If those nations wish to rise up out of poverty, all they need do is emulate us. Set people free and watch what happens. We are the proof that capitalism, protected inalienable rights, and the need to be self sufficient works.
Woody
Woody
Nobody is talking about the "lap of luxury" (which is a moving target anyway). As it is, a substantial portion of the world--and especially Americans--already enjoys a standard of living that would have been unavailable even to heads of state as recently as a century ago.
I didn't say it was our job to bring them out, merely that refusing to trade with them--or refusing to allow them to use their competitive advantage--artificially maintains them in poverty when they could get out
Most of those conditions are the result of either governmental malfeasance or choices made by those individuals. Again, I'm not saying we should send them free money to actively raise their standard of living, merely that we not artificially stifle their attempt to raise themselves up. Look at the post immediately before mine (to which mine is obviously in reply):
Tristanjay's post doesn't propose keeping the money in the US, just making sure any trade only goes to countries with similar wage standards (as would be the effect of such tariffs).
Quite so...and that's precisely what they're doing: selling goods in a relatively free market, taking advantage of the resources they have. In this case, the resource they have in particular abundance. I was responding to a proposal that proposed artificially stripping them of the value of that resource--that is, a proposal that we abandon our free-market, capitalist principles, effectively saying "hey, this worked, but now that we've got ours, we're going to shut the rest of you out."
If y'all can't see where tristanjay's proposal to "have tariffs based on wages in the country" is the international equivalent of setting a minimum wage--which seems to be generally opposed in this thread--well, that's on you. For extra fun, see the Davis-Bacon Act, which effectively sets a minimum wage for government contractors totally independent of anything actually enacted by the constitutionally-prescribed process of the legislature. It's all the same thing.
The part where you pick a rebuttal by people from an organization founded by socialists.
Don't worry once we embrace your...and yes I mean YOUR!...... liberal progressives this country will suck as bad as any third world country......the puke you were fed in college will destroy the country .....we have a reprieve for now but it will win eventually. If you want to put a tariff on something make it based on business principles if you reinvest in your business and technologies and environmentaly sound practices then you should get a score that effects your tariff , if you are like a protected company like US sugar producers you should burn to the ground and go bankrupt because you have been hiding behind lobbyists and government protection for 30 years .......
You don't have any clue what you're talking about with regards to my political or economic views. You're clearly not about to let your lack of clue stop you from talking, though....
But that's exactly what tristanjay was proposing! US sugar can't be produced as cheaply as foreign sugar, so we enact protectionist tariffs. Tristanjay proposed protectionist tariffs where the major cost input was labor, not climate, but it's still an artificial barrier to destroy a competitive advantage in resources.
Edit: fixed a closing quote tag; nothing substantive changed.
Last edited:
You bet your *** I'm not, cupcake I'm calling all you lefties out we have stood silent long enough while you lectins gorilla pumpkins ran your yappers.
Or, apparently, your lack of familiarity with grammar, sentence structure, spelling, etc.:
I am familiar with ******* like me, isn't that enough ?
Last edited by a moderator:
I am familiar with Pû$$ies like me isn't that enough......wanted to be sure that message made it through loud and clear
Last edited by a moderator:
Nice genetic fallacy. You wanted claims supported by evidence, and I posted the evidence. If that evidence, that completely delegitimizes the original study, is problematic, then let's see it. For the original study to have *any* validity, we'd first need a justification and validation about the 40% of the workforce that was excluded. There's certainly other issues to overcome, but it's never coming out of the trashcan without that.
Similar threads
