That's why you need me, your principled bourgeois bastard :)

I actually agree with everything you said Pete - but on the other hand, I'm in an industry that isn't dependent upon manufacturing, so 'real' free trade won't impact me negatively on a personal level.

@ Ghostmaker: "Thatcher: Britain's best post war prime minister."

I challenge you to visit deprived communities such as Easington Colliery and Stanley in County Durham and explain to them what Thatcher did to improve their lives. She brought them mass unemployment, and then shifted thousands of them onto Incapacity Benefit to keep them off the jobless figures. She basically said to tens of thousands of people: I'm going to take away your jobs, and see to it that you'll never work again, and as you already vote Labour anyway, there's nothing you can do to stop me.

An evil, horrible woman, who genuinely believed that there was no such thing as society. I cannot wait for her to die so I can join the mile-long queues to piss on her grave.

@ Pete U:
Whether you like to admit it or not, a large military creates a shitload of jobs, not only in the military directly, but also in defense contractors and PMCs.

China doesn't make better goods, they just make cheaper goods. Irresponsible companies like Wal-Mart buy these goods, and sell it to us for less than other American companies. The solution is to jack up tariffs on China (and Japan and the ROC and every other place over there that makes our goods) until American goods are cheaper than imports.

@TMW - or the solution is for people not to buy the cheap stuff. And yet, they choose to.

Face it TMW. You don't really believe in the free market and never have. Your last sentence belies that clear reality.

@TMW - I said nothing about military spending. Different argument, and not mine.

Anyway, back to your argument for tariffs. An American company (WalMart) makes more money (good, surely) but selling what consumers want at a price they like. So you would penalise the people (by pushing prices up) and the the company (who clearly sell what people want) to protect inefficient industries. And you claim to be on the right of centre???? This is the riduculous of US policy - espousing free trade when it suits, but jacking up tariffs and being anti-competitive when they won't adapt

And, btw, the Japanese have owned you in certain areas because they make *better* products. Not cheaper, but better. And the Koreans are catching up.

"I challenge you to visit deprived communities such as Easington Colliery and Stanley in County Durham and explain to them what Thatcher did to improve their lives. She brought them mass unemployment, and then shifted thousands of them onto Incapacity Benefit to keep them off the jobless figures. She basically said to tens of thousands of people: I'm going to take away your jobs, and see to it that you'll never work again, and as you already vote Labour anyway, there's nothing you can do to stop me."

The mines were being taken to their knees anyway, and the steel industries were never going to be able to compete with new competition from areas without depleted resource and higher minimum wage. The use of incapacity benefit to reduce jobless figures wasn't good for them, but did you see the labour government back-tracking on that? Of course not. That was nothing to do with Thatcher, and everything to do with politics.

So what were people whose jobs were being taken from them supposed to do, Ghost?

@ Friendly Sword: "Face it TMW. You don't really believe in the free market and never have. Your last sentence belies that clear reality. "

Didn't you notice this in his original post:

"We should give tax cuts to companies that employ Americans, and raise taxes for corporations that send jobs overseas. We should also cut taxes for small businesses and give tax credits to citizens who buy American-made goods."

He set his stall out as an economic protectionist at the beginning of the thread, so it's a bit silly of you to say "aha, you're against the free market!!!" at this stage, FS.

Haha fair enough Jamie. :P

It just strikes me as dumb for him to keep saying he is or was a libertarian when he so clearly isn't, in any way shape or form. My quote was just an example.

I want him to say, "Yes I support curtailing both economic and social freedom in the name of nationalistic Statism and have never been a libertarian", and will continue to advocate for this every time he pulls that shit.

Is that childish? Yes. Is it fun? Yes.

Heh, fair enough, Sword. I think this thread has made him admit he was never a libertarian really.

I'm in favor of a free market. I just think it's okay if the government plays favorites. Right now, our economy is based almost entirely on consumption. Any third grader could tell you that that's not sustainable. We need to make some changes like the ones I proposed above.

TMW is either a comedic genius or has mastered doublethink at a remarkably high level.

I'm in favor of free puppies for all, as long as someone else cleans up after them

TMW - free market means free from government intervention. If the government is playing favorites, then it is intervening and it isn't a free market. Any third grader could tell you that.

I should clarify. Free domestic market. Sorry.

That isn't a free market.

Now now Ghost, who says he can't co-opt the language to say things in a way that anyone reasonable would interpret one way, but he interprets his own special little way. It works for three year olds!

That's third graders, strat. :-)

You don't know my son ;)

Admit that you support curtailing both economic and social freedom in the name of nationalistic Statism and have never been a libertarian.


Admit it.

Ok, I'd admit I'm not *much* of a libertarian, but, geez, I'm not going to cop to that bullshit about suppressing freedom in order to advance the state. Fuck that noise.

@ The_Master_Gamer: "I'm in favor of a free market. I just think it's okay if the government plays favorites"

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaaaa..... Oh, that's brilliant. Just brilliant.

Military spending only creates jobs in the short term. I can already hear you dredging up the old arguements of Nazi Germany and the USSR, experts have looked the 3rd Reich and said that had Hitler delayed the war for a little longer, the economy would have collapsed. Military spending only creates jobs IF you go to war.
Take a tank. A M1A1 Abram. It creates X amount of metal to build it. Then you need labour resources: actual manual labour, the minds from R&D, etc. Once its built, it will stay in storage until needed. Soldiers will maintain, practice with it, but it does nothing productive. Only when it goes to war, and possibly gets destroyed, then another will need to be built.
However, say those resources had been used to build a hospital. Sure, a hospital is less likely to get destroyed than a tank, and therefore need rebuilding; but a hospital is a productive produce (hehe). It can help workers return to good working level after injury and so forth, it can be used to help train new doctors, etc.
It's like the digging ditches arguement. If you get unemployed people and pay them to dig ditches, it is a waste of labour resources, nothing productive is getting built, and you'll create inflation only making it worse for those unemployed people you used.

The USSR spent far too much on the military. That was one of the key reasons the economy could not keep up with the public's demands.

Oh I *hate* the "x spending creates jobs" statements that fly around recently. Hate Hate HATE!

ANY spending 'creates jobs' in the aggregate. The question is would spending the same amount another way or reducing the future interest payment on the national debt create *more* jobs. It's called Opportunity Cost - sure, buying a Chevy instead of a Honda may benefit the country (which is debateable, since the majority of the parts and labor for both are done here anyway), but the extra cash I'm spending isn't available for other things like adding insulation to my attic to cut my heating bill.

Now, we live in a big bad world, so I'm hardly advocating disarmament, but when Congress votes to fund a program the Pentagon doesn't want because it 'creates jobs', it makes me want to sell my soul and piss on my ethics enough to get elected just so I could wheel a whiteboard to the front of the room and teach the people who are SUPPOSED TO RUN THE GODDAMN COUNTRY high school economics

The_Master_Warrior: I completely disagree with most of your opinions, but I'll just talk about the following one which I doubt was touched upon (I have not read the thread): "We should also cut taxes for small businesses and give tax credits to citizens who buy American-made goods." Tha may sound like a good idea, but the results will be disasterous for U. S. citizens. The cost of living would skyrocket and hence the divide between the rich and poor will increase. Look at a country like Brazil and see what effect its incredible taxes on foreign goods have on prices. Everything in Brazil except certain fruits is head-over-shoulders more expensive than what you can buy in the United States.
Oh, and "Think of Mexico and America as two rooms in the same house."? Mexico is in America.

@ largeham --

So build another tank. And keep turning out tanks.