LasÞ²t nigÞ²ht - BilÞ²l CliÞ²ntoÞ²n

[bwohlgemuth]

Unions....when you really want to have two bosses to report to.

I understand the need for some unions, protecting workers from corporate abuses. However, OSHA and the EEOC have far greater control and powers over those things (not that I'm a big fan of big government...there is a need for these groups but it has to be tempered by real problems as opposed to "he looked at me funny....I'm going to sue!").

I was in a union for all of three years and was GLAD the minute I got out of it. They asked me at one point to be a union steward, which I gave serious through to, until I saw how the stewards ran their shops. My wife also got royally screwed by the union, she was accused of making a 911 call evac'ing the building for a non-issue. When mgmt sat her down, she obviously denied it (since she didn't do it) and the steward wasn't helping at all. That was because the steward was the one who made the call....

What did mgmt do to the steward? Nothing. What were they going to do to my wife? Fire her.

Again, with a union you are creating another group of people to answer to who may/may not have your best interests in mind.

[bwohlgemuth]

This is only one example, but this a Kurd telling me this. Dude lost his home and had to leave his country on our account. (But still served me a forking great kebab.) He hardly has anything bad to say about Saddam.

How old was this guy? Did he have family that was gassed by Saddam or did they get out before that happened?

[bassjones]

This is only one example, but this a Kurd telling me this. Dude lost his home and had to leave his country on our account. (But still served me a forking great kebab.) He hardly has anything bad to say about Saddam.

How old was this guy? Did he have family that was gassed by Saddam or did they get out before that happened?

wondering that myself...

[Morphine Child]

This is only one example, but this a Kurd telling me this. Dude lost his home and had to leave his country on our account. (But still served me a forking great kebab.) He hardly has anything bad to say about Saddam.

How old was this guy? Did he have family that was gassed by Saddam or did they get out before that happened?

The guy was probably mid to late thirties. He lived in Iraq until the war started, and then he moved to Belgium. So he would remember the gassing...but he didn't mention that. Nor did it seem he felt a lot of hostility about Saddam, which I thought was strange coming from a Kurd. Immediately after he said "Kurd", I thought, "Saddam gassed the Kurds?", but he didn't say anything about it and I didn't want to bring it up.

The only specific thing he said about Saddam when I asked him about Saddam was, "he was not a very good politician, he didn't know what he was always doing", or something along those lines. Beyond being a bad politician, he didn't say anything negative about him.

He was a very friendly guy, I just felt kind of uncomfortable and sad about the whole situation. Like I said, I didn't know what to say right away, other than, "I'm sorry about that war!", but what the hell do you say? Obviously, I did inquire about the war and how he felt, and I was really glad I took that opportunity. I wish I hadn't had so many Stella Artois' before that.

[bassjones]

I wish I hadn't had so many Stella Artois' before that.

Now there's something we can agree on. In my top 3 favorite beers for sure.

[Morphine Child]

I wish I hadn't had so many Stella Artois' before that.

Now there's something we can agree on. In my top 3 favorite beers for sure.

It is good to know we agree on something finally! Who would have known it was alcohol?

It's funny, because Stella Artois is like the Miller Lite of America. It's cheap as hell, and everyone has it (of course it tastes good too unlike Miller Lite IMHO). Every night we went out we would go into a pub and they'd have 1 Euro ($1.50 US roughly) Stella on tap. It's like water over there. Leuven is the place I was staying in Belgium, and it's actually where the brew Stella. So on the days we took the train to Brussels, I'd get to see the Stella brewery! So much good beer over there it's ridiculous. I must have tried a dozen different beers, and that wasn't even close to the number they had from Belgium alone. They love their beer.

[subgenius88]

Countries which engage in free trade are by far, much more prosperous and successful over the long haul.

Such as which country specifically?

[bassjones]

Countries which engage in free trade are by far, much more prosperous and successful over the long haul.

Such as which country specifically?

USA, Japan, China has become more prosperous the freer their trade policy has gotten, 99% of Western Europe... and a whole lot of etc...'s

[bwohlgemuth]

And of course you are forgetting all of eastern Europe, Southeast Asia, various countries in Africa, and the one that tops them all....Jordan. I wrote a paper in 2006 about the vast increase in trade and prosperity once Jordan signed a free trade agreement with Israel (who is the US's largest trading partner in the Middle East, easily surpassing most of the obvious choices).

[subgenius88]

USA, Japan, China has become more prosperous the freer their trade policy has gotten, 99% of Western Europe... and a whole lot of etc...'s

None of those countries practice free trade - "freer trade" perhaps, but not free trade.

[subgenius88]

And of course you are forgetting all of eastern Europe, Southeast Asia, various countries in Africa, and the one that tops them all....Jordan. I wrote a paper in 2006 about the vast increase in trade and prosperity once Jordan signed a free trade agreement with Israel (who is the US's largest trading partner in the Middle East, easily surpassing most of the obvious choices).

A trade agreement with one country doesn't constitute free trade - all these countries have government restriction on trade in some form, whether tariffs, taxes, quotas on imports or subsidies. None of these countries allow free movement of labor - Israel doesn't even allow free movement of labor within its borders! What country in Europe or Asia can you move to without first gaining permission to work in the country? None that I've heard of. Which country allows free movement of capital? NAFTA is not even a free trade agreement, because it includes restrictions on trade! Different than existed before, but with any restriction there is not free trade.

[bassjones]

The freer their trade becomes, the more prosperous those countries become. The countries who are in abject poverty are the ones with the most controls on trade.

[bwohlgemuth]

Some examples...

North Korea, Cuba, Burma, Zimbabwe's recent fall came not only because of bad internal politics, but also bad trade laws.

And here's some light reading for you...

Jordan
As one of the few Arab nations with a peace treaty with Israel, Jordan does not have the same current burdens as its other Arab neighbors. However years of isolation and centralized planning have impeded economic growth. In 2004, Jordan’s GDP per capita was around US$4,500.(5) This was a marked improvement from their performance in 2000, where GDP per capita was around US$1,700. In that timeframe, Jordan not only joined the WTO in 2000, but also signed a free-trade agreement with the United States. These agreements have opened avenues for exports, which then open additional opportunities to take advantage of improving productivity by growing in scale.

Lewis demonstrated in his book how in Russia and Brazil, an uneven playing field would discourage investment, as domestic firms would not be held to the same policies as foreign firms. This situation exists to a point within Jordan. In Jordan, the monarchy has significant influence over the judiciary branch, which in turn creates an unfair advantage for Jordanian firms in the court system. While this issue is considered by many firms to be minor, additional restrictions placed by the Jordanian bureaucracy put significant barriers in place to prevent economic and productivity growth.

Lewis also described how countries such as India block foreigners from investing in the country, and therefore remove avenues of capital to business. Jordan’s situation is slightly different than India. While publicly Jordan encourages foreign investment, the country’s bureaucracy dramatically slows down the process. The country also imposes several internal restrictions upon foreign businesses such as licenses and tariffs, blocking growth and self-determination. Any business that looks to enter the Jordanian marketplace will need to be very patient with its investment, as it may take a long time to obtain the necessary approvals to start operations. While Jordan is on the path to improving productivity, barriers still exist preventing further investment.

[subgenius88]

My point is, what you're calling free trade is not what is actually defined as "free trade." Opening a market and loosening restrictions is not free trade as defined. The use of the term in NAFTA is basically Orwellian in that it has led to people referring to trade liberalization that might be beneficial but that does not amount to allowing "trade in goods and services between or within countries to flow unhindered by government-imposed restrictions" to use the term free trade.

Opening a market completely may not even constitute free trade - if all restrictions on investment, trade and labor are put away but a system of incentives to lure foreign investors or subsidies to manufacturers of certain goods or if any type of benefit is provided, this impacts the market and therefore does not constitute "free trade."

If a country makes trade pacts with one country but not another, even if every restriction is eliminated between the agreeing parties, an inequity is created that effects the global market, and there is no free trade. One would have to enact a pact with the entire world for the loosening of restrictions to have the effect of letting the market run freely without government interference.

I think it is very VERY difficult to argue that liberalization of trade with China has led to the US being more prosperous. How can trading with a country practicing what basically amounts to slave labor benefit the US? Even with liberalization of trade, I still think it would be just as difficult to argue that the US even practices free trade. Nearly every market is manipulated by the government in one way or another - subsidies, bail outs, regulation, etc.

[subgenius88]

The countries who are in abject poverty are the ones with the most controls on trade.

Not necessarily - there are innumerable factors that result in prosperity or lack thereof. Some of the poorest countries in the world have relatively open markets, such as Bolivia, Honduras, the Dominican, but other factors can lead to scarcity. What good is an open market if you have no natural resources, no human resources due to lack of education, a drought that has dried up your food supplies, political turmoil, etc.?


By the way - I'm actually a proponent of free trade (really more of a fair trade advocate, but that's another matter.) My point is just that it does not actually exist in the world today.