This thread scares me.

Why Matt?

Also, have you read PETCO. I'm not even sure I understand everything in that thread.

500 posts. I feel so weak.

Since this is a political thread, I thought I would post thishere.

WARNING: For consumption by liberals and democrats only. Conservatives and republicans may not find this amusing.

Conservatives and republicans may not find this amusing.

Yes, although the reasons why they're certain to be so unamused have far more to do to with hard unflattering truth than anything else.

One not need be a hardcore Democrat, by any means, to find the current administration (and the party it supports and represents) hideous.

Yeah, but did you like the song?

It is worth two viewings. I think it is freakin' hilarious, and a great job of matching picture to music.

The song was B-.

It does match picture to music masterfully.

Favor to P-mobile, nothing to see here, move along, move along.

If you mean "as a favor to P-mobile, move along so as not to cause him embarassment", I may agree. If you mean favor in the discussion goes to him for being correct, I must respectfully disagree.


Yeah - RETARDO's primer cred keeps falling.

P-mobile 19
RETARDO 3.

This is sarcasm, right? Right?!?

RETARDO has decimated Penguinmobile's arguments not not just on the stregth of his, but because Penguinmobile consistanly fails to see different viewpoints. Penguinmobile is coming from the prespective of the "powerful" in the powerful vs. opressed debate; he is coming from the point of view of the laissez faire captialist organization/society, and his inability to change prespectives is rendering his points moot. I'm not educated on the finer points of economics and history enough to actually contribute to this discussion, but the limitations of Penguinmobiles' defence of globalization are apparent even to me.

Sorry if I am inflamitory or whatnot, but I do feel that someone had to counter the posts I quoted above. I like Penguinmobile, I just don't agree with him here.

Oh, and thanks to Mefisto for the terific 200-year old quotes showing that our (America's) current quandry is nothing new.

If you mean "as a favor to P-mobile, move along so as not to cause him embarassment", I may agree. If you mean favor in the discussion goes to him for being correct, I must respectfully disagree.

Actually, it was neither of those -- it was a reference to joke from another thread.

RETARDO has decimated Penguinmobile's arguments not not just on the stregth of his, but because Penguinmobile consistanly fails to see different viewpoints.

And RETARDO's posts are notable for his ability to see different viewpoints? He hasn't even acknowledged that he missed the entire point of what I was saying about government obligation to the governed, and that he's consquently accused me repeatedly of sayig the exact opposite of what I said on that issue. He's so far from seeing my viewpoint that he can't even challenge it effectively.

What I can challenge is the jackass assertion that protectionists are racists, which Dave, to his credit, has backed off from but you have been too stubborn and condecending to acknowledge the egregiousness of.

I also challenge your self-label of "New Deal" Democrat, when you consciously try to be the right of everyone but the RMc-Neospsorin Axis of Reactionary #########. Indeed, trying establish moral euqivelance between MM and AC isn't even objectively centrist: it's straight out of the NRO crowd playbook.

But when you slandered resistence movements as reactionary is when you became the penultimate jackass of the thread.

Yes, duh, I know your argument about retraining. I've read DeLong's, which yours is most similar to, and though it's better than pure callousness, the point is that it's still an acceptance, not even tacit, that democracies can do nothing about business movements and actions. Think about that when you call yourself a New Dealer next time, and perhaps you'll bite your tongue before you say something to the effect that "these are the rules of capitalism now" -- a tacit admission that they change; why? magic? -- "so we must accept it and smile at the victims when they greet us at Wal-Mart".

The other Kurt's post (thank you, btw) is excellent, and I dont say that for self-aggrandising reasons. He's reminded me why I think the way I do. It's the quintessence of the very ethno-centrism that you and Dave affect to despise when you allow -- even cheer -- such entities as mutlinationals to invade other cultures and change them into facsimilies of ours. Kurt's point is anthropological. If THEY want it, fine, but that's not how it works (it's rarely an honest deal between a corp and a government, even ours, and of course the choice is never put to something like a referendum), and the whole history of the enterprise shows that, hence your remark that completely and conveniently "forgot" to include the nastiness that has always followed.

Yeah, the argument is actually more applicable when turned back on you (but to do you better than you've done me, I'll stop short of calling you a racist): it's far more biggoted to cheer and paternalistically pat them on the head when a foeign people are overrun by a set of multinationals which completely changes, rapidly and irreperably, their finacial and physical infrastructure. All to turn them into the suburban middle class person you are -- one day, far into the future, *if they're "lucky"*. You seem to say, how could anyone *not* want that? I'm happy with it! And thus, despite your deep knowledge of the tenets of Jared Diamond, you violate the first principle of anth -- your own cultural bias.

To further destroy your idiotic smear of racism, I want to rhetorically ask you if you'd have balls enough to condemn as a racist a Mexican who, thanks to precious NAFTA, was dispossesed of his land and was thus *forced* (Dave would say it's a choice) to work in a factory (in a capacity that used to be an American's) that has now, thanks to China trade, been exported again to Shanghai? Exactly as so many argued, that Mexican is fuct because his land is now owned by a very big fish -- he can't go back to it, though he wishes he could. He hates it that his job has moved to China, whereby you call him racist and Dave explains the cast iron laws of efficiency to him. Is he a racist? Does he invoke the yellow peril, maybe? I'll bet you my ####### farm that he doesn't give a crap, any more than anyone else that global capital fukks, that he lost it to a Chinese or a Turk or a Honduran. There's no ####### racism to it, period.

You wanna be for free trade, fine. We'll disagree. But you call people *not* on your side of the argument "racists" -- people who have ample anti-racist credentials -- then you deserve being told to #### yourself. The whitewashing of historical crapitalism and the BS moral equivalence part is just icing on the cake.

That should say "slandered resistance movements as reactionary and genocidal", which you did.

your remark that completely and conveniently "forgot" to include the nastiness that has always followed.

I reject that it has "always" followed, and I reject that it necessarily will follow again. I explicitly stated in the very beginning that I believe globablization of capital makes possible the extension of the benefits of western style economies (healthcare, education, overall standard of living) to poor countries, and that the challenge is to ensure that's the outcome and not the sort of abuses that you claim are inevitable.

I can't recall exactly what it was that I said in the past that you keep harping on as me saying protectionism is rasist, but it probably grew out of an hour-long phone conversation I had with Marcus Courtney, organizer for the Washington Alliance of Technical Workers (WashTech), Communications Workers of America, Local 37083, AFL-CIO as well as the mailings that they send out all the time. The tone of the rhetoric I encounter is always pitched to the lowest common denominator, and plays on the exact same fear of the other that the Bush administration has used. It's a narrowly nationalistic focus, and I don't always make much distinction between the various "us vs. them" attitudes. WashTech's implied assumption is that Americans deserve jobs more than Indians do, and they use it in their materials. They simply are not above the appeal to racist impulses, although I'm not sure they are conciously aware that's what they are doing. Most of the other stuff I see coming from unions plays it the same way.

I want to rhetorically ask you if you'd have balls enough to condemn as a racist a Mexican who, thanks to precious NAFTA, was dispossesed of his land and was thus *forced* (Dave would say it's a choice) to work in a factory (in a capacity that used to be an American's) that has now, thanks to China trade, been exported again to Shanghai?

Am I allowed to answer your rhetorical question? I'm not defending NAFAT, the WTO, GATT, or anything other than the idea that properly regulated capitalism offers an efficient means to improve the lives of many, if not all, of the people on this planet. Of course NAFTA is flawed, that's why I keep qualifying my statements. Instead of concentrating on fixing the rulebook, the most vocal opposition is protesting the very existence of the game. Is it any wonder why the impoverished people of Burma don't understand why the American Left is trying to preserve their status quo of misery?

That should say "slandered resistance movements as reactionary and genocidal", which you did.

I did not. I said nothing of the kind. Go back and quote where you think I said that and I'll either point out how you misread it, or clarify whatever poor wording I used so that it says what I meant.

This house is evil. Evil I tell you.

I've given in to the dark side.

Of course, RETARDO will take that differently from how I meant it too...

Yes, although the reasons why they're certain to be so unamused have far more to do to with hard unflattering truth than anything else. One not need be a hardcore Democrat, by any means, to find the current administration (and the party it supports and represents) hideous.

I find the current administration hideous, but I didn't think that video was particularly funny. And I think this is funny, so it's not like I have a problem with "shrill" either.

I didn't find it funny either, Chad. I don't have any problem with the last slide, calling GWB whatever, I just need to be prepared better, to suspend my disbelief. Calling 5.4% unemployment "record levels" is a good joke, I just wasn't ready for it.

" but under the rules of international capitalism as they are laid out now, I worry that protectionism will have a far worse effect on the country in the long run. "

No, you didn't say that, I suppose. "Words in your mouth", and so on. In this statement is the bald assumption that democracy must follow the "rules" of capital, not vice-versa.

"Tariffs are fleeting, globalization has been steady for 3000 years."

If this was so reasonable, and not a bloodless whitewash, why is it that I'm not the only one to see it in an opposite way?

"I did not. I said nothing of the kind. Go back and quote where you think I said that and I'll either point out how you misread it, or clarify whatever poor wording I used so that it says what I meant."

Ok, second sentence here:

" I don't think globalization and genocide are synonyms. In fact, I think it's the "protect the tribe" first attitude you are espousing that is fuels the murderous impulse."

"Of course NAFTA is flawed, that's why I keep qualifying my statements. Instead of concentrating on fixing the rulebook, the most vocal opposition is protesting the very existence of the game. Is it any wonder why the impoverished people of Burma don't understand why the American Left is trying to preserve their status quo of misery?"

Well, I'm glad to see that you don't consider yourself Leftist. We'll get rid of that New Deal Democrat label soon enough. Progress.

But anyway, this buys into the Miltie Dogma. Why in holy #### to you think the only way to help these people is to allow Nike to go in there and pay them 12 cents an hours to get their fingers cut off and give them brain damage from shoe glue? I know why: "because of the 'rules' of capitalism", which you, like Trevelyan, consider a given.

When he was busy defedning the genocide in the Philipines, Theodore Roosevelt said to people with misgivings that just as surely as peace [sic] and prosperity flowed into the American West, it would follow in the Phillipines, and therefore any defense of Aguinaldo was just as empty as those for Sitting Bull and Geronimo. Take this mentality, leaven it with a "benevolent" but ignorant and by definition ethno-centric desire to spread Americcan suburban "culture" throughout the world. Spit on the doctrine of self-determination, and add a mandible-straining Neosporin-like blow job to the idea of economic "law", and you have the globalist attitude, in spades.

In this statement is the bald assumption that democracy must follow the "rules" of capital, not vice-versa.

No, in this statement is the assumption that governments lay out the rules of capitalism, not vice versa. You started with a false assumption about what I was saying because you thought I am a determinist. Marx thought the course of economics was predetermined, but I don't think anything is predetermined. I think we choose out destiny.

If this was so reasonable, and not a bloodless whitewash, why is it that I'm not the only one to see it in an opposite way?

Because the word "globalization" is in the process of being co-opted as a negative term, in just the same manner that conservatives have tried to co-opt the word "liberal." I said one thing, and you heard the code word for another.

Well, I'm glad to see that you don't consider yourself Leftist. We'll get rid of that New Deal Democrat label soon enough. Progress.

No, I don't consider myself Leftist as I've said many times here. I consider myself to be pretty close to what the actual center of the spectrum in this country is. If I believe that the programs of the New Deal were good for the country and that the erosion of their legacy over the past 20-some years has been bad for the country, how does that make me unworthy of identifying my general views as being in line with the New Deal?

Why in holy #### to you think the only way to help these people is to allow Nike to go in there and pay them 12 cents an hours to get their fingers cut off and give them brain damage from shoe glue?

I don't believe that. I believe the only way to help them is for them to develop a sustainable, living wage, economy. I believe that well-regulated factories run by western companies can be an extremely effective method of transferring capital from our overloaded pockets to their empty pockets to get the process going without running the risk of creating a cargo cult mentality.

Since I repeated say things like "well-regulated" your repetive assertion that I don't value the welfare of foreign workers employed by western companies is ludicrous. I abhor the sorts of abuses you characterize as "get(ing) their fingers cut off and give them brain damage from shoe glue" and you damn well know it. I just don't know why don't the labor unions get their asses over there and organize, other than the fact that universal workers' solidarity went out the window a long time ago.

Spit on the doctrine of self-determination, and add a mandible-straining Neosporin-like blow job to the idea of economic "law", and you have the globalist attitude, in spades.

I do not believe that global commerce is the same thing as economic colonialism, and I do not believe that history is destiny. Apparently you believe both of those things.

Oh, and by the way, accusing me of saying things because I'm trying to appear centrist is equivalent to me accusing you of saying things because you want to get into a hot poli-sci coed's pants.

I believe that well-regulated factories run by western companies can be an extremely effective method of transferring capital from our overloaded pockets to their empty pockets to get the process going without running the risk of creating a cargo cult mentality.


How do you think we should (or can) regulate them penguin? Genuine question because I don't have an answer.

How do you think we should (or can) regulate them penguin? Genuine question because I don't have an answer.

Damned if I know what the details are -- I'm no lawyer. But I think that wasting our breath screaming about globalization isn't going to do it and will likely just prolong the period of relative lawlessness. Basically, if you want to regulate capitalists, you give them an incentive: How about they tie local wages to some global scale, provide working conditions comparable to those in western countries, and don't ##### when their home government taxes them to retrain displaced workers and provide small business loans to startups. In return, the anarchists quit smashing up WTO host cities and protesting the entire concept of international commerce.

Okay, that's semi-facetious, but it's a start. It's easy to find incentives for capitalists -- improving their ability to make a profit by improving their public image is one.

How about they tie local wages to some global scale, provide working conditions comparable to those in western countries

I'll vote for that, but I've yet to see any candidate from the big two parties to put anything close to this on the table. I'm all for a Global Agreement on Fair Wages and Employment Practices. But read a few WTO decisions, and you will find that emerging economic nations, particularly India fight against any such measures very hard.

(As an aside, India tends to be the spokesperson for the emerging economic nations. This is not tied to the M$ discussion in any way.)

But read a few WTO decisions

Oof. Maybe I should, but that doesn't sound like light reading.

and you will find that emerging economic nations, particularly India fight against any such measures very hard.

Yeah, I've heard that before. There seems to be a huge disconnect between protestors here saying they are in favor of economic self-determination, and governments there saying what they want to happen. Of course, the easy way to think through that connundrum is merely to accuse the foreign governments of corruption, but American Leftists demanding regime change in foreign governments in order to dictate economic policy seems just a tad hypocritical to me.

I've yet to see any candidate from the big two parties to put anything close to this on the table.

Should have addressed this before, but this is the crux of my beef with the way the unions have positioned the whole thing. Instead of pressuring Kerry to work for humane working conditions, they've pressured him to work for somewhat more protectionist policies. In the end, the workers here will still probably lose their jobs to foreign competition, and the workers there will have less-regulation in place to protect them from egregious exploitation.

That is the exact dead center of my problem with the protectionism vs. globalism debate the way has been framed in this country. In the end, all the workers everywhere lose.

Oof. Maybe I should, but that doesn't sound like light reading.

Its not, the shortest of the decisions are about 30 pages and its excruciatingly boring. Unless you work for the FTC and have to read everything, you learn how to find the important paragraphs after reading a couple of them.

Yeah, I've heard that before. There seems to be a huge disconnect between protestors here saying they are in favor of economic self-determination, and governments there saying what they want to happen. Of course, the easy way to think through that connundrum is merely to accuse the foreign governments of corruption, but American Leftists demanding regime change in foreign governments in order to dictate economic policy seems just a tad hypocritical to me.

In the end you run into the practical conundrum that I'll discuss in a minute. I'm not blaming many of the emerging nations. Walk a mile in their mocassins and they have a legitimate point. If you force them to play by the same rules, they can't attract investors. If you level the playing field for labor cost, then the infrastructure of developed nations will usually provide an advantage. But call me an optimist, I think there is middle ground. IMHO, The middle ground is just closer to the US than most of the WTO member nations seem to advocate.

Instead of pressuring Kerry to work for humane working conditions, they've pressured him to work for somewhat more protectionist policies.

Yet, I don't personally fault them too much. One of the reasons that I am asking anybody who is truly interested is that I don't know of a solution based on current eco-political systems. What could Kerry really do? If someone, anyone could manage to push for a GAFWEP treaty, that would put them in the inner circle of Noble Prize Winners. There is little way that you can accomplish that goal. It is not in emerging nations interest to sign such a treaty b/c as said before, it is against their prima facie interest. This is especially true in an environment where an economic remedy against the nation is punishable at the WTO.

You could threaten to invade with the military, but that's not exactly a remedy that many of us would support. The most you can do is walk right up to the line that GATT allows to create economic protection. Its a very long and slow method of an economic vote. However, as you imply, this is what my mother would call "cutting off your nose to spite your face" Its not a solution that creates positive utility. Its merely absorbing some negative utility for a hopeful long term change in policy.

The only thing that I know to do is the Kerry plan that you yourself have advocated. Provide incentives to the capital owners to retrain the existing workforce, so that individuals aren't left behind in fast changing economic times.

With all that being said, I'm certainly listening to anybody who has a better solution. If it can be done through diplomacy and advocacy then more power to whoever is even willing to take this on.

If you level the playing field for labor cost, then the infrastructure of developed nations will usually provide an advantage.

Even if labor costs are tied to a non-traditional index? Probably not the Big Mac index, since it's very artificially indexed, but how about something like a 2000 calorie index? What does it cost to get 2000 well-balanced calories locally?

I don't know how practical such a solution would be -- I just know that I'm not a big fan of hypocrisy and inconsistency, and I smell a lot of it coming from the unions on this issue. Of course, it's no secret that the unions are vehicles of political expediency. I kind of prefer corporations, because at least most of them are more honest about what they want: profit.

http://www.courier-journal.com/localnews/2004/10/22ky/A1-senate1022-8036.html

More craziness from Bunning:

He hadn't heard about the army troop that refused a mission - and his excuse?



"Let me explain something: I don't watch the national news, and I don't read the paper. I haven't done that for the last six weeks. I watch Fox News to get my information."

"Let me explain something: I don't watch the national news, and I don't read the paper. I haven't done that for the last six weeks. I watch Fox News to get my information."

Priceless.

Should have addressed this before, but this is the crux of my beef with the way the unions have positioned the whole thing. Instead of pressuring Kerry to work for humane working conditions, they've pressured him to work for somewhat more protectionist policies.

What makes you think that union leaders give a rats a__ about workers rights in other countries? Like anyone else in business, they want to restrain competition.

In America, a guy starts with a pushcart on the street. Then he opens a store. And then he opens a chain of stores. Then he pushes for a law to outlaw pushcarts.

What makes you think that union leaders give a rats a__ about workers rights in other countries?

What makes you think I think that? When the rheotoric suits them, they say the do, but when it doesn't, they don't. That's what I'm complaining about.

I'm still confused about the whole "liberal" media bit. I mean who the hell watches Brokaw, Rather and Jennings for news anymore. And even if they did, I don;t remember any examples (besides the whole "60 minutes" thing) of their own personal views coming out during a newscast.

Jim Infantino sure is getting bitter in his old age. That's a powerful video, though, I think.

I'll vote for that, but I've yet to see any candidate from the big two parties to put anything close to this on the table. I'm all for a Global Agreement on Fair Wages and Employment Practices. But read a few WTO decisions, and you will find that emerging economic nations, particularly India fight against any such measures very hard.

(As an aside, India tends to be the spokesperson for the emerging economic nations. This is not tied to the M$ discussion in any way.)


Point - in India, the perception is that they should be on the security council in the UN- and extertins one's size is the way to go about it.
And isnt it hilarious that people like RETARDO, living in the US with the obligatory birkenstocks want to argue against allowing the average Indian to use their competitive economic advantage (at least in the short run) ?