Probably because popular support for free trade ranges between a third and a half.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
Printable View
Probably because popular support for free trade ranges between a third and a half.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
Not for the parties directly but it is one of a number of defining issues for the parties' respective Congressional Caucuses.Quote:
Originally Posted by wiggin
And yet... the congressional steel caucus has plenty of R members (14/30 IIRC in the Senate). There's plenty of Republicans who caucus with groups calling for protectionist measures, whatever may be the official line by the RNC... and even the RNC's party line gets a bit confused when you actually listen to their rhetoric
And there are plenty of unions that support the Republican Party. And there are plenty of women who are taller than men. I don't see your point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flixy
Well but all countries I know do that. For examples Visas are required to visit country X depending on the fact if I am citizen of country Y or country Z. And this is just one example.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
And a few years ago in the US blacks had to ride in the back of the bus, SA had apartheid and Aus had the White Australia Policy for immigration. Just because something happens doesn't make it right.Quote:
Originally Posted by earthJoker
Do you honestly think, that we (humanity) would ever reach a stage where your nationality won't matter? I mean in our lifetime not in utopia. This would than include free person movement worldwide.
I doubt that is really what it wants because deep down inside he believes in national governments.
Anyway, the whole rant against buying local is a bit ridiculous, there is no reason to stamp anybody as racist because they care more about the closer community they are part of themselves. In the end caring about who you live with is simple self-interest; the further away people are from you, the fewer things tie them with you, the less interest they have in your personal well-being. Putting your personal well-being first is not racist, xenophobic or whatever label free-trade fundamentalists try to stick on it. It is common sense.
And in the bigger picture; are your underpants really cheaper cut and stitched by chinese semi-slaves than by the when they were made by the people who now have becoming an underclass with no hope for a job living in your own country? And no, that is not an ethical question, but a macro-economical one.
National government can only work if you discriminate nationalities. I wonder how Rand want to solve that paradox.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
Er... that's completely untrue. Are municipal governments discriminating against other cities? No, you just need various levels of governance, and national government is one reasonable level. Obviously the particular jurisdiction of a national government will be rooted in history of a geographical and cultural nature, but the basic idea of a national government is no more particularist than any other local government.
Usually the national government makes sure this doesn't happen. There is no worldwide government that makes sure that national government don't discriminate other nations citizens.Quote:
Originally Posted by wiggin
A Zürcher can instantly become a Berner just by moving to Bern, and receiving the rights of a Berner. A Milanesi can get the right's of a Zürcher just by moving to Zürich, he needs to get Swiss citizen to get those rights.
It's a completely different thing.
National governments govern. What discriminates is the concept of nation itself, because it requires to include and exclude certain people, otherwise it would be called "humanity". ;)
Exactly.
I just want to echo what's been said: The idea of borders and sovereign governments is the basis for an us verse them mentality. I don't even understand how anyone can say we don't compete with other countries. If America could have a world, where everyone is super advanced technologically. (the whole world is improved) but they happen to be at the very bottom of this advancement. I don't think they'd take that world.
Yes, I hope so. I believe in migration. Best thing about the EU is the free-flow of people. 50 years ago I could only live in the UK, possibly attempt to emigrate to somewhere like Aus, USA etcQuote:
Originally Posted by earthJoker
Today I could board a plane tomorrow, land in any of 27 nations and start living and working there without any requirements for a visa.
In an ideal world, I'd open that to the whole world.
I don't like welfare don't forget, except I believe it as a safety net. I believe that should only be to those who're paying in to the system (like insurance) so no that's for our citizens only. If I was PM I'd say that new migrants were welcome to come but no welfare until say 3 years of paying taxes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Minx
Racists view their race as their "culture, bonds, proximity, language" etcQuote:
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.
I haven't forgotten that, I'm on the record that I like that. Many right-wingers want to shut down migration. I don't.Quote:
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'd rather have a hard-working immigrant that chose to come here, play by the rules, pay their fair share etc - than some lazy layabout chav who wants to do nothing, have unprotected sex and then be gifted a house for free because they've got knocked up.
I have more time for someone who chooses to be here, than someone who just happened to be born here but doesn't respect it.
I especially wrote that I am not interested in an ideal world situation. In an ideal world we would all live in peace and happiness. The free people movement agreement in Europe is limited to those countries part of it, and it doesn't give you the same rights as those those who have citizenship of the country you move to.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
It is easy for me to move in Europe, but I wont be able to vote in the according country.
The cost of doing humans:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/26/bu...hina.html?_r=2
Apple disagrees:
http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/20...1#comments-bar
We have international law that governs many of the interactions between nations. It's still very new and imperfect, but it does do things like regulate trade (WTO, etc.), movement of people in times of strife (UNHCR), how they handle conflicts (ICJ, Geneva conventions), etc. We have a concept of universal human rights which apply to all peoples regardless of citizenship.Quote:
Originally Posted by earthJoker
Look, I'm not saying that national chauvinism doesn't exist, but we do have the beginnings of a meta-national structure in place, and there's nothing inherent to the concept of a national government that's discriminatory.
You said in our lifetime could I see it being possible? My answer is yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by earthJoker
When I was born the EU's predecessor was only 10 countries (I believe) all of which were relatively rich nations and now its 27, with over 500mn people and 7.3% of the world's population. Many of the newer ones are relatively poor ones from Eastern Europe but are we "flooded" with migrants? I say no.
While Hazir wants the EU to become a country, I do not. The best bit of the EU - the four freedoms of people, goods, capital and services - I would instead ultimately like to see globalised.
EDIT: I would be happy for every nation in the world to become a member of the "EU", with the relevant rights.
In your plan would you also be able in your country of choice right away. Because as long as you won't get the same rights right aways it's still discrimination based on nationality. The EU doesn't offer that yet.
Be able what? To vote?
I would say yes to allowing it, but no to straight away. 5 years say (one Parliamentary term here). Otherwise visitors could vote, vote tourism would be possible (!)
Yes of course, but it would be the consequence of your statement. As long this isn't possible you are disadvantaging people because of where they live(d).
Even with the 5 years rule it would be very easy to "take over" another nation by just moving in enough people to another country.
So why don't you want to support other people's children as much as your own?? It's not their fault they were born into other families. Why do you want to get rid of Scotland? Why do you call certain people sheep-shaggers you racist?Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Indeed.Quote:
Originally Posted by earthJoker
There is a rational explanation as to why visitors can't vote. It is still discrimination, but I find it a conscienable one.
There is no rational explanation as to "Buy American" ideas. It is discrimination for discriminations sake, it doesn't even work.
True. I don't find that too likely and cultures evolve anyway.Quote:
Even with the 5 years rule it would be very easy to "take over" another nation by just moving in enough people to another country.
Because I believe in looking after your own.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
So?Quote:
It's not their fault they were born into other families.
I think it will be better for both Scotland and England.Quote:
Why do you want to get rid of Scotland?
I think it will form more natural unions.
I think it will cause more healthy competition.
I think smaller is better.
Because its funny. I'm OK with national jokes sometimes. And "Irish jokes" etc are often labelled racist by people who don't like them.Quote:
Why do you call certain people sheep-shaggers you racist?
So it is you're opinion that make one discrimination legit and the other bordering to racism?Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
I agree with both of the statements, but I can't agree that one discrimination somehow evil and the other good. They are both discriminations, period. It's only the effects that are different.
Of course it is likely, China is just doing it in Tibet as we write here.Quote:
True. I don't find that too likely and cultures evolve anyway.
Christ, this is no better than racism :( and yet you have the gall to knock others for respectfully wanting to look after their own.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Whoa, let me catch up (that's just page 2!) and clarify some things. First of all, I was asking about consumer preferences and choices, during really bad economic times. Not about gov't trade barriers, anti-trade policies, or being "insular". This has nothing to do with place of birth or skin color.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Secondly, Rand, buying something locally/regionally/nationally doesn't necessarily have to cost you more. Sometimes it's cheaper because there aren't transportation and distributor costs of moving something half-way-'round the globe. Even so, there are long-term "costs"---in geo-politics and environmental impacts---that can't be seen in just the price tag.
Anyhow, a certain amount of discriminating consumer choices may help your local shops or vendors stay in business, and keep workers off the unemployed public safety net....which would be helpful to you and a nation. Especially during dire economic times, when people need JOBS! And during a housing bust when folks can't move for a job, because they're underwater on their mortgage, etc, etc. From that perspective, the emergency oxygen mask is a metaphor for making sure we remain strong enough to actually help others. (Yes, including foreign aid.) It's pretty tough to sell much of anything to a nation of broke and unemployed people. ;)
Yah, we can find all sorts of "political" motivations in our personal consumer choices. That's very true. That's also led to the birth of small cottage 'industries' like slow food, community farmer markets, thriving local artists and independent merchants, walking or biking instead of driving, choosing "local living" as a way to make a community (from the bottom up).
Example: earlier today I bought some honey. Shelves full of honey choices. Clover or buckwheat fed bees, organic, name brand, generic. Imported from Canada, Mexico, Guatemala, or other US states. I ended up buying a honey because it was harvested and distributed from Lancaster County, just a few miles east of my house. (It was actually a bit cheaper than others.)
And ya know what? That's how Burt's Bees became a successful company selling all sorts of products containing honey. By selling locally first, using local product, local vendors. Ditto for Ben and Jerry's ice creams. And Papa John's pizza. And....
I suggest you study the recent history of the Balkans. Which happens to be a part of Europe as we speak.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Again; buying local can be cheaper because you don't have to cough up the taxes to keep the jobles fed and warm. Or charity if you're that way inclined. Or deal with theft and robbery if you like neither.
My credo; 'there is no such thing as a free lunch, and if you are part of a society, it's really gonna cost you'.
Theoretically as a nation you're always better off finding the best deal. you'll have all the same resources plus some extra. In theory you coudl provide for said workers plus have some extra resources left over. Just depends on how society chooses to move it's labor force and resources.
Unless we're going to start having chain gangs, or slash welfare, we're always going to have jobless.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
And we're always going to pay for them, one way or another. Those costs need to be taken into account to establish if shipping jobs oversea is really in the interest of a society.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
If we don't care if other countries get stronger then yes it's fine, and it's natural. And after retraining of our workers (at least the up and coming generation of workers) to specialize in task that we have a compartive advantage in it'll be better for us too. I don't share the mentality that Wiggin and others are saying, that countries don't compete for being in control, for being the more powerful relative other countries. I think that's a big part of the world. It will always be with us. It's human nature to want that control.Quote:
And we're always going to pay for them, one way or another. Those costs need to be taken into account to establish if shipping jobs oversea is really in the interest of a society.
The economical consideration is that it is cheaper, I seriously doubt that it is cheaper. There is this funny idea that people have that creative destruction comes for free. I think it doesn't, that doesn't make it bad, but honesty about its costs might help us make better decisions.
My interests as a consumer are not the same as my interests as a member of a society.
:up:Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
Nothing is free, but it's worth it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
"Shipping out" jobs is far too simplistic a notion. Youth unemployment is higher than elderly or middle aged unemployment, it's not because young people were working until their jobs went to Taiwan.
In fact "Made in Taiwan" was a very common expression when I was a kid, yet I'm too old to class as youth unemployment by a few years now. It's a non-starter frankly.
that's why you don't grow tomatoes out of season
which is a problem with much of the stuff grown ni greenhouses or transported around the globe.
We're just so used to eating veggies and fruities of all types all year long that we forget that these things have seasonality.
In nearly every jobs thread I've said this, and I'll say it again.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir
Jobs are not a zero sum game. It's true for immigrants and it's true for free trade. Employment should not be promoted by protectionism or closed borders, but by improving competitiveness.
And by promoting inefficiency, you're going to have more jobless over the long term.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazir