Free trade isn't "trade policy skewed to only benefit multinational corporations".
I'll illustrate with an example. I think people should also be able to benefit from free trade by for example being able to purchase their drugs from Canada if their prices are cheaper. The Bush administration and republicans oppose this. Wrongly in my opinion.
That's not exactly your classic free trade case. When a country has price controls or subsidies for a product they are interfering in trade (at least intranational trade) as much as tariffs or quotas interfere in international trade.
An argument can be made to allow the purchase anyway, either from a doctrinaire libertarian perspective, or from speculation that its possible that allowing the trade would have positive consequences for the US.
The exact consequence of totally open trade in legal prescription drugs with Canada aren't necessarily easy to predict. I would guess if Americans start buying massive amounts of cheap Canadian drugs, than the supply in Canada would go down. Drug companies might not greatly increase the supply to Canada. There happy to make small incremental profits in the small controlled Canadian market, after they pay for research, promotion and overhead with the money from the American market, but they aren't going to want to accept only the Canadian price for their best market. If the Canadian price really becomes the American price, than you will probably see much fewer new drugs. However since the American market is so much larger and more important its possible the merged market could more closely resemble the American market. If Canada doesn't let the drugs sell for higher prices, the supply in Canada might dry up, Canadians might even have to import drugs themselves. (Canada imports drugs now, but generally Canadian consumers don't). The possible positive from this is that US customers might be able to stop providing an effective subsidy to Canadian customers. You might get a small drop in American prices, combined with a large increase in Canadian prices. In order to prevent this its possible Canada will itself try to prevent the export of prescription drugs to the US.
separation of powers
Which is what we have today, and something most Republicans are behind.
This administration has done more than most recent administrations to minimize their accountability to anyone. The best example is their demanding the right to wiretap without judicial oversight.
1 - "This administration" and "Republicans" are not synonymous.
2 - The administration is attempting to enforce separation of powers. Asserting the executive branches separate powers. Perhaps "separation of powers" isn't the best term for your problem here. You might try something like "secrecy" or perhaps "strong view of executive powers".
3 - The administration is arguing that it has the right under the constitution, and also under the authorization to use force passed by congress, to listen in on suspected enemy communications from overseas. This is is a disputable but not an unreasonable interpretation. If you have the power to drop a 500 lbs bomb on someone presumably you would have the power to intercept their communications. Also force and intel should go hand and hand. Its not exactly like we would want to randomly bomb places figuring we might hit some enemies.
protection of the environment
Again hardly something Republicans oppose, the real issue being what you do to protect the environment, to achieve what benefit, at what cost.
You're kidding, right?
No, I'm quite serious. |
