Protectionist Vs Free Trader

[Muad'dib]

I'm making this thread based on the politics quiz by goldskywalker...

Well, to be honest, I don't really have any opinion on the matter either way, or else, one that i've not really thought about enough to merit having an opinion.

Underneath the score for "Protectionist Vs Free Trade" we get a brief synopsis...

"The protectionist believes in barriers against free trade most probably due to a belief that this is in his or her country's interests. The free trader rejects such notions, believing that the system ultimately suffers when tariffs, subsidies and other obstacles to free trade persist."

Hopefully, here in this thread opinions on both sides will come up, and i'll know more on what is being held by both beliefs

[pilaf]

I haven't given it a ton of though. I'm pretty sure my political party is opposed to free trade, but I'm not sure what grounds that's based on. I claim neutrality until I learn more. However, if the Greens oppose it, chances are it's for reasons that would make sense to me. I'm off to study.

[Ratwar]

Free Trade for the win!

It'll help end poverty in the Third World... It'll create jobs all over the world... Of course, this is all in the long term. Almost everyone agrees that we need Free Trade, what we don't tend to agree on is how long we will take to ease into it.

What the major thing holding up the discusion is the US and EU farm subsidies. They don't want to end them, since there is no way that US and EU farmers can match the prices of farmers in the third world.

Of course, this opens up another can of worms. One of the reasons farming in the US cost more is due to government legislation of health requirements. Other countrys don't have these laws, so their food might be of a lower quality.

Anyways, protectionism should only be done on a small scale for a limited period of time.

[Muad'dib]

So, at best, its a way at ending hunger, and at worst its a means to spread disease globally? Thats basically what i'm seeing when you strip it down from your post, Ratwar.

That may be excessively oversimplifying the matter, in fact i'd be surprised if it wasn't.

[pilaf]

I've been reading up on this for the past thirty minutes and it's the most compicated issue I've ever studied, potentially ever.

[tartilus]

Removed because, while I thought I knew what I was talking about, I'm far too afraid of making a fool of myself to risk it.

[Ratwar]

newbiezilla said:

So, at best, its a way at ending hunger, and at worst its a means to spread disease globally? Thats basically what i'm seeing when you strip it down from your post, Ratwar.

That may be excessively oversimplifying the matter, in fact i'd be surprised if it wasn't.

Actually, that's basically correct from my understanding. Of course, in the long run it'll help us out.

pilaf said:

I've been reading up on this for the past thirty minutes and it's the most compicated issue I've ever studied, potentially ever.

Yep, it is complicated. Still, in our increasingly globalized world, we WILL see free trade.

[Twitchmonkey]

From my knowledge of free trade I support it. I think that in an economy the consumer must be considered first and that those that produce the best goods and services must prevail. I also believe to some extent or another in a free market, laissez-faire system with broader corporate deregulation.

[Gold_skywalker]

tartilus said:

Removed because, while I thought I knew what I was talking about, I'm far too afraid of making a fool of myself to risk it.

Welcome to my life.

It's alot tougher when you have Liberals around you and you're the only Republican, eh? You wouldn't know that feeling, though.

[morty14]

Protectionism, for me. Although, given I'm an isolationist that is fairly obvious

[powerslide]

Protectionism in the current economic model is in theory not too great an idea, yet when we have the anti competetive and exploitative nations such as China, then one may see the merits of protecting the people.

But avoid closed market economies... Urgh.

[Ratwar]

Well, for those of you who are protectionist, I just found an interesting quote,

"The challenge for policymakers is to ensure that the benefits of global economic integration are sufficiently widely shared — for example, by helping displaced workers get the necessary training to take advantage of new opportunities"

-Ben Bernanke (Chairman of the Federal Reserve/Economic's Jesus)

Source:
news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060825/ap_on_bi_ge/bernanke

It looks like the most powerful man in the world, economics wise is in favor of globalization...

[morty14]

ratwar said:

It looks like the most powerful man in the world, economics wise is in favor of globalization...

Sounds like a whole new reason to be against globalization. Yay!

[Ratwar]

morty14 said:

ratwar said:

It looks like the most powerful man in the world, economics wise is in favor of globalization...

Sounds like a whole new reason to be against globalization. Yay!

So you'd rather have an underperforming economy that isn't capable of producing the goods and services needed to supply the populus?

[morty14]

ratwar said:

So you'd rather have an underperforming economy that isn't capable of producing the goods and services needed to supply the populus?

Oh, because globalist bankers are sooooooo concerned with the well-being of the populace.

[Ratwar]

morty14 said:

ratwar said:

So you'd rather have an underperforming economy that isn't capable of producing the goods and services needed to supply the populus?

Oh, because globalist bankers are sooooooo concerned with the well-being of the populace.

Yes... I mean, as soon as anyone gets money they turn into bastards...

[morty14]

ratwar said:

Yes... I mean, as soon as anyone gets money they turn into bastards...

When your job is just to look out for the bottom line and to enrich yourself and the other globalist bankers, you tend to lose sight of some, or rather all, of the more important things. Well, as far as I can tell that's what happens.
Although, I should be careful. I've seen what the WTO and their globalist allies do to people who don't agree with them... ask Seattle, it knows first hand....

[Ratwar]

morty14 said:

ratwar said:

Yes... I mean, as soon as anyone gets money they turn into bastards...

When your job is just to look out for the bottom line and to enrich yourself and the other globalist bankers, you tend to lose sight of some, or rather all, of the more important things. Well, as far as I can tell that's what happens.
Although, I should be careful. I've seen what the WTO and their globalist allies do to people who don't agree with them... ask Seattle, it knows first hand....

Ummm... You do know that almost all of the damage caused during those meetings was done by anti-globalists, don't you?

[morty14]

ratwar said:

Ummm... You do know that almost all of the damage caused during those meetings was done by anti-globalists, don't you?

Oh, the unconstitutional no-protest zone was done by anti-globalists? The fake state-of-emergency created by the decided inaction of the police (they were ORDERED not to stop illegal activities that they could see in front of their very eyes) was the anti-globalists? The brutal beating, gassing, and detaining by the police of peaceful protesters and random people just walking down the street was the doing of the anti-globalists? The deal made later with the actual trouble makers (whom, btw, were actually opposed by the legitimate protesters and many fights between the two groups broke out) to give them low cost room and board at the expense of the public and the fact that not ONE of the violent protesters were arrested while over 600 peaceful protesters and, again, random people took place, all that was done by the anti-globalists?
Wow, that's strange how they did all that.

I consider that greater damage than all the vandalism that occurred from the anarchists (who seemed to be very convenient for the WTO if you ask me...), as it was a very dangerous precedent to set.

[Ratwar]

If the Globalist had the ability to control the government to set up all the things you accuse them of doing, we'd already have globalization, and there'd be no need to have meetings to promote it. You have yet to link the actions of the police to the globalists in any way shape or form.

People in the United States do have the right to peaceably assembly, that is true. Of course, the Bill of Rights makes no mention of being able to assemble where ever they want to. The Seattle Police did not intend to inhibit the right to peaceable assembly, they simply wanted to protect the rights of the people who weren't protestors.

As for 600 'peaceful protestors' almost 75% were arrested within the no protest zone.

Of course, you are correct that some of the protesters fought with the black bloc, but other protestors joined their efforts. It is definitely not a stretch to say that the protest organizers had little or no control over the protest that day. So, the 'protest' was a mob that was violent (both to bystanders and to people within the mob) by your own admission. How is this a 'fake state of emergency'? In these circumstance, I think you'll agree that it is the civic duty of the police to step in to force the crowd to disperse.

As for police inaction in the beginning, look at the situation logically. In WTO protest since Seattle, the police activity has been swift, and the protestors have contended that the situation didn't warrant it. In Seattle, the police gave organizers the chance to control the situation. Sadly, the organizers failed. If Seattle's police had acted quickly, you would just claim that the police actions weren't warranted. It is a 'damned if you do, damned if you don't' situation.

Seriously Morty, complaining about police inaction and police over reaction (by declaring a 'state of emergency') is a bit hypocritical, in my opinion.

As for the treatment of the black bloc, if I were a citizen of Seattle (and I heard that from a legit source), I'd be really pissed at my mayor.

[morty14]

ratwar said:

If the Globalist had the ability to control the government to set up all the things you accuse them of doing, we'd already have globalization, and there'd be no need to have meetings to promote it. You have yet to link the actions of the police to the globalists in any way shape or form.

Meetings to promote it? The WTO isn't 'promoting' itself during these summits. It is planning and discussing amongst themselves. It isn't a rally...
I obviously can't prove the WTO and their allies did all this, but I will say it was very, very convenient for them and it seems to point to the conclusion that the mayor of Seattle may be a supporter [read: useful idiot] of that cause.

People in the United States do have the right to peaceably assembly, that is true. Of course, the Bill of Rights makes no mention of being able to assemble where ever they want to. The Seattle Police did not intend to inhibit the right to peaceable assembly, they simply wanted to protect the rights of the people who weren't protestors.

What about the random searches of people's bags? What about the control over movement that the police had over the citizens? What about the abuses on the right to expression? Certainly wearing a pin or a sticker that is anti-WTO isn't dangerous to anyone, is it? If they were wearing pro-WTO pins and stickers do you think they'd be harassed?

As for 600 'peaceful protestors' almost 75% were arrested within the no protest zone.

And what about the other 25%? Hmm? Seems like being wrong one fourth of the time is quite a lot, no? And with something so simple too. Is that is an acceptable fraction of the time to be wrong? Aren't we innocent until proven guility? Detaining people for having specific political views, what a country.

Of course, you are correct that some of the protesters fought with the black bloc, but other protestors joined their efforts.

Really? I never heard anything about that. Well, they too should've been dealt with.
Of course, local news reports on the scene say that "None of the protesters, the legitimate protesters, down here want any of this kind of action and they are very angry." Seattle's channel 7, eyewitness news made that report.
Seattle Weekly's report, "Protesters riot, police riot" also suggested that only the black block was participating in the vandalism, writing:
"The vandals weren't difficult to detect: They were the ones with masks, carrying crowbars."

It is definitely not a stretch to say that the protest organizers had little or no control over the protest that day. So, the 'protest' was a mob that was violent (both to bystanders and to people within the mob) by your own admission. How is this a 'fake state of emergency'? In these circumstance, I think you'll agree that it is the civic duty of the police to step in to force the crowd to disperse.

It was the 'civic duty' of the police to take action against the violent protesters as soon as they saw what was going on. But they were ordered not to perform this duty. Why? Well I don't think it would be a stretch to say in order to create a state of emergency when there certainly wasn't one needed. Those few violent protesters giving a bad name to the whole movement could've been stopped easily by the police presence already there. But instead, it looks like the 'anarchists' weren't the target of this state of emergency, it looks like the peaceful protesters with real issues were the targets of this created state of emergency.
Police were originally put there to deal with these types of situations and protect private property and the public. What do they do instead? Watch as the 'anarchists' attack people and destroy property. Why were they ordered not to deal with it? Well, that's a question that should make you pause a bit.
Here's a quote from the Seattle Weekly for you: "Police Chief Norm Stamper seemed to confirm that this week, admitting at a press conference his department made a "calculated decision" allowing violent protesters to run free."
Wow, a "calculated decision." Glad they made that so they could later declare their state of emergency and shut down any and all protest. Not to say they couldn't have already planned for this:
"The mayor and the chief knew the threat was there," says a police source. "They decided to risk it by forming boundaries and not fanning out even in small forces along the sidewalks" where storefronts were easy targets."

As for police inaction in the beginning, look at the situation logically. In WTO protest since Seattle, the police activity has been swift, and the protestors have contended that the situation didn't warrant it. In Seattle, the police gave organizers the chance to control the situation. Sadly, the organizers failed. If Seattle's police had acted quickly, you would just claim that the police actions weren't warranted. It is a 'damned if you do, damned if you don't' situation.

Stopping violent protesters who in no way are hard to pick out of the crowd (stated above) and who are not representative of, nor supported by, the rest of the protesters is not a "damned if you do" situation. Furthermore, it seems that the powers that be incited police brutality with their inaction by holding them back while they were taunted, had things thrown at them, and their equipment vandalized, much like beating a caged animal to make it angry. Then all that anger they built up exploded into violence on the protesters, and, again, innocent bystanders. You really should read that whole article by the Seattle Weekly, it is quite insightful. Here's another few excerpts though:
"the mayoral-declared state of emergency allowed exhausted, hungry cops (who grabbed catnaps on cots in commandeered courtrooms) the opportunity to lash back at demonstrators who taunted them the day before. Local and network TV video along with eyewitness accounts revealed repeated acts of police brutality, including random pepper-sprayings of bystanders, clubbings, face-printing, and the memorable scene of a gas-masked cop kicking an unresisting Capitol Hill demonstrator in the groin, then shooting him with a rubber bullet."
"An amalgam of city, county, and state officers including the National Guard attacked, gassed, and shot rubber bullets at protesters and others. Anyone inside what the ACLU says is an unconstitutional city no-protest zone was rousted or knocked down, arrested, cuffed, and dragged to buses."

Seriously Morty, complaining about police inaction and police over reaction (by declaring a 'state of emergency') is a bit hypocritical, in my opinion.

Erm, how? If you don't like the extreme right does that mean you have to love the extreme left? If you don't like black do you have to love white?
How about reacting appropriately? How's that for a radical idea? It's real easy. But they decide not to in order to meet the needs of their agenda.

As for the treatment of the black bloc, if I were a citizen of Seattle (and I heard that from a legit source), I'd be really pissed at my mayor.

And most were. It probably played a role in the mayor being defeated in the next election.
See a news story here on the public hearing after the event.
"Of 120 speakers, only three commend Seattle police for their efforts in controlling crowds and unrest."
Furthermore a list of questions asked during the hearings can be found here.

[Ratwar]

morty14 said:

I obviously can't prove the WTO and their allies did all this

Then stop wasting my time.

[morty14]

ratwar said:

Then stop wasting my time.

Ah, so anything that can't be conclusively proved is not worth debating?
Fine, fine. If that's the way it is, I just hope we never get in an agruement again, as I doubt very highly you can prove anything at all.

[Ratwar]

morty14 said:

Ah, so anything that can't be conclusively proved is not worth debating?
Fine, fine. If that's the way it is, I just hope we never get in an agruement again, as I doubt very highly you can prove anything at all.

Morty, so far all you've managed to do here is complain about the actions of the Seattle Police during a WTO conference. If you would really like to debate Globalization, go ahead. I'll match you blow for blow, but I am not here to defend the actions of a group that isn't related to the WTO in any way. Debating your theory, with the total lack of evidence that you've provided to back it up, isn't worth your time or mine. Until you have some evidence, I don't really see what there is to debate.

[mastab]

I don't support either, but if I did believe in personal ownership, I'd go with free trade. Screw my country, the global community needs it more.