EPTMarket/Business friendly used to be classical right wing positions, until the "right wing" went so far to the right that its now what we used to call "extreme right" (not just in the US, also in many other countries).
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 8638
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10761 Posts
Market/Business friendly used to be classical right wing positions, until the "right wing" went so far to the right that its now what we used to call "extreme right" (not just in the US, also in many other countries). | ||
|
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
| ||
|
ChristianS
United States3188 Posts
On September 04 2017 22:13 TheTenthDoc wrote: It's also increasingly difficult to clarify what the right supports, considering if Trump had drafted a near-identical agreement to TPP because, let's be real, he's gotten walked over in every negotiation he's attempted this far he would have called it amazing and his supporters (who make up a large chunk of the right) would have lapped it up. The American right isn't defined by policy these days so much as loyalty I guess. Your place on the spectrum from center to extreme right is just a measure of how far Trump would hsve to go for you to oppose him. | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On September 04 2017 22:05 Velr wrote: This is not about left/right, its about market/business friendly or not. Market/Business friendly used to be classical right wing positions, until the "right wing" went so far to the right that its now what we used to call "extreme right" (not just in the US, also in many other countries). Market / business friendly & pro free trade (intrastate Europe, intra and interstate in Americas) would have been part of classical liberalism and the Enlightenment, no? Americas were more into free trade between nations, as mercantilism was structured to favor the home country. Pretty much everyone got tired of the old within-nation boarders and tariffs. Could be thinking of a different time period to define 'classic'... | ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
On September 04 2017 14:23 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Guess DACA is good material for appealing to emotions with individual cases like this. They are children, after all. | ||
|
Wulfey_LA
932 Posts
One idea quietly being discussed would be taxing the money that workers place into their 401(k) savings plans up front: an idea that would raise billions of dollars in the short-term and is pulled from the Camp plan. This policy idea is widely disliked by budget hawks, who consider it a gimmick; the financial services industry that handles retirement savings; and nonprofits that try to encourage Americans to save. | ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
| ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21783 Posts
On September 05 2017 00:58 Doodsmack wrote: Most of Trump's base probably doesn't have 401ks lol. But isn't the theory that corporate tax cuts pay for themselves by leading to increased growth? The only growth from corporate tax cuts is in management bonuses. Taxes are not stopping corporations from investing into open markets. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On September 04 2017 21:54 zlefin wrote: just letting everyone else know this is factually wrong. These initiatives are about equally supported by the American left and right. For a few decades (up until the recent populist surge), both parties have been quite supportive of free trade and these kinds of treaties, as has the spectrum of discussion. My impression is that they tend to be more supported by the centrist wings of the parties; and that the fars, both left and right, are somewhat more apt to oppose them (at least recently). Not going to get into it further per the avoid discussion with danglars policy. American support is basically "What's the TPP?" Then, most Republicans/Independents were against or more strongly against than Democrats. It's wrong to frame this as "these kinds of treaties," since the TPP includes measures not present in other free trade bills On September 04 2017 05:54 Sermokala wrote: Anyone who supported TPP in the form that DJT killed is an idiot. It would have removed the sovereignty of every nation involved and raise international corporations to the status of nation states able to change the laws of other nations in court and get all the money they think they should have made on top. So sadly, in discussing this topic according to your policy of avoiding discussing anything with me, you would need to discuss further why you're ignoring apropos aspects of the TPP. It's precisely the secret drafting and inclusion of corporatist anti-free-trade measures that created so much opposition. | ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
On September 05 2017 00:54 Wulfey_LA wrote: LOL at everyone yesterday who said Trump was a populist looking out for the working man when he shut down TPP. Trump and his Goldman staffers want to tax 401ks up front to pay for corporate tax cuts. Populism!!! https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/904692225665327104 Sounds like the lion coming up with a story as to why the mouse has nothing to worry about. | ||
|
RvB
Netherlands6230 Posts
On September 05 2017 00:41 JonnyBNoHo wrote: Market / business friendly & pro free trade (intrastate Europe, intra and interstate in Americas) would have been part of classical liberalism and the Enlightenment, no? Americas were more into free trade between nations, as mercantilism was structured to favor the home country. Pretty much everyone got tired of the old within-nation boarders and tariffs. Could be thinking of a different time period to define 'classic'... Indeed yes. The most famous classical liberal newspaper (the economist) was founded to oppose the corn laws. The conservatives at that time were mercantilist. | ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
On September 04 2017 19:41 Acrofales wrote: For starters, that's China. The USA's largest trade partner (as a single country, 2nd if we count the EU as a single unity). I'm sure that will work well! Trumps good at making himself look weak and stupid. | ||
Falling
Canada11363 Posts
Which points have you put forward? As far as I can tell, you began by demanding Sermokala provide greater argumentation, but I don't really think you've expanded upon a pro-side. Looking back on the past few days, I'm still not seeing any points you have put forward- only one sentence you-don't-know-what-you-are-talking-about refutations. And it certainly isn't all bad (though interestingly you only claim to 'slightly' support the TPP. But I have great concern over IP expansion laws, and if corporations could have similar influence on Canadian environmental protection as they do in Chapter 11 NAFTA, I didn't much care for that either. Look. There is value in making sure state's cannot arbitrarily screw companies over- certainly value for the company, but also value for the country if they actually want to do business with the company. However, I'm not sure that the current balance is where it needs to be. The Case for Removing the Fair and Equitable Treatment Standard from NAFTA This suggests that FET clause is being interpreted more broadly as it is not properly limited. If TPP is anything similar, then I would not wish to see the corresponding intrusiveness of corporations on the government. And then there was the whole secrecy thing- we'll let you know what's going on after you've elected us (my government). I will admit that I got too cute with trying to flip your 'not innately good' into 'innately bad', which is too strong a claim than I would prefer to make. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States44584 Posts
On September 05 2017 01:45 Doodsmack wrote: Trumps good at making himself look weak and stupid. https://twitter.com/akiperitz/status/904385928826904576 If Trump actually does this, then who is he going to pay to manufacture all his Trump products? | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On September 05 2017 02:07 Falling wrote: @zlefin Which points have you put forward? As far as I can tell, you began by demanding Sermokala provide greater argumentation, but I don't really think you've expanded upon a pro-side. Looking back on the past few days, I'm still not seeing any points you have put forward- only one sentence you-don't-know-what-you-are-talking-about refutations. I will admit that I got too cute with trying to flip your 'not innately good' into 'innately bad', which is too strong a claim than I would prefer to make. I've put forward lots of points to counter specific claims; so I'm not sure where you're coming from, it doesn't seem to follow. It feels like you're not being careful with your argumentation and theses. This mostly isn't a debate about whether trade is good or bad in general, it never was. This is mostly me objecting to certain specific claims made by people. I made several counterpoints on the sovereignty issue; so I'm not seeing where you're saying I haven't made any points. can you clarify where you are on the soverignty debate; and what your EXACT theses are? we may need to switch to full formal mode to clear this up. | ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
On September 05 2017 02:19 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: If Trump actually does this, then who is he going to pay to manufacture all his Trump products? The irony of Russia being on that list is not lost on me. One of his aides is gonna have to pull him aside and tell him. | ||
|
Falling
Canada11363 Posts
When I made my first post on the topic. You said, "that doesn't change my points at all." Points, plural. So then, the points you have made must come before and in our subsequent exchange of posts. But all I see is various you-don't-understand-what-you-are-talking-about. Which while possibly true, isn't exactly a point, much less points. "It would have removed the sovereignty of every nation involved and raise international corporations to the status of nation states" That's too strong a claim, so perhaps we are closer in view. I would rather say that if it operates like NAFTA's Chapter 11, it intrudes too much on a nation's sovereignty. There needs to be more of a limitation- but I don't see it as raising companies into countries. It's currently (as far as I can tell, and really what do I know) imbalanced- TPP would likely have expanded the imbalance when it actually needs to be rebalanced. | ||
|
Sermokala
United States13984 Posts
On September 05 2017 02:39 Falling wrote: @zlefin. When I made my first post on the topic. You said, "that doesn't change my points at all." Points, plural. So then, the points you have made must come before and in our subsequent exchange of posts. But all I see is various you-don't-understand-what-you-are-talking-about. Which while possibly true, isn't exactly a point, much less points. That's too strong a claim, so perhaps we are closer in view. I would rather say that if it operates like NAFTA's Chapter 11, it intrudes too much on a nation's sovereignty. There needs to be more of a limitation- but I don't see it as raising companies into countries. It's currently (as far as I can tell, and really what do I know) imbalanced- TPP would likely have expanded the imbalance when it actually needs to be rebalanced. I admit the statement is hyperbolic but Its a fair statement when you create a court where a corporation has even standings with a nation. A nation should have to be the one to bring a claim against another nation. Especially in situations where a corporation has ties to the government. A corporation can begin to do business in another nation now specifically to start a lawsuit later on in order to make said business profitable for them. A people should be allowed to make their own laws and their own rules on how to do business in their own country without undue influence. I think a tangential argument can be made against TPP from a UN right to self determination argument. | ||
|
Adreme
United States5574 Posts
On September 05 2017 02:19 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: If Trump actually does this, then who is he going to pay to manufacture all his Trump products? Its fairly obviously a bluff and EVERYONE knows it so it has no power. I mean yes it hurts the rest of the world but it hurts us more so it makes no sense for us to do it so its clearly not going to happen. Hot air and bluster only get you so far. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On September 05 2017 02:39 Falling wrote: @zlefin. When I made my first post on the topic. You said, "that doesn't change my points at all." Points, plural. So then, the points you have made must come before and in our subsequent exchange of posts. But all I see is various you-don't-understand-what-you-are-talking-about. Which while possibly true, isn't exactly a point, much less points. That's too strong a claim, so perhaps we are closer in view. I would rather say that if it operates like NAFTA's Chapter 11, it intrudes too much on a nation's sovereignty. There needs to be more of a limitation- but I don't see it as raising companies into countries. It's currently (as far as I can tell, and really what do I know) imbalanced- TPP would likely have expanded the imbalance when it actually needs to be rebalanced. I see at least 2 points in the responses I made to Sermo; and I don't see how what you said discounts them. There were a bunch of academic citations in the pages prior to that that covered various issues related to this as well; and no counters were presented to those (which were obviously far more thoroughly vetted and argued than any of our points are) I made points in the last 3 pages contesting the claim that it actually intrudes onto a nation's sovereignty. it feels like you're misusing the term sovereignty. | ||
| ||
