If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Some Guy)   Free Trade: The Miracle Cure for Embarrassing Outbreaks of National Sovereignty   (nakedcapitalism.com) divider line 104
    More: Interesting, Trans-Pacific Partnership, Joint Economic Committee, global government, Dusseldorf, Office of the United States Trade Representative, trade policies, United Technologies, political structure  
•       •       •

2068 clicks; posted to Politics » on 22 Feb 2014 at 10:26 AM (44 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



104 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-02-22 09:03:51 AM  
Which is why I was pleased with Olympia Snowe for resisting the urge to lock step and vote for NAFTA. It doesn't just hurt national sovereignty, but it has decimated our own domestic production in many areas. NAFTA was a bad idea back in the day, and it still is today. It does nothing to promote national interests, but damned if it doesn't line a lot of pockets...
 
2014-02-22 09:38:30 AM  
The official Libertarian Party platform is that free markets require free movement of goods, even across national borders, including, too, labor. National sovereignty is secondary to corporate interests.
 
2014-02-22 10:29:35 AM  
america actually needs to make a stand. we need more manufacturing, not less.
 
2014-02-22 10:32:15 AM  
Not this dumbass argument again. Treaties have to be approved by Congress. Laws passed by Congress are the basic definition of sovereignty.
 
2014-02-22 10:34:41 AM  
That's a feature, not a bug.

It's the entire premise behind the EU, which is one reason why Europe hasn't gone to war with itself lately.

It's the opposite of our Cuba policy, which had kept the Castros in power for decades.
 
2014-02-22 10:41:08 AM  
Fark has really stepped up the "free trade" links recently. Yay.

But, those links are boring economics to most folks. Is there some way that the "free trade" (aka destroy America's middle class) Fark links could be made interesting enough to hit the main page?

Just asking for advice.
 
2014-02-22 10:41:47 AM  

Tman144: Not this dumbass argument again. Treaties have to be approved by Congress. Laws passed by Congress are the basic definition of sovereignty.


Not if those laws give up sovereignty.
 
2014-02-22 10:43:38 AM  
capitalism requires religious, social, political, and economic freedom. Something americans do not have,
 
2014-02-22 10:43:48 AM  

Tman144: Not this dumbass argument again. Treaties have to be approved by Congress. Laws passed by Congress are the basic definition of sovereignty.


How about when the treaties do things like grant the WTO superior jurisdiction over national governments, so that the WTO can overrule your national laws?
 
2014-02-22 10:45:59 AM  

qorkfiend: Tman144: Not this dumbass argument again. Treaties have to be approved by Congress. Laws passed by Congress are the basic definition of sovereignty.

How about when the treaties do things like grant the WTO superior jurisdiction over national governments, so that the WTO can overrule your national laws?


Then a nation that doesn't like those rules can choose to leave the WTO.
 
2014-02-22 10:46:19 AM  

Tman144: Not this dumbass argument again. Treaties have to be approved by Congress. Laws passed by Congress are the basic definition of sovereignty.


Not when the dealings are made in secrecy.  Obama knew that the TTP would be signed during his second term.  If he believed in it, why did he not run his campaign on it and debate it during the presidential debates?

http://economixcomix.com/home/tpp/
 
2014-02-22 10:47:03 AM  

vygramul: The official Libertarian Party platform is that free markets require free movement of goods, even across national borders, including, too, labor.


Really? Is this true? It would pain me greatly to think that the Libertarian Party was actually right about something.

Tyrone Slothrop: Tman144: Not this dumbass argument again. Treaties have to be approved by Congress. Laws passed by Congress are the basic definition of sovereignty.

Not if those laws give up sovereignty.


I'm curious exactly how you're defining "sovereignty." I think maybe it's different from how I define it.
 
2014-02-22 10:48:04 AM  
Maybe the great cultural shift of the 21st century will be away from geographically based political systems. In the future people will identify more closely with other like minded people around the world and be less dependent on their physical location.

Discuss.
 
2014-02-22 10:49:40 AM  

qorkfiend: Tman144: Not this dumbass argument again. Treaties have to be approved by Congress. Laws passed by Congress are the basic definition of sovereignty.

How about when the treaties do things like grant the WTO superior jurisdiction over national governments, so that the WTO can overrule your national laws?


And what's the WTO going to do if we repeal the treaty? Sanction us? Sanction us with their army? Oh, wait a minute, they don't have an army. So I guess that means they should shut the fark up! That's what I would do if I don't have an army, shut the fark up. Shut. The. fark. Up.


/The FDA gives away our national sovereignty!
 
2014-02-22 10:50:38 AM  
Can't wait to start living in Deus Ex!
 
2014-02-22 10:52:15 AM  

Tman144: qorkfiend: Tman144: Not this dumbass argument again. Treaties have to be approved by Congress. Laws passed by Congress are the basic definition of sovereignty.

How about when the treaties do things like grant the WTO superior jurisdiction over national governments, so that the WTO can overrule your national laws?

And what's the WTO going to do if we repeal the treaty? Sanction us? Sanction us with their army? Oh, wait a minute, they don't have an army. So I guess that means they should shut the fark up! That's what I would do if I don't have an army, shut the fark up. Shut. The. fark. Up.


/The FDA gives away our national sovereignty!


Yes, I'm sure the WTO has exactly zero punitive measures it can utilize in situations like that.

You also seem to be missing the larger, and far more important question: why is the WTO being granted that authority in the first place?
 
2014-02-22 10:52:32 AM  

MFAWG: Maybe the great cultural shift of the 21st century will be away from geographically based political systems. In the future people will identify more closely with other like minded people around the world and be less dependent on their physical location.

Discuss.


I think you're seriously underestimating the power of nationalism. It complements the human tendency towards xenophobia, and the people in power like it because it helps keep the rubes whipped into a frenzy.
 
2014-02-22 10:52:47 AM  

Tman144: qorkfiend: Tman144: Not this dumbass argument again. Treaties have to be approved by Congress. Laws passed by Congress are the basic definition of sovereignty.

How about when the treaties do things like grant the WTO superior jurisdiction over national governments, so that the WTO can overrule your national laws?

And what's the WTO going to do if we repeal the treaty? Sanction us? Sanction us with their army? Oh, wait a minute, they don't have an army. So I guess that means they should shut the fark up! That's what I would do if I don't have an army, shut the fark up. Shut. The. fark. Up.


/The FDA gives away our national sovereignty!


But economic sanctions are effective.
 
2014-02-22 10:53:34 AM  

BMulligan: I'm curious exactly how you're defining "sovereignty." I think maybe it's different from how I define it.


Well, you see, if the law that governs your life was written, thought of, or even touched by a foreigner, then even by completely voluntary following of said law you become subservient to foreigners, and thus lose sovereignty.

It doesn't matter if you can, at any moment, say "well, we don't like this law, so we quit". If at any moment there would be possible even a perception that you are following foreign law, then that's it. You've lost your sovereignty.

Forever.

Study it out.
 
2014-02-22 10:53:50 AM  

BMulligan: Really? Is this true? It would pain me greatly to think that the Libertarian Party was actually right about something.


Of you didn't already know that, then surely you are capable of ignoring and forgetting this information.
 
2014-02-22 10:55:00 AM  
So you're saying capitalism yes within your tribal boundaries, but capitalism no when it crosses your tribal boundaries?
 
2014-02-22 10:55:32 AM  

Mantour: Tman144: Not this dumbass argument again. Treaties have to be approved by Congress. Laws passed by Congress are the basic definition of sovereignty.

Not when the dealings are made in secrecy.  Obama knew that the TTP would be signed during his second term.  If he believed in it, why did he not run his campaign on it and debate it during the presidential debates?

http://economixcomix.com/home/tpp/


Hell if I know, why don't you ask his campaign manager? Maybe because the debate would have been:
Obama: "I'm for free trade!"
Romney: "Me too!"
And then they would have gone back to biatching about health care.

/I read that comic in the other thread, it was a disaster.
//The social security one was much better.
 
2014-02-22 10:55:36 AM  

BMulligan: vygramul: The official Libertarian Party platform is that free markets require free movement of goods, even across national borders, including, too, labor.

Really? Is this true? It would pain me greatly to think that the Libertarian Party was actually right about something.

Tyrone Slothrop: Tman144: Not this dumbass argument again. Treaties have to be approved by Congress. Laws passed by Congress are the basic definition of sovereignty.

Not if those laws give up sovereignty.

I'm curious exactly how you're defining "sovereignty." I think maybe it's different from how I define it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B5xVRXLgLxw


DUH!
 
2014-02-22 10:56:38 AM  

BMFPitt: BMulligan: Really? Is this true? It would pain me greatly to think that the Libertarian Party was actually right about something.

Of you didn't already know that, then surely you are capable of ignoring and forgetting this information.


Sorry - I don't generally pay much attention to the platform of the Libertarian Party, or to the Libertarian Party in general. They're kind of a non-issue, really.
 
2014-02-22 10:56:54 AM  

BMulligan: MFAWG: Maybe the great cultural shift of the 21st century will be away from geographically based political systems. In the future people will identify more closely with other like minded people around the world and be less dependent on their physical location.

Discuss.

I think you're seriously underestimating the power of nationalism. It complements the human tendency towards xenophobia, and the people in power like it because it helps keep the rubes whipped into a frenzy.


Yeah, we're still pretty tribal animals. NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY uber alles!
 
2014-02-22 10:58:07 AM  

qorkfiend: Yes, I'm sure the WTO has exactly zero punitive measures it can utilize in situations like that.


That is correct.  The only punitive step would be the one you had just inflicted on yourself.

You also seem to be missing the larger, and far more important question: why is the WTO being granted that authority in the first place?

Maybe because it's not a question.  Most people are not confused with the concept of multiple parties coming up with a governing body to meditate disputes on a given subject.
 
2014-02-22 10:58:21 AM  

WorldCitizen: BMulligan: MFAWG: Maybe the great cultural shift of the 21st century will be away from geographically based political systems. In the future people will identify more closely with other like minded people around the world and be less dependent on their physical location.

Discuss.

I think you're seriously underestimating the power of nationalism. It complements the human tendency towards xenophobia, and the people in power like it because it helps keep the rubes whipped into a frenzy.

Yeah, we're still pretty tribal animals. NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY uber alles!


I honestly think that's less true now than it was 20 or 30 years ago. And I'm not saying we won't still be tribal, just that those tribes will be less dependent on geography.
 
2014-02-22 11:00:32 AM  

BMulligan: Sorry - I don't generally pay much attention to the platform of the Libertarian Party, or to the Libertarian Party in general. They're kind of a non-issue, really.


I hate when stuff I don't pay attention to our care about pains me greatly.
 
2014-02-22 11:05:45 AM  

MFAWG: Tman144: qorkfiend: Tman144: Not this dumbass argument again. Treaties have to be approved by Congress. Laws passed by Congress are the basic definition of sovereignty.

How about when the treaties do things like grant the WTO superior jurisdiction over national governments, so that the WTO can overrule your national laws?

And what's the WTO going to do if we repeal the treaty? Sanction us? Sanction us with their army? Oh, wait a minute, they don't have an army. So I guess that means they should shut the fark up! That's what I would do if I don't have an army, shut the fark up. Shut. The. fark. Up.


/The FDA gives away our national sovereignty!

But economic sanctions are effective.


Sanctionsayswhat?
upload.wikimedia.org
 
2014-02-22 11:05:58 AM  

MFAWG: WorldCitizen: BMulligan: MFAWG: Maybe the great cultural shift of the 21st century will be away from geographically based political systems. In the future people will identify more closely with other like minded people around the world and be less dependent on their physical location.

Discuss.

I think you're seriously underestimating the power of nationalism. It complements the human tendency towards xenophobia, and the people in power like it because it helps keep the rubes whipped into a frenzy.

Yeah, we're still pretty tribal animals. NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY uber alles!

I honestly think that's less true now than it was 20 or 30 years ago. And I'm not saying we won't still be tribal, just that those tribes will be less dependent on geography.


So Diamond Age style Phyles?
 
2014-02-22 11:06:06 AM  
By the way, I like the idea of so-called "free trade" very much. But in order to make it work, participation in free trade agreements - those to which we are party, anyway - should be limited to those nations which observe certain standards with respect to union rights, workplace safety, environmental protection, and so forth. If you want to join the 21st century, you should have to play by 21st century rules.
 
2014-02-22 11:08:08 AM  

BMulligan: vygramul: The official Libertarian Party platform is that free markets require free movement of goods, even across national borders, including, too, labor.

Really? Is this true? It would pain me greatly to think that the Libertarian Party was actually right about something.

Tyrone Slothrop: Tman144: Not this dumbass argument again. Treaties have to be approved by Congress. Laws passed by Congress are the basic definition of sovereignty.

Not if those laws give up sovereignty.

I'm curious exactly how you're defining "sovereignty." I think maybe it's different from how I define it.


So... presumably then, you're staunchly pro-life, anti- gay rights, in favor of the war on drugs, pro- government censorship, in favor of military intervention abroad... I could go on.

If those genuinely are your beliefs, then yes, your statement stands.  If not, then you're being silly.

/Libertarian economic platform is deeply flawed, in my view
//not a member, haven't voted for a libertarian since I was a "kid".  doesn't mean I can't recognize that some libertarian views are compatible with my own
 
2014-02-22 11:08:22 AM  

BMFPitt: BMulligan: Sorry - I don't generally pay much attention to the platform of the Libertarian Party, or to the Libertarian Party in general. They're kind of a non-issue, really.

I hate when stuff I don't pay attention to our care about pains me greatly.


Fair enough. "Pains me greatly" was hyperbole. It would have been more accurate to say "irritates me like a tiny flea bite."
 
2014-02-22 11:09:00 AM  

Tman144: Mantour: Tman144: Not this dumbass argument again. Treaties have to be approved by Congress. Laws passed by Congress are the basic definition of sovereignty.

Not when the dealings are made in secrecy.  Obama knew that the TTP would be signed during his second term.  If he believed in it, why did he not run his campaign on it and debate it during the presidential debates?

http://economixcomix.com/home/tpp/

Hell if I know, why don't you ask his campaign manager? Maybe because the debate would have been:
Obama: "I'm for free trade!"
Romney: "Me too!"
And then they would have gone back to biatching about health care.

/I read that comic in the other thread, it was a disaster.
//The social security one was much better.


Which would have showed that it does not matter who you vote for in an election: it's just a facade to make you believe that popular opinion is of ANY value. Perhaps, the electorate would have picked up on it.

/Dream, I has it!
 
2014-02-22 11:09:40 AM  

Tman144: MFAWG: Tman144: qorkfiend: Tman144: Not this dumbass argument again. Treaties have to be approved by Congress. Laws passed by Congress are the basic definition of sovereignty.

How about when the treaties do things like grant the WTO superior jurisdiction over national governments, so that the WTO can overrule your national laws?

And what's the WTO going to do if we repeal the treaty? Sanction us? Sanction us with their army? Oh, wait a minute, they don't have an army. So I guess that means they should shut the fark up! That's what I would do if I don't have an army, shut the fark up. Shut. The. fark. Up.


/The FDA gives away our national sovereignty!

But economic sanctions are effective.

Sanctionsayswhat?
[upload.wikimedia.org image 850x564]


You are aware that the WTO isn't like..a country or anything, and we can't bomb it?
 
2014-02-22 11:09:44 AM  

BMulligan: By the way, I like the idea of so-called "free trade" very much. But in order to make it work, participation in free trade agreements - those to which we are party, anyway - should be limited to those nations which observe certain standards with respect to union rights, workplace safety, environmental protection, and so forth. If you want to join the 21st century, you should have to play by 21st century rules.


That was similar to my idea in the other thread. A Universal Minimum Wage. If you want to treat your workers like dog shiat, we should have the right to tell you to take your cheap crap and shove it.
 
2014-02-22 11:09:52 AM  

Tman144: MFAWG: Tman144: qorkfiend: Tman144: Not this dumbass argument again. Treaties have to be approved by Congress. Laws passed by Congress are the basic definition of sovereignty.

How about when the treaties do things like grant the WTO superior jurisdiction over national governments, so that the WTO can overrule your national laws?

And what's the WTO going to do if we repeal the treaty? Sanction us? Sanction us with their army? Oh, wait a minute, they don't have an army. So I guess that means they should shut the fark up! That's what I would do if I don't have an army, shut the fark up. Shut. The. fark. Up.


/The FDA gives away our national sovereignty!

But economic sanctions are effective.

Sanctionsayswhat?
[upload.wikimedia.org image 850x564]


How much money do you think is in that photo? Several billion dollars?

WorldCitizen: MFAWG: WorldCitizen: BMulligan: MFAWG: Maybe the great cultural shift of the 21st century will be away from geographically based political systems. In the future people will identify more closely with other like minded people around the world and be less dependent on their physical location.

Discuss.

I think you're seriously underestimating the power of nationalism. It complements the human tendency towards xenophobia, and the people in power like it because it helps keep the rubes whipped into a frenzy.

Yeah, we're still pretty tribal animals. NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY uber alles!

I honestly think that's less true now than it was 20 or 30 years ago. And I'm not saying we won't still be tribal, just that those tribes will be less dependent on geography.

So Diamond Age style Phyles?


I honestly have no idea. It's like being inside the elephant.

 I know this: We're alot less likely to go to war for purely nationalistic reasons than we were a century ago.
 
2014-02-22 11:13:29 AM  

grumpfuff: Tman144: MFAWG: Tman144: qorkfiend: Tman144: Not this dumbass argument again. Treaties have to be approved by Congress. Laws passed by Congress are the basic definition of sovereignty.

How about when the treaties do things like grant the WTO superior jurisdiction over national governments, so that the WTO can overrule your national laws?

And what's the WTO going to do if we repeal the treaty? Sanction us? Sanction us with their army? Oh, wait a minute, they don't have an army. So I guess that means they should shut the fark up! That's what I would do if I don't have an army, shut the fark up. Shut. The. fark. Up.


/The FDA gives away our national sovereignty!

But economic sanctions are effective.

Sanctionsayswhat?
[upload.wikimedia.org image 850x564]

You are aware that the WTO isn't like..a country or anything, and we can't bomb it?


Then how are they going to sanction us? Sanctions have to be made by someone, somewhere.
...And those someones can be bombed, I'm sure of it.

/Bombs, the cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems
//It's the American Way!
 
2014-02-22 11:14:18 AM  

Tman144: grumpfuff: Tman144: MFAWG: Tman144: qorkfiend: Tman144: Not this dumbass argument again. Treaties have to be approved by Congress. Laws passed by Congress are the basic definition of sovereignty.

How about when the treaties do things like grant the WTO superior jurisdiction over national governments, so that the WTO can overrule your national laws?

And what's the WTO going to do if we repeal the treaty? Sanction us? Sanction us with their army? Oh, wait a minute, they don't have an army. So I guess that means they should shut the fark up! That's what I would do if I don't have an army, shut the fark up. Shut. The. fark. Up.


/The FDA gives away our national sovereignty!

But economic sanctions are effective.

Sanctionsayswhat?
[upload.wikimedia.org image 850x564]

You are aware that the WTO isn't like..a country or anything, and we can't bomb it?

Then how are they going to sanction us? Sanctions have to be made by someone, somewhere.
...And those someones can be bombed, I'm sure of it.

/Bombs, the cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems
//It's the American Way!


I'm sure the Swiss would love for us to drop bombs on their country.
 
2014-02-22 11:15:32 AM  

Lyonid: BMulligan: vygramul: The official Libertarian Party platform is that free markets require free movement of goods, even across national borders, including, too, labor.

Really? Is this true? It would pain me greatly to think that the Libertarian Party was actually right about something.

Tyrone Slothrop: Tman144: Not this dumbass argument again. Treaties have to be approved by Congress. Laws passed by Congress are the basic definition of sovereignty.

Not if those laws give up sovereignty.

I'm curious exactly how you're defining "sovereignty." I think maybe it's different from how I define it.

So... presumably then, you're staunchly pro-life, anti- gay rights, in favor of the war on drugs, pro- government censorship, in favor of military intervention abroad... I could go on.

If those genuinely are your beliefs, then yes, your statement stands.  If not, then you're being silly.

/Libertarian economic platform is deeply flawed, in my view
//not a member, haven't voted for a libertarian since I was a "kid".  doesn't mean I can't recognize that some libertarian views are compatible with my own


Good grief, when did Fark become a snark-free zone? Yes, the Libertarian Party formally embraces an approach to civil liberties which, in stark contrast to its formal position on most economic issues, is on the side of the angels. They're still mostly loony, though.
 
2014-02-22 11:15:36 AM  

Tman144: grumpfuff: Tman144: MFAWG: Tman144: qorkfiend: Tman144: Not this dumbass argument again. Treaties have to be approved by Congress. Laws passed by Congress are the basic definition of sovereignty.

How about when the treaties do things like grant the WTO superior jurisdiction over national governments, so that the WTO can overrule your national laws?

And what's the WTO going to do if we repeal the treaty? Sanction us? Sanction us with their army? Oh, wait a minute, they don't have an army. So I guess that means they should shut the fark up! That's what I would do if I don't have an army, shut the fark up. Shut. The. fark. Up.


/The FDA gives away our national sovereignty!

But economic sanctions are effective.

Sanctionsayswhat?
[upload.wikimedia.org image 850x564]

You are aware that the WTO isn't like..a country or anything, and we can't bomb it?

Then how are they going to sanction us?


Ask Cuba.
 
2014-02-22 11:21:53 AM  

grumpfuff: Tman144: grumpfuff: Tman144: MFAWG: Tman144: qorkfiend: Tman144: Not this dumbass argument again. Treaties have to be approved by Congress. Laws passed by Congress are the basic definition of sovereignty.

How about when the treaties do things like grant the WTO superior jurisdiction over national governments, so that the WTO can overrule your national laws?

And what's the WTO going to do if we repeal the treaty? Sanction us? Sanction us with their army? Oh, wait a minute, they don't have an army. So I guess that means they should shut the fark up! That's what I would do if I don't have an army, shut the fark up. Shut. The. fark. Up.


/The FDA gives away our national sovereignty!

But economic sanctions are effective.

Sanctionsayswhat?
[upload.wikimedia.org image 850x564]

You are aware that the WTO isn't like..a country or anything, and we can't bomb it?

Then how are they going to sanction us? Sanctions have to be made by someone, somewhere.
...And those someones can be bombed, I'm sure of it.

/Bombs, the cause of, and solution to, all of life's problems
//It's the American Way!

I'm sure the Swiss would love for us to drop bombs on their country.


Would they? Would they collect the scraps and make avant-garde sculptures from it?

/Please note: I don't know any Swiss people.
 
2014-02-22 11:37:15 AM  

BMulligan: Good grief, when did Fark become a snark-free zone? Yes, the Libertarian Party formally embraces an approach to civil liberties which, in stark contrast to its formal position on most economic issues, is on the side of the angels. They're still mostly loony, though.


So you made a silly comment, and others gave you snarky replies pointing out the fact that you agree with about 60% of libertarian positions just make you more butthurt.

memedepot.com
 
2014-02-22 11:38:10 AM  
People that hold onto this 'national sovereignty' BS have little clue about how the world will look in 100 years.

Sometimes it makes sense to take a large geographic area and let different locations specialize in different things. Some places grow crops, some places are major manufacturers, and others have more intellectual work.

This isn't exactly a new idea, and in no way reflects the way the US is currently laid out, or has been for the last 200years or so.

Free Trade is basically the national model of business on an international scale. People that want to whine about it are likely the same people storing thousands of cans of spam in their makeshift bomb shelters, praying that someone blows up a power station or contaminates a water supply, just so they can feel smug about things.
 
2014-02-22 11:51:40 AM  
Nation states are dumb, though. And we're absolutely and inevitably going to work together and trade globally.

I say we figure out how to do that sensibly, rather than just complaining that everything is a slippery slope to "UN Controlled Global Dominance" or "Corporate Controlled Global Dominance," whichever is your preferred flavor.
 
2014-02-22 11:54:13 AM  

Mantour: Tman144: Not this dumbass argument again. Treaties have to be approved by Congress. Laws passed by Congress are the basic definition of sovereignty.

Not when the dealings are made in secrecy.  Obama knew that the TTP would be signed during his second term.  If he believed in it, why did he not run his campaign on it and debate it during the presidential debates?

http://economixcomix.com/home/tpp/


Actually, he did talk about it during the campaign. Just because you wish he didn't doesn't mean that it was "done in secret."
 
2014-02-22 11:55:01 AM  
Everything you need to know about free trade is nicely summed up in this (admittedly lengthy) comic:

http://economixcomix.com/home/tpp/

Free trade could be structured to benefit everyone, if workers actually saw their purchasing power increasing substantially. It does no good for workers for the cost of goods to decrease by 30% over a time period where inflation has chipped away at the real value of wages by 30%. Granted, it hasn't quite been that bad, and the 99% has seen prices drop very slightly more than wages, but it's still bullshiat that the workaday everyman can maybe buy a color TV today instead of B&W and maybe get ten new shirts a year instead of eight, while the real income of the 1% has tripled.

Free trade, if not creating winners and losers, is at the very least creating barely-winners and super-mega-winners. The barely-winners are creating the wealth by manning the (now highly productive) economic turrets, but they aren't missing out on all of the purchasing power because of poor choices they have made. I therefore believe it is fair to come in after the fact and heavily tax the super-mega-winners and give it back to the people. There is nothing the 1% can do about this but complain. They will never leave American markets. We're the only country in the world that can buy enough of their shiat. The whole "I'll just move my business to Ethiopia" thing is a transparent bluff, so long as we slap tariffs on any expats trying to sell in America.
 
2014-02-22 11:56:08 AM  
Internationalize trade?

Guess what comes next:


upload.wikimedia.org

Capitalism: Digging its own grave.
 
2014-02-22 12:00:54 PM  

Tommy Moo: Everything you need to know about free trade is nicely summed up in this (admittedly lengthy) comic:


Because I get all of my hard economic news from A FARKING COMIC
 
2014-02-22 12:04:09 PM  
Generally speaking if big business is a proponent of it, you can be sure it's f'ing over the working class in some manner.
 
Displayed 50 of 104 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report