Say Anything Blog

The reason Dems like Dorgan are against outsourcing is because it primariliy targets unionized industry. 

Others on the paleo-con side of the opposition are against outsourcing not because it hurts the unions, but because they believe this country needs to do more than sell things to survive, we need to make them as well.

Both groups are on the same side of the “free trade” argument, but for entirely different reasons.

Here’s the Bureau of Labor Statistics release of state-by-state figures.

North Dakota union membership fell from 21,000 to 20,000, or from 7.3 to 6.8 percent of the workforce.

BLS releases are here.

I highly doubt people are dropping out (why would anyone drop out of an institution that guarantees better pay and benefits?), but that this is attrition at work.  Manufacturing jobs are eliminated (either through migration of factories overseas of more automation), and the jobs that are replacing them are service jobs, which have low unionization rates.

So, given that manufacturing jobs are leaving America because of the inflated price of labor caused by unions, you’re saying that the unions are killing themselves off?

I don’t disagree.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

the unions are killing themselves off

They’ve been doing that for years.  Automation was going to happen anyway since it is essential to mass production and the computer age.  However that doesn’t account for labor intensive jobs that have been moving overseas since the early 1960s.

You don’t have to be a moron to be a liberal Democrat but it sure helps.

So, given that manufacturing jobs are leaving America because of the inflated price of labor caused by unions, you’re saying that the unions are killing themselves off?

Well, yeah. 

There are two types of protectionism involved in the anti-"free trade” side of politics.

There is Unionist Protectionism where the Unions are protecting their political power by pretending to protect worker rights and the scape goat for the lost jobs is “free trade.”

Then there are the Patriotic Protectionists who genuinely believe it is in the best interests of the country to retain our manufacturing base in the name of nation’s security.  Many people cannot see how we can thrive long term if we no longer make the things that we need to maintain our lifestyles.

I would argue that the Unionist Protectionism is the worse of the two because it is based solely on a selfish, power mongering ideology. 

Retaining a manufacturing base is just as important as becoming energy independent, as such those who genuinely believe it is in the national security interests to control our energy security, so too is it important to control our industrial security.

In other words, not all protectionist are union lackys, but all union lackys are selfish.

All protectionism is bad policy.  How would you propose we keep manufacturing in America?  What artificial measures are you going to use government power to implement, and how many tax dollars are you going to take from the pockets of Americans to pay for it?

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

jpe said, I highly doubt people are dropping out (why would anyone drop out of an institution that guarantees better pay and benefits?)

Every union I’ve had the displeasure of being forced into didn’t offer better pay and benefits. They offered seniority. The cream of the crop couldn’t rise to the top. If it needs spelled out - that’s not a guarantee of better pay and benefits to anybody but the lazy.

Unions generally protect the lazy and indigent and punish hard work. The real question is: why would anyone want an institution that punishes success?

I guess that one doesn’t get through to those same people who want a tax structure that punishes success.

Unions were the biggest around the “rust belt”; so named for the rusting factory hulks dotting the region. Ever wonder why many of those factories closed up shop? They could no longer compete and unions played a big hand in making it that way.

What artificial measures are you going to use government power to implement, and how many tax dollars are you going to take from the pockets of Americans to pay for it?

The fact is the founders of this country never intended for the government to be funded by the income of it’s own people.

Prior to the ratification of the 16th Amendment, the Federal Government didn’t have taxing power beyond the imposition of trade tariffs.

Article 1, Section 8 addressed the issue of trade quite clearly:

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

Free Trade is not something that the founders’ envisioned, nor does it have a constitutional basis.

Now, that’s not to say that Free Trade is not the moral ideal of humanity, it is.  But it is also morally wrong to grant free trade to countries whose people are not themselves free.

How would you propose we keep manufacturing in America?

I don’t think that’s the right question, but the simple answer is that we need to scale back punitive taxation and regulation that punishes competition.  Contrary to the leftie lies about “cheap labor” and “free trade”, the vast majority of businesses outsource due to taxation and regulation.

Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected

Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin

Free: Your conclusions don’t match your premises. There is no Constitutional prohibition to collecting taxes, and neither is there any requirement to regulate commerce or impose tariffs, only the power to do so.

Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected

Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin

HI, free, how’s it going?

You wrote Free Trade is not something that the founders’ envisioned, nor does it have a constitutional basis Don’t know what the founders specifically envisioned but I do know that the purpose of the constitution except for the Bill of Rights was to define what the Federal government is ALLOWED to do.  Except for regulating interstate commerce [and the purpose of that section was to KEEP states from placing tariffs on products moving from one state to another] and authorizing the government to make foreign treaties which could involve commerce I suppose, I believe the constitution is silent on commercial trade which could be interpreted to mean that people and businesses could trade freely.

Having said that, we need to look at the primary reason for the Revolution from Britian which was the crown tariffs placed on merchandise trade between the colonies and the British empire.  Seems to me that the revolution itself was an indorsement for ‘free trade’.

You don’t have to be a moron to be a liberal Democrat but it sure helps.

There is no Constitutional prohibition to collecting taxes

Never said their was, but prior to the 16th the was no explicit power granted to collect income taxes. 

and neither is there any requirement to regulate commerce or impose tariffs, only the power to do so.

Correct, my conclusion is that the founders proscribed a method for funding the federal government - the collection of tariffs - that in their minds had the added benifit of preventing American industry from competing with the rest of the world.

I do not believe there is a constitution basis for promoting free trade with nations whose people are not free and which results in higher taxes on Americans as a replacement of those tarrifs.

Obviously in a perfect world we can all buy and sell to eachother at will, but this has never been nor will it ever be a perfect world.

Having said that, we need to look at the primary reason for the Revolution from Britian which was the crown tariffs placed on merchandise trade between the colonies and the British empire.  Seems to me that the revolution itself was an indorsement for ‘free trade’.

Well the problem there is that you are comparing the modern system of capitalism with the form of merchantilism that was still in play under the British system in the 18th Century.

You make a good point, but the “intolerable” acts and taxes were on goods coming to the colonies, and quotas on goods leaving the country and the King’s refusal to allow the colonies to negociate with France and Spain.

Trade Quotas and Trade Tariffs are two policy issues, but the over riding issue self-rule, the right to determine policies, and the right to negociate with trading partners freely.

Never said their was, but prior to the 16th the was no explicit power granted to collect income taxes.

Yes, you did; your words:

Prior to the ratification of the 16th Amendment, the Federal Government didn’t have taxing power beyond the imposition of trade tariffs.

More errors:

Correct, my conclusion is that the founders proscribed “Proscribed" means “prohibited”, and I’m sure you mean the opposite. a method for funding the federal government - the collection of tariffs - that in their minds had the added benifit of preventing American industry from competing with the rest of the world. Actually, tariffs were the only govt source of revenue at that time.

I do not believe there is a constitution basis for promoting free trade with nations whose people are not free This is not relevant, Constitutionally. and which results in higher taxes on Americans as a replacement of those tarrifs.  This is completely wrong; tariffs result in higher prices for Americans, and are essentially a tax increase.  Eliminating tariffs enables Americans to purchase goods and services at a lower price.

Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected

Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin

Trade Quotas and Trade Tariffs are two policy issues…

They both distort the supply/demand equation; Quotas through limiting supply, and Tariffs through artificially increasing the price.  They both accomplish the same thing, and the only difference between them is political BS.

Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected

Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin

Eliminating tariffs enables Americans to purchase goods and services at a lower price.

Show me the amendment that grants citizens to low prices.

/sarcastism/

The point I am trying to make is that the biggest supporters of free trade tend to be strict construtionists and originalists as well and that there is a disconnect because nowhere do either language and intent of the document point toward a basis for free trade in the constitution.

There is more constitutional originalism basis against free trade than there is in favor of the income tax.

The whole point of limiting the Federal Government’s funding to tariffs was because the founders knew that was the best way to limit the impact the government had on the economy, lower tariffs mean more trade and thus more revenue from that trade.

If the government had been restricted to tariff revenue, we wouldn’t be complaining about high taxes elsewhere.

Quotas through limiting supply, and Tariffs through artificially increasing the price.  They both accomplish the same thing, and the only difference between them is political BS

Exactly, seems to me that the south succeded from the union for some of the same reasons, excessive tariffs on cotton going to England and trade goods coming back.  This country has fought 2 wars because of restrictions on free trade.  How much more proof do you need, free?

You don’t have to be a moron to be a liberal Democrat but it sure helps.

Exactly, seems to me that the south succeded from the union for some of the same reasons, excessive tariffs on cotton going to England and trade goods coming back.

The south refused to collect federal tariffs which they viewed as tribute.  The south wanted to negociate their own trade terms, a power which is explicitly granted to the Congress.  The south also refused to build it’s railroads the same width as the north which explicitly violated the interstate commerce clause.

The south had every right to leave as the constitution was voluntary contract (at least for the original 13).

Luckily all of us here understand that it had little to do with slavery until Lincoln wanted to create an insurgency two years into the war.

The point I am trying to make is that the biggest supporters of free trade tend to be strict construtionists and originalists as well and that there is a disconnect because nowhere do either language and intent of the document point toward a basis for free trade in the constitution.

The entire reason this country was founded was freedom and independence, and free trade is certainly a part of that.  Seems obvious to me.

Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected

Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin

Why are we fighting a war in Iraq to create democracy and trading with China whose only contribution to the world is cheap slave labor, and with them the path to democracy is free trade?

It is inconsistent as hell, trading with a nation whose economic power is derived from slave labor is not going to eliminate the institution of slave labor any more than trading with Iraq with Saddam would have brought freedom to that country.

If the goal is freedom, we should not trade with nations whose people are not also free. 

I do not see anything unAmerican about that stance.

If the goal is freedom, we should not trade with nations whose people are not also free.

This ignores the simple premise that free economic trade with oppressed nations tends to have a positive impact on those nations.

Take China, for instance.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

-- Thomas Jefferson

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Take China, for instance.

Yeah, freedom in China is them spiting in our face and showing us they can knock-out our strategic advantage in space.  Great.

jpe.  Unions extort money from free men in exchange for more forced union legislation.  They are closely associated with organized crime (Mafia types) and promote candidates that the real workers do not support.  At least two supreme court cases , Beck being on of them have decided this issue, but the criminals refuse to obey the law.  I would not want to dirty my hands by associating with these “people”, thank you very much.  Thank God that I live in a right to work state where we are free to choose and have the right to work or not work without being associated with these people.  Freedom of association, the last time I checked is one of our Bill of Rights.

Communism is evil