Comments on: Greens to Obama: appoint a Cabinet for real change, not big-business warhawks like Emanuel

By: Steven Druckenmiller

Steven Druckenmiller — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 18:07:18 +0000

I just do not find that verifiable, Mr. Knapp. If anything, once you get a “foot in the door”, it is easier, not harder, to expand the types of trade that fall under free trade agreements.

I’ll readily grant that there are problems with partial free-trade, but once you get an agreement, the “genie is out of the bottle”.

By: Thomas L. Knapp

Thomas L. Knapp — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 17:19:22 +0000

The problem with “fettered free trade” is that it is a kinder, gentler protectionism disguised as free trade … which means that all of its down sides will get blamed on free trade, causing sentiment to move in a more, not less, protectionist direction.

By: Steven Druckenmiller

Steven Druckenmiller — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 05:09:42 +0000

Thereâ€™s no guarantee, nor any reasonable reason to believe, that what might replace them would be more protectionist.

I’m asking you to think about what came before the agreements.

Seriously, what did the state of trade look like among North American nations prior to the agreement?

The WTO is a UN World Government organization.

The UN is a toothless joke. Nations only follow the UN voluntarily.

By: Trent Hill

Trent Hill — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 05:01:03 +0000

Im not criticizing! Man you are defensive,lol.

No, I was just saying that I did already notice that I made a mistake. The fault is clearly mine.

By: G.E.

G.E. — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 04:40:45 +0000

So you’re criticizing me for posting a reply before reading all the replies, when you posted a reply without first stopping to think?

By: Trent Hill

Trent Hill — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 04:40:38 +0000

And of course I know what fettered means, dont insult me.

And yea, Fettered free trade certainly could exist. It’s called Protectionism. I assume fettered free trade would look more like a free trade agreement than outright protectionism.

By: Trent Hill

Trent Hill — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 04:38:18 +0000

GE,

I said a few comments back “Yea, he was going for a play on wordsâ€”not criticizing your ideas. I somehow missed thatâ€¦geeze.”

So in answer to “Trent – Do you know what â€œfetteredâ€ means? You canâ€™t have â€œfetteredâ€ free trade.”

I’ll just point up 3 comments.

By: G.E.

G.E. — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 04:33:43 +0000

Steve – NAFTA and WTO are protectionist organizations. There’s no guarantee, nor any reasonable reason to believe, that what might replace them would be more protectionist. Regardless, they’re entirely unconstitutional and literally forbid free trade. The WTO is a UN World Government organization.

By: G.E.

G.E. — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 04:31:58 +0000

Trent – Do you know what “fettered” means? You can’t have “fettered” free trade.

By: Trent Hill

Trent Hill — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 04:27:41 +0000

To be clear, I absolutely oppose NAFTA. It isnt a step in the right direction.

By: Steven Druckenmiller

Steven Druckenmiller — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 04:06:03 +0000

I guess that depends on whether you think empowering international bureaucracies makes trade on balance more free.

This sounds like one of those backhanded disagreements I hear so much about.

What international bureaucracies, specifically, are directly empowered by NAFTA?

By: Trent Hill

Trent Hill — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 04:00:06 +0000

“he was right in a certain sense, in that any form of shackle or â€œfetterâ€ would make the trade not entirely free.”

Yea, he was going for a play on words—not criticizing your ideas. I somehow missed that…geeze.

By: paulie cannoli

paulie cannoli — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 03:50:12 +0000

I guess that depends on whether you think empowering international bureaucracies makes trade on balance more free.

By: Steven Druckenmiller

Steven Druckenmiller — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 03:44:43 +0000

Mr. Hill – he was right in a certain sense, in that any form of shackle or “fetter” would make the trade not entirely free.

I should have said that I favor freer trade over protectionism, which, to me, seems to be a weakness of the anti-NAFTA crowd.

By: Catholic Trotskyist

Catholic Trotskyist — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 02:36:14 +0000

I actually agree with the pig greens on this one, but it’s there own fault for not joining the Democratic Party. and Robert, how would a libertarian government be better for the peace-loving socialist workers of America?

Stop Hillary Clinton, stop Eric Holder, Please O God bring Obama back unto your will, amen.

By: Trent Hill

Trent Hill — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 23:25:00 +0000

GE,

How on earth do you disagree? He says unfettered free trade is better, a statement you obviously agree with. And that fettered free trade is better than protectionism, a statement that makes sense for any libertarian, since fettered free trade is really just a lesser form of protectionism.

By: G.E.

G.E. — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 23:14:25 +0000

FETTERED FREE TRADE!!!

Ignorance is Strength!

By: Steven Druckenmiller

Steven Druckenmiller — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 22:58:30 +0000

I know this is going to get me flayed alive, but free trade agreements are better than the only viable alternative, which is protectionism.

I favor unfettered free trade, but the next best thing is fettered free trade.

By: Robert Milnes

Robert Milnes — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 22:52:40 +0000

I told you so. Progressives & Greens should have supported the Progressive Libertarian Alliance strategy.