Republican Slime

[Litmus]

It's bad policy because it supports totalitarianism, helps build a chinese army against US and prices non-slaves out of the market. That's not empty. You just cannot deny these points, so your mind screens them out for you. Your a brainwash victim.

Well, let's take your points one by one, and objectively evaluate them. First, it does give money to at totalitarian regime, this is true. It doesn't support the regime, however, because the Chinese could get the money from any number of other sources. If the Chinese totalitarians relied solely on US trade dollars, then you might say we were 'supporting' them, the more accurate word would be 'patronizing' them. The money might very well go toward building their military, however, they would have built their military regardless, and Euros work as well as Dollars for that purpose. Case in point, the Chinese have the largest standing army on the planet... they didn't get that by having US trade, because we didn't trade with them. As for pricing the non-slave workers out of the market, that is what happens if we don't absorb the Chinese goods into the market by including them into the WTO. It is part and parcel why we should trade with China.


Now, I think we can agree, I haven't ignored your points here, I have addressed them completely, and I can objectively understand your concerns, so I am not brainwashed or anything else, although, you seem to be.

This was an attempt, though ineffective and inadequate.

1. Trade dollars IS support. You saying it isn't based on nothing is not an argument.
2. How does buying their goods help to reduce slavery there? You said it will do that, but haven't explained how?

Yet our additional billions are an incredible help. if we had had this loser attitude about the ussr, they'd have won. This is the "if you can't beat them join them" attitude. And it sucks and is treasonous. You're an appeaser.

In the words of Ronald Reagan, there you go again! It's not treasonous, and I am not an appeaser, and you need to learn not to keep using this over-hyped exaggerated rhetoric to try and make a point, it's the most obvious indication you are a liberal pinhead.

You, sir, are no ronald reagan. He agreed in fighting enemies, not appeasing out of fear.

I will once again attempt to penetrate your concrete head... China is not going to make MORE money by trading with the US. They will make the exact same money they made before, they will produce the same amount of products as they produced before, they will sell the same amount of goods as they did before, the only difference is, the US is one of their trade partners.

So if they're not making more money, how will the trickle down you allege occur?

So, to be clear, and to insure you understand what 'trade' is, it doesn't mean China is getting anything extra, or making any extra income, it simply means we are going to reap some of the benefit of cheap Chinese goods, that the Europeans might have otherwise enjoyed at our expense.

So it's not really for the chinese people, it's so we can be included in slave labor profits. How fucking noble. I'd rather just work.

Again.... I addressed your point here, I didn't ignore what you said, I am not glossing over anything, or being brainwashed. This is common sense and economics, and it requires that you first understand what 'trade' is and how it works, you obviously don't.

$
No. It's your putting too much significance on economic theories and ignoring security and moral concerns, just like I already told you.

This is the explaination you always use in your comparative advantage routine. They can have all the actual real jobs and we can all become lawyers and poets. It's b.s. It fosters dependancy and erodes our skills base.

I'm sorry, but I don't see an 'explanation' in the preceding quote, I see a question to you, and you didn't answer it. Who has ever advocated we outsource any and all jobs to China?



So what is going to dissuade them from even further and more brutal human slavery? You have not explained this. How is it good to allow them to earn our dollars to build an army agaisnt us? you're running on fumes and your increasingly long winded screeds are inversely proportional to your actual persuasiveness.

Well, I thought I explained it,

YOu didn't. Unless you mean, previously in this post, which, as you recall, I don't see till you submit the whole thing.

but apparently it didn't make it through the concrete. At some point in the future, when the US and China have enjoyed a long standing trade alliance, and have billions of dollars invested in this mutual objective, we will have a bargaining chip.



We can then go to the Chinese and say... lookit, you want to keep the US trade, you have to do A, B, and C. Otherwise, we will stop buying from you.

Let's do that now. Why would they be dependant on our trade dollars when they don't make money off them, like you said above?

At that point, our withdrawal of trade would be financially damaging to them, (it's not this way now, because we don't have that much trade, and it can easily be offset by the European market.) No guarantees this will work to reform China, they may remain completely defiant, and still refuse to change, however, it affords a much better opportunity to effect a change, than isolating ourselves and refusing to budge.

No. It's a dumb assinine lie.

An old married couple has a disagreement... they are not speaking to each other... they will never see eye to eye on this... there is no compromise... are they more likely to come to some resolution, by sitting down at the kitchen table and discussing their issues with each other over a cup of coffee... or by going to their rooms and locking the door? Your approach, is to go to our room and lock the door on China, to refuse to sit at the table with them, to remain stubborn and defiant and unwilling to find compromise. This will never work to effect any change in the conditions in China, or any of the other issues at hand, market stability, national security, etc.

They're not a spouse. This is stupid.

You have accepted totalitarianism and seek to join it. You are a traitor to all things our forefathers died for.

Classic Liberal Pinhead Exaggeration # 2048

Excluding one country is not "isolationism" you word mangling, deceptive, ass twinkie.

No word mangling, to that one country, it certainly is isolationism, how else would you describe it? And you have already gone on record as stating, it's not just one country, it's any country that doesn't share our attitudes toward freedom and liberty.

That is not how isolationism is defined. We trade with many nations, and Im only discussing one here. It's idiotic to say we're "isolationist in terms of that nation". You are truly a moron.

So now it's liberal to be against chinese totalitarians? I thought they were the commies. Turns out it's actually fascism and it's the neocons who love it. WHo knew?

Well, if it is, then I am a liberal, because I am against Chinese totalitarianism!

No. YOu seek to profit from it. To change it. allegedly. How stupid.

As we've discussed, my plan (the official US plan) affords some opportunity for future reform in China. Your plan (the one we've tried for a century) does not afford any opportunity for any discussion of any thing with the Chinese. By allowing the status quo to continue, you are in effect supporting Chinese totalitarianism.

Discussions accomplish shit, you pinhead. I would rather withdraw from the world economy, and redevelop all industry domestically again. We did it once, we can do it again. Americans built this world economy, and we can build another one from scratch. We are a special people.

Free trade can have exceptions. Like in the case of other national security or human rights concerns. Your black and white thinking is not wisdom, it's stupidity.

Free trade can't have exceptions, or it wouldn't be "free" trade.

Did you just say this? My god. So kiddie porn should be allowed? Pimping out granny? To say no to that would isolationism?

It is true, trade is often used as leverage to effect a political change in regards to human rights. Sure, it's black and white thinking, but common sense is black or white. It's not stupid to think we can effect more change in China as a strong allied trade partner, rather than isolating ourselves from them and belligerently refusing to come to the table.

And it should be used as such now. You're being an extremist, when you claim there should be no limits on trade for anything. You're a fascist, slavery monger and you make me ill.

It's appeasement. You admit it in so many words. ANd you have abandoned freedom as basic concept of any acceptable society. You are a fascist globalist and I will fight you till my dying breath, you satanic, anti-american scum bag.

No, I have actually gone out of my way several times to point out, it can't be appeasement, because we aren't appeasing anything! Appeasement is giving in to some demand, and there has been no demand from China for the US to trade with them. If you are going to continue using this word, I think you need to fully explain what you mean, because the premise that we are somehow appeasing the Chinese by purchasing products they would normally sell to the Europeans, is inherently flawed.

It is appeasement because it's something you're doing to keep an enemy at bay, short of confronting him directly. It's simply ludicrous to suggest the chinese export volume would be the same if we didn't buy from them. Do you know how stupid you sound?

You are a fascist globalist and I will fight you till my dying breath, you satanic, anti-american scum bag

What? Are you trying out for Pinhead of the Year? This makes about the 5th time in this thread, you've gone to the well of Liberal insults and put downs, because you can't seem to make a valid point. Please refrain from categorizing official US trade policy as "fascist", "satanic", and "anti-american", because you really just like a pinheaded fool who can't make a point.

It's a fascist putdown. I'm putting you, the fascist, down.

They've all been refuted and you have been repudiated. Our policy makers are selling us out in broad daylight, therefore ,citing their concurrence helps you not

No, my points have not been refuted, if you want to claim this you can, it's just not the case. Now, you have certainly repudiated me, you continue to do that quite nicely, but it doesn't address the points at all. All you have done is heaped over-blown rhetoric on top of over-hyped exaggeration, and made a bunch of liberal platitude statements that are empty and irrelevant. You have yet to explain how isolationism is going to ever effect a change in Chinese human rights, and frankly, you can't explain it because it defies logic.

When you speak of brainwashing, it appears you have been brainwashed yourself. Over and over, you repeat the same crap with no basis, as if you have some profound knowledge the rest of us aren't privy to. If you have evidence of our policy makers selling us out, you should present it! If you have evidence this is a vast neocon plot, you should show it! Because, right now, you are just running your mouth without anything to back up a word you are saying, and it's just plain ignorant to try and have a debate with someone like that.

Here is nixon and kissinger telling zedong they will let him be a totalitarian.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB19/
The meeting which is the subject of this memcon is the first between Richard Nixon and Mao Zedong. The transcript reflects an effort on both leaders part to engage in light, complimentary, even humorous conversation before they address more serious issues. Eventually, they turn to issues such as relations with Japan, India-Pakistan, and the Soviet Union. At one point, Nixon tells Mao that they are brought together by the situation in the world as well as the recognition that a nation's "internal political philosophy"--in contrast to that nation's policy toward the rest of the world and the United States.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB19/05-01.htm

 

[Litmus]

TO be fair, the main liberal part in all this is to keep white people shamed, all children stupid ,and everyone distracted with a fixation on gay acceptance and environmentalism, so they won't see what's going on.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

1. Trade dollars IS suport. You saying it isn't based on nothing is not an argument.

Okay... Look... Let's say, you are selling lemonade on my corner... I can make the choice to buy your product or not, it's entirely up to me. If I don't buy your product, you are not going to stop selling lemonade, other people will come by, and they will buy the lemonade you might have sold to me, but at the end of the day, you made 50 gallons of lemmonade, and sold 50 gallons of lemonade, your earnings were the same whether I bought from you or not. You are looking at US trade with China in a vacuum, as if the Chinese are dependent on US trade dollars to survive. IF that were the case, I would wholeheartedly agree with your premise, but that is clearly NOT the case!

2. How does buying their goods help to reduce slavery there? You said it will do that, but haven't explained how?

Well, okay, let's go through it again... If the "problem" is the Chinese governments policy on human rights, we have to look at this problem from an objective viewpoint, and ask ourselves how we solve it. Ignoring it, doesn't solve it! Pretending that it doesn't exist, doesn't solve it! Refusing to be diplomatic and labeling China as our enemy, doesn't solve it. We could nuke China, and kick their yellow asses real good... that might solve it, but that is an option I don't think America has the desire or stomach to take, at least not right now. So, this leaves peaceable diplomatic negotiation as the only option for effecting a real change, all other options have no chance of ever working, because there is no motivation for China to change. With a healthy and profitable exchange of trade, we have something to leverage the Chinese with, we have something to use, to pressure them into reforming. Will it turn China into Little America? I doubt it! That is an unrealistic expectation, and one you seem to be stuck on having. The Chinese have been the way they are for centuries, they aren't going to suddenly stop being what they have always been, there is nothing we can realistically do to change that. With diplomacy and trade, we at least have an opportunity for reform at some point down the road, the door is not closed, and there is a chance of us gaining some measure of leverage to effect this change in China's policies. By isolating ourselves from China, and refusing to talk to them, we essentially end any and all possibility for reform or change, there is no apparent reason for the Chinese to capitulate to your moral demands.

You, sir, are no ronald reagan. He agreed in fighting enemies, not appeasing out of fear.

Again, 'appeasing out of fear' requires China to have made some demand of us... that hasn't happened! We can't be appeasing someone who is not asking for something! If I buy your lemonade, it's not because I am appeasing you, it's because I want your product!

So if they're not making more money, how will the trickle down you allege occur?

Through economic mutual interests we develop over time. This can't happen in a year or two, it takes decades. I am not talking about 'trickle down economics' here, I have made no such argument. It's about bargaining power and leverage with the Chinese. Without trade, without billions of US dollars invested in China, and billions of Chinese yen invested in the US, there is no mutual economic interest, therefore, nothing to bargain with. We simply say, China, we're not going to trade with you, and China says, FINE! End of story, they sell to the EU and become even stronger. You are trying to leverage China with nothing, you are seeking to make China do as you wish, but you have no means in which to make this happen... I noticed, you still have not washed my car... why? Maybe if I strongly condemn you, and tell you that I will never speak to you again, you will come wash my car? Ya think? This is essentially what you are trying to argue, and it makes no logical sense whatsoever.

Let's do that now. Why would they be dependant on our trade dollars when they don't make money off them, like you said above?

We can't really make it work now, because we haven't been trading with the Chinese long enough to establish the stronghold with regard to their economy. Eventually, however, we will get to this point. China will become more and more dependent on the US to feed its ever-growing population, and at some point in time, we will have some effective means to bargain with. As it stands now, we don't have this, and isolating ourselves from China and refusing to trade with them now, will never produce this. There is a forest behind those trees you are seeing.

No. It's an dumb assinine lie.

Nice repudiation, terrible refutation.

They're not a spouse. This is stupid.

I was giving you an example, it can be applied universally for any two entities in disagreement. Here in this very argument, you and I are engaged in diplomatic talks and free trade of ideas, there is a remote chance, you could change my mind (if you could ever form a valid argument) and there is also a remote chance that I could change your mind (if I could penetrate the concrete), those are tangible possibilities, and that is just common sense. Now, if I put you on ignore and refuse to speak to you again, what are the chances of either one of us making our case? Answer: NIL ...again, this is simple common sense any third-grader can understand.

That is not how isolationism is defined. We trade with many nations, and Im only disucussing one here. It's idiotic to say we're "isolationist in terms of that nation". You are truly a moron.

I am not speaking in terms of global isolationism, I am speaking specifically about your policy toward trade with China, and refusing to trade with them, is economic isolation, go look the fucking word up, moron!

No. YOu seek to profit from it. To change it. allegedly. How stupid.

I am a capitalist, I have no problem with profit. Especially when the alternative is to do the opposite and reduce profit. As for the totalitarianism, my way affords at least an opportunity for reform, you way ignores it.

Discussions accomplish shit, you pinhead. I would rather withdraw from the world economy, and redevelop all industry domestically again. We did it once, we can do it again. Americans built this world economy, and we can build another one from scratch. We are a special people.

I want you to read this paragraph and tell me how any reasonable person can conclude you are not being an isolationist? This is, by all definition, the very backbone and principle of isolationism.

Did you just say this? My god. So kiddie porn should be allowed? Pimping out granny? To say no to that would isolationism?

Pinhead Liberal Over-exaggeration # 5349
No one has ever said a word about kiddie porn or pimping granny. In regards to those irrelevant issues, I am quite the 'isolationist'.

And it should be used as such now. You're being an extremist, when you claim there should be no limits on trade for anything. You're a fascist, slavery monger and you make me ill.

It can't be, there is not enough mutual financial interest because we haven't been trading freely with China long enough. My views are not extreme, they are the official US trade policy at this time, and they are endorsed by people from all walks of the political spectrum, mostly the ones who have more than an ounce of economic sense. I've not stated that there should be no limits on trade, but you can't impose limits on trade that doesn't exist, it's impossible.

It is appeasement because something your doing to keep an enemy at bay, short of confronting him directly. It's simply ludicrous to suggest the chinese export volume would be the same if we didn't buy from them. Do you know how stupid you sound?

Uhm... again, China became the #2 Superpower without the help of US trade. We are not 'keeping them at bay' by refusing to trade with them, they have shown the ability to thrive and prosper without the US trade dollar. My point is valid until you refute it with something tangible, the Chinese are not suddenly going to become more productive because they are getting US dollars instead of Euros. They have a certain production capacity, and it will not change because of who trades with them. Again, I think this is your problem in understanding this, you somehow think the US trade is giving the Chinese something they wouldn't otherwise have, and that just isn't so.

It's a fascist putdown, im putting you, the fascist, down.

So, I guess all the US policymakers, Bill Clinton, and the world's leading economists, are all "fascists"? Is that your argument? If so, you need to produce some evidence to support your argument, because I don't believe you. What you did, was use the classic liberal tactic of trying to defame and smear your opponent, because you couldn't articulate a valid refutation of his points. It's one of the reasons you are having trouble fooling people into believing you are not a pinhead liberal!

Here is nixon and kissinger telling zedong they will let him be a totalitarian.

You know, I don't think Zedong was waiting for permission from Nixon to be a totalitarian, and I don't think China is going to stop being totalitarian because we refuse to trade with them. It hasn't happened in the past century, there is no motivational factor, we have no real leverage to effect change, so unless you have a secret feather to tickle their asses with....????? How is your plan supposed to work?

Look... I don't like Chinese totalitarianism any more than you do! I don't like the way the Chinese government treats its people, and I wish and hope that one day, it will not be as it is today in China. Now, I can sit here and re-type those sentences over and over and over again... for the next 100 years... is it going to ever effect any change in the condition? No! So, what you are proposing is not a solution, never has been a solution, and never will be a solution to the problem. However, with a vibrant trade policy, through economic mutual interest, by using diplomatic pressure and having something as leverage, there is the possibility for change and reform. Sitting on your moral high horse and refusing to budge, is not going to make China change! What it will do, is continue to drive the market down, take jobs from US workers who can't be paid if their company can't sell their products on the market at a profit, and strengthen the Chinese economy as well as their European trade partners, who reap the benefits of the cheap Chinese goods.

You are cutting off your moral nose to spite your moral face here!

 

[Litmus]

1. Trade dollars IS suport. You saying it isn't based on nothing is not an argument.

Okay... Look... Let's say, you are selling lemonade on my corner... I can make the choice to buy your product or not, it's entirely up to me. If I don't buy your product, you are not going to stop selling lemonade, other people will come by, and they will buy the lemonade you might have sold to me, but at the end of the day, you made 50 gallons of lemmonade, and sold 50 gallons of lemonade, your earnings were the same whether I bought from you or not.

But the way modern trade works is productions amounts are planned and augmented according to expected demand. I would start making 75 or 100 gallons to meet the need. This example failed miserably in supporting your case, and, in fact helped me make mine.

You are looking at US trade with China in a vacuum, as if the Chinese are dependent on US trade dollars to survive. IF that were the case, I would wholeheartedly agree with your premise, but that is clearly NOT the case!

Sure they have other customers, that doesn't mean our business means nothing. You may be retarded.

2. How does buying their goods help to reduce slavery there? You said it will do that, but haven't explained how?

Well, okay, let's go through it again... If the "problem" is the Chinese governments policy on human rights, we have to look at this problem from an objective viewpoint, and ask ourselves how we solve it. Ignoring it, doesn't solve it! Pretending that it doesn't exist, doesn't solve it! Refusing to be diplomatic and labeling China as our enemy, doesn't solve it.

and encouraging it with billions it orders, increases it.... Your point?

We could nuke China, and kick their yellow asses real good... that might solve it, but that is an option I don't think America has the desire or stomach to take, at least not right now.

Really I think there are other options between coprofitting from their slaver and all out nuclear war. Don't you think. Again you're using the "false dichotomy" logical fallacy. You do that a lot.

So, this leaves peaceable diplomatic negotiation as the only option for effecting a real change, all other options have no chance of ever working, because there is no motivation for China to change.

No as explained above there are other options. Like trade embargo.

With a healthy and profitable exchange of trade, we have something to leverage the Chinese with, we have something to use, to pressure them into reforming.

You keep asserting this. Where is the leverage? Withdrawing our order? I thought there were other lemonade drinkers at the block party? You're like corky from "life goes on", crashing the car into a tree. Oh, corky, just stick to grinning.

Will it turn China into Little America? I doubt it! That is an unrealistic expectation, and one you seem to be stuck on having. The Chinese have been the way they are for centuries, they aren't going to suddenly stop being what they have always been, there is nothing we can realistically do to change that.

You are giving up on morality and freedom. I thought your way of changing them was with "economic leverage"? Is it that or is that we can't change them? See how your brain is fundamentally split?

With diplomacy and trade, we at least have an opportunity for reform at some point down the road, the door is not closed, and there is a chance of us gaining some measure of leverage to effect this change in China's policies. By isolating ourselves from China, and refusing to talk to them, we essentially end any and all possibility for reform or change, there is no apparent reason for the Chinese to capitulate to your moral demands.

We can talk to them, we just can't import their slave labor products. We can calmly and diplomatically explain to them how we will not trade with them until they have constitution and individual rights.

You, sir, are no ronald reagan. He agreed in fighting enemies, not appeasing out of fear.

Again, 'appeasing out of fear' requires China to have made some demand of us... that hasn't happened!

But yet you're afraind of their #2 military. Weren't you talking about how we were nearly matched and only had the option of trade? That's reasoning from a position of defeat, which makes you an appeaser.

We can't be appeasing someone who is not asking for something! If I buy your lemonade, it's not because I am appeasing you, it's because I want your product!

So if they're not making more money, how will the trickle down you allege occur?

Through economic mutual interests we develop over time. This can't happen in a year or two, it takes decades. I am not talking about 'trickle down economics' here, I have made no such argument. It's about bargaining power and leverage with the Chinese.

First you explained it would happen by nebulous, and as yet undefined, mutual interests. Then you said you didn't say it. You are fucked.

Without trade, without billions of US dollars invested in China, and billions of Chinese yen invested in the US, there is no mutual economic interest, therefore, nothing to bargain with. We simply say, China, we're not going to trade with you, and China says, FINE! End of story, they sell to the EU and become even stronger.

Why would they be stronger with just europe than with both of us. That really doesn't make sense. Do you know you're a blithering idiot?

You are trying to leverage China with nothing, you are seeking to make China do as you wish, but you have no means in which to make this happen... I noticed, you still have not washed my car... why? Maybe if I strongly condemn you, and tell you that I will never speak to you again, you will come wash my car? Ya think? This is essentially what you are trying to argue, and it makes no logical sense whatsoever.

I beleive our trade is more crucial to them. Plus we can always reject the arbitrary valuations placed on fiat currency and backed by the threat of violence that prices us out of the labor market according to the wishes of those setting the exchange rates according to how they want to sculpt the world, and start making all our own shit again. Regardless.

Let's do that now. Why would they be dependant on our trade dollars when they don't make money off them, like you said above?

We can't really make it work now, because we haven't been trading with the Chinese long enough to establish the stronghold with regard to their economy.

we can do it now, and we should. I really don't see why our position will be stronger in the future. All the other business europe is why they dont need us right? Can you explain your fundamental retardation?

Eventually, however, we will get to this point. China will become more and more dependent on the US to feed its ever-growing population, and at some point in time, we will have some effective means to bargain with. As it stands now, we don't have this, and isolating ourselves from China and refusing to trade with them now, will never produce this. There is a forest behind those trees you are seeing.

A. I don't see it happening
B. We could bargain with them on these issues now.

The truth is that this is "THE PLAN" to drive all the world into slavery.

No. It's an dumb assinine lie.

Nice repudiation, terrible refutation.

They're not a spouse. This is stupid.

I was giving you an example, it can be applied universally for any two entities in disagreement.

No it can't. It's retarded.

Here in this very argument, you and I are engaged in diplomatic talks and free trade of ideas, there is a remote chance, you could change my mind (if you could ever form a valid argument) and there is also a remote chance that I could change your mind (if I could penetrate the concrete), those are tangible possibilities, and that is just common sense. Now, if I put you on ignore and refuse to speak to you again, what are the chances of either one of us making our case? Answer: NIL ...again, this is simple common sense any third-grader can understand.

You are on a third grade level, you must know best.

That is not how isolationism is defined. We trade with many nations, and Im only disucussing one here. It's idiotic to say we're "isolationist in terms of that nation". You are truly a moron.

I am not speaking in terms of global isolationism, I am speaking specifically about your policy toward trade with China, and refusing to trade with them, is economic isolation, go look the fucking word up, moron!

But it takes more than not trading with ONE nation to say a nation's policy is "isolationist".

No. YOu seek to profit from it. To change it. allegedly. How stupid.

I am a capitalist, I have no problem with profit. Especially when the alternative is to do the opposite and reduce profit. As for the totalitarianism, my way affords at least an opportunity for reform, you way ignores it.

But profitting from immorality is more than capitalism, it's called evil, or crime, if a society is sufficiently wise.

Discussions accomplish shit, you pinhead. I would rather withdraw from the world economy, and redevelop all industry domestically again. We did it once, we can do it again. Americans built this world economy, and we can build another one from scratch. We are a special people.

I want you to read this paragraph and tell me how any reasonable person can conclude you are not being an isolationist? This is, by all definition, the very backbone and principle of isolationism.

I would prefer isolation to inclusion in the new world order you are creating. But we are not there yet. I am not advocating it at this point. I still believe international trade is a good thing inside certain moral parameters. Can you get this into your corky, third grader, lemonade stand mind?

Did you just say this? My god. So kiddie porn should be allowed? Pimping out granny? To say no to that would isolationism?

Pinhead Liberal Over-exaggeration # 5349
No one has ever said a word about kiddie porn or pimping granny. In regards to those irrelevant issues, I am quite the 'isolationist'.

But capitalists have no problem with profit, so what's wrong with pimping granny? Are you saying business should be conducted within some moral parameters?

And it should be used as such now. You're being an extremist, when you claim there should be no limits on trade for anything. You're a fascist, slavery monger and you make me ill.

It can't be, there is not enough mutual financial interest because we haven't been trading freely with China long enough. My views are not extreme, they are the official US trade policy at this time, and they are endorsed by people from all walks of the political spectrum, mostly the ones who have more than an ounce of economic sense. I've not stated that there should be no limits on trade, but you can't impose limits on trade that doesn't exist, it's impossible.

It is appeasement because something your doing to keep an enemy at bay, short of confronting him directly. It's simply ludicrous to suggest the chinese export volume would be the same if we didn't buy from them. Do you know how stupid you sound?

Uhm... again, China became the #2 Superpower without the help of US trade. We are not 'keeping them at bay' by refusing to trade with them, they have shown the ability to thrive and prosper without the US trade dollar. My point is valid until you refute it with something tangible, the Chinese are not suddenly going to become more productive because they are getting US dollars instead of Euros. They have a certain production capacity, and it will not change because of who trades with them. Again, I think this is your problem in understanding this, you somehow think the US trade is giving the Chinese something they wouldn't otherwise have, and that just isn't so.

It's a fascist putdown, im putting you, the fascist, down.

So, I guess all the US policymakers, Bill Clinton, and the world's leading economists, are all "fascists"?

Yes.

Is that your argument? If so, you need to produce some evidence to support your argument, because I don't believe you.

Look around you. THeir fascist policies should be proof enough.

What you did, was use the classic liberal tactic of trying to defame and smear your opponent, because you couldn't articulate a valid refutation of his points. It's one of the reasons you are having trouble fooling people into believing you are not a pinhead liberal!

Here is nixon and kissinger telling zedong they will let him be a totalitarian.

You know, I don't think Zedong was waiting for permission from Nixon to be a totalitarian, and I don't think China is going to stop being totalitarian because we refuse to trade with them. It hasn't happened in the past century, there is no motivational factor, we have no real leverage to effect change, so unless you have a secret feather to tickle their asses with....????? How is your plan supposed to work?

Look... I don't like Chinese totalitarianism any more than you do! I don't like the way the Chinese government treats its people, and I wish and hope that one day, it will not be as it is today in China. Now, I can sit here and re-type those sentences over and over and over again... for the next 100 years... is it going to ever effect any change in the condition? No! So, what you are proposing is not a solution, never has been a solution, and never will be a solution to the problem. However, with a vibrant trade policy, through economic mutual interest, by using diplomatic pressure and having something as leverage, there is the possibility for change and reform. Sitting on your moral high horse and refusing to budge, is not going to make China change! What it will do, is continue to drive the market down, take jobs from US workers who can't be paid if their company can't sell their products on the market at a profit, and strengthen the Chinese economy as well as their European trade partners, who reap the benefits of the cheap Chinese goods.

You're a defeatist, you advocate bad policies, you're willing to support slavery.

I think tons of american companies would be helped if they could get back into the markets ruined for them by cheap chinese.

All your arguments are crap.

You are cutting off your moral nose to spite your moral face here!

ANd your moral nose is growing pinnochio. Some day you may be a real little boy. JC says "Always let your conscience be your guide"

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

But the way modern trade works is productions amounts are planned and augmented according to expected demand. I would start making 75 or 100 gallons to meet the need. This example failed miserably in supporting your case, and, in fact helped me make mine.

Incorrect on several fronts. Production capacity is unchanged by demand. During Christmas, they could have sold twice as many X-box 360's, if they could have produced them, but they didn't have the capacity, so they couldn't and didn't. The Chinese produce a certain amount of product, and regardless of whether the US buys the product or the Europeans buy the product, that amount produced doesn't change.

Sure they have other customers, that doesn't mean our business means nothing. You may be retarded.

How can our business mean anything, if it's non-existent? The only way our business will ever mean anything to the Chinese, is if we are doing enough business to effect their economy, and at this time, we are not. With your idea, we never will. You are the one who seems to have some mental retardation issues.

and encouraging it with billions it orders, increases it.... Your point?

Again, I will ask you to show me where any one has ever 'encouraged' the Chinese to continue abusing their people? To my knowledge, that has never been suggested. If we were the only country on the planet willing to trade with China, you might have some valid point here, but that isn't the case.

Really I think there are other options between coprofitting from their slaver and all out nuclear war. Don't you think. Again you're using the "false dichotomy" logical fallacy. You do that a lot.

I see three options... 1. Nuclear war 2. Diplomacy 3. Boycott on trade. Is there any more? Please list them, if you believe I missed something. Now, let's take away the first one, because we can both agree that isn't likely to happen. Looking at the other two options, it seems more logical to conclude our chances for change in political policies of China, comes through negotiation, diplomacy, and mutual economic interests of trade. Continuing a century-long boycott of trade, is not going to suddenly effect a change, it hasn't so far, and there is logical reason to conclude, it will never happen, there is no motivational factor to leverage a change in China.

No as explained above there are other options. Like trade embargo.

Again, this is the policy we held for almost a century, and China became the #2 Superpower, so it clearly doesn't work. You can't threaten to take away something they don't really have or need, and don't really care to have, and that is what you are advocating.

You keep asserting this. Where is the leverage? Withdrawing our order? I thought there were other lemonade drinkers at the block party? You're like corky from "life goes on", crashing the car into a tree. Oh, corky, just stick to grinning.

Yes, withdrawing our order which replaced someone elses order, who are now trading with someone else. When we become a strong trade partner with China, we have some means of leverage, without this, we have no leverage. I don't understand why you think that is retarded, or feel the need to compare me and the leading US economists and policymakers with retarded people. It's really about the most simple economic principle known to man.

You are giving up on morality and freedom. I thought your way of changing them was with "economic leverage"? Is it that or is that we can't change them? See how your brain is fundamentally split?

No, I am addressing morality and freedom in every post, you are the one who wishes to isolate ourselves from China, and allow them to continue with the status quot for another 100 years. I don't know for a fact that we can leverage them as I described, that is an unknown at this point, but what I do know and understand is, we have a chance for this, where your idea offers no chance, and it's impossible to ever happen.

We can talk to them, we just can't import their slave labor products. We can calmly and diplomatically explain to them how we will not trade with them until they have constitution and individual rights.

And what do you suppose our policy was until 1972? Did it work? Have they changed in the past 100 years or so? I don't see it! Our not trading with them, is not hurting them one iota, and never will! Get that through your thick head! They can sell as much as they can produce to the European markets, and tell us to kiss their ass like they have for essentially the past century. If they were dependent on US trade, maybe this would not be the case, maybe we could effect a change in their attitudes by threatening to pull our trade, but we have little trade now, and so it doesn't matter to China if we trade with them or not.

But yet you're afraind of their #2 military. Weren't you talking about how we were nearly matched and only had the option of trade? That's reasoning from a position of defeat, which makes you an appeaser.

I'm not afraid of their military, I just don't think it's in America's best interest to go pick a war with the #1 standing army on the planet, and the #2 world superpower. Is that what you want? You think that would be a good idea for us? Reasoning from a position of defeat, would be trading with China because we have no other choice, and because we depend on what they produce to survive. We simply don't depend on China for anything, and never have. We don't have to trade with them, and they don't have to trade with us, the world keeps spinning, and China and the US just keep getting bigger and stronger. There is no 'appeasing' because there is no demand from China to appease. They simply don't care if we trade with them or not.

First you explained it would happen by nebulous, and as yet undefined, mutual interests. Then you said you didn't say it. You are fucked.

I have never stated anything would happen. I don't know, I can't predict the future. I am speaking in terms of logic, it doesn't stand to reason that we can effect any change if we isolate ourselves economically with China. It at least makes logical sense, that a trade relationship would give us some means of some political leverage, where otherwise, there is none.

Why would they be stronger with just europe than with both of us. That really doesn't make sense. Do you know you're a blithering idiot?

Okay, I am about fed up with you lobbing an insult at me with every sentence, either stop that shit or go away! They can only produce so much, it doesn't matter how many people want to buy what they produce.... (see the x-box example) The difference is whether we reap any benefit from the products China sells, or if the Europeans get it all. To the Chinese, it simply doesn't matter, they will produce the same amounts, and sell them for the same price as always, and just keep getting bigger and stronger.

I beleive our trade is more crucial to them. Plus we can always reject the arbitrary valuations placed on fiat currency and backed by the threat of violence that prices us out of the labor market according to the wishes of those setting the exchange rates according to how they want to sculpt the world, and start making all our own shit again. Regardless.

Our trade can't be crucial if it doesn't exist, that is you argumental flaw. We can't reject the global market price for goods, if we do, we are fucked in the global market. We can either compete with quality or efficiency, or others in the competitive market will eat our lunch. It's pure polyanna to assume we could isolate ourselves from the rest of the world and produce all our own stuff, and ignore global economy. In some fucked up liberal utopia dream world, that might be the case, but in reality, it simply doesn't work.

we can do it now, and we should. I really don't see why our position will be stronger in the future. All the other business europe is why they dont need us right? Can you explain your fundamental retardation?

Yes, it's called US Trade Policy, and MFN status for China, signed into law by President William Jefferson Clinton. Our position will be stronger in the future, when we have established a long-standing relationship and have some tangible means to bargain with them. As it stands, we haven't been trading with them long enough to effect this change, and if we stop trading with them, we will never be able to effect this change, and will effectively be moving backward in that regard.

A. I don't see it happening
B. We could bargain with them on these issues now.

The truth is that this is "THE PLAN" to drive all the world into slavery.

Because you are too ignorant to understand trade and economics, is irrelevant to the point. I don't see it happening by isolating ourselves and declaring China our enemy, and you have yet to expalin it to me! We've been engaged in this debate for several days now, and numerous posts, and you simply can't explain how your philosophy is supposed to effect the changes you claim are the problem. There is no plan to drive the world into slavery, again, this is more of your typical over-blown liberal hyperbole and over-exaggerated rhetoric. Try to control yourself and be reasonable.

No it can't. It's retarded.

Blanket empty and meaningless repudiation # 5893

I would prefer isolation to inclusion in the new world order you are creating. But we are not there yet. I am not advocating it at this point.

Yes, you are advocating it! You have stated it in many ways... we need to be making our own stuff again... we built the world economy, we can do it again from scratch... we can only trade with partners who share our attitudes on freedom... Every time you start to type, you espouse the premier message of the isolationist viewpoint, then you come off and claim you don't support this! What the fuck do you call it, if it walks and quacks like a fucking duck?

You're a defeatist, you advocate bad policies, you're willing to support slavery.

Nope, never have condoned or supported slavery. Sorry. I actually think your suggestion to ignore China, would support continued slavery and the status quot of the past 100 years. You've not given any explanation for how else this would work, and all your over-hyped, over-blown liberal rhetoric, is not an explanation.

I think tons of american companies would be helped if they could get back into the markets ruined for them by cheap chinese.

And how is this supposed to happen by ignoring the Chinese and allowing them to continue flooding the markets with their cheap goods? You want to pretend the Chinese don't produce cheap goods, just ignore them, and pretend that we can charge whatever we want and keep paying union wages out the ass, without any market consequence, and that is just liberal stupidity at its finest.

Here's an example of what I am saying... Let's say the Chinese produce $2 widgets and sell them to the EU. Now, let's assume there is an American company making widgets, paying union dues, and selling their product on market for $4. How many widgets are we going to sell? As many as China? Doubtful. However, we negotiate a trade agreement with China to buy all their $2 widgets, thus keeping them from the EU market... NOW, we can sell $4 widgets with no problem! This is, of course, a very simple example, but it illustrates how trade alliances often work. By including the Chinese into the WTO, the various partners in the WTO can buy up the cheap Chinese products, and thus create a higher price at market for their own products.

All your arguments are crap.

Empty Pinhead Repudiation #5983

 

[Litmus]

Xbox 360 is an isolated case. If possible, companies increase production when demand increases. Saying production never increases is so patently ignorant, I'm simply ignoring the rest of your post.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Xbox 360 is an isolated case. If possible, companies increase production when demand increases. Saying production never increases is so patently ignorant, I'm simply ignoring the rest of your post.

China has X number of people working. They are capable of producing X number of products per hour. Regardless of how much demand, they are not able to produce more than X number per hour, that is reality. It's not like they can go out and hire unemployed liberal bums to work for double the wage, to meet production needs, they are already producing the most they are able to now, as is often the case with slave labor.

You can pretend that something else is the case, but it doesn't make it so.

 

[Litmus]

China has X number of people working. They are capable of producing X number of products per hour. Regardless of how much demand, they are not able to produce more than X number per hour, that is reality. It's not like they can go out and hire unemployed liberal bums to work for double the wage, to meet production needs, they are already producing the most they are able to now, as is often the case with slave labor.

You can pretend that something else is the case, but it doesn't make it so.

The Increased demands drive prices up and increases price per unit , therefore motivating the slave drivers to increase harshness, or hours, or pass more stringent laws to get more political prisoners, so they can earn more. Production changes according to demand in many cases. Your idea of a permanent fixed and unchanging production schedule is fictitious and dimwitted.

Wiggling around only makes you sink faster.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

The Increased demands drive prices up and increase price per unit , therefore motivating the slave drivers to increase harshness, or hours, or pass more stringent laws to get more political prisoners, so they can earn more.

Not in a totalitarian form of government, the people are already being treated harshly, more harshness doesn't produce more per capita, sorry. They also work the most hours they can already, you can't do more than you can do. They already have laws to get more political prisoners, and have already put these people to work, you can't enslave more people who aren't there. No one in China is sitting on their ass drawing entitlements, waiting for the government to give them a job!

You keep trying to apply western principles to the Chinese, and it doesn't work. China already produces the most they can possibly produce, and it doesn't matter if more people want to buy their products, they simply can't increase production capacity much more, if any at all.

Now, it is true, the higher the demand, the more profitable their products become, but this is part of the reason for trading with them instead of ignoring them. This is part of the economic argument geared toward eventual reform, and it is the primary consideration in global trade and market stability. If China starts charging $4 for their widgets, the $4 American widgets become more popular again.

 

[Litmus]

The Increased demands drive prices up and increase price per unit , therefore motivating the slave drivers to increase harshness, or hours, or pass more stringent laws to get more political prisoners, so they can earn more.

Not in a totalitarian form of government, the people are already being treated harshly, more harshness doesn't produce more per capita, sorry.

Sometimes it does. They have ways.

They also work the most hours they can already, you can't do more than you can do.

Are they sleeping at all? If they are. They're not maxed out. You're foolish. where there is n, there is n+1.

They already have laws to get more political prisoners, and have already put these people to work, you can't enslave more people who aren't there. No one in China is sitting on their ass drawing entitlements, waiting for the government to give them a job!

So there isn't one person in china who isn't a slave already? Even I didn't think it was that bad.

You keep trying to apply western principles to the Chinese, and it doesn't work. China already produces the most they can possibly produce, and it doesn't matter if more people want to buy their products, they simply can't increase production capacity much more, if any at all.

They understand monopoly capitalism. They understand more units produced equals more money for them. So they can and do manipulate prodution and productivity accordingly.

Now, it is true, the higher the demand, the more profitable their products become, but this is part of the reason for trading with them instead of ignoring them. This is part of the economic argument geared toward eventual reform, and it is the primary consideration in global trade and market stability. If China starts charging $4 for their widgets, the $4 American widgets become more popular again.

So the plan is to completelely max out china's production capacity and drive prices up? There will be no competitors by the time that happens. BUt you know that, don't you, Friedriche.

 

[maineman]

asshat...this thread is like someone who understands economics trying to talk to someone who is mentally retarded or someone with advanced Alzheimer's.... it is an exercise in futility