Cobra Kai

[Wild Cobra]

I'm honored that you guys fear me enough to take such tactics. It just tells me that you cannot beat me fairly.

Thank You for that...

[xrayzebra]

They got that old dimm-o-craptic blood flowing through their
veins.

[ChumpDumper]

Way to encourage him.

[FromWayDowntown]

Personally, I feel shivers of fear everytime I see that Wild Cobra has posted.



on second thought: lighten up, Francis.

[mookie2001]

if a man cannot post

he cannot fight

[smeagol]

if a man cannot post

he cannot fight

Thanks for reducing you ugly avatar.

So you're against NAFTA too?

[mookie2001]

what did i reduce?



yes i am against nafta

[PixelPusher]

Isn't spoof avatar aliases a time-honored tradition at SpursTalk?

[smeagol]

what did i reduce?

I meant the pics in your sig. They were to wide for my screen messing up every thread you posted on. Now it looks ok.




yes i am against nafta

Why?

Because the US does not want to share it's wealth with others?

[mookie2001]

it set the table for the north american union, which is the worst idea ive ever heard of




this is the asshole american in me

I really have no regard for any other country, until we fix the problems we've got in our own, i wish them well, i have respect for them, just no regard

[smeagol]

it set the table for the north american union, which is the worst idea ive ever heard of




this is the asshole american in me

I really have no regard for any other country, until we fix the problems we've got in our own, i wish them well, i have respect for them, just no regard

Yes, that is the asshole is you, the ugliest type of asshole there is.

So having 2% of the population enjoying 25% of the riches is not enough?

Ok . . .

[mookie2001]

well the "riches" are mostly foreign investments, which im not fond of either

we've got MAJOR problems in our country, the economy doesnt even make the top 10


why do you want our "riches"?, isnt that selfish of you?

[Wild Cobra Kai]

I'm honored that you guys fear me enough to take such tactics. It just tells me that you cannot beat me fairly.

Thank You for that...
There is no fear in this Dojo...

[BradLohaus]

So having 2% of the population enjoying 25% of the riches is not enough?

Ok . . .

Our national wealth came from following economic policies that were the opposite of NAFTA and other similar trade policies. But like mookie said, we've got problems of our own here, one of which is the large and growing amount of wealth that is concentrated at the top of our population. These recent trade policies have done alot to make that problem worse.

And why in the world should our government worry about taking some of our wealth and giving it away to foreigners? That sounds like treason. But they do it anyway, becuase our elite are all globalists now, working towards "globalization". The UN and all the other one-world organizations love free trade because it moves globalization along more quickly.

At least you admit that NAFTA is bad for the USA. That's more than I can say for alot of people in this country who have yet to figure that out.

[Wild Cobra Kai]

NAFTA is sweeping across the land...

[BradLohaus]

NAFTA is sweeping across the land...

It's certainly sweeping our collective legs. Now we need to crane kick its ass out of the country.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fWvub_WBho

[smeagol]

Our national wealth came from following economic policies that were the opposite of NAFTA and other similar trade policies. But like mookie said, we've got problems of our own here, one of which is the large and growing amount of wealth that is concentrated at the top of our population. These recent trade policies have done alot to make that problem worse.

And why in the world should our government worry about taking some of our wealth and giving it away to foreigners? That sounds like treason. But they do it anyway, becuase our elite are all globalists now, working towards "globalization". The UN and all the other one-world organizations love free trade because it moves globalization along more quickly.

At least you admit that NAFTA is bad for the USA. That's more than I can say for alot of people in this country who have yet to figure that out.

What does NAFTA have to do with the redistribution of wealth within the US?

[smeagol]

well the "riches" are mostly foreign investments, which im not fond of either

Without those "foreign" investments, the US would not be as rich as it is. Chicken and egg situation.


we've got MAJOR problems in our country, the economy doesnt even make the top 10

Compare those problems with the rest of the world and they are laughable.



why do you want our "riches"?, isnt that selfish of you?

Nah . . . I'm not rich, how can I be selfish? Selfish is being rich and developed country and not helping other countries develop

[mookie2001]

Compare those problems with the rest of the world and they are laughablethats why I have little regard for other countries, we would never get shit done over here


whats so great about economically developing other counties? besides globalization?,
the same billionaire elites can take your money, become more powerful and put you in debt?

what good is a starbucks in pakistan or walmart in venezuela?, so they can one day be like us?

theres going to be a day where we have to decide that economic growth should not be the #1 goal of every government on earth

[smeagol]

thats why I have little regard for other countries, we would never get shit done over here


whats so great about economically developing other counties? besides globalization?,
the same billionaire elites can take your money, become more powerful and put you in debt?

what good is a starbucks in pakistan or walmart in venezuela?, so they can one day be like us?

theres going to be a day where we have to decide that economic growth should not be the #1 goal of every government on earth
Go tell that to families who live with $1 a day.

[BradLohaus]

What does NAFTA have to do with the redistribution of wealth within the US?

Nothing. But it does affect distribution. Treating American workers the same as workers everywhere else in the world means that Americans get layed off as companies move jobs out of the USA to foreign countries to take advantage of lower wage costs. It's easy to see how that affects the distrbution of our national income.


Selfish is being rich and developed country and not helping other countries develop

Who helped us? What in the world are we supposed to do to develop the world that couldn't be done within each nation itself?

[mookie2001]

i wish them the best

this country is so rich but if your 2 year old gets cancer and you dont have insurance, youre fucked just the same

[smeagol]

Nothing.


So why are you against NAFTA then?



Treating American workers the same as workers everywhere else in the world means that Americans get layed off as companies move jobs out of the USA to foreign countries to take advantage of lower wage costs.


This would happen with or without NAFTA.



It's easy to see how that affects the distrbution of our national income.


So you want the shit that American companies produce in China, made in the US paying 10 times more in wages, which in turn would make the product much more expensive, simply to maintian some American worker's job?

Not a lover of competition, are you?




Who helped us?


Economic conditions in the XIX Century, geographic location, natural resources, migratory waves . . . shall I continue?



What in the world are we supposed to do to develop the world that couldn't be done within each nation itself?


For starters, stop subsidizing the shit out of your farm products, stop putting tariffs on products based on phony allegations of dumping.

[smeagol]

this country is so rich but if your 2 year old gets cancer and you dont have insurance, youre fucked just the same

That is a tragedy. You guys have to look up North to find the solution for that problem.

But how many American 2 year olds get cancer and how many African 2 year olds die because they have no food to eat?

As I said before, the problems in the US compared to the rest of the world's are very small.

Oh, by the way, stop spending trillions in the war in Iraq. That money could be used to solve those problems in America.

[Wild Cobra Kai]

Perhaps we should have the mods re-title this thread NAFTA cat fight. Get a room. This thread is all about me.

[BradLohaus]

So why are you against NAFTA then?
I'm just pointing out that redistribution of wealth and the distribution of wealth are 2 different things. Trade only affects the latter. I'm against NAFTA because of the sovereignty issue first, and because of the industry loss that has taken place in the free trade era.


This would happen with or without NAFTA.
Yes, it would. It's the fault of the whole free trade movement, of which NAFTA is just a part.


So you want the shit that American companies produce in China, made in the US paying 10 times more in wages, which in turn would make the product much more expensive, simply to maintian some American worker's job?

Not a lover of competition, are you?

It's not competition; it's wage differences. I doubt a foreign person can make a product any better or worse than an American could in most cases. All this is about (besides the globalizaion movement) is the international corporations getting rid of their American workers for cheaper labor. That's it. That's not good for the country as a whole. Saving some money on certain consumer goods does not make up for that.



Economic conditions in the XIX Century, geographic location, natural resources, migratory waves . . . shall I continue?
Yes, because you didn't answer my question. Who helped us in the ways that you think the USA is supposed to help all the other developing countries? Also, we aren't the only country that has a good geographic location and natural resources. And development caused the migratory waves, not the other way around. Migration follows development everywhere.



For starters, stop subsidizing the shit out of your farm products, stop putting tariffs on products based on phony allegations of dumping.

The USA is the only country that uses subsidies and tariffs in ways that other countries don't like? You could make that complaint about everybody.

[Wild Cobra]

Perhaps we should have the mods re-title this thread NAFTA cat fight. Get a room. This thread is all about me.
LOL... No kidding. Funny the way threads around here get lost.

GPS anyone?

[smeagol]

I'm just pointing out that redistribution of wealth and the distribution of wealth are 2 different things. Trade only affects the latter. I'm against NAFTA because of the sovereignty issue first, and because of the industry loss that has taken place in the free trade era.

The US is part of the world. If the rest of the world is going global, i.e. producing where it is more beneficial and efficient for them, the US has to follow the trend. Otherwise, it will miss the boat.



Yes, it would. It's the fault of the whole free trade movement, of which NAFTA is just a part.

So you don't want foreign companies being installed in the US and hiring American workers?

Free trade works both ways. Some American workers suffer from it, other benefit.



It's not competition; it's wage differences.

Which means some countries are more competitve than others. Exactly my point.



All this is about (besides the globalizaion movement) is the international corporations getting rid of their American workers for cheaper labor.

It works both ways. Japanese workers could complain Toyota is installing factories in the US and giving American auto-workers jobs which could be given to Japanese workers.



Yes, because you didn't answer my question. Who helped us in the ways that you think the USA is supposed to help all the other developing countries?


I'm not saying the US is supposed to help anybody the same way Bill Gates is supposed to help anybody either. It's up to the US or Gates to do it if the feel like it.



Also, we aren't the only country that has a good geographic location and natural resources.

Name the underdeveloped countries that were lucky enough to enjoy the same set of circumstances the US faced in the XIX Century.




The USA is the only country that uses subsidies and tariffs in ways that other countries don't like? You could make that complaint about everybody.

I have complained to many developed nations in numerous threads. Europe and Japan apply huge amounts of subsidies and have rediculous tariff barriers.

[Wild Cobra]

I am skeptical, but one that believes the USA can compete globally if we rearranged our tax structures to match what the other first world countries are doing...

Consumption taxes rather than income taxes...

USA product export: Productivity taxed during manufacturing then taxed at sale of foreign country... taxed twice effectively

Import to USA: No tax during manufacturing and no tax at sale (except state sales tax)... Effectively no tax compared to export!

We need to go for the Fair Tax (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Tax)...

[xrayzebra]

God help us if we go to a taxation system like Europe. England
with the 20 percent Value Added Tax (VAT). Plus income tax,
plus all their other taxes. Tax even to watch TV, BBC must be
supported. I honestly don't see how those people make it and
many don't. They live off the dole. Their medical care sucks and
keeps getting cut back and doctors refusing to treat people
because they have habits they disapprove of. Terminally ill
people sent home with no medical care at all. Hospitals closed
because they don't have money to keep them open.

[mookie2001]

The US is part of the world. If the rest of the world is going global, i.e. producing where it is more beneficial and efficient for them, the US has to follow the trend. Otherwise, it will miss the boat

GOOD!

[Wild Cobra]

God help us if we go to a taxation system like Europe. England
with the 20 percent Value Added Tax (VAT). Plus income tax,
plus all their other taxes. Tax even to watch TV, BBC must be
supported. I honestly don't see how those people make it and
many don't. They live off the dole. Their medical care sucks and
keeps getting cut back and doctors refusing to treat people
because they have habits they disapprove of. Terminally ill
people sent home with no medical care at all. Hospitals closed
because they don't have money to keep them open.
Well, go with the approximate 20% consumption tax, and no income tax. We would need to tax as high as England, maybe higher, if we had Universal Health Care!

Remember, with taxed taken out of the equation during manufacturing, prices will drop. Then the taxation makes the retail price about the same.... except for imports, which will get more expensive...

[stretch]

There is no fear in this Dojo...
PUT HIM IN A BODY BAG JOHNNY!!!

[SRJ]

I'm not rich, how can I be selfish? Selfish is being rich

And only white people are racists, and only men are sexists, blah blah blah.

There's nothing inherently evil about being rich, and all of us are selfish to a degree. Most of us aren't rich to any degree.

[smeagol]

And only white people are racists, and only men are sexists, blah blah blah.

There's nothing inherently evil about being rich, and all of us are selfish to a degree. Most of us aren't rich to any degree.

WOW!

Selective quoting . . .

This is what I said:


Selfish is being rich and developed country and not helping other countries develop

Not


Selfish is being rich

Talk about twisting shit.

[smeagol]

GOOD!

Good what?

So you basically want that Americans only produce manufactured goods in America, and that non Americans only produce outside America.

Pretty stupid and unrealistic idea, mookster.

[SRJ]

Selfish is being rich and developed country and not helping other countries develop

Actually, I didn't selectively misquote - I misread it. My apologies.

I'm used to American liberals claiming that selfishness, racism, and sexism only goes one way that when I first read your quote, I thought it was more of the same.

To those who do feel that way (not you, smeagol), my message stands.

[xrayzebra]

Well, go with the approximate 20% consumption tax, and no income tax. We would need to tax as high as England, maybe higher, if we had Universal Health Care!

Remember, with taxed taken out of the equation during manufacturing, prices will drop. Then the taxation makes the retail price about the same.... except for imports, which will get more expensive...

I am not really sure what you mean by a consumption tax,
I think you are referring to the ultimate buyer. I have
heard that argument before and some have said it would
only have to be in the 2-3 percent range. I honestly
don't know. But if you are talking about a value added
tax that is passed on at every step of a consumer goods
life. From raw goods to manufacturing to wholesale to
merchant to consumer. One of the reasons for high
cost of living in UK.

The 2-3 percent range these folks speak of are based on
all products sold/bought in the U.S. But you know this
will not happen because of the argument that it would
be unfair to the poor.

[Wild Cobra]

I am not really sure what you mean by a consumption tax,
I think you are referring to the ultimate buyer. I have
heard that argument before and some have said it would
only have to be in the 2-3 percent range. I honestly
don't know. But if you are talking about a value added
tax that is passed on at every step of a consumer goods
life. From raw goods to manufacturing to wholesale to
merchant to consumer. One of the reasons for high
cost of living in UK.

The 2-3 percent range these folks speak of are based on
all products sold/bought in the U.S. But you know this
will not happen because of the argument that it would
be unfair to the poor.
If you like reading and are interested in the subject matter, read HR 25 and a book called The Fair Tax.

Fair Tax Book (http://www.harpercollins.com/books/9780060875411/The_Fair_Tax_Book/index.aspx?WT.mc_id=WikiP9780060875497)

HR 25 (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.25.IH:)

wiki: Fair Tax (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_tax)

[BradLohaus]

Okay back to trade...


So you don't want foreign companies being installed in the US and hiring American workers?

Free trade works both ways. Some American workers suffer from it, other benefit.

Which means some countries are more competitve than others. Exactly my point.

It works both ways. Japanese workers could complain Toyota is installing factories in the US and giving American auto-workers jobs which could be given to Japanese workers.

Toyota has factories in North America to sell their product to North American consumers. It's about trade logistics. A Japanese company is setting up shop in a foreign market to sell to that market.

Now, compare that situation to the companies that take their production out of the US and move it to China or Mexico or other low wage countries. They are not setting up shop in those countries to sell their products to the citizens of that country. They are only there to take advantage of the low wages in that country. Those products are made to be sold in the US. So you have the benefit of lower consumer prices versus the cost of lost manufacturing jobs. The costs obviously outweigh the benefits. Everyone knows that for the blue collar labor sector, manufacturing and construction wages are much higher than service wages.

That is not competition. It's simply taking advantage of foreign sweat shop labor at the expense of US labor. Maquiladoras aren't more efficient than US factories. The reasons why it is cheaper to operate in those factories are the same reasons why the conditions there are often terrible.


Name the underdeveloped countries that were lucky enough to enjoy the same set of circumstances the US faced in the XIX Century.
What are those circumstances?


I have complained to many developed nations in numerous threads. Europe and Japan apply huge amounts of subsidies and have rediculous tariff barriers.

A country has every right to protect its national interests and industries and to favor the labor of its own citizens over the labor of foreigners.

[smeagol]

Toyota has factories in North America to sell their product to North American consumers. It's about trade logistics. A Japanese company is setting up shop in a foreign market to sell to that market.


So you are telling me the car production in the US is only for domestic consumption? The Toyota, Mazda, Honda, the Koreans manufacturing in the US don't export any of its production?

I'll research that but I don't think it is the case.

I know for a fact, even though Argentina produces cars, there are a lot of imports from Brasil, Mexico and even Europe. And Argentina exporta lots of Fords, GMs, etc.




Now, compare that situation to the companies that take their production out of the US and move it to China or Mexico or other low wage countries. They are not setting up shop in those countries to sell their products to the citizens of that country. They are only there to take advantage of the low wages in that country. Those products are made to be sold in the US. So you have the benefit of lower consumer prices versus the cost of lost manufacturing jobs. The costs obviously outweigh the benefits. Everyone knows that for the blue collar labor sector, manufacturing and construction wages are much higher than service wages.


Do you want to live in the World? Then you have to accept globalization.

In summary, you want the US to export it's products and benefit from additional profits generated abroad, i.e., foreigners buying US manufactured products, but you don't want those foreigners to benefit from that production by way of being employed by US companies which are installed overseas?


Got it.



That is not competition. It's simply taking advantage of foreign sweat shop labor at the expense of US labor.


It is companies trying to be efficient. It is called capitalism. And the US is the champion of exporting Capitalism.



Maquiladoras aren't more efficient than US factories.


Yes they are. They pay cheaper wages to it's labor force who can be as efficient or more efficient than the more expensive US workers.

They pay less for its power, less for its raw materials and probably have a smaller tax burden.

Or why do you think maquiladoras are set up? Because they are cheaper than setting those same factories up in the US.




The reasons why it is cheaper to operate in those factories are the same reasons why the conditions there are often terrible.


This is a half truth. Go to a many US maquiladoras in Mexico and you'll find out working conditions are as good as in the US. Go to a GM or Ford plant.




What are those circumstances?

I have already stated them. Abundant land and natural resources, migratory waves, etc



A country has every right to protect its national interests and industries and to favor the labor of its own citizens over the labor of foreigners.


So you want all manufactured goods produced by US companies manufactured in the US, and you want to create barriers of entry for all other foreign manufactured products?

:tu

Talk about an islationist of the worst kind.

You should have been born at the turn of the XIX Century. You would've been a habppy man voting for Wilson. :rolleyes

[mookie2001]

Do you want to live in the World? Then you have to accept globalization.only a globalist would say something like that

[Cant_Be_Faded]

The more I learn about it the more I realize Globalization is completely inevitable, our only hope is that the middle class can wake up and start voting together domestically on politicians and laws that will help protect us from wallowing in our own vomit of debt and overpriced living.

[mookie2001]

one day you and smeagols entire paycheck of 5000 Reagan$ will be going straight to exxonwalmart

you work for your lender in a cashless society

[smeagol]

one day you and smeagols entire paycheck of 5000 Reagan$ will be going straight to exxonwalmart

you work for your lender in a cashless society

What has this comment to do with the topic we are discussing?

[smeagol]

only a globalist would say something like that
Is globalist a bad word?

[MannyIsGod]

The more I learn about it the more I realize Globalization is completely inevitable, our only hope is that the middle class can wake up and start voting together domestically on politicians and laws that will help protect us from wallowing in our own vomit of debt and overpriced living.Yup.

[BradLohaus]

Do you want to live in the World? Then you have to accept globalization.
The only thing that is making globalization inevitable is the fact that the elite power brokers in the West all want it. By the way, here is the definition of globalism:

the attitude or policy of placing the interests of the entire world above those of individual nations.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/globalism

Why would any sane person support a movement like that? Favor a policy that hurts your own citizens just because others in the world benefit from it?


In summary, you want the US to export it's products and benefit from additional profits generated abroad, i.e., foreigners buying US manufactured products, but you don't want those foreigners to benefit from that production by way of being employed by US companies which are installed overseas?

Basically, I want US trade policy to use tariffs to account for wage differences between the US and foreign countries - the main source of the so-called increased "competitiveness" of the workers in those countries. Other differences need to be accounted for as well, such as mandatory environmental protections in the US that don't exist in countries such as China and Mexico - another thing that increases the "competitveness" of those countries.


It is companies trying to be efficient. It is called capitalism. And the US is the champion of exporting Capitalism.
It's a myth that capitalism and free trade are somehow related. In fact, Karl Marx was a big fan of free trade:


The Protective system...is conservative, while the Free Trade system works destructively. It breaks up old nationalities and carries antagonism of proletariat and bourgeoisie to the uttermost point. In a word, the Free Trade system hastens the Social Revolution. In this revolutionary sense alone, gentlemen, I am in favor of Free Trade.
I doubt you'll find that quote in any modern, pro free trade economics textbook.


Yes they are. They pay cheaper wages to it's labor force who can be as efficient or more efficient than the more expensive US workers.

They pay less for its power, less for its raw materials and probably have a smaller tax burden.

Or why do you think maquiladoras are set up? Because they are cheaper than setting those same factories up in the US.
Yes, as I've been saying, American companies just want to shed their American workers for cheaper foreign labor. That is bad for the US worker whose job is shipped out of the country. That isn't some kind of inevitability that the US is powerless to stop, and it's not capitalism, either.





This is a half truth. Go to a many US maquiladoras in Mexico and you'll find out working conditions are as good as in the US. Go to a GM or Ford plant.
Even if it's a half truth, that's still pretty bad. I did a quick search and found this http://www.cfomaquiladoras.org/renovadoasalto-en.htm

I'm sure it's one of many examples.


I have already stated them. Abundant land and natural resources, migratory waves, etc
Again, many nations now and throughout history have had abundant land and natural resouces. And the US would have never had waves of immigrants that continue today if the country wasn't developed or quickly developing before the immigrants arrived.


So you want all manufactured goods produced by US companies manufactured in the US, and you want to create barriers of entry for all other foreign manufactured products?

:tu

Talk about an islationist of the worst kind.

You should have been born at the turn of the XIX Century. You would've been a habppy man voting for Wilson. :rolleyes

First of all, Wislon was a 20th century president, and he was very much a pro free trade globalist. He was probably the worst president this country has ever had. Yes, even worse than the current one. And the previous one.

Secondly, here are some stats about the US economy from the highly protectionist late 19th century:

--From 1869 to 1900 the GNP quadrupled
--In the same time period, customs duties provided 58% of all federal revenue
--There was no income tax, except for Lincoln's wartime tax and Grover Cleveland's short lived 2% flat tax on the rich, which was declared unconstitutional
--Real wages, despite a doubling of the US population, rose 53%
--There are more, but I'll leave it at that

You compared my economic thoughts to those of the 19th century, and I thank you for the compliment. :toast

By the way: Republicans dominated the White House during this period, as they were the ones who strongly advocated protectionism. From 1861 to 1913 - 52 years - there was only one Democratic president. Then comes Woodrow Wilson, the permanent income tax, the Federal Reserve, the Great Depression, and a permanent big government from both parties. Food for thought.