General Discussion

Albertoo

(2,016 posts)

220. I felt I already answered, but I will attempt to reformulate more clearly

Sun Dec 7, 2014, 10:50 PM

Dec 2014

• On the first point, It's not just Ricardo, but also Adam Smith, all the way to Keynes who advocate free trade. Please note I had included in my comments above the caveat that protectionism can be useful when nations are waaay behind in technology or development. I mentioned post war Japan. That was developed by Porter or Ha-Joon Chang for example.

• On your point two, I have already stated there needs to be sanitary, safety regulations. From fraud, pollution and food poisoning, obviously. Now banking schemes and denial of rights, what do you have in mind?

I have also mentioned that 'regulations' in the name of exaggerated 'safety' can be erected as trade barriers in disguise. To wrap up, yes to safety regulations, provided they are not abused to become wilful trade barriers.

• One last thing, I do not see what you mean when you say ""regulations" are what created the middle class.". The Industrial Revolution created the middle class. Machines produced much more than arms could = more supply = more demand. Regulations are safeguards, they don't create things by themselves?

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

261 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Heads Up!! "Obama Ready to Defy Base in Order to Advance Trans-Pacific Partnership" [View all] 99th_Monkey Dec 2014 OP

According to commondreams... SidDithers Dec 2014 #1

"Those who oppose these trade deals ironically are accepting a status quo ... 99th_Monkey Dec 2014 #9

So do you favor the TPP or oppose? Or do you limit your intellectual responses rhett o rick Dec 2014 #25

That's the whole show for that one. 99Forever Dec 2014 #52

It's a meme or a macro Jesus Malverde Dec 2014 #82

He doesn't talk about issues, only other DUers. n/t QC Dec 2014 #113

Give credit where it is due, he watches out for our reading material so we don't read sabrina 1 Dec 2014 #131

True. It is important to be protected from heresy and false doctrine. QC Dec 2014 #133

Lol! sabrina 1 Dec 2014 #135

never talks about Canada, either, that I have seen. nt grasswire Dec 2014 #194

Maybe he is satisfied with Stephen Harper's leadership QC Dec 2014 #207

According to CNBC.... neverforget Dec 2014 #30

Actually, According to Obama.. here are the minutes from the meeting.. SomethingFishy Dec 2014 #44

"level playing field." Jesus Malverde Dec 2014 #87

Yes. make American workers more like those in Bangladesh Doctor_J Dec 2014 #115

Can't get the right pic Dont call me Shirley Dec 2014 #157

This message was self-deleted by its author Jesus Malverde Dec 2014 #158

K thanks Dont call me Shirley Dec 2014 #159

Lol, not much doubt about it, we are being sold out again. 'Good for American businesses, good for sabrina 1 Dec 2014 #132

Tpical DLCer. Laughing at people rather than rebutting them. Odin2005 Dec 2014 #53

You got it. Blind following with no thoughts of their own. nm rhett o rick Dec 2014 #62

Siding with multinationals over people. tblue Dec 2014 #65

... SidDithers Dec 2014 #69

Post removed Post removed Dec 2014 #70

It's not just looks. n/t 99Forever Dec 2014 #99

... SidDithers Dec 2014 #100

So what's wrong with Liberal Publications, you didn't say, you just posted that roly poly laughing sabrina 1 Dec 2014 #147

He is a Canadian from oil country and a Harper supporter, it is to be expected Dragonfli Dec 2014 #164

...and is into mega duct tape stocks. L0oniX Dec 2014 #166

I think you're probably right. But what puzzled a whole lot of people here is what is to be gained sabrina 1 Dec 2014 #174

He is not trying to gain anything, he simply enjoys baiting liberals like any other run of the mill Dragonfli Dec 2014 #175

Well, that's the Liberal in me, I do like to give people some credit, sometimes it's true, way more sabrina 1 Dec 2014 #176

-- G_j Dec 2014 #178

But no comment to the response that showed Obama himself SomethingFishy Dec 2014 #160

I am bookmarking this for when we start to have the economic fallout. :) Katashi_itto Dec 2014 #98

That's all he ever has. nt City Lights Dec 2014 #222

Commondreams is a longtime reputable LIBERAL publication. What is your problem sabrina 1 Dec 2014 #130

It is not conservative enough for the Third Way bunch on DU. Jamastiene Dec 2014 #145

Wash. Post: "Obama says he willing to defy Democrats on his support of Trans-Pacific Partnership" muriel_volestrangler Dec 2014 #140

In defense of Sid, that's really a dishonest headline, and well worthy of ridicule. ucrdem Dec 2014 #221

"151 House Democrats Say 'No' to Fast Track Authority" muriel_volestrangler Dec 2014 #223

+ 1000 nt riderinthestorm Dec 2014 #244

He said "I�m going to have to make that argument,� not "I'm willing to defy." ucrdem Dec 2014 #230

"Why carry water for wingers?" It's Obama trying to change the votes of the majority of Democrats muriel_volestrangler Dec 2014 #231

No one has voted on it and persuasion is not defiance. nt ucrdem Dec 2014 #232

You post this every time with Common Dreams RiverLover Dec 2014 #155

I guess Reuters is feeding the zombies, too, eh? markpkessinger Dec 2014 #161

A U.S. based progressive news website Generic Other Dec 2014 #172

it's another multi-dimensional chess move, no worries noiretextatique Dec 2014 #2

Well who do you think is going to be paying him for his $200,000 appearance helpmetohelpyou Dec 2014 #3

.... 840high Dec 2014 #26

And son't forget the corporate board appointments. QC Dec 2014 #112

It sure makes me glad we elected a democrat for President. Autumn Dec 2014 #4

It would be so much worse under a Republican president. Jamastiene Dec 2014 #146

Yep most progressive president ..... ever Autumn Dec 2014 #149

Yes he is doing the best he can... OrwellwasRight Dec 2014 #165

Yep, there it is. Autumn Dec 2014 #170

HE DOESN'T HAVE A MAGIC WAND!!1!!11 QC Dec 2014 #184

If you want this done give him a Congress willing to work with him! Autumn Dec 2014 #208

You never really loved him!!! QC Dec 2014 #209

Keep it up QC and I'm gonna look for a list, not just any list but THE LIST. Autumn Dec 2014 #210

lol his base, not the democratic party base nt msongs Dec 2014 #5

Goddamn it, Mr. President! How do we stop you from doing this? CaliforniaPeggy Dec 2014 #6

"Don't you understand that what you're doing is WRONG?" fredamae Dec 2014 #127

Well, you know I trust your judgment, Peggy ... NanceGreggs Dec 2014 #180

Hard to put out the details of a secret deal . . . OrwellwasRight Dec 2014 #181

So what are the details ... NanceGreggs Dec 2014 #182

One can opine on what the USTR has said publicly. OrwellwasRight Dec 2014 #183

Thanks, but no thanks. NanceGreggs Dec 2014 #186

No, the "secrecy" OrwellwasRight Dec 2014 #187

I asked a very simple question. NanceGreggs Dec 2014 #196

Again, we can be specific about what it will do. OrwellwasRight Dec 2014 #198

Funny you admit that you know the talks are secret. OrwellwasRight Dec 2014 #192

I am not demanding anything. NanceGreggs Dec 2014 #197

No one's "hair is on fire" OrwellwasRight Dec 2014 #199

Post removed Post removed Dec 2014 #7

Wow,this ties in with the Wellstone ruled Dec 2014 #8

Ouch, I saw it coming, but sadoldgirl Dec 2014 #10

He needs to ram this monstrosity through before Hillary starts campaigning. djean111 Dec 2014 #57

Krugman thinks it's not a big deal since tariffs are already very low and we have FTA's with many pampango Dec 2014 #11

That is not the issue, sadoldgirl Dec 2014 #13

There will be a "free and open discussion", you will "hear the debate" and the vote pampango Dec 2014 #94

Your posts read like USTR propaganda. OrwellwasRight Dec 2014 #173

So the authority of a president to 'secretly' negotiate trade agreements started under FDR then pampango Dec 2014 #201

No, try reading before answering. OrwellwasRight Dec 2014 #214

This piece of crap "trade deal" was drafted in secret by Mega-Corp CEOs & Lobbyists 99th_Monkey Dec 2014 #16

Krugman has always favored "free trade" hfojvt Dec 2014 #23

Pretending east coast globalists like Krugman are on our side is part of the problem...nt Jesus Malverde Dec 2014 #84

If your Democratic "tent" does not have room for Paul Krugman, it is a small tent indeed. pampango Dec 2014 #101

Bad trade deals Demsrule86 Dec 2014 #261

He was "Meh" on it in a 2013 blog post, and has come to like it less Recursion Dec 2014 #68

Considering it's being done in secret Jesus Malverde Dec 2014 #85

"No big deal", "hugely overblown", "hype from both sides" and "far from clear it is worth supporting pampango Dec 2014 #95

That really does help put "no big deal" in perspective 99th_Monkey Dec 2014 #123

There is more to it than the trade, the ability for corporations to sue us for wanting clean air or Dragonfli Dec 2014 #21

Not surprisingly, Krugman seems to understand that. pampango Dec 2014 #203

Krugman is only talking about tariffs and ignores OrwellwasRight Dec 2014 #168

Quite the opposite: old-fashioned trade deals are a victim of their own success, few tariffs left... pampango Dec 2014 #205

Sadly, he isn't a lawyer. OrwellwasRight Dec 2014 #213

True. He is a liberal, Nobel-prize-winning economist, but he is not a lawyer. pampango Dec 2014 #233

Wow. Exactly. OrwellwasRight Dec 2014 #241

Excellent post. Thanks for the links. Very informative, though the info is disturbing. RiverLover Dec 2014 #243

If Krugman is not liberal enough for you, I suppose there's a bus with his name on it. pampango Dec 2014 #249

Europe can't do it. OrwellwasRight Dec 2014 #250

Who gives a flying fuck about tarriffs? Only 5 of 29 sections deal with that eridani Dec 2014 #224

I think a lot of DU'ers care about tariffs. "Obama ... isn�t secretly bargaining away democracy." pampango Dec 2014 #229

Corporate interests would get somewhat more ability to seek legal recourse against government action eridani Dec 2014 #238

Fascism comes to America. The dismantling of democracy for corporate power. woo me with science Dec 2014 #12

This cannot be overstated. Maedhros Dec 2014 #33

+10 yup. ~nt~ 99th_Monkey Dec 2014 #126

Orrin Hatch is depending on you, Mr. President Enrique Dec 2014 #14

Praise from Orrin Hatch! He can put that in his scrap book! To all of you who still wonder why the Doctor_J Dec 2014 #15

That's why we need them now more than ever, in local races and the 2016 primaries. arcane1 Dec 2014 #63

That's changerific! progressoid Dec 2014 #17

Not to mention Audacious! Tierra_y_Libertad Dec 2014 #19

Hopetastic!!! n/t QC Dec 2014 #22

Sadly, the question becomes: What's in it for HIM? WinkyDink Dec 2014 #18

A most lucrative, comfortable life. 840high Dec 2014 #27

Occam's Razor. WinkyDink Dec 2014 #91

I don't understand exactly what it is he has against working people Dragonfli Dec 2014 #20

So he visits the Business Roundtable and complains about unions and liberals? pa28 Dec 2014 #24

What good will that do? He 840high Dec 2014 #29

Obama is a Republican to pretended to be a Dem to be elected. Odin2005 Dec 2014 #54

Don't fool yourself, this is who the Democrats are now. PeteSelman Dec 2014 #86

If Democrats ...any Democrats...pass this disaster which Demsrule86 Dec 2014 #260

None of the Pres Obama super supporters will debate this issue. They apparently just "go along". rhett o rick Dec 2014 #28

The first poster mocked the source neverforget Dec 2014 #31

We should wait until it's been enacted and the final effects seen before judging it IDemo Dec 2014 #32

Yep, and then it becomes... TDale313 Dec 2014 #59

It's because they just don't care. Maedhros Dec 2014 #35

This message was self-deleted by its author Jesus Malverde Dec 2014 #88

Remember the Hawaii vacation pictures? Jamastiene Dec 2014 #148

"We must trust him, he knows so much more than we know" Autumn Dec 2014 #50

Trust and obey... QC Dec 2014 #67

Are you of the body? L0oniX Dec 2014 #167

One of my favorites Autumn Dec 2014 #169

Not "shortly" but here you go. That damned "uninformed", "yeah-for-our-team" liberal base. pampango Dec 2014 #202

Well predicted. woo me with science Dec 2014 #236

Well, OK, I'll bite. After NAFTA passed middle class incomes increased for the only time in 40 yrs Recursion Dec 2014 #71

NAFTA, CAFTA and the WTO have been disasters or haven't you been paying attention. rhett o rick Dec 2014 #76

No. They've been pretty good. Median wages went up and unemployment decreased Recursion Dec 2014 #78

baloney. there's plenty to disprove that claim. cali Dec 2014 #92

Nice post. Here are 3 charts showing the rebound in wages and household incomes in the mid-1990's. pampango Dec 2014 #119

I find folks who post things from right wing authors hard to reach. markme88 Dec 2014 #141

Your graph shows that manufacturing employment grew during Clinton's administration (and after NAFTA pampango Dec 2014 #143

The Cleveland Fed vs you and your Tea Party source markme88 Dec 2014 #162

"The damage from the 90s outsourcing policies was well underway." pampango Dec 2014 #163

The Cleveland Fed was your source. markme88 Dec 2014 #211

It's hard to take you seriously on trade issues, markme88 Dec 2014 #108

Data points don't have "credentials" Recursion Dec 2014 #125

I do not find you creditable because you post things from Tea Party speakers markme88 Dec 2014 #129

I'm gonna guess you didn't work in manufacturing. Those of us who did know better. Autumn Dec 2014 #109

Which of my claims is false? (nt) Recursion Dec 2014 #124

That is incorrect. OrwellwasRight Dec 2014 #185

I'll probably be crucified for saying this, but.. Albertoo Dec 2014 #34

Trade deals CAN be good for everyone. Maedhros Dec 2014 #36

Ok. but why so opaque? If it's really good for everybody why not let the press in? librechik Dec 2014 #38

Addressing part of your statement... F4lconF16 Dec 2014 #47

to f4lconF16 Albertoo Dec 2014 #77

'efficiency' most often translates as Erich Bloodaxe BSN Dec 2014 #177

'efficiency' could also translate as 'worldwide social justice' Albertoo Dec 2014 #179

No, but the solution is the reverse of 'efficiency'. Erich Bloodaxe BSN Dec 2014 #200

Welcome to DU - looks like this is the start of the attempt to get liberals and djean111 Dec 2014 #58

the start of the attempt to get liberals and Progressives on board? Albertoo Dec 2014 #81

The content of your posts is consistent with that interpretation. [n/t] Maedhros Dec 2014 #154

So it's either "free" trade or no trade at all? Why the false dichotomy? arcane1 Dec 2014 #66

see my answer to f4lcon Albertoo Dec 2014 #83

The question is not about "modulating tariffs" OrwellwasRight Dec 2014 #191

Under the bus with you. GeorgeGist Dec 2014 #128

Too many unstated assumptions. OrwellwasRight Dec 2014 #188

On 'assumptions' Albertoo Dec 2014 #215

Great way to avoid answering my questions. OrwellwasRight Dec 2014 #216

Easy does it Albertoo Dec 2014 #217

No, "standard" theory (e.g., David Ricardo) was only about tariffs OrwellwasRight Dec 2014 #219

I felt I already answered, but I will attempt to reformulate more clearly Albertoo Dec 2014 #220

The Industrial Revolution didn't create the middle class. OrwellwasRight Dec 2014 #226

Ugh. I guess we share data and objectives, but differ on interpretation Albertoo Dec 2014 #228

No, i share no objectives with you. OrwellwasRight Dec 2014 #242

Sorry, but your facts are just plain wrong Albertoo Dec 2014 #245

Socially neutral? OrwellwasRight Dec 2014 #247

You win by wearing me out Albertoo Dec 2014 #248

I won because I gave you OrwellwasRight Dec 2014 #251

you live in a la-la land where you make your own data Albertoo Dec 2014 #253

I offered data about every country in question. OrwellwasRight Dec 2014 #259

This is NOT a trade deal: Faryn Balyncd Dec 2014 #218

It isn't a fucking trade deal! Only 5 of 29 articles have anything to do with trade eridani Dec 2014 #225

Of course he did. Policies don't change from president to president--that's not who we are librechik Dec 2014 #37

HUGE K & R !!! - Thank You !!! WillyT Dec 2014 #39

You are most welcome WillyT. nt 99th_Monkey Dec 2014 #41

Secret meetings of corporate powers since Bush 2005 at least. appalachiablue Dec 2014 #40

This is not the "change" I had "hoped" for.... truebrit71 Dec 2014 #42

I think it is time for labor unions to cut ties to the Democratic Party. liberal_at_heart Dec 2014 #43

Unions should back the Socialist Alternative party. Odin2005 Dec 2014 #56

As Krugman said, its not a big deal. bhikkhu Dec 2014 #45

where is the transparency Obama promised? He promised to be a transparent president. liberal_at_heart Dec 2014 #48

Transparency would be better, of course bhikkhu Dec 2014 #60

That patent enforcement could apply to medicine too. arcane1 Dec 2014 #72

It's not a plot. OrwellwasRight Dec 2014 #189

Does Hillary endorse this too? 4dsc Dec 2014 #46

Hillary helped to WRITE it, and endorses it. n/t djean111 Dec 2014 #55

I'm shocked! Shocked I say! 99Forever Dec 2014 #49

The Democratic Party is commiting suicide. Odin2005 Dec 2014 #51

It's almost as if they WANTED repubs to gain Senate seats, in order to provide cover for this. arcane1 Dec 2014 #61

No. Not in a million years 99th_Monkey Dec 2014 #90

President Obama's base isn't liberal. President Obama is a Conservative. He pretended to be liberal rhett o rick Dec 2014 #64

Thanks monkey Jesus Malverde Dec 2014 #73

K & R & AzDar Dec 2014 #74

This message was self-deleted by its author Faryn Balyncd Dec 2014 #75

The TPP may be the WORST, rottenest piece of corruption ever schemed up. Faryn Balyncd Dec 2014 #79

+100000 It is antidemocratic. It is fascistic. woo me with science Dec 2014 #111

Defying his base? He's doing his base's will. PeteSelman Dec 2014 #80

I thought we were going to repeal NAFTA. JEB Dec 2014 #89

Remember when Obama secretly reassured Canada that his opposition to NAFTA was just a campaign ploy? Vattel Dec 2014 #114

I believe he was going to 'renegotiate' it, not repeal it. The TPP under negotiation includes Mexico pampango Dec 2014 #116

Whatever. All I know is the jobs are gone for good. JEB Dec 2014 #117

US-Canada FTA was in fact superseded by NAFTA. OrwellwasRight Dec 2014 #193

Thanks. I did not know that the TPP would not supersede NAFTA, as NAFTA had superseded pampango Dec 2014 #206

USTR has annoucned it. OrwellwasRight Dec 2014 #212

This needs to be on top. woo me with science Dec 2014 #93

Oh they see it, but what BS can they come up with really? Rex Dec 2014 #120

So much for him being "free" to become more liberal in his second term. senseandsensibility Dec 2014 #96

This is Obama. 99Forever Dec 2014 #97

Here it comes ... any second!!!!!!!! JoePhilly Dec 2014 #102

It has been on the drawing board, the secret sessions seem to be wrapping up, and djean111 Dec 2014 #104

So in 30 days? JoePhilly Dec 2014 #106

What part of it having been on the drawing board, still being written in secret, do you djean111 Dec 2014 #110

Oh please, you need to just stop!! Notice how it was not mentioned during sabrina 1 Dec 2014 #136

Has it happened? JoePhilly Dec 2014 #139

So you did say it wouldn't happen, I thought so. Will it happen? If Obama has anything to say sabrina 1 Dec 2014 #142

Oh no!!! You trapped me!!! JoePhilly Dec 2014 #151

Obama wants it to happen, are you calling him a liar or too incompetent to do it? Dragonfli Dec 2014 #171

I don't understand your posts. OrwellwasRight Dec 2014 #195

I didn't realize we still had jobs to give away. Vinca Dec 2014 #103

+10 ~nt~ 99th_Monkey Dec 2014 #138

Memories of who the real "Base" is in both parties: IDemo Dec 2014 #105

He's just carrying out.. sendero Dec 2014 #107

Are people you crap on every time you get the chance really your base? QC Dec 2014 #118

Not anymore. woo me with science Dec 2014 #121

People aren't the base anymore. polichick Dec 2014 #122

Corporations are the Base and Obama is the Red Herring....n/t KoKo Dec 2014 #137

That is so sadly true. 99th_Monkey Dec 2014 #153

Obama defying his base? Is that supposed to be something new? Airc, he boasted about sabrina 1 Dec 2014 #134

Not surprised. Jamastiene Dec 2014 #144

This could really use a a Pro Sensible analysis seveneyes Dec 2014 #150

Logical like Stigliz? OrwellwasRight Dec 2014 #190

Defy? FiveGoodMen Dec 2014 #152

FFS! Prophet 451 Dec 2014 #156

I wonder how many Republicans will eagerly vote in favor of this, my guess is B Calm Dec 2014 #204

I have read as much as I can lend to this issue. NCTraveler Dec 2014 #227

NAFTA ...strike one, CAFTA,...strike two NM_Birder Dec 2014 #234

ogawdno he's never done that before! n/t librechik Dec 2014 #235

kick woo me with science Dec 2014 #237

kick woo me with science Dec 2014 #239

kick nt RiverLover Dec 2014 #240

Welp fuck. What the hell is wrong with him getting suckered into this secret bullshit. lonestarnot Dec 2014 #246

I am sorry but this sounds like some more of the same: compromise with the right and they will jwirr Dec 2014 #252

kick woo me with science Dec 2014 #254

kick woo me with science Dec 2014 #255

"Defy democracy and U.S. sovereignty" is more accurate. WinkyDink Dec 2014 #256

kick woo me with science Dec 2014 #257

kick woo me with science Dec 2014 #258