US Political Discussion: Biden/Harris Edition (Rules in OP)

[flint757]

I wasn't implying that people should move to Houston, I just using Houston as one example that many companies and many of the jobs available are moving in a generally southerly and westerly direction. (If anything, we have too many people here already and I'd like to see at least half of them move elsewhere so our roads don't get as congested as Los Angeles', and we're not all that far off the way things are going; I'm not holding my breath waiting for that to happen, though ).

Tell me about it. If everyone could just go back home that'd be great. Traffic is horrendous.

As far as relocating goes, I'm sure that picking up your family and belongings and moving them to an unfamiliar place in search of work sucks. But what is worse, that or staying in place with no job, no money, no nothing?

And as concerns the rust belt, those cities will see businesses and jobs return one day, but we'll have to see the equivalent of a level playing field in terms of corporate taxes and environmental/employee laws before companies really start moving back IMO.Tax abatements and otherwise subsidized factories can help attract and encourage small businesses and start ups, but the big businesses are looking for more. And right now, they get to keep more in their bank accounts/put more in their shareholders' hands by relocating to Texas and similarly favorable states, so I think this will likely have to come in the form of national level taxes and regulation replacing those of the individual states. But time will tell.

Agreed for the most part.

 

[Drew]

“A real free trade agreement is one paragraph. Country A and Country B take their tariffs to zero tomorrow, period.” But that’s not what our trade agreements look like. They tend to be a thousand pages long. – Anne Krueger



http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnew...0-10-reasons-why-you-should-oppose-obamatrade

There’s a difference between free trade and free trade agreements. If it was just about opening borders between countries they wouldn’t need to be larger than novels.

Also, middle ground doesn’t make the middle always the correct position. Argument to moderation implies that the extremes are always in the wrong and that is simply not true.

Couple points worth addressing -

1) Ever met a lawyer? What makes a free trade agreement longer than a sentence or two is specifying one, what they cover, two, how quickly and in what manner they'll be implemented, and three, what sort of provisions are in place if a member tries to violate their terms. When's the last time you've seen ANY law enacted that's a sentence long? You're holding free trade to a standard that doesn't exist in reality.

2) The New American is the publication of the John Birch Society. I suspect their opposition to the TPP is based mostly on 1) Obama is for it, so they're against, and 2) they don't want the US government regulating trade, period. But, yes, non-tarrif barriers to trade are a huge part of trade deals. As I recall, one of the biggest barriers to getting the deal done was that Japan didn't want to eliminate quotas on imported rice that were limiting the ability of the US to participate in the Japanese rice market. They eventually recanted, and we now have a trade deal on the table. That's not a tariff... But it's absolutely a barrier to trade. I don't see how the fact the TPP tackles things like import quotas as well as tarrifs is a reason to oppose it.

3) While it is technically true that just because there's a middle ground between two sides it doesn't automatically make the middle ground right, it's ALSO true that it doesn't automatically make the middle ground wrong, either. The extremes may not always be in the wrong, but one of them isn't always in the right. You're saying, in other words, precisely nothing by making that observation.

My sincere belief is that free trade and globalization is largely a good thing. It's reduced the cost of living in this country, given us an array of economic choices that we've never had before, and generally allowed Americans today to have a higher quality of life than we ever have before. It is, however, not a costless good, and more needs to be done to assist workers who have been negatively impacted by globalization. Still, on the measure, it's been a good thing for this country.

 

[Randy]

generally allowed Americans today to have a higher quality of life than we ever have before

Eeeesh, that's incredibly subjective.

 

[Drew]

Eeeesh, that's incredibly subjective.

You could debate over the last ten or fifteen or so years where middle class wages have, until very recently, been stagnant. At a minimum I'd say we haven't gotten worse though. Prior to that, though... Today vs the mid 80s? the mid 70s? The mid 60s?

 

[flint757]

Couple points worth addressing -

1) Ever met a lawyer? What makes a free trade agreement longer than a sentence or two is specifying one, what they cover, two, how quickly and in what manner they'll be implemented, and three, what sort of provisions are in place if a member tries to violate their terms. When's the last time you've seen ANY law enacted that's a sentence long? You're holding free trade to a standard that doesn't exist in reality.

2) The New American is the publication of the John Birch Society. I suspect their opposition to the TPP is based mostly on 1) Obama is for it, so they're against, and 2) they don't want the US government regulating trade, period. But, yes, non-tarrif barriers to trade are a huge part of trade deals. As I recall, one of the biggest barriers to getting the deal done was that Japan didn't want to eliminate quotas on imported rice that were limiting the ability of the US to participate in the Japanese rice market. They eventually recanted, and we now have a trade deal on the table. That's not a tariff... But it's absolutely a barrier to trade. I don't see how the fact the TPP tackles things like import quotas as well as tarrifs is a reason to oppose it.

3) While it is technically true that just because there's a middle ground between two sides it doesn't automatically make the middle ground right, it's ALSO true that it doesn't automatically make the middle ground wrong, either. The extremes may not always be in the wrong, but one of them isn't always in the right. You're saying, in other words, precisely nothing by making that observation.

My sincere belief is that free trade and globalization is largely a good thing. It's reduced the cost of living in this country, given us an array of economic choices that we've never had before, and generally allowed Americans today to have a higher quality of life than we ever have before. It is, however, not a costless good, and more needs to be done to assist workers who have been negatively impacted by globalization. Still, on the measure, it's been a good thing for this country.

COALTION FOR A PROSERPEROUS AMERICA (CPA) ISSUES PAPERS

1) CPA link to USITC REPORT FLIER: http://bit.ly/2bDtaTz
The United States International Trade Commission (USITC) typically is over optimistic about “free trade” agreements. That’s why it’s significant that the USITC report on the TPP projected loss in most economic sectors.
USITC Report: http://1.usa.gov/1TgmviD

2) CPA 21st Century Trade Agreement Principles: http://bit.ly/2bLwtWa
The Coalition for a Prosperous America has identified principles that should be incorporated into trade agreements.

3) CPA: Tax Reform for Trade Competitiveness: http://bit.ly/2bDtu4G
“After 40 years of multilateral tariff reduction, other countries replaced tariffs with BATs [Border Adjustable Taxes] but the U.S. did not. American exporters face the nearly same border taxes (tariffs + consumption tax) as they did in the early 1970’s.

4) CPA: TPP And Agriculture: http://bit.ly/2beDDB0
This piece contains the top 10 reasons why the Farm Bureau’s report is incorrect. The Farm Bureau reported modest future farm income gains, but none of their previous reports on past trade agreements have been correct.

5) CPA: America's Sheep and Cattle Farmers Harmed by Free Trade Deals: http://bit.ly/2bfECVT
“Politicians mistakenly focus only upon exports. But farmers and ranchers need net exports to win.”

6) CPA: TPP and Currency: "No Currency provision in the TPP”: http://bit.ly/2bechOg
The TPP “has no provisions regarding currency misalignment in its text. Instead, there is a side agreement called a “Joint Declaration of Macroeconomic Policy Authorities” that is being promoted as addressing the issue. Unfortunately, the Joint Declaration simply restates existing obligations, fails to provide any enforcement tools and merely relies upon more diplomatic talk.”

7) CPA: How Currency Manipulation Helps Japan and Hurts Others: http://bit.ly/2bSz2sz
“The TPP won’t stop Japan from helping Toyota make easy money through currency manipulation.”

8) CPA: The national security case against TPP: http://bit.ly/2bfrPOo
“Brigadier General John Adams: By facilitating the further offshoring of America’s manufacturing base, the trade pact would actually undermine America’s military readiness and global economic standing. TPP would hurt our national security interests more than it would help.”
____________________

OTHER CONSERVATIVE LINKS

1) Sessions: TPP is a failed agreement and must be rejected: http://bit.ly/2bLxuO1

2) Curtis Ellis: TPP Is About ‘Redistributing the Wealth of America to the Rest of the World’: http://bit.ly/2bed6GQ

LABOR

The United States International Trade Commission (USITC) typically is over optimistic about “free trade” agreements. That’s why it’s significant that the USITC report on the TPP projected loss in most economic sectors.

1) Manufacturing Jobs Lost in Each State: http://bit.ly/TradeLossStateByState

2) USITC Report: http://1.usa.gov/1TgmviD

3) USITC: New Study Shows Projections are Unreliable: http://bit.ly/1WAVLtF

4) USITC: AFL-CIO Critical Analysis: http://bit.ly/28Osztm

5) Labor Advisory Council’s Report on TPP: http://1.usa.gov/1RvWOaL

6) Tufts Study: Unemployment, Inequality & Other Risks of TPP: http://huff.to/1TdyueC
______________________

ISDS - Corporate “Courts”

The Investor State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) provision in the TPP allows foreign multinationals to sue our government when they deem our laws, policies and regulations to be a “technical barrier to trade” costing them “loss of potential profit.” Multinationals can sue for unlimited financial fines which come out of taxpayer pockets. Or, we can opt to change our laws to avoid a fine. These challenges would be made in corporate “courts” which skirt domestic law.

1) Summary of Public Citizen’s Analysis of ISDS in TPP: http://bit.ly/ISDSanalysis

2) TransCanada Suit: http://on.msnbc.com/29ZJ31X

3) ISDSCorporateAttacks.org

_______________________

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONS

The TPP threatens environmental protections primarily through the ISDS mechanism and lax, non-binding environmental protection language. The Sierra Club had this to say: “While the range of conservation issues mentioned in the TPP may be wide, the obligations – what countries are actually required to do – are generally very shallow. Vague obligations combined with weak enforcement, as described below, may allow countries to continue with business-as-usual practices that threaten our environment.” http://bit.ly/1kwHPAf

1) 450+ Environ. Groups Letter to MOCs: http://reut.rs/1VHqHHZ

2) TPP at Odds with UN Global Sustainable Development Goals: http://bit.ly/1P5Lbl9

3) Sierra Club Report Nov. 25: http://bit.ly/1Qg2uon

4) Climate Roadblocks: http://bit.ly/1q2nFBc

5) Why Mining Corps Love Trade Deals: http://huff.to/28NrELk

6) ISDSCorporateAttacks.org
______________________

FOOD & GMOS

Provisions in the TPP would further erode food safety measures exposing Americans to more contaminants in our food. Through the ISDS mechanism, any laws requiring GMO labeling or GMO bans that would be passed after the TPP was in force could be challenged as “technical barriers to trade.”

1) 161 Food & Farm Groups TPP Letter to Congress: http://bit.ly/1XX8Evw

2) Specific Food Related Provisions in TPP: http://bit.ly/1SvnbAr

3) TPP Text Reveals Broad New Powers for Corporations to Attack Food Labeling Laws: http://bit.ly/1QjkAGi

4) TPP SPS chapter analysis by Institute for Agriculture & Trade Policy: http://bit.ly/1XCCWCl

5) Letter from Sustainable Ag, Dev., faith-based on UPOV-91 Treaty & TPP: http://bit.ly/1VC6Evo

6) US Ag Exports Lag Under Past FTAs: http://bit.ly/2cP6FZw
____________________

HEALTHCARE

Affordable healthcare is already inaccessible for many Americans. The TPP would only make this worse.

1) TPP’s Threat to Affordable Healthcare: http://bit.ly/1QpuUch

2) TPP Intellectual Property Chapter - Patent Provisions, P. 8-9: http://bit.ly/1P9quea

3) How the TPP Could Stifle the Discovery of New Drugs: http://bit.ly/2bRKUI1

4) Letter about TPP Healthcare Implications: http://bit.ly/2avZjv0

5) Médecins Sans Frontières Briefing Note: http://bit.ly/2c6LccW
____________________

“FREE TRADE” IMPACT IN YOUR STATE

Click on the your state on the US map in this link.

1) “Free Trade” Impact in Your State: http://bit.ly/TradeLossStateByState
________________________

INTERNET

The TPP threatens internet freedom. It would require ISPs to take down sites without a court order, further criminalize whistleblowers, export the worst of US copyright law without mandating Fair use, make it illegal to unlock, modify or tinker with a device you own and give companies the right to sue governments for not protecting their intellectual property.

1) TPP & THE INTERNET: https://www.eff.org/issues/tpp

2) EFF Analysis of TPP Final IP Chapter: http://bit.ly/1ZOX2gz

3) Final TPP Text Confirms Worst Fears: http://bit.ly/22qCPzd

4) TPP Limits Internet Freedom: . http://bit.ly/28NFEG0 (from www.nordvpn.com)
______________________

NATIONAL SECURITY

National security is the argument historically made in order to pass “free trade” agreements after the argument that jobs and exports would increase has failed.

1) The National Security Case Against the TPP: http://bit.ly/2b3HZgX

______________________

CORPORATE INVOLVEMENT

The TPP was negotiated in secret for 7 years with trade representatives from each of the 12 Pacific Rim countries and 500+ multinational CEOs, executives and lobbyists.

1) Revolving Door Between Wall St. & Office of USTR: http://bit.ly/1r1O95L

2) Corporate Advisory Committees: http://wapo.st/22j6fOs

3) Trade Advisory Committees (midway through): http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/05/o...

4) U.S. Business Coalition for TPP: http://bit.ly/USbusiness4TPP

TOKYO -- An official admission that importers and wholesalers may have been circumventing a government program designed to protect domestic farmers by controlling prices for imported rice could have a negative impact on upcoming Diet discussions regarding the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal.

Under the so-called SBS, or simultaneous buy and sell, system used for a portion of Japan's rice imports, an importer and a wholesaler pair up and put in their bids at once. The importer names the price at which it is willing to sell foreign rice to the government, and the wholesaler specifies the price it would pay to buy the rice. Prices are artificially inflated to prevent cheap foreign rice from impacting domestic prices. The auction system is allowed under the Uruguay round of multilateral trade talks, which ended in 1993.

In a Friday news conference after a cabinet meeting, Agriculture Minister Yuji Yamamoto revealed a possibility that auction participants may have employed a shady scheme to sell rice at lower prices than the prices they bid through the government program.

Importers purportedly have been paying rebates to wholesalers under the name of "adjustment." With this payment, wholesalers could make profits even if they sold imported rice at a lower price than what they paid to the government. Some suggest that was exactly what happened in some cases.

If confirmed, this is a damaging blow to the agriculture ministry's efforts to convince Japanese rice farmers that they have nothing to fear from the TPP. If Japan ratifies the trade pact, the country will have to increase annual rice imports under the SBS mechanism by as much as 78,000 tons, from the current 100,000 tons. The ministry has told Japanese farmers that under the SBS system, imported rice is sold at similar prices as domestic rice.

In the news conference, Yamamoto admitted that some agricultural ministry personnel knew about the "adjustments" at least two years ago.

The realization that they have been lied to is certain to make farmers more resistant to the TPP. The scandal likely will also be used by opposition parties to attack the government's efforts to push through the trade deal in the extraordinary Diet session this autumn.

http://asia.nikkei.com/Politics-Eco...e-import-scandal-may-ignite-TPP-spat-in-Japan

Feel free to do the leg work on your end. Here are progressive, conservative, and international reasons why the TPP, TTIP, and TISA are raw deals.

Look, I'm hesitant about trade deals and globalism, but I'm not discussing the merits of globalization, free trade, or our opinions on the subject outside of policy debate. The TPP, TTIP, TISA, and CETA are simply put not good deals and I will NOT support any politician that has in the past or currently supports them. It's as simple as that.

Not entirely unrelated to the issues with free trade is the persistence of corporate control over our lives, removing our personal liberties and in some cases endangering our safety. In Big Bend and Sioux Tribal Lands in Dakota, Energy Transfer is destroying tribal lands and historical landmarks, the Alabama pipeline leak that has led to Alabama and Georgia declaring a state of emergency, politicians sneaking the removal of the Country of Origin Label (COOL) law through the omnibus spending bill, the radioactive waste leaking into Florida aquifers, the chemicals spilling into the rivers and lakes causing algae blooms, the millions of bees killed by airborne pesticides in South Carolina, the alcohol, tobacco, and pharmaceutical lobbies pushing back on medical marijuana in EVERY state that is discussing the policy, the pharmaceutical and insurance lobbies pushing back on ColoradoCare referendum, the eerily scary ties between private investments and where our government chooses to go to war, etc.

Ideally, I've got nothing against international trade, but I don't have an issue with a nation protecting its citizens from outside influences.

 

[Drew]

Listen, man, you're stretching if you're trying to tie the TPP to what's going down in Dakota over pipelines (hey, I'm glad that one got stopped, too) or Alabama pipeline leaks, or any of the other laundry list of unrelated things you just mentioned.

I'm also struggling to understand where you're going here - I point out that reducing non-tarrif barriers to competition is a good thing, regardless of whatever the John Birch society things, so you reply with a copy-and-paste list of other links? I don't see the connection.

Some of these are pretty tenuous too - the CPA's major problem with the TPP, it seems, is that it doesn't include additional prohibitions on currency manipulation? And a couple posts back you were arguing that any trade deal more than a single sentence long isn't a good one, because that should be all it takes? That's a little logically inconsistent, no?

And the article you quote about Japanese rice tarrifs and quotas and how the Japanese were manipulating the system - You realize that what we're discussing here is policies that keep the price of rice artificially high for Japanese consumers, right? That these existing policies are ones that hurt Japanese citizens?

At least you've gone from saying you were opposed to free trade, in general, to being relatively ok with it, but just not liking this particular deal. That's progress, I suppose...

 

[flint757]

Listen, man, you're stretching if you're trying to tie the TPP to what's going down in Dakota over pipelines (hey, I'm glad that one got stopped, too) or Alabama pipeline leaks, or any of the other laundry list of unrelated things you just mentioned.

I'm also struggling to understand where you're going here - I point out that reducing non-tarrif barriers to competition is a good thing, regardless of whatever the John Birch society things, so you reply with a copy-and-paste list of other links? I don't see the connection.

Some of these are pretty tenuous too - the CPA's major problem with the TPP, it seems, is that it doesn't include additional prohibitions on currency manipulation? And a couple posts back you were arguing that any trade deal more than a single sentence long isn't a good one, because that should be all it takes? That's a little logically inconsistent, no?

And the article you quote about Japanese rice tarrifs and quotas and how the Japanese were manipulating the system - You realize that what we're discussing here is policies that keep the price of rice artificially high for Japanese consumers, right? That these existing policies are ones that hurt Japanese citizens?

At least you've gone from saying you were opposed to free trade, in general, to being relatively ok with it, but just not liking this particular deal. That's progress, I suppose...

I don't necessarily agree with every reason listed in those links, but they are reasons to be against the deal pending on ones political leanings. I agree entirely with the second list of links and I don't honestly agree much with the complaints in the first set of links, but I figured given your slightly conservative views when it comes to economics that maybe something in that list would appeal to you personally.

There's no direct link to my other comment other than that it is simply more reasons to be against the trade deal.

I said that list of company malfeasance shows a bigger issue of corporate control over our lives and the risks that poses. My point in bringing it up is that the trade deals on the table extend the reach of corporations and gives them an even greater level of control over our lives. The issues I mentioned have nothing to do with trade itself and I never claimed it did. Feel free to ignore it if it bothers you that much.

If higher prices keep more Japanese people employed I see nothing wrong with that at all, apparently you do. Cheaper doesn't always equate to better for everyone involved. The price increase is specifically on imported rice, not all rice in general, and this is meant to protect local farmers from being priced out of existence by foreign companies. The article in question says that foreign companies were circumventing the law to price it lower than they claimed, which forces prices and wages down locally. I realize to you this isn't a problem, but just be aware IMO it is a huge problem and lets move on from the subject.

Also, you bought the public narrative when it comes to the Dakota Access Pipeline. It hasn't been stopped at all. Only a very small stretch was halted, the rest is still under construction and at a breakneck pace. Also, Obama's administration approved for the same company being investigated for the Dakota Access Pipeline (Energy Transfer) two more pipelines, one of which is being built through Big Bend, another native site. The whole letter and press conference by the Obama administration was a dog and pony show.

 

[Drew]

If higher prices keep more Japanese people employed I see nothing wrong with that at all, apparently you do. Cheaper doesn't always equate to better for everyone involved. The price increase is specifically on imported rice, not all rice in general, and this is meant to protect local farmers from being priced out of existence by foreign companies. The article in question says that foreign companies were circumventing the law to price it lower than they claimed, which forces prices and wages down locally. I realize to you this isn't a problem, but just be aware IMO it is a huge problem and lets move on from the subject.

Ok, so much here I don't even know where to begin. Forst, though, some basic facts. Poke around some of the articles linked off this - i did five minutes of research before writing this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rice_production_in_Japan

About 3.6% of the Japanese population is engaged in agriculture, and of that, 85% is in rice farming - it's the dominant agricultural crop in Japan. Most rice farmers are only part time, work small lots of land, and for these reasons are using (very fertile) land at only a fraction of its capacity. There's no need to try to boost capacity, because the Japanese government oversees rice production, and has been actively encouraging farmers to reduce production. By reducing production, while limiting/severely tariffing imports, the government has been able to keep the supply of rice artificially low. This in turn keeps the price artificially high, meaning 3.6% of the population can afford to work part time (because rice farming in Japan is considered a part time endeavor) and still make a living. Japanese consumers have been tolerant of this because they view Japanese rice as a differentiated good, of higher quality than imported rice (which adds a whole new layer of irony here, in that Japanese farmers might very well be able to compete without tariffs by arguing their rice was worth more - this whole mess of tariffs and quotas could easily be replaced by an industry lobby group. But I digress...)

So, we have a situation where 3.6% of the population receives higher prices for a good, to the extent that rice farming is considered a part-time endeavor, and in return 96.4% of the country pays quite a bit more for a staple good. And you're ok with that, which means yo're putting the interest of 3.6% of the population over the interest of 96.4% of the population. Which I have a hard time understanding.

And, to take it a step further, this is fertile farmland, in a country with extremely high population density and a shortage of good land, being used almost entirely to produce a single crop that the government has to control the sup[ply of to keep prices artificially high. Not only does that make poor economic sense, but let me remind you that we live in a world where food shortages are a real, significant problem for much of the third world. Opening the borders, removing price controls, tarriffs, and quotas, removing production limits, and putting that farmland to use much more efficiently could turn Japan into a net exporter of rice, pruducing a far higher volume, and potentialy providing a food source to the third world, where, once again, starvation is a fact of life.

Not only is the current system prioritizing the interests of those 3.6% of part time rice farmers over those of the entire rest of Japan, but that 3.6% of the population, which is about 0.6% of the world's population, is having their interests prioritized over the 795 million people worldwide (or about 11% of the world) that the UN considers malnourished.

So, please. Tell me that free trade is a bad thing, and that Japanese rice farmers need protection. Tell me that there are no positives to breaking down borders to trade. I'm just the evil financial analyst, what the .... do I know, after all, except maybe for a whole heck of a lot about economics. But, can you at least read this, think honestly about it, and admit that sometimes artificial barriers to trade DO hurt people? You say globalization and free trade is wrong, because through treaties we're picking winners and losers. Well, we're doing that already, by imposing barriers, whether you like it or not.

 

[Drew]

Honestly, that's the thing I find so incredibly infuriating about this whole conversation, thinking about it a bit more.

I have no doubt, at ALL, that your intentions are good here. You think protectionist policies are the best way to help farmers and manufacturers and normal people, and I'm sure you sincerely believe that free trade agreements are just a handout to big business. I'm disagreeing with you, quite passionately, above, but it's not because I think you're a bad person. I think you really believe what you're saying, that it's worth putting up trade barriers to help farmers make a living. And, hey, if nothing else, I'd like to pause and at least acknowledge that I respect your intentions.

But, the problem here is, economics at its most fundamental is the study of the allocation of scarce resources to maximize human utility, and like them or not free markets are an awfully good way of reaching an optimal allocation. Putting barriers up against market forces may seem like a good idea - here you're trying to help ensure farmers in Japan can live a comfortable life - but by doing so you're perpetuating a situation where Japanese citizens are paying more of their incomes than they would otherwise have to to put food on their tables, where Japanese farm land and farm labor is severely underutilized, and where a more efficient allocation could help address fod shortages elsewhere in the world. Your intensions are great, you're just not seeing how they're hurting a whole lot of other people in the process.

If you want a really eye opening read about the dangers of artificial price controls, pick up Marc Reisler's "Cadillac Desert." It's a fascinating tale of he history of American water policy, which sounds like it should be -forgive the pun- dry as ...., but is actually a really sordid tale and a great read. The thing that blew my mind about the book, though, is that Reisler writes from the perspective of an evironmentalist, not an economist, so a lot of the time he spends talking about beautiful river valleys lost to damns or inefficient water usage and growing salinity of american farmlands, damage to samon and migratory bird populations, etc.

But, more or less in passing, he nods to the fact that the US government is spending millions of dollars building dams to deliver water to arid sections of the country, then selling the water to farmers at pennies on the dollar of the cost of delivery - because, hey, everyone needs water, right? - and then these farmers are then turning around, using the water in incredibly inefficient irrigation systems to grow food - because, hey, everyone needs food, right? - except the're predominately growing high-water-input, low value crops like alfalfa with this heavily subsidized water, which are then being sold in a very inefficient domestic market with heavy federal price subsidies and in some instances direct federal buying to artificially boost demand for low value crops to keep the prices high - because, hey, farmers have to make a living because we need food, right? - meaning all in were talking about a system where we're essentially giving the American farmin industry a hundreds of billions of dollar federal subsidy to take subsidized water and grow subsidized crops with little nutritional or economic value, simply because we have a whole bunch of good intentions that have some realy ugly negative unintended consequences.

And Reisler, as an environmentalist first and foremost, only aludes to this in passing. "Hey, and this comes out to a couple hundred billion dollars over ten years. Shame, isn't it?"

Anyway, awesome read, and I really encourage you to buy a copy. But, point of all this being, is that sometimes really well intentioned policies end up being really, really, really bad in some of their consequences, and I just think you're focusing on your good intentions to help people when we're discussing free trade, and you're not realy seeing how some of the policies you're advocating can actually do a lot of real harm.

 

[Drew]

Oh, come on, I was sure this would generate some discussion. I put a lot of work into that, and raised a few points I thought were worth discussing.

Anyway, in better news, Trump was a trainwreck in the debate. Clinton came across looking rather prepared, collected, and dare-I-say presidential.

 

[HeHasTheJazzHands]

Clinton came across looking rather prepared, collected, and dare-I-say presidential.

Apparently she was TOO prepared to TOO presidential, according to some naysayers.



Trump started off pretty good, but then fell apart about 15 - 20 mins in. He lost it during the race and birther discussions. Clinton just kept baiting him, and just kept stumbling.

Of course, he's relying on Reddit/the_donald/4chan-influenced polls to show he was a winner, so if he lets all that .... go to his head, he's going to REALLY suffer during the town hall and 3rd debate.

 

[celticelk]

Apparently she was TOO prepared to TOO presidential, according to some naysayers.

Haters gonna hate. I've been getting concerned about the tightening race over the past few weeks, but the first debate has relieved at least a little of that concern.

 

[Randy]

if he lets all that .... go to his head, he's going to REALLY suffer during the town hall and 3rd debate.

Meaningless, IMO.

The first debate was SO hyped and it was essentially supposed to be Trump's coming out party to non-Republican. Just like the XFL or Sara Palin's Alaska, when it's fresh it's a premier event but drop-off afterward is very steep. The audience was SO large and Trump looked SO unprepared that I doubt anybody's going to waste their time tuning in for another dose.

Trump might as well have packed up his tent and headed back to Mar-A-Lago after that disaster.

 

[Xaios]

I come into the thread to read the discussion about Trump, and see a boatload of posts regarding the US involvement in the Japanese rice market.

 

[TemjinStrife]

I come into the thread to read the discussion about Trump, and see a boatload of posts regarding the US involvement in the Japanese rice market.

SS.org derail game is strong.

 

[stuglue]

As an Englishman looking over the pond at the run up to the presidency election I speak from oour experience with this year's EU referendum and the build up to it.
Much was made of various polls based on TV debates and think tanks all who were second guessing the result, the majority stating we would vote to remain and that as the voting day drew closer the Leave campaign was dropping further and further behind. Fast forward to June24th and 17 million people voted out which didn't look like anything that the polls had predicted.
I wouldn't let one or two debate shows be the yardstick for second guessing what will happen in November.

 

[Drew]

SS.org derail game is strong.

Heck, I damn near invented it.

Even better, Randy, while some Trump supporters are legitimately concerned about his performance (Guliani is suggesting he skip the next two, citing "moderator bias") and telling him he needs to prepare better, Trump seems to think he did just fine and isn't going to bother with more prep.

I kind of see it going down like Trump comes in, starts off OK, Clinton manages to get under his skin, Trump melts down, and starts following through on his vague threats to go after Clinton for her husband's infidelity, and if there's anything left beyond the pale in American politics, it's probably that.

 

[mnemonic]

The moderator was pretty biased though.

 

[vilk]

^why do you say so?
I didn't get to watch it

 

[wannabguitarist]

^why do you say so?
I didn't get to watch it

I can't point out anything specific but I just got the impression the moderator clearly disliked Trump. I don't care as by all accounts he's a detestable individual, but as the moderator you're supposed to be neutral.

Not scientific at all, but hey, my conservative friends felt the same way

Drew: Can't add anything to the free trade discussion but I've ordered "Cadillac Desert" because of your post. Really anything about unintended consequences of well intentioned policy is fascinating