SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: TimF who wrote (263058)4/29/2008 5:39:15 PM
From: geode00  Read Replies (1) of 281500
 
I don't think it's necessarily true that tariffs bring lower prices to anyone in the long run. Without tariffs, the US could see further reduction in domestic industries which could, in the long run, lead to dependency on other countries for products. As the US dollars becomes cheaper, imports are becoming more expensive. I think in some cases lack of tariffs would result in cheaper initial prices but not necessarily in the long run.

At any rate, in the real world, there is no need for the US to unilaterally dump tariffs.

I'm not sure these things work altogether that well in the real world. I don't think this is real progress as it is becoming ever more clear that industrialized agriculture and heavily processed food is contributing to health problems in the western world. In this case, getting rid of tariffs helps the big get bigger and competition to decrease in terms of the number of participants in the market.

query.nytimes.com

"Mr. Guerrero said he had barely been able to keep afloat since the treaty began abolishing trade barriers between Mexico, the United States and Canada nearly 10 years ago. Credit ran dry after a national economic crisis devastated banks in 1995. The Mexican government ended most agricultural subsidies, sending his costs through the roof. Pork prices plunged as cheaper imports from the United States flooded Mexican markets.

Now, Mr. Guerrero's last defense is being dismantled. Under Nafta, on Jan. 1 tariffs on almost all agricultural imports from the United States will end.

The looming deadline has consumed the attention of a nation where a quarter of the population lives in rural areas, and produced warnings about the possibility of unrest and increased migration across the Mexican countryside and into the United States, as millions of peasants are forced to abandon their tiny fields."

==============================

I understand that you want public education but not public mandatory retirement programs. That, however, does not sit well in the libertarian philosophy. If you have your own philosophy that is one thing but it does not make any sense to claim to be a libertarian and then want specific things made public simply because you want them to be.

You said public services were ok but transfer payments were not. I simply said, what about making SS payments into services and products.

Since you can home school a child or pay for private education and tutoring, public education is not any more essential than a mandatory retirement program for seniors. That is just your personal opinion but it still does not explain why one is more acceptable as a government function than the other.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext