Tweet
Actually, that's more of a judgment than a definition.
-
“It is no use trying to 'see through' first principles. If you see through everything, then everything is transparent. But a wholly transparent world is an invisible world. To 'see through' all things is the same as not to see.”
― C.S. Lewis, The Abolition of Man -
Nope... an end result in your opinion, but not a definition.Originally posted by Giancarlo View PostKeep on Civin'
RIP rah, Tony Bogey & Baron OComment
-
No. It's a definition.
Anyways too busy dealing with the third Benham brother in the other thread.For there is [another] kind of violence, slower but just as deadly, destructive as the shot or the bomb in the night. This is the violence of institutions -- indifference, inaction, and decay. This is the violence that afflicts the poor, that poisons relations between men because their skin has different colors. - Bobby Kennedy (Mindless Menance of Violence)Comment
-
Well I say free trade is ice cream ... so it's good.Comment
-
No... it's not. Supposed end results do not make a definition.Originally posted by Giancarlo View Post
Please try again with a real definition.Keep on Civin'
RIP rah, Tony Bogey & Baron OComment
-
Free trade is the absence of artificial trade barriers. The US states did indeed have tariffs and other nontariff barriers between the states under the articles of confederation. I agree internal free trade does help unify a country but again countries like India do indeed have internal trade barriers between various states usually on grounds claiming it protects local small businesses but really it just encourages corruption and makes people poorer by artificially restricting options and competition. Other than special interests everyone else would be better off with lower prices and a higher standard of living.
Lastly, no one but you has claimed free trade solves every problem (which shows how desperate and dishonest you are being) but it is certainly better than the alternative. You still have to have mechanisms to insure everyone follows the same basic rules but usually people like you are the first to complain about such mechanisms in agreements.Try http://wordforge.net/index.php for discussion and debate.Comment
-
two companies make snikcers
one in us the other in china.
US has higher wages, all the capital goes to china.
us company closes down.
free trade did this.Comment
-
And, assuming your premise as true, the U.S. has higher wages because they can make things of greater value than snickers, and those not making snickers in the U.S. anymore will be making things of greater value in future.Originally posted by Bereta_Eder View PostOne day Canada will rule the world, and then we'll all be sorry.Comment
-
they'll just see their wages fall to chinese levels, with their quality of life too.
this auto-regulation theory is so last centuryComment
-
So you are arguing that Free Trade is reducing income inequality between the U.S. and China?One day Canada will rule the world, and then we'll all be sorry.Comment
-
why would I?
There's no credible nationwide redistributionComment
-
Because you just said "they'll just see their wages fall to chinese levels"
If you aren't talking about U.S. workers and Chinese workers having the same level of income (i.e. eliminating inequality country v country), then what were you talking about?One day Canada will rule the world, and then we'll all be sorry.Comment
-
so now you fall back on your previous argument and in fact claim that free trade leads to uniformed poverty
excellent.
i used the platonic method and didn't even realize it.Comment
-
It's not my argument dude. It's yours.One day Canada will rule the world, and then we'll all be sorry.Comment
-
I just think you're confusedComment
Comment