>> Oh, good. We can go back to the standard of living of the late victorian era. <<
umm well, britain was a free trade nation back then so that's where policies you advocate are taking us.
>> did you know that much of the growth of the US during that time was dependent on cheap immigrant labor? <<
what exactly do you mean by cheap? that is not very specific. you mean cheap because people didn't have most of their paycheck confiscated to income tax back then? cheap because we ran a sound currency and wages weren't being eroded by inflation like in recent times? wages grew 53% even though the population doubled during that time. contrast that to the last 30 years where wages have stagnated at best or declined depending on what statistics you use.
>> Yes, very prosperous time for rail Barons, tobacco kings, steel magnates, and the mother of all trusts, JP Morgan's banking empire, Teddy felt such a need to bust up. Great advances in industry and transportation, but also a time of social turmoil as workers sought better working conditions. <<
so what's your point. all sorts of unions sprang up and all sorts of laws were passed to address the concerns of labor. free trade certainly wasn't the solution now was it?
>> Did you know that in the ten years from the end of the Spanish-American War (now there's a war even an isolationist could get behind, one fought solely out of self-defense - NOT!), <<
first of all i am not nor is pat buchanan an "isolationist". you would like to brandish him and i one because it conjures up notions of sticking one's head in the sand or cutting oneself off from the rest of the world but it simply isn't an accurate characterization.
second of all, if you read mr buchanan's book you would know that he did not advocate that war and he considered it imperialistic.
>> the US economy was in recession for almost 5 years? The stock market also suffered from two significant panics during Teddy's time as President. <<
there have been dozens of recessions throughout our history, whether we were practicing free trade or protectionism. again, what is your point? are you suggesting that i somehow claimed that protectionism eliminates the business cycle?
>> But Teddy did get us a good deal on a canal in Panama. I guess he wanted that so that East coast textiles could more easily be shipped to California. You know, 'cause the railroads were so unreliable. Couldn't have had anything to do with trade with other countries <<
once again your ignorance is on display. where did i ever claim that america should not trade with the world? where have i claimed that during our protectionist years we didn't trade with the world? obviously you don't have an effective rebuttal to my arguments, so you resort to arguing a position which i do not hold, and our country has never held. we have never been "isolationist" ok? do you think that we went from 13 colonies to spanning the entire continent by being isolationists? so get that notion out of your head. we have always traded with the world, and buchanan nor i have ever suggested otherwise.
>> PS: Here's another TR quote you might like - "We cannot sit huddled within our borders and avow ourselves merely an assemblage of well-to-do hucksters who care nothing for what happens beyond. Such a policy would defeat even its own end; for as the nations grow to have ever wider and wider interests and are brought into closer and closer contact, if we are to hold our own in the struggle for naval and commercial supremacy, we must build up our power without our own borders. We must build the isthmian canal, and we must grasp the points of vantage which will enable us to have our say in deciding the destiny of the oceans of the East and the West." <<
we all know TR was a war-monger and an imperialist. i don't dispute that. yet again, what is your point? |
