quote:

---

Originally posted by Egor: I strongly disagree here. It is a misconception - most people have no idea what free trade means. It does not mean letting your corporations make your foreign policy decisions for you. Corporations are not democratically elected, and therefore do not represent the interests of American plurality.

---

You are correct in saying that corporations do not represent the interests of American plurality. They do, instead, represent their own interests...as they should. Why should the American plurality feel entitled to the fruits of all corporate labors?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Egor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by TAP3AH: One don't need "many imortant programs" (snake's quote) if he or she is dead...

---

мда... аргумент, конечно, весомый. То есть, если поддерживаем прогрессивность страны, мы все умрём. Я правильно понял? Егор

---

What?? Egor, what are you talking about?? Since when welfare and other “imortant programs” for lazy and unwilling promoted progress? Here is a reality check – weak foreign policy and failure to fight terrorism will lead to stock market downfall and as a result big problems internally.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leah: You are correct in saying that corporations do not represent the interests of American plurality. They do, instead, represent their own interests...as they should. Why should the American plurality feel entitled to the fruits of all corporate labors?

---

Good point, Leah. But I sort of gave my answer to this already. It is perfectly fine for corporations to maximize profits and stand by their interests. However is not always true that these interests are a) beneficial to the voting public (which is why we have laws against sweatshops and many other worker protection laws that even conservatives support), and b) beneficial to The United States as a major player on the world stage. It is good for corporations NOT to hire americans. It is good for corporations NOT to produce goods in the U.S. It is good for corporations to move out to the the Bahamas entirely and avoid taxes. If the voting public can do nothing to fight these interest, what is the point of having a democracy? What is the point of having a goverment?

---

"The trouble with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money" -Margaret Thatcher

quote:

---

Originally posted by Egor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leah: You are correct in saying that corporations do not represent the interests of American plurality. They do, instead, represent their own interests...as they should. Why should the American plurality feel entitled to the fruits of all corporate labors?

---

Good point, Leah. But I sort of gave my answer to this already. It is perfectly fine for corporations to maximize profits and stand by their interests. However is not always true that these interests are a) beneficial to the voting public (which is why we have laws against sweatshops and many other worker protection laws that even conservatives support), and b) beneficial to The United States as a major player on the world stage. It is good for corporations NOT to hire americans. It is good for corporations NOT to produce goods in the U.S. It is good for corporations to move out to the the Bahamas entirely and avoid taxes. If the voting public can do nothing to fight these interest, what is the point of having a democracy? What is the point of having a goverment?

---

Democracy is govenment is a great thing. However, if I own a business and decide never to hire an American, that is my concern. Our personal decisions about our property and businesses are not to be subjected to democratic rule. You are indeed advocating protectionism.

quote:

---

Democracy is govenment is a great thing. However, if I own a business and decide never to hire an American, that is my concern. Our personal decisions about our property and businesses are not to be subjected to democratic rule. You are indeed advocating protectionism.

---

in the long run, protectionism will do more harm to the US economy than any good and will hurt the global competiveness of the US economy. "And I hope that when you are my age, you will be able to say as I have been able to say: We lived in freedom. We lived lives that were a statement, not an apology." -Reagan

---

Are you angry that others disappoint you? remember you cannot depend upon yourself.
-Benjamin Franklin

quote:

---

Originally posted by TAP3AH: What?? Egor, what are you talking about??

---

You said why do we need programs if we are dead. If I misunderstood, please explain.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TAP3AH: Since when welfare and other “imortant programs” for lazy and unwilling promoted progress?

---

Improving education is not progress? Improving national security is not progress? A space program is not progress? Medicine, science, space exploration, alternative energy, I could go on and on - all of this is not progress in your view? And what does this have to do with the lazy and unwilling?

quote:

---

Originally posted by TAP3AH: Here is a reality check – weak foreign policy and failure to fight terrorism will lead to stock market downfall and as a result big problems internally.

---

I did not say I favor a weak foreign policy. I will write much more about this later. I did not say (and no respected politicians that I know of have ever said) that we should "fail to fight terrorism".

---

"The trouble with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money" -Margaret Thatcher

Leah but their is a time when government intervention is necessary. For instance...corporations will not pay for more environmental friendly products to run their business if they are more expensive. Since they won't pay for these more expensive products they will continue to pollute the environment to where it endangers everybody. Corporations do not have a right to do this and therefore...it is justified for government to intervene and require companies and business owners to buy products that are more friendly to the environment so that we don't destroy the planet. On the same token... you still need to keep private ownership and they have a right to hire somebody who is not american if they so choose...and to outsource in order to keep a competitive edge. "And I hope that when you are my age, you will be able to say as I have been able to say: We lived in freedom. We lived lives that were a statement, not an apology." -Reagan

---

Are you angry that others disappoint you? remember you cannot depend upon yourself.
-Benjamin Franklin

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leah:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Egor:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leah: You are correct in saying that corporations do not represent the interests of American plurality. They do, instead, represent their own interests...as they should. Why should the American plurality feel entitled to the fruits of all corporate labors?

---

Good point, Leah. But I sort of gave my answer to this already. It is perfectly fine for corporations to maximize profits and stand by their interests. However is not always true that these interests are a) beneficial to the voting public (which is why we have laws against sweatshops and many other worker protection laws that even conservatives support), and b) beneficial to The United States as a major player on the world stage. It is good for corporations NOT to hire americans. It is good for corporations NOT to produce goods in the U.S. It is good for corporations to move out to the the Bahamas entirely and avoid taxes. If the voting public can do nothing to fight these interest, what is the point of having a democracy? What is the point of having a goverment?

---

Democracy is govenment is a great thing. However, if I own a business and decide never to hire an American, that is my concern. Our personal decisions about our property and businesses are not to be subjected to democratic rule. You are indeed advocating protectionism.

---

Good point, Leah. At first, I thought Egor was going to write some smart stuff; you know, shed some new light on all of us. But after reading the above quote and your response, reality set in: this is just another viewpoint of 'big government, corporations are evil' in disguise. I see now that according to Egor, corporations should not have the freedom to decide who to hire or where to produce their products, etc. So much for democracy. ----------------------- “If your parents never had children, chances are you won’t either." - Dick Cavett II

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leah: Democracy is govenment is a great thing. However, if I own a business and decide never to hire an American, that is my concern. Our personal decisions about our property and businesses are not to be subjected to democratic rule. You are indeed advocating protectionism.

---

I looked up "protectionism" in the dictionary and it says "imposition of tarriffs on international trade with a goal of reduction of competition with global industries" I repeat, I do not favor this. Look, I am not saying that anyone should be forbidden to outsource or to import. I know this is a free country and as a business owner you can do whatever you want. What the government CAN do (as mestiza said) is steer tax policy and internal laws in ways where it is suddenly not so profitable to do harm to the country. And where prtecting the environment, providing good benefits, not hiring foreigners, etc. is actually a healthy way to run your business. I can get very specific about what I am suggesting in case it is not already apparent.

---

"The trouble with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money" -Margaret Thatcher

Egor, Just because two things coincide, that does not necessarily imply a cause and effect relationship. No, but if the effect repeat itself .... Tatcher policy was close and England did were good after implemeting it. Because if we play that game, look what happened when Clinton taxed the rich and doubled the minimum wage. Well he got lucky because whole new industry broaden economy. If some new niche opens again it wouldn't matter what model government will use. It's all good. The economy was not terrible under Reagan, but it got worse every year, through Bush 1, and through Clinton's first term. Let's put it differently - economy slowed a little But comparing to pre-Reagan years it was like night and day. I personally have much less trouble with Reagan than Bush. At least Reagan fought for a balanced buget. Tax cuts are fine with me, as long as you decrease government spending proportionally. This is what "conservative" really means. It's kinda hard to balance budget when you're fighting a war. Anyhow, I don't see how Kerry can make economy any better. Is he going to invent another PC and Internet ? I strongly disagree here. It is a misconception - most people have no idea what free trade means. It does not mean letting your corporations make your foreign policy decisions for you. And where did I said anything like that ? Corporations are not democratically elected, and therefore do not represent the interests of American plurality. Are you proposing state owned foreign trade ? "Free trade" is a process, not a policy. No. "Free trade" is a policy of allowing unobstructive movement of goods between the countries. Actualy it is a myth in use by industrial countries to promote their products. I am not suggesting tariffs of any kind. But trade agreements are conducted by the rest of the world IN ORDER TO IMPROVE their economic positions in the world. They buy only what they don't have and cannot produce, and sell what they are good at or have a lot of. That is FREE TRADE. That is not what we are doing. How so ? What exactly does US needs to do ? The natives are restless. Падонки. Capt. James Cook, Sat. Feb. 13th 1779, aboard HMS Discovery.

---

- Независимость - это когда в 20-й раз наступаешь на одни и те же грабли, а русские уже ни при чем....

Well you still have to maintain the efficiency of the economy. If government gets too involved in the economy it can stifle efficiency. If government does not get involved enough, that too can stifle efficiency and creativity in the economy because then you would just have these giant corporations that run a monopoly by using their market power to unfairly crush competition that could successfully compete given the chance and thus would be good for consumers, efficiency of the economy and wealth creation. On the same token... you don't want corporations or business to conduct practices which are extremely harmful to society as a whole or to an individual's well being who is working. Government intervention is justified sometimes and the US economy has, since it's very beginnings, government intervention. It is unwise to revert to socialism or communism too. Some people like to say "look at the good ole Europeans and their liesure lifestyle...they got it made." Well, here is the deal though. Their is too much government intervention in the European economies to where if a European corporation hires somebody, it is very difficult for these corporations to fire them. And since workers know that they it is very difficult for them to be fired...their is little incentive for them to work as hard. European companies take a big risk when hiring because if they hire the wrong person...they are stuck with that person. This makes European companies reluctant to hire and thus causes Europe's higher un-employment rate. Socialized health care is also not a good thing either. In Canda, you get people who can afford it, to come to the US to get surgeries done because their are better surgerons in the US than in Canada...and the reason for that is because in a free market economy like the US...if you are a good surgeon...you make more money than somebody who is not so good a surgeon. Where under socialized healthcare their isn't as much incentive to be the best in your medical field. "And I hope that when you are my age, you will be able to say as I have been able to say: We lived in freedom. We lived lives that were a statement, not an apology." -Reagan

---

Are you angry that others disappoint you? remember you cannot depend upon yourself.
-Benjamin Franklin

quote:

---

Originally posted by IntensityInsanity: Good point, Leah. At first, I thought Egor was going to write some smart stuff; you know, shed some new light on all of us. But after reading the above quote and your response, reality set in: this is just another viewpoint of 'big government, corporations are evil' in disguise. I see now that according to Egor, corporations should not have the freedom to decide who to hire or where to produce their products, etc. So much for democracy.

---

Maybe I am not being clear. Or maybe the world is more complicated than big government vs small government. Either way, let me try this from another angle. Assume you own a farm (the farm represents the United States). On this farm you have many different workers (representing corporations). Who should control the trade policy? (trade represents, i guess selling your tomatoes for cash, buying farm equipment, etc.) Possibly a bad example, but I am just trying to get through to you guys! :) What you don't seem to realize is that whether the government is big or small, the corporations that were able to "make it" in this country, owe everything to the economic stability the country provided to them, the government protection that corporations get all the time, the access to politicians and the political process that normal people don't have, etc. And, now, even their tax burden has shifted down the income scale. Is it so wrong to ask for something in return? Our powerful corporations are our national resource. We allowed them to rise by having a stable capitalist democracy for such a long time. They are our providers of the GDP. They are our providers of employment. They are the foundation of this country. They are not a separate, independent entity.

---

"The trouble with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money" -Margaret Thatcher

Yeah...but the world is becoming a smaller place and thus economies are more globalized. Sometimes you have to ship jobs overseas to keep your economy competitive in a more globalized economy. If your nation's economy can't stay competitive in the global market then you know... it will hurt the prosperity of your nation in the long run. "And I hope that when you are my age, you will be able to say as I have been able to say: We lived in freedom. We lived lives that were a statement, not an apology." -Reagan

---

Are you angry that others disappoint you? remember you cannot depend upon yourself.
-Benjamin Franklin

Assume you own a farm (the farm represents the United States). Who owns US ? On this farm you have many different workers (representing corporations). How can a worker who is doing what he was told by owner represent a corporation which is its own entity ? Who should control the trade policy? (trade represents, i guess selling your tomatoes for cash, buying farm equipment, etc.) Government. Corporations are suposed to work whithim limits of what law allows.

---

- Независимость - это когда в 20-й раз наступаешь на одни и те же грабли, а русские уже ни при чем....

quote:

---

Originally posted by KGBMan: Egor, Just because two things coincide, that does not necessarily imply a cause and effect relationship. No, but if the effect repeat itself .... Tatcher policy was close and England did were good after implemeting it. Because if we play that game, look what happened when Clinton taxed the rich and doubled the minimum wage. Well he got lucky because whole new industry broaden economy. If some new niche opens again it wouldn't matter what model government will use. It's all good.

---

Look, my point was that this particular argument is not winnable. One side can cite many historical examples, and so can the other. The economy is not as dependent on presidents as most people think. We cannot ignore the congress, and as you said, we cannot ignore economical trends such as the computer revolution.

quote:

---

Originally posted by KGBMan: The economy was not terrible under Reagan, but it got worse every year, through Bush 1, and through Clinton's first term. Let's put it differently - economy slowed a little But comparing to pre-Reagan years it was like night and day.

---

The economy did not slow "a little". There was an official recession when Clinton took office. Nothing was "trickling" anywhere.

quote:

---

Originally posted by KGBMan: It's kinda hard to balance budget when you're fighting a war.

---

A whole other issue which I look forward to discussing! :) BUT, a winnable war always provides a boost to the economy, which along with a war tax to cover the cost of the war can jump-start the slowest economies. I can give many historical examples. Not only was there no war tax, the base tax rate was lowered, which costs over 10 years, more than the whole war (if we can even estimate what this war will cost). I would understand a small deficit during an "emergency", unexpected war.

quote:

---

Originally posted by KGBMan: Anyhow, I don't see how Kerry can make economy any better. Is he going to invent another PC and Internet ?

---

I have not yet once mentioned Kerry in any of my posts. All I can say is that fiscal policies currently backed by centrist republicans and democrats make a lot of sense to me. I do not yet understand where Kerry stands on this, but I know well where Bush stands.

quote:

---

Originally posted by KGBMan: Corporations are not democratically elected, and therefore do not represent the interests of American plurality. Are you proposing state owned foreign trade ?

---

Not state owned, but I want to see direction and discussion by public officials. A fair way to do this will be found. The middle class is getting their asses kicked, and the middle class is the majority-voters. So something will happen whether I convince you or not. It may just take longer with Republicans in control.

quote:

---

Originally posted by KGBMan: "Free trade" is a process, not a policy. No. "Free trade" is a policy of allowing unobstructive movement of goods between the countries. Actualy it is a myth in use by industrial countries to promote their products.

---

I dont disagree with you definition. I have repeatedly tried already to explain the difference. I DO NOT want internations barriers. Once the goods are in the process of being traded, no barriers should be put up. I am not discussing control over trade in any way. I just want favorable domestic interests to be wighed BEFORE trade agreements are made. Every country in the world does this, except for us. We do not send Microsoft to negotiate with China. We send our elected officials. That is the way things are done by every country who actually benefits from free trade.

---

"The trouble with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money" -Margaret Thatcher