Even uninformed RP voters is votes for Paul

[swefred]

How hard is it to understand that Ron Paul is the only candidate who is for free trade?

http://www.businesswire.com/portal/site/google/index.jsp?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20080113005092&newsLang=en

 

[tcindie]

I think the problem is too many people don't understand (or care to understand) trade.. let alone free trade.

So the argument that Ron Paul is the only candidate for free trade might well do nothing for them. On the other hand, he's also the only candidate who has always opposed the war. He's the only candidate not involved with the CFR, the only candidate that believe in our rights, etc. etc.. there so much more to it than just free trade.

Maybe that's not the most important issue to them. For me.. if I was at work, or a union office I'd probably be most interested in the part about not paying taxes and having the value of my money be more substantial than thinking about the free trade issue.

It depends on the audience.

 

[Xenophage]

How are they uninformed?

 

[smtwngrl]

How hard is it to understand that Ron Paul is the only candidate who is for free trade?

http://www.businesswire.com/portal/site/google/index.jsp?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20080113005092&newsLang=en

Ron Paul is for free trade, but against NAFTA and other trade agreements, which he calls "managed trade".

 

[smtwngrl]

I think the problem is too many people don't understand (or care to understand) trade.. let alone free trade.

So the argument that Ron Paul is the only candidate for free trade might well do nothing for them.

For a general audience, this might not be a high priority issue. But it will attract the attention of those opposed to NAFTA and other similar trade agreements. And, as NAFTA has caused a monumental number of jobs to go overseas, it is a particularly important issue for those affected by it. Michigan is a place where jobs going overseas is an important issue.

 

[swefred]

free trade isues, curencys - expanded discusion

this message was supposed just to answer Xenophage question but it become alot more.

Xenophage: The AUW worlkers seem to think he in an protectionist that will protect there works from foreign competition.

My disagreements with Pauls standpoints

Free trade and NAFTA/EFTA

In this issue I´m not sure I agree with Paul, I don't see how there vill be real free trade any time soon. I think Free trade agreements like NATFA or EFTA in Europe with has been around sins 1960 is way better then what was before and the current system that North America has now.

What is the current trade situation in north America today? I cant imagine that you have tariffs against Canada and Mexico.

Monetary policy, amero and a world currency

Also I dont fully agree on Pauls stand on an North American currency. The ideal currency would definitely be one single currency for the entire world. One of the big obstacles for trade is the exchange risk you have take when trading with other country's. This in not a big problem for huge companies they already use several currency's.

Exchange rates is a bigger problem for small company's that want to do trade with other contries. An example for a small company: day 1) you get the price list, day 10) you order. Day 30) you pay the bill. During these 30 days the items you ordered might have become 10,15,30 % more expensive due to fluctuating exchange rates. Sure it can become cheaper as well but it will always be an risk that you have take into consideration and protect you from and it cost money.

Ironicly today some companies protect them by buying gold during the time between thay place the order and pay the bill sins gold is ralativly stable campared to all currency's.

Maby Gold standard is the solution, but it also have its problem that I dont know enught about to discuss.

An North american currency would at least lead to the creation of an new central bank (simular to European central bank). With a bank like this that Canada and Mexico would have an interest in would not be used to "print money" in the manner that US appositely does now to finance de deficet.



NAFTA super highway.

I´t is a mystery to me how you can be flat out against a road. Better and more efficient infrastructure facilitates trade and does so it will be faster and easier to transport items. This will lead to cheaper prices, more jobs and a wealthier society.

You cant abandon an road just because some eminent domain issues, that surley can be resolved without government force.

 

[swefred]

..And, as NAFTA has caused a monumental number of jobs to go overseas...

yay, but what people had dont see is the new jobbs that has been created in there places. this is manny more jobbs than those who left and that also pays more.

In the 90’s alone more than 1 million American jobs moved abroad, and corporations in manufacturing downsize and reduce employment all the time when new technologies and more streamlined production is possible. But this is not a failure, this is a success. This has made it possible for labour and capital in America to go into the creation of new, higher-skill and higher-tech jobs. Without this process, the country would not have made way for the creative energy behind Silicon Valley or the massive growth in the health, service, leisure and entertainment industries for which there is an ever-increasing demand. The US may have lost 1,3 million jobs in the 90’s, but have during that decade, in total, on the net, gained more than 20 million new jobs.

Rest of article: http://www.johannorberg.net/?page=articles&articleid=67

 

[slacker921]

"I´t is a mystery to me how you can be flat out against a road. Better and more efficient infrastructure facilitates trade and does so it will be faster and easier to transport items. This will lead to cheaper prices, more jobs and a wealthier society." ..

umm.. NAFTA is great for those profiting from large corporations - but horrendously bad for the rest of us. The rich will (and are) getting richer off of NAFTA.

Come to NC - where manufacturing jobs have gone to Mexico and China and replaced with low wage service sector jobs. That's what NAFTA did for us. Come to NC which is home to 6 of the 10 counties with the fastest growth in Hispanic population in the nation. We're overwhelmed with illegal immigrants. Our drivers license doesn't have the map of the US on the back - it has a map showing the NAU with Canada, Mexico, and the US.

 

[slacker921]

oh.. "yay, but what people had dont see is the new jobbs that has been created in there places. this is manny more jobbs than those who left and that also pays more."

You might want to do some research on that and come back. Those "jobbs" that have been created are low paying service sector jobs.

 

[Ronin]

You cant abandon an road just because some eminent domain issues, that surley can be resolved without government force.

Eminent domain is by definition government force. As well as unconstitutional. For some people their property is more important than any sum of money.

 

[Xenophage]

this message was supposed just to answer Xenophage question but it become alot more.

Xenophage: The AUW worlkers seem to think he in an protectionist that will protect there works from foreign competition.

My disagreements with Pauls standpoints

Free trade and NAFTA/EFTA

In this issue I´m not sure I agree with Paul, I don't see how there vill be real free trade any time soon. I think Free trade agreements like NATFA or EFTA in Europe with has been around sins 1960 is way better then what was before and the current system that North America has now.

What is the current trade situation in north America today? I cant imagine that you have tariffs against Canada and Mexico.

Monetary policy, amero and a world currency

Also I dont fully agree on Pauls stand on an North American currency. The ideal currency would definitely be one single currency for the entire world. One of the big obstacles for trade is the exchange risk you have take when trading with other country's. This in not a big problem for huge companies they already use several currency's.

Exchange rates is a bigger problem for small company's that want to do trade with other contries. An example for a small company: day 1) you get the price list, day 10) you order. Day 30) you pay the bill. During these 30 days the items you ordered might have become 10,15,30 % more expensive due to fluctuating exchange rates. Sure it can become cheaper as well but it will always be an risk that you have take into consideration and protect you from and it cost money.

Ironicly today some companies protect them by buying gold during the time between thay place the order and pay the bill sins gold is ralativly stable campared to all currency's.

Maby Gold standard is the solution, but it also have its problem that I dont know enught about to discuss.

An North american currency would at least lead to the creation of an new central bank (simular to European central bank). With a bank like this that Canada and Mexico would have an interest in would not be used to "print money" in the manner that US appositely does now to finance de deficet.



NAFTA super highway.

I´t is a mystery to me how you can be flat out against a road. Better and more efficient infrastructure facilitates trade and does so it will be faster and easier to transport items. This will lead to cheaper prices, more jobs and a wealthier society.

You cant abandon an road just because some eminent domain issues, that surley can be resolved without government force.

I really don't know what to think about NAFTA. I don't know enough about it. The elimination of trade tariffs sounds good to me but I don't know what else is in the agreement.

As far as a "world currency" goes, the U.S. Dollar used to be that currency under the Bretton-Woods agreement.

 

[martinocortez]

Eminent domain is by definition government force. As well as unconstitutional. For some people their property is more important than any sum of money.

I was thinking about this yesterday. Without eminent domain, how is any transportation project going to work? Yes, you can pay most people to move out of the path of your highway or lightrail, but there are going to be a couple who will refuse to move, regardless of what you pay them. This will happen along any right-of-way you pick. The NIMBY factor is very real.

I assert that eminent domain is essential for any large project.

The question is, if we expect private industry to create our transportation infrastructure (which is the true libertarian stance), who gets eminent domain? I'd further assert that the *reason* we do not see any private pool of investors creating a lightrail system, or highway system is the fact that acquiring the right-of-way is too costly (so is mitigation, but that is a separate issue). The only reason our government can do it is because they can force the NIMBY people to shut up. Without eminent domain, our interstate highway system would not exist. Without eminent domain, virtually none of our infrastructure would exist because you will *ALWAYS* get some jackass who doesn't budge.

Since we need a functioning transportation infrastructure to remain competitive on the global market, and from a libertarian standpoint that infrastructure should be maintained by private entities, do they get eminent domain? Do we establish a body of law that allows them to aquire land for projcts that serve the good of the citizenship?

If they cannot acquire the right of way, and our government cannot get the right of way, how will we remain competitive as a nation?

 

[swefred]

You might want to do some research on that and come back. Those "jobbs" that have been created are low paying service sector jobs.

Why spread the socialists propaganda? It was NOT to a large part so called Mc jobbs that has been created in the west when old jobbs moved to developing countries.

Between 1983 and 1995 24 milion more jobs were created than was lost. And it was not low skiled labor so called "mc jobs" that were created. 70% of the jobs that vere created had an wage that was higher than the median wage of the unated states.

Quote from In defence of global capitalism by johan Norberg page 123 (Swedish edition) For PDF here (swedish)


In defence of world capitalism shuld be read by avery liberty minded induvidual, for the lazy pople you can wach "Globalisation is good" wich is an Documentary based on the book. Tho the book givs alot mor info and arguments for liberarianism.

 

[swefred]

As far as a "world currency" goes, the U.S. Dollar used to be that currency under the Bretton-Woods agreement.

Yes and during this time we(western world) had the second largest economic growth in history. But sins the "gold standard" was connected to the US dollar it could and was misused by the US government who printed money that did not have 100% backing of gold.

 

[swefred]

Eminent domain is by definition government force. As well as unconstitutional. F

That is why I wanted a solution without goverment force.

Tho I agree with other people it can be hard. In the begining it will be cheep to buy land but, when there are les and less land left to buy, people will find out that they can demand more and more money for there land. The very last people who sits on the last feet's of land needed to complete the road will have an enormous bargaining chip.

 

[sratiug]

That is why I wanted a solution without goverment force.

Tho I agree with other people it can be hard. In the begining it will be cheep to buy land but, when there are les and less land left to buy, people will find out that they can demand more and more money for there land. The very last people who sits on the last feet's of land needed to complete the road will have an enormous bargaining chip.

That's why they don't want anyone to know of their plans for the NAFTA Superhighway. If everyone knew in advance they could join together and ask what the combined property is really worth. It's worth a lot if you can put a toll booth on your highway. Landowners might would donate use of their property if they could get paid some of the tolls as rent. Why give them the money? Well - Why give foreigner companies the money? If the interstates hadn't been built we'd probably have more passenger trains. Taking land by imminent domain and giving it to private comanies is un-American.