The Democrats Gloat Thread

Not a clue.

Let me help you out, LW: Your earlier "hint" that Republicans are against the deal was not helpful. I'm against the deal. I'd like to hear from some of you Democrats: Is Bush or the Democrats who oppose this deal correct on this issue?

So far I've seen an "I don't know" from Walter, which is as close to a responsive answer as I've gotten.

I believe in economic free trade:

Free Trade
by Alan S. Blinder

For more than two centuries, economists have steadfastly promoted free trade among nations as the best trade policy. Despite this intellectual barrage, many practical men and women of affairs continue to view the case for free trade skeptically, as an abstract argument made by ivory-tower economists with, at most, one foot on terra firma. Such people "know" that our vital industries must be protected from foreign competition.

The divergence between economists' beliefs and those of (even well-educated) men and women on the street seems to arise in making the leap from individuals to nations. In running our personal affairs, virtually all of us exploit the advantages of free trade and comparative advantage without thinking twice. For example, many of us have our shirts laundered at professional cleaners rather than wash and iron them ourselves. Anyone who advised us to "protect" ourselves from the "unfair competition" of low-paid laundry workers by doing our own wash would be thought looney. Common sense tells us to make use of companies that specialize in such work, paying them with money we earn doing something we do better. We understand intuitively that cutting ourselves off from specialists can only lower our standard of living.

Adam Smith's insight was that precisely the same logic applies to nations. Here is how he put it in 1776:



It is the maxim of every prudent master of a family, never to attempt to make at home what it will cost him more to make than to buy... If a foreign country can supply us with a commodity cheaper than we ourselves can make it, better buy it of them with some part of the produce of our own industry, employed in a way in which we have some advantage.



The case for free trade among nations is no different. Spain, South Korea, and a variety of other countries manufacture shoes more cheaply than America can. They offer them for sale to us. Shall we buy them, as we buy the services of laundry workers, with money we earn doing things we do well?-like writing computer software and growing wheat? Or shall we keep "cheap foreign shoes" out and purchase more expensive American shoes instead? It is pretty clear that the nation as a whole must be worse off if foreign shoes are kept out?-even though the American shoe industry will be better off.

Most people accept this argument. But they worry about what happens if another country?-say, Japan?-can make everything, or almost everything, cheaper than we can. Will free trade with Japan then lead to unemployment for American workers, who will find themselves unable to compete with cheaper Japanese labor? The answer, which was provided by David Ricardo in 1810 (see Ricardo in Biographies section), is no. To see why, let us once again appeal to our personal affairs.

BTW, I also believe in "competitive advantage," but our country will lose this important advantage, because our educational system is not keeping up with other developed countries in math and science. That's our fault.

Good for you.


Now, how about answering my question?

"That" answers your q.

Our enemies can collectively crash the dollar and bring the American economy to it's knees and bush and his gang will fly away on private jets loaded with forigen money. America disbanded into the Global free market.

Well, since allowing a foreign country to manage our ports has little or nothing to do with "economic free trade," I'm not sure it does.

If you think you've already answered my question, I don't see why it's so difficult for you to clarify what your answer is.

Well, since you put it that way, Bush is wrong about almost everything so why should he stop there?

I'd thought the talks were about one (and now a second) COMPANY?

Right, Walter, it is a COMPANY, even though it's from a country that has as many civil rights problems as China and the old Iraq.

Thomas Jefferson to
John Taylor, 1816

"I sincerely believe ... that banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies, and that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity under the name of funding is but swindling futurity on a large scale."

Tico, Ask a specific question. My answer that I advocate "free trade" is universal - but there are always exceptions. I do not believe we should allow nuclear weapons technology to be traded with other countries whether freind or foe.

Arses

If you ask the Voice of America, it would seem the Democrats were following the lead of the Republicans ... so your answer would come from the Republicans.

VOA link



<aren't the Republicans still in control of the House and Senate as well as the White House?>

If I understand the ownership correcly, it is a company wholly owned by the Dubai emirate.

Okay. Here's my specific question ...

Who's correct on the Dubai deal: Bush or the Democrats who oppose the deal?

Interestingly, I'm not .... I'm asking c.i. (and anybody else, for that matter).


Here are the responses thus far:

Walter: I don't know.
c.i.: Your question isn't specific enough.
McTag: All Bush supporters are arses.
LW: I don't really know how I ought to answer your question, but Bush is always wrong, so I'll go with that.
ehBeth: Ask VOA.

Well, others say, DP-World is owned by the United Arab Emirates ('s government).

Well, let's say the others are correct: what distinction were you trying to make by pointing out the deal has to do with a "company" as opposed to a "country."