Yeah, I didn't understand the racism card, either. :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
It's like saying national energy independence is "racism" if we buy less oil from the middle east.
Printable View
Yeah, I didn't understand the racism card, either. :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
It's like saying national energy independence is "racism" if we buy less oil from the middle east.
We all know why it's pulled around these parts, and what kind of people pull it. It's just another version of the rape-supporter accusationQuote:
Originally Posted by GGT
At first blush I thought your use of the word "rape" was a bit extreme. But in reality, there are groups of people quite willing to use a rape-and-plunder type of economic strategy. As if the only way to Win is leaving victims in their wake. :(
well that was certinly not what i meantQuote:
Originally Posted by GGT
1. I am quite certain Alienware does in fact assemble PCs in the US, it is the only logical explanation why they have diffrent components available in the US store vs. European store. If they had outsourced assembly to another country it would make good sense to centralize for all stores world wide and make all components available. They would still be able to continue regional price descrimination.
2. Patriotism is a way of replacing mediocre "I" with a glorious "We" thus improving your day. Most are guilty of this to a diffrent extent but if it motivates you to purchase inferior goods and services or more expensive ones it is taken to an unhealthy extreme.
Then what did you mean?Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
I suppose we should all be glad that wasn't the definition of patriotic consumerism used during WWII, when "reduce, reuse, recycle" had people connecting consumption to nationalism, or the "war effort", huh.Quote:
Originally Posted by Asmodian
In the case of an emergency, apply your own oxygen mask, then those of fellow Americans, before assisting foreigners. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
The better analogy is there's a minor crash leading to some discomfort. People might feel a little bit better right away by putting on an oxygen mask. But if a sufficient amount of people put it on, a circuit blows and the entire plane blows up. That's what you're calling for. The only consequence of large-scale protectionism is everyone (on average) being worse off.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
Exactly. Except maybe it's more:Quote:
Originally Posted by Flixy
In the case of emergency, stab yourself then apply your fellow Americans oxygen masks, before assisting any foreigners.
My paying more for something locally produced does not help me, therefore is not applying an oxygen mask to me.
It does however (actually it doesn't see:Loki, history, theory, reality etc) help fellows of our own race before Johnny Foreigner. You're using the same arguments as the BNP, any other racist party.
http://thxforthe.info/blog/wp-conten...eFacePalm2.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
It's bad enough to start down a stupid track, do you have to be so determined to stay on it? Is your pathological need to "win" so totally impervious to good sense or decency?
Meanwhile, in multiracial USA and UK
Might? MIGHT?Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
Geegee's arguments could easily pass off as those of a "nationalist". Even both use the same term.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
I'm glad the UK (and USA) are not insular like she wants. I don't think Geegee is a racist but I do abhor her desires like that of a racist.
The only important thing in there is your admission that GGT isn't a racist even if she favours her own society more than that of others. Homophobes use slippery slope arguments to oppose gay marriage, but does that mean we should make a point of comparing everyone on tWF to homophobes? The main point here is that GGT's position has bad and/or dangerous consequences, eg. poorer long-term social outcomes.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Call a spade a spade, not a rapist (unless it's actually a rapist spade). Or do you really want to start another bout of asinine j00j00ing?
I never said it was racist, I said it was no different to racism. Switch American with white.
So, let's say a racist party leader says he's in favour of clean air. By Rand's warped definition skills then everybody who wants clean air is a racist.
Also American != white.
Your expressions are a lot more racist than her's buddy.
As long as she has a reason to bias toward America it's not the equivalent of racism. Whether it's becuase she's lives in America, so benefiting America benefits her/loved ones, or she believes America is the most just country in the world and needs to maintain it's prescense in the world. If one had reasons like that, then it isn't blind, ignorant loyalty... in much the same way that racists are racists for blind ignorant reasons. (That the connection he's making Minx/Hazir... promoting your own country over another country for the hell of it is discrimination, but why you have such bias does matter a lot.)Quote:
I do not have any gut feeling about made in China/Taiwan/Mexico/whatever and find those that do no different to racism.
The connection he's desperately trying to force is that racism is sucky and disgusting and GGT['s view] is sucky and disgusting by association. It's a common debating tactic. To address your point, discrimination is not the same as racism, even though racism is based on discrimination. In most discussions, the latter has much more negative connotations.
Things are def. changing, but there is still a higher tolerance for lower quality (both apparent and actual), poor support etc. in some markets. See all the counterfeit Chinese "iPhones" for example.
I am absolutely not trying to associate.
Why is racism wrong? It is going against someone for their race, something outside of their control.
Why is this nationalism wrong? It is going against someone for their nationality, something outside of their control.
Maybe it's because of my global upbringing, growing up in another continent, I find going against someone because of their place of birth to be little different to doing so for skin colour.
No, he's trying to claim that GGT's nationalist economics is invidious. And the historical pattern has been that it is invidious. The rationale for free trade has always been that protectionism encourages an escalating series of tit-for-tat policies from everyone else in a pattern that ultimately hurts everyone, to a fairly significant degree.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
Okay, but what does that have to do with racism in this case?
See also:
Quote:
The main point here is that GGT's position has bad and/or dangerous consequences, eg. poorer long-term social outcomes.
I think his point was that disadvantaging people because of where they live is no better than disadvantaging people because of their race.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
Exactly!Quote:
Originally Posted by Flixy
Does he also think he should spend as much on a family in Scotland as he does on himself and his fiancée? Does he also think that the UK should spend as much on the welfare of the rest of the world as it does on its own? We choose our preferred groups in many different ways. Racism is a particularly disturbing way to do it, for several reasons. Family bonds, geographical proximity, shared language, shared culture (beliefs, values, traditions, etc), greater level of interdependence, whatever... these are other grounds on which our preferences and loyalties are based, and I find it absurd to cast all of these as being no better than racism.Quote:
Originally Posted by Flixy
Moreover, given RB's other views on eg. the poor, the unfortunate, etc, I'm surprised he seems to have forgotten that people in other countries can simply improve their lots in other ways, eg. by moving to England and taking the jobs the chavs won't.
I find similar rhetoric in US politics to be frustrating, though perhaps not racist. Throughout the State of the Union as well as the Republican primaries, all of the politicians/candidates involved have argued that the US needs to 'win' wrt manufacturing, R&D, etc. I certainly agree with the sentiment that we should try to improve the US' competitiveness in the world on a number of fronts. But the rhetoric underpinning these calls for competitiveness assume that the global economy is a zero-sum game, and the US should be on top. I personally like the US having a rich and powerful economy, but I'd be absolutely delighted if the rest of the world had the same productivity and standard of living as Americans, which would have the obvious effect of making the US economy largely irrelevant in the world (what, 5% or so of the global population?). It's pretty crazy for someone to view this as an 'us or them' phenomenon, where other countries need to but punished or kept from developing new technologies and wealth just so that we can remain king of the hill.
Obviously the reality is far more complex than this black or white caricature, but I find it very frustrating that US politics needs to use such blatantly wrong rhetoric at all. It's being used as an excuse for mercantilist and isolationist policy masquerading as 'competitiveness'. And no, I don't blame a single party for this issue - it's a happily bipartisan clusterfuck.
I'm not sure I agree with you Wiggin. At the heart of all of that rhetoric is really the notion of being in control. When you have all the influence, and a lot of the economic power your country is safer, and you can shape the world the way you want it to be. I think it's understandable America would want to keep this position, that position is probably preferable (for America) than one where all countries are on equal footing. What's good for the wolrd as a whole? your desire of free trade is.
Any particular reason for the moral equivalence there? It's pretty obvious which party is for free trade in the US and which one is not. Sure, there are some Democrats who buck the trend, and there are plenty of isolationist Republicans (the Tea Partyers aren't exactly fans of free trade either), but the overall trend is pretty clear (especially when you look at support and opposition to specific free trade agreements in Congress). The Democratic Party relies on unions and environmentalists far more than does the GOP, and those groups are both staunchly against most trade agreements. The populists in both parties tend to be against free trade, but that doesn't cancel out the previous point.
There's lots of Rs who support protectionist measures (often under the guise of security or jobs or whatever) and plenty of Ds who support free trade. And it's not just voting for free trade agreements - things like labeling China a currency manipulator got a lot of bipartisan support in the House, though thankfully the R leadership had some balls and managed to block a vote.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
More broadly, it's not the specific positions that matter as much to me; on the balance, you're probably right that more Rs support free trade than Ds (though it's not by any means a clear delineation). What matters to me is the rhetoric that implies a zero sum game in international trade, and both R and D leaders are guilty of that. There isn't a race to 'win' here, there's only lives to better and economies to grow. We are not in competition with other countries, but neither R nor D are willing to acknowledge this.
Like I said, there are anti-free trade people on both sides, but only the DNC is dominated by them. Go look at ratings given by organizations that care about trade (whether for or against it) to members of both parties. The average Republican is consistently and significantly more in favor of free trade than an average Democrat.Quote:
Originally Posted by wiggin
I think the difference is that if you subtract the populists on both sides, Republicans might be convinced into supporting isolated anti-free trade measures (e.g. steel tariff, ethanol subsidies), while most Democrats can be easily convinced that all trade is bad, particularly with developing countries. I'm referring to the politicians and political establishment by the way; most members of the public aren't fans of free trade. Just saw a poll from 2010 that showed that only a quarter of Americans believed that globalization was beneficial for the US.Quote:
More broadly, it's not the specific positions that matter as much to me; on the balance, you're probably right that more Rs support free trade than Ds (though it's not by any means a clear delineation). What matters to me is the rhetoric that implies a zero sum game in international trade, and both R and D leaders are guilty of that. There isn't a race to 'win' here, there's only lives to better and economies to grow. We are not in competition with other countries, but neither R nor D are willing to acknowledge this.
The party lines are a lot more blurred on this than many other issues, but on average I don't disagree. It's not a defining party issue, though, which is a shame. If issues like this were what divided the parties rather than stupid shit, I'd probably actually have some loyalty to an actual party.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Er... subtracting the populists doesn't leave much left over, Loki. Especially in the House. There are plenty of Democrats who voted in favor of the last 3 free trade pacts this past year - I believe 80-odd senators voted in favor for the SK deal. But populist rhetoric is pretty universal.Quote:
I think the difference is that if you subtract the populists on both sides, Republicans might be convinced into supporting isolated anti-free trade measures (e.g. steel tariff, ethanol subsidies), while most Democrats can be easily convinced that all trade is bad, particularly with developing countries. I'm referring to the politicians and political establishment by the way; most members of the public aren't fans of free trade. Just saw a poll from 2010 that showed that only a quarter of Americans believed that globalization was beneficial for the US.
http://politics.nytimes.com/congress...2/senate/1/161
14 out of the 15 no votes were by Democrats, and this is after the trade agreement was renegotiated by Obama to include various "protections" that unions and environmentalists support.
http://politics.nytimes.com/congress...12/house/1/783
In the House, 2/3 of all Democrats voted against the bill, compared to less than 10% of Republicans.
http://politics.nytimes.com/congress...2/senate/1/163
Out of the 33 no votes against the Colombia free trade agreement, 2 were by Republicans.
http://politics.nytimes.com/congress...2/senate/1/162
Out of the 22 no votes against the Panama free trade agreement, 0 are by Republicans.
I really don't see how you can say the parties are even remotely similar on free trade issues. Only Democrats are voting against these agreements, and that's despite Obama renegotiating most of them.
In sum, between 1/2 and 2/3 of House Democrats are against free trade, compared to 5-10% of Republicans. In the Senate, nearly all Republicans support free trade, while about a third of Democrats do not.
Voting in favor of FTAs is not the only metric, Loki, and you know it. Rs support protectionist measures when it helps their constituencies, which essentially means they support FTAs in theory by want exceptions carved out for their own pet projects.
I still fail to see your point. Yes, both parties like pork, even if it entails some protectionist measures. Only Democrats are opposed to free trade agreements even with that pork. The numbers are just so clear that I really don't see how you can deny this. To put it another way, all Congressmen are pragmatic, abandoning their principles if key constituent interests are at stake. Only Democrats are ideologically opposed to trade.
Correction: some Democrats are ideologically opposed to free trade (a minority in the Senate). Both Ds and Rs resort to populist language when talking about trade issues, which is what I've been talking about. I've never denied that more Ds are opposed to FTAs than Rs, though it in theory has pretty widespread support across the US political spectrum (the US has been far more pro-free trade than most of the world; hence forming the GATT and WTO).
A majority of House Democrats are consistently against free trade. Nearly every FTA passes through the House thanks to Republicans. It's not a coincidence that the largest source of campaign funds for a majority of House Democrats is unions. Even if Democratic Senators generally support free trade, it's a moot point because both houses must ratify any agreement. So once again, the main reason for the delay of the most recent FTAs and the main reason we don't have more FTAs in general is the Democratic Party.Quote:
Originally Posted by wiggin
Just had a look at the NAFTA vote in the House. Republicans: 132 for, 43 against. Democrats: 102 for, 156 against. The bill received 16 votes more than necessary to pass.
...so? Your NAFTA numbers just make my point. A quarter of Rs opposed it and 40% of Ds supported it. D support was necessary for it to pass, but nowhere near as much support as would have been needed if Rs had voted universally for it. It's not a party line issue, though there is a slant.
Anyways, I'm completely uninterested in continuing this debate. Feel free to post a response, but I'm probably going to leave it at this. I made my point about rhetoric and that's all I wanted to say.
Looking from outside ALL American politicians have very strong protectionist reflexes whenever they are talking in front of voters. And then a lot still have them when they vote on free trade themselves.
Racism is basically the go-to example wrt invidious discrimination. At least in those countries with a Common Law heritage, which is where you find that phrase.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless