Small Government & free trade..not compatible!

[Feanor]

HI Feanor...

I really wasn't singling out the US. I've seen enough examples of Canadian protectionism to know it's systemic throughout both nations. Every country wants free-trade when they're exporting, and protectionism in election years and when they're importing. Sometimes Canada and the US team up vs other economies where there's mutual interest (automobiles) sometimes it's cross border dispute and the rhetoric on both sides of the border ramps up. I'm not convinced any one country is better or worse in this area...they all cheat for different reasons.

I agree. And I think it's fair and accurate to say the free trade agreements as long as they've been around, (which is at least a couple of centuries), have always been disputatious and tended to favour some to the disadvantage of others.

[badhabit67]

japonica
The Chicken Tax
the repeal of the Chicken Tax
The Volker Plan
30% Chinese tariffs on motorcycles
Chinese tariffs on U.S. nylon products at 96.5%
the 2010 National Trade Estimate
Currency manipulation of the yuan and euro
Canadian subsidized lumber
Bill Clinton toothless international policy regarding intellectual property rights
(here's some irony for you: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/24/opinion/24sun2.html )
Presidents Ford and Carter, Zbigniew freakin' Brzezinski...

ad infinitum

When were we practicing free trade?

Thanks bobsticks,that said it all !!

[Feanor]

japonica
The Chicken Tax
the repeal of the Chicken Tax
The Volker Plan
30% Chinese tariffs on motorcycles
Chinese tariffs on U.S. nylon products at 96.5%
the 2010 National Trade Estimate
Currency manipulation of the yuan and euro
Canadian subsidized lumber
Bill Clinton toothless international policy regarding intellectual property rights
(here's some irony for you: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/24/opinion/24sun2.html )
Presidents Ford and Carter, Zbigniew freakin' Brzezinski...

ad infinitum

When were we practicing free trade?

I had to check to see if 'The Volker Plan' (sic; s/b "Volcker Rule") was; turns out it was a proposal to restrict the activities of large banks to prevent them speculating, especially against their customers' interests.

'Sticks, I'm curious to be sure that you are angry that the plan/rule was thwarted versus that it was proposed in the first place.

Personally I don't think any person or concern ought to be able to hedge or short a security they don't actually own themselves. To do so is pure gambling. Before the 2008 crisis various parties bought "credit default swaps" on ("shorted") sub-prime mortgage-based bonds. These CDS would pay the purchaser the face value of the bond if it defaulted -- which plenty of them did as house prices fell and interest rates when up. Problem was that most of these 'short' parties didn't own any of these bonds.

It's been pointed out that such transactions create risk out of nothing. I.e. those on the "short" side had no risk respecting the bonds, but those "long" put themselves at risk for the full face value. Typically they sold CDS for between 0.5 -2.0% of the face value. The government bailed out these a$$holes???

IMHO, CDS, future, options and other such risk-creating derivatives ought to be available only to those with source security or commodity at risk. That is, only hog farmers should be able to sell porkbelly futures; only mortgage bondholders should be able to buy CDS for them. No life insurance company will sell you a life insuranc policy unless you have an "insurable risk" on the person; why should CDS be different?

[bobsticks]

'Sticks, I'm curious to be sure that you are angry that the plan/rule was thwarted versus that it was proposed in the first place.

I'm angry that it was proposed in the first place but probably not for the reasons that you think.

It's toothless. It places no restrictions on foreign banks which is where we're seeing the largest amounts of money flow in earmarked toward speculative markets and spread betting on U.S. crude prices. This is exacerbated by the low dollar, especially in Hong Kong and Argentina.

[Feanor]

I'm angry that it was proposed in the first place but probably not for the reasons that you think.

It's toothless. It places no restrictions on foreign banks which is where we're seeing the largest amounts of money flow in earmarked toward speculative markets and spread betting on U.S. crude prices. This is exacerbated by the low dollar, especially in Hong Kong and Argentina.

That's probably the principal argument of those opposed to the measure. But has the US already forfeited its leadership? Does it now lack the clout to get other countries to take similar, helpful measures? And how come "free trade" agreements facilitate corporations doing whatever they want, but nothing at all to constrain their distructive activities?

[Feanor]

I'm angry that it was proposed in the first place but probably not for the reasons that you think.

It's toothless. It places no restrictions on foreign banks which is where we're seeing the largest amounts of money flow in earmarked toward speculative markets and spread betting on U.S. crude prices. This is exacerbated by the low dollar, especially in Hong Kong and Argentina.

Big-banks arguement like ...

14 year-old: "Puleeze Mom, can I go downtown and turn tricks?"

Mother: "Yes of course Darling. We don't what the other sluts to get all the johns' money".

[bobsticks]

http://link.brightcove.com/services/...d=913862823001

[Feanor]

http://link.brightcove.com/services/...d=913862823001

Sounds vaguely promising but I really can't hear what they're saying.