term Democratic senator from Massachusetts, Kerry has compiled an impressive record of support for free trade. He voted in favor of every major trade bill to come before Congress: the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, the North American Free Trade Agreement, normal trade relations with China and then permanent NTR in 2000, more generous market access for imports from Africa and the Caribbean, and trade promotion authority for Presidents Clinton and Bush. He was one of a minority of his party in the Senate to reject steel quotas in 1999.

Kerry's record on trade has its blemishes. He voted for the huge farm subsidy bill in 2002 that President Bush signed. He voted for more restrictive language on labor, environmental, and human rights standards in trade agreements. He voted to make it more difficult to reform America's much abused antidumping laws in World Trade organization negotiations. But those deviations aside, his record in Congress has been pro-trade, especially for a Democrat.

Daniel Griswold is director of the Center for Trade Policy Studies at the Cato Institute.
More by Daniel Griswold

As a presidential candidate, however, John Kerry has staked out a more skeptical line on trade. While paying lip service to the need to trade, he has ratcheted up his call for "enforceable labor and environmental standards at the core of every trade agreement," skipping over the fact that most developing countries in the WTO have made it perfectly clear they will not sign agreements that contain such language.

In his July speech, Kerry said, "We will trade and compete in the world. But our plan calls for a fair playing field" -- whatever that would mean in practice -- "because if you give the American worker a fair playing field, there's nobody in the world the American worker can't compete against." To deliver that "fair" playing field, Kerry has proposed reviewing and even re-opening existing agreements and aggressive use of the Super 301 trade law that threatens other countries with unilateral U.S. sanctions. To slow "outsourcing," he wants to impose new regulations on U.S. companies and restrict government contracts to companies that promise to do all the work in the United States.

Equally disturbing has been Kerry's attacks on the patriotism of his fellow Americans. He's described executives who've tried to control costs by moving some operations overseas as "Benedict Arnold CEOs" -- as if trying to stay competitive in global markets is somehow un-American. He's promised to "appoint a U.S. Trade Representative who is an American patriot and who will put American jobs first" -- as if past and present USTRs have not been good, decent Americans committed to the same bi-partisan, post-war trade expansion that has brought so much peace and prosperity to the United States and its trading partners.

His choice of Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina as a running mate only reinforces this retreat from free trade. In contrast to Kerry, Edwards voted in favor of steel quotas and against opening the U.S. market to apparel imports from Africa and against final passage of trade promotion authority. Edwards ran against NAFTA during his 1998 campaign and even voted against free trade agreements last summer with Chile and Singapore. (Kerry missed those votes.) The one bright spot on the Edwards record has been his support in the past for normal trade relations with China.

What would all this mean for trade policy in a Kerry administration? Probably not as much as the campaign sound bites would indicate. The anti-trade noise generated in U.S. elections is always worse than any legislation the politicians finally enact. John Kerry's swipes at trade are popular with the Democratic Party's core constituencies of organized labor and environmental activists, but trade has simply not been a decisive issue in recent presidential or congressional campaigns.

Nonetheless, trade policy would change under a Kerry presidency. If he wins what everyone expects will be a close race, his anti-trade constituencies will want to collect on their victory. The price may be fewer bilateral and regional trade agreements, and probably none with less developed countries where labor and environmental standards would be an issue. The first casualty would likely be the Central American Free Trade Agreement, which Kerry has vowed to either renegotiate or veto.

Fortunately for the global trading system, economic and foreign-policy realities, as well as what is likely to be another Republican Congress, will probably block any sharp turns toward protectionism by a Democratic administration.

Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model
From: Bobert
Date: 26 Nov 10 - 10:56 PM

Yeah, Sawz... You are confused as to which government is the "mean 'ol government" and which one ain't...

The laissez faire, "free market", Voodoo economics of Ronnie Reagan thought that free market was allowing other nations to mess you up but you didn't fight back or defend yourself...

That is the "mean 'ol gov'mint" I'm talkin' about... It's the fantasy government that Tea Party Nation has dancing in its head that just needs to "get off out backs", "we want our country back", etc... I mean, the crybabies complain that the gov is too intrusive and shouldn't be doing this or that but reality is that had the go0vernment been the "mean 'ol gov'mint" that the crybaby Reganites were so against it might have pro-acted and protected our steel industry, much the wasy it protect agribusiness today...

See, Sawz... That is the probem... It isn't government that is bad is "bad" government that is bad... The entire idea of a government is to protect it's people and provide a safe atmosphere for them to live and make a living... When government doesn't take defensive steps to protect it's resources (i.e., the steel industry) when another nation attempts what is in essence a hostile takeover, then that government deserves to take the blame later on down the road when folks need that resource back...

So we had a mini-Pearl Harbor on Youngstown, Ohio and mill cities throughout the Mid Atlantic and Mid Western states While Ronnie Reagan, defender of (drum roll please) "free markets" sat on his thumbs thinkin' just how cool it was...

Yeah, "bad mean ol' gov-mint" is when it refuses to step the plate, take on the lobbiests and act to "protect its people and provide a safe environment for them to live and make a living"...

In other words:

What the Tea Party thinks about "gov-mint" is flawed... "Gov-mint" is always going to the enemy in their eyes (even more so if a Dem is in the White House)... So if another country wants to pull another industry theft and the "mean 'om gov'mint" steps in and stops it then the Tea Partiers are just fine with it, right???

"Free market" means "free market", right???

Like I said, "Ya'll Tea Party folks got some serious limitation on understanding how the real world works... I'd suggest, ahhhhhh, maybe a couple college courses Economics... Hey, it ain't all the tough...

Well, it shouldn't be tough but seems that about 40% of the American people are not quite up to learning it???

(There you go again with that elitists stuff, Boberdz...)

So I have...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model
From: Sawzaw
Date: 27 Nov 10 - 12:10 AM

All I know about is one government that resides in Washington DC. Is there another one?

The one I know about "refuses to step the plate, take on the lobbiests" Obama said the lobbyists weren't going to run Washington any more but they are more in control than ever. Is that a flawed economic model?

Here is the government I know about:

Bill Clinton:

Today we turn to face the challenge of our own hemisphere, our own country, our own economic fortunes. In a few moments, I will sign three agreements that will complete our negotiations with Mexico and Canada to create a North American Free Trade Agreement. In the coming months I will submit this pack to Congress for approval. It will be a hard fight, and I expect to be there with all of you every step of the way.

We will make our case as hard and as well as we can. And, though the fight will be difficult, I deeply believe we will win. And I'd like to tell you why. First of all, because NAFTA means jobs. American jobs, and good-paying American jobs. If I didn't believe that, I wouldn't support this agreement.

The middle class that was created and enlarged by the wise policies of expanding trade at the end of World War II has been under severe stress. Most Americans are working harder for less. They are vulnerable to the fear tactics and the adverseness to change that is behind much of the oppostion to NAFTA.

The House of Representatives approved NAFTA on November 17, 1993, by a vote of 234 to 200. The agreement's supporters included 132 Republicans and 102 Democrats. NAFTA passed the Senate 61-38. Senate supporters were 34 Republicans and 27 Democrats. Clinton signed it into law on December 8, 1993; it went into effect on January 1, 1994.

Securing U.S. congressional approval for NAFTA would have been impossible without addressing public concerns about NAFTA's environmental impact. The Clinton administration negotiated a side agreement on the environment with Canada and Mexico, the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation (NAAEC), which led to the creation of the Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC) in 1994. To alleviate concerns that NAFTA, the first regional trade agreement between a developing country and two developed countries, would have negative environmental impacts, the CEC was given a mandate to conduct ongoing ex post environmental assessment of NAFTA.

Is NAFTA a flawed economic model?

Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model
From: LadyJean
Date: 27 Nov 10 - 01:33 AM

I caught part of Glenn Beck's show today. He was holding up a replica of a Revolutionary War uniform he claimed his mother had made for his father during the bicentennial. Beck claimed she drafted the pattern herself, and made the coat by hand. (One could buy patterns for 18th century style clothing in the mid seventies. I know. I did. But never mind.)

He held the coat up, the camera focussed on the sewn in label, "Made For Bill Beck by Varsity Clothing"!

You could see the store name plainly. But he went on and on about the love his mother had put into the coat, sewing it by hand. I don't believe I have ever seen such an impressive liar! Yet he has thousands of admirers. It amazes me!

Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 27 Nov 10 - 03:40 AM

Well, whether the economic model that the Tea Party is based on is flawed or not is a matter for history to judge. It is certainly nothing new under the sun. The concept was popularized by the Austrian School of Economics ( a group of economists,not a physical structure.) I believe it is referred to as Milesian Theory, and it stands in opposition to Keynesian Theory, and those are the two principal economic schools of thought, at least in western applied economics.

Now, I'm not saying that the guy driving around in his Ford F 150 with an Obama Sucks bumper sticker is a Milesian, but Rand Paul certainly is, and the Tea Party is essentially a derivative of his thinking. The base concept of Milesian thought is that capitalist markets are self-correcting, and should be left alone with no government interference. The concept states that flawed companies, no matter how large, should be allowed to fail, and that the resultant economic suffering is necessary if the market is to regain its health. High unemployment is a necessary evil in Milesian thought.

Austrian economic theory was quite prevalent in the early years of the 20th century. What labeled it as a flawed economic model was the collapse into the Great Depression, and its aftermath. Essentially, it is argued, abuses and a lack of governmental regulation in the market led to economic collapse. Hoover was a believer in a Milesian approach to the crisis, and with enough prolonged suffering and enough unemployment, the market may have eventually followed the Austrian doctrine and self-corrected. Another possible alternative was insurrection, and many feared at the time that a communist or fascist movement could overthrow both the economic system and the government. What happened was the election of Franklin Roosevelt.

Roosevelt adopted a Keynesian approach immediately, with massive governmental involvement in manipulation of the banks, the currency, in programs to immediately alleviate unemployment through works programs, in colossal federally funded infrastructure programs, and in nearly unbridled deficit spending. The result was an almost immediate onset of recovery.

But, in all of those years since then, the discredited concepts of the Milesians are no longer associated with their actual impact in the real world, especially from an historical aspect in connection with the Great Depression. I believe there is a certain "serves 'em right" emotional component to Milesian thought that appeals to the less cerebral Tea Party minions, who are mainly pissed at the banks and anybody who wants to raise their taxes. But on the purest level, Tea Party economic thought is not really greedy nor should it be condemned on account of that. It should be condemned if you agree with me that it is rather heartless science based on a poor concept...that business does what's right because that is in it's best interest, and because it has never been shown to have been successfully applied to crisis. And in 2008 and 2009, we faced a tremendous crisis.

Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 27 Nov 10 - 03:45 AM

Sorry, when I said "Rand Paul certainly is(a believer in Austrian economics), and the Tea Party is essentially a derivative of his thinking", I meant Ron Paul. And the Austrian economists are Miseians, not Milesians.

Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model
From: Bobert
Date: 27 Nov 10 - 08:41 AM

Quite right, E-Jay... And is a good follow-up on the points I was making about "mean 'ol gov-mint" interventions... Reality is that, like it or not, we are part of a global economy where the other players are perfectly willing to follow a more Keynesian model...

If we want another fleecing by countries taking aim at our various sectors of industry, like the steel industry heist, then we can do as Ronnie Reagan and both Pauls want and do nothin'... More recently we say our textile industry heisted and sat back and did nothin'...

Maybe this is the kind of America that Sawz wants but, IMO, it is irresponsible...

If ya'll want to to blam,e the high unemployment rates ya'll don't have to look too far to see how this has happened... We've had 30 years of "less mean ol' gov-mint" and look where it has gotten US??? 1st to 21st in math and science scores... 27th in life expectancy... This is what happens when you let the the fox not only gurad but live in the hen house...

Like I said at the very beginning of this thread: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model"...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model
From: Bobert
Date: 27 Nov 10 - 10:05 AM

BTW, I find it very interesting how much effort the righties and the Re3pubs have made to revise the reality that TARP, a very Keynesian act on the "mean 'ol gov-mint's" part, was pushed by both so-called "free marketers" George4 Bush and his sidekick, Dick Cheney... Might of fact, the righties have also tried very hard to stick the "socialist" label on Obama for the "auto bailout" in spite of the fact that Bush and Cheney also pushed for for it to occur by allowing a portion of the TARP money to be used for the auto "bailout"...

But I do have to hand it to the rightie/corporatists in that their control of the media has done a superb hatchet job on Obma for things that the rightie/corportists had their boys push thru before Obama was even president... Magnificent piece of mythology...

But reality is that, though the rightie/corporatists won't ever admit it they understand that when the chips are down that Keynesian economics will always gert them out of the jams that the "free marketers" get US into...

I guess that is the silver lining??? Of course, the Tea Party folks ain't smart enough to understand that...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 27 Nov 10 - 12:44 PM

Of course, Bob, the real hardcore Miseians believe that the fundamental source of financial crisis is governmental manipulation, devaluation of the currency and the move away from the gold standard. In their view this, and not leveraged stock acquisition, bank malfeasance, and downright embezzling, was the cause of both the Depression and our current crisis.
A book entitled The Road to Serfdom written in the early 1900s by Friedrich Hayek, and recently endorsed by Glen Beck, lays out the Misesian principles. It was recently made a mandatory part of the curriculum in Texas.

Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model
From: Bobert
Date: 27 Nov 10 - 02:50 PM

Great, E-Jay... Now we are going to have an entire group- of new flat-earthers coming out of Texas...

(It's, Texas, Boberdz...)

Silly me...

BTW, I reckon that the Tea Partiers were too busy partying to recall that Bush and Cheney pushed for and got a $186B stimulus bill passed in last 2008???

Why do we not hear them talkin' about these things...

BTW, E-Jay... Is Lyndon LaRouche still alive??? Last I heard he was in Sweden or Norway... I mean, other than Nancy Reagan being a drug smuggler. Milesian econo9mic theory was what he was all about... Loved that gold standard... Why not make it conk shells or sharks teeth rather than gold is what I want to know??? No, old Superman comic books!!! Yes, that would make a great international standard to value currency behind...

(What you got against Archie comic books, Boberdz???)

Hey, ya'll wnat to use Archie comic books then that's fine, too... Just settle on somethin' soon 'cause once that is settled then everyone will have good jobs, right???


B~

Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model
From: Sawzaw
Date: 02 Dec 10 - 01:21 AM

"the kind of America that Sawz wants"

We got the kind of America Bobert wants, he still ain't happy and never will be.

Now he has to claim there are two governments in order to defend his latest conflicted untenable position. He can talk about "30 years of supply-side, trickle down economics" and then claim that right in the middle of that everything was find because of a mythological "Clinton surplus"

You can show Bobert innumerable times that the tea party was a protest going all the way back to the Bush bailouts, which were throughly approved by president elect Obama and he chooses to ignore that fact.

Rather, he accuses people who disagree with his distorted version of facts of being out of touch with reality, not in the real world.

Well I am certainly not in Bobert world an AK47 can be strapped to a mans leg. Well I guess it could but it wold be hard to walk and the ammo clip would be hitting him in the balls.

Or a world where a BB gun is the same as an AK47. I think I would rather be shot with the BB gun myself but he does not see any difference.

Seems like a gun obsession there.

Shit, I will take any kind of America there is even if Bobert hates it and runs it down 'cause it is a thousand times better than those other "industrialised nations" he keeps saying are better.

That thundering stampede of people trying to get to this America must think it is great too.

Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model
From: Bobert
Date: 02 Dec 10 - 07:27 AM

Usual Sawz-post... I other words...

(yawn)...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Tea Party = Flawed Economic Model
From: Bobert
Date: 02 Dec 10 - 09:13 AM

BTW, Saws... If you'd stick with the topic of the thread, rather than interjecting yer usual list of stupid stuff that has nothin' to do with the topic then maybe I'd take your post more serious...

Then again, maybe not...

B~