Shortly after President Trump’s election there were commentators who bemoaned the effect that the new president would have on free trade. And there were reasons for concern. One of the first acts of the administration was to end the Trans Pacific Partnership- a long negotiated free trade pact. This was followed in short order by the administration threatening economic consequences to businesses outsourcing their operations. The president also took to Twitter attacking China as a currency manipulator and reiterated his desire to ‘re-negotiate’ NAFTA. The president also surrounded himself with noted trade protectionists, such as Daniel DiMicco, who is currently a trade representative in the administration. Through his words and actions, President Trump has shown that he is no fan of free trade.
But the same people who once worried about a revival of high tariffs and onerous sanctions on trade partners are now some of the most vocal proponents of more trade restrictions. To be sure, they are advocating that trade restrictions only be imposed on the right ‘bad guy’ (Iran, North Korea, and particularly Russia) with a bipartisan bill quickly moving through Congress. The bill is unique, in the fact that Congress, which has historically ceded trade authority to the executive branch, has imposed a caveat in this legislation that would prevent the president from unilaterally lifting the trade sanctions. Certainly, the fair weather free traders that support ‘sanctions for me and not for thee’ assert that these three countries pose a unique military threat to the United States and its allies. North Korea is an erratic dictatorship that possesses nuclear weapons; Iran is getting closer to developing its own nuclear weapons (so we’re told); and Russia continues to occupy parts of Ukraine, along with having ‘interfered’ in the most recent presidential election. Respectable society has decided that free trade is important, but not with those who pose an existential threat to our nation.
Ignoring the question of whether or not these three ‘bad guys’ actually pose a threat to the United States, it’s glaringly obvious that the justification for these economic sanctions, coupled with opposition to others, is rooted in pure hypocrisy. These same ‘free traders’ were just recently lecturing the administration that we should not retreat from opening trade with Cuba, even though that country remains a despotic hell-hole and props up the man-made disaster that is Venezuela by providing arms and personnel. These were the same people that were alarmed every time President Trump talked about penalizing China for currency manipulation and supporting the Kim regime in North Korea. If North Korea poses a unique military threat to the United States, then why are we imposing more meaningless sanctions on that state, while ignoring its Chinese benefactor?
The response regarding China and Cuba from these selective ‘free traders’ is always the same: engagement is more successful than isolation. Then why doesn’t that philosophy apply to North Korea, Iran, and Russia? It’s clear that neither President Trump, nor his detractors, are particularly keen on actual ‘free trade’. Each one wants to trade with some, while excluding others. The only difference is in who they don’t want to trade with and why. The president, as if ignorant of David Ricardo, wants to restrict trade with countries that enjoy trade surpluses with the United States, while his opponents want to restrict trade with countries identified as the ‘baddies’ by The Weekly Standard. Even those who have whittled the notion of ‘libertarianism’ down to nothing more than ‘free trade and free migration’ seem to be embracing The Weekly Standard mentality. So, since it is obvious to any casual observer that we are all trade protectionists now, can we stop pretending as if the president is the only one that threatens liberal trade?
I think we’re back to Bastiat again.
The ‘seen’ is a trade tariff that on first-order inspection, is “bad for America’. We’re always going to find politicians who are prepared to point a deal that nobody likes because of its obvious, first order effects and is happy to cast it down.
The second-order impact of tariffs is often ignored, forgotten, disregarded or just too complex to put in front of the electorate, so a tariff whose first order impact is not too ruinous to too many people will be left in place, preserving its first- and n-th order effects.
Eventually, the prevailing tariffs will have the notable characteristics of being first-order benign, their real loathsome second-order harvest being willfully ignored by all and sundry. I’d posit that we’re getting awfully close to that point now.
Should we rehash the whole “TPP is not free trade” argument?
I will at least grant Trump a limited amount of credit for understanding that, if you’re going to impose barriers for international trade, then you need to lower them for domestic trade (i.e., deregulation). High barriers to both international and domestic trade will lead to economic stagnation, compounded all the more so by the expense of paying for the welfare state.
The number of people who are actually for free trade, in general, seems to be vanishingly small. It’s not an easy position to sell, because people like to believe that the government is protecting them from bad actors. The part where the government is the bad actor and there’s nobody who can keep the government in check doesn’t seem to enter into it.
Trump vs. CNN- smile you sonofabitch!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4o9ovuaWZKo
Game of Trump
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VrgZOXNJjIM
Reading a little deeper, I’d say that “Respectable society has decided that free trade is important, but not with those who pose an existential threat to our nation.” is kind of pushing the point a little too far. Forbidding trade with a nation that really does intend and have the means to end you seems like a reasonable wartime measure. However, there is no such nation presently existing. Iran and Russia are regional powers, at best, and North Korea doesn’t even pose an existential threat to South Korea*, never mind the United States. The only other remotely plausible threat, China, couldn’t get their army from there to here, and would be economically devastated if they lost trade with the U.S.
* = The damage the Norks can do to Seoul notwithstanding.
I suppose any country with a substantial stockpile of nuclear ICBMs could be said to pose an existential threat to the U.S. That includes Russia and China. But any such use of the weapons falls into MAD. The U.S. has enough stockpiled nuclear ICBMs to end both countries at once. But that’s irrespective of any trade between us and them. They’ve already got the weapons.
Well sanctions work both ways. Impacting US trade to those countries tends to be down-played. Generally used more as short term tools of state – to punish or limit the other party.
Similarly – we consider it a valuable trade-off to limit Iran’s direct access to pieces of equipment that might make it easier for them to develop missile or nuclear technology.
Not strictly sanctions – but would the national interest really benefit from letting Chinese companies (with gov’t/military ties) directly invest or gain access to classified technologies produced by US companies.
On an individual basis – maybe I’d like to sell my “semiconductor” company to the highest bidder, and if they happen to be Chinese, so be it. However, at some point – if that transaction will put US lives at risk – military/civilian/etc by compromising existing equipment….is there a civic responsibility?
I know what I feel like as someone dependent on some types of technology and seeing some of the impacts on the Navy or other Orgs made by corporate entities changing hands on the availability of parts, etc.
Now for those specifics…possibly your existing contract would have proprietary requirements written into it – and as long as you expected to hold onto that contract, your hands would be tied.
Either way – there’s always various sides to every issue.
I think the bigger questions that get into the “unseen” economics are, why are U.S. companies and interests more likely to be bought by the Chinese than the other way around*? Why is setting up and maintaining a domestic supply chain so difficult? I’ve heard people tell me that the U.S. government should set up and subsidize “key” industries (steel production, machining, electronics manufacturing, etc.) for the sake of independence/readiness, but why do they need to be subsidized in the first place?
* = For economic reasons, obviously there are political ones as well
Because they are subsidized on the other end. If China enables it’s steel/aluminum manufacturers to be able to be able to sell its product at 2/3 the price of our unsubsidized manufacturers, what happens to our manufacturers. At least that’s the excuse. And, of course, it’s unsustainable and immoral.
I happen to believe that the most stable foreign relations are with those you are co-dependent on. I’m not going to go to war with the nation who provides me all my steel. And they aren’t going to war with the country who buys it.
And even if that theory is wrong, and China does attempt to dictate terms (like the US never does), monopoly breeds innovation. If they turn off the steel, we’ll build our shit out of something new and likely better.
Damn you, FdA. KEEP OUT OF MY HEAD.
A country’s economy is, to us, a black box. Steel has certain intrinsic costs associated with its production and gross profits associated with its sale. How those costs and profits are distributed within that country is really not our business. “Here’s the steel, here’s the price. Want it?” Markets ftw.
How those costs and profits are distributed within that country is really not our business.
I think there’s still the argument to be made that it is somewhat your business if the products are being produced in a blatantly immoral matter. And this isn’t me complaining about sweatshops or anything, more that this is China, the place that still has slavery and forced labour camps.
The problem with that, according to the national security gurus, is that if China controls all the steel they can use it as a weapon against us. Where would we be without steel for a couple of months? And it takes years if not decades to get a new foundry up and running again. So their solution is to subsidize US manufacturers to offset the Chinese subsidies in the name of national security. They never consider that China has as much to lose by cutting off the steel as we do.
I think it makes us far less likely to ever go to war when you are on equal ground. Trading value for value. But the US is not interested in peace it’s interested in power. Wars keep politicians employed.
China has as much to lose
More, really.
But the US is not interested in peace it’s interested in power. Wars keep politicians employed.
^This.
“I’m not going to go to war with the nation who provides me all my steel. And they aren’t going to war with the country that buys it.”
See: Japan and the United States, 1941
I want my Rearden Metal already!
Still contained steel though IIRC
What does that even mean?
It’s usually meaningless. There are some valid examples, like a country setting up an exclusive trade deal whereby they export valuable natural resources in exchange for mostly worthless paper scrip. Such arrangements, though, aren’t free trade.
“end the Trans Pacific Partnership”
Transphobia!
False advertising is fraud.
This is a link
“Just three days after Attorney General Jeff Sessions gave a fawning closed-door speech to the nation’s best-funded anti-LGBT hate group and legal nonprofit, the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) asked the Supreme Court to review a second case featuring a business-owner who refused to provide wedding-related services to a same-sex couple….
“…headline-grabbing facts of both those cases—a small-business owner refused to serve gay customers seeking a cake or floral arrangements for wedding celebrations—make it sound like the issue at stake is that of marriage equality. In fact, both of these cases turn on the question of discrimination, and the laws that exist to protect vulnerable populations.
“Nondiscrimination laws require businesses serving the public to provide services without regard to a number of protected characteristics—including, in Washington and Colorado, an LGBT identity….
“Those laws, duly enacted by state legislatures, are what Masterpiece Cakeshop and Arlene’s Flowers are really looking to undercut in the name of “artistic expression” and “religious freedom.” And that could have sweeping and dangerous implications for a much broader group of Americans than just LGBT people hoping to buy a wedding cake or flowers….
“[Quoting an ACLU spokesperson] ‘If the right of religion says that you can invoke your speech claims or your religious claims not to comply with an anti-discrimination rule, that puts everybody who is protected at risk.’…
““Where would that claim of artistry end?” [the spokespersyn] asked, noting that in addition to wedding service-providers like bakeries and florists, dress-shops, hair salons, and “any number” of other businesses could claim that their services are in fact a form of constitutionally protected artistic practice.”
anti-LGBT hate group
I must have missed the lynchings…
Because it actually isn’t a hate group. Except to the splc.
duly enacted by state legislatures
Whoa, that matters again? I thought the reactionary state legislatures had to be kept in check by the courts? Principles, how do they work?
you can invoke your speech claims […] not to comply with an anti-discrimination rule
So the ACLU is no longer supporting the rights of Illinois Nazis, no matter how distasteful they are, and instead have become compliance Nazis supporting the state.
…not to comply with an anti-discrimination rule, that puts everybody who is protected at risk
Whoops. CuttIng that quote short makes it sound like they’re still free speech supporters.
I haven’t kept up with these but my memory is that no bakers were refusing to bake cakes but were refusing to actually participate in the weddings as caterers. I have seen a few of these cases. It is more than a little mendacious to twist “I dont want to be present and participate in your gay wedding”
into “I refuse to give you food.”
But then, look who we are talking about here.
Well some things have to be presented a certain way to be outrageous.
My favorite example is Citizens United. Every single person I’ve discussed it with has no clue what the actual case was about, and think that it was about direct donations/bribes by corporations to politicians. The most common response is disbelief when presented with the actual facts. Some even decided to cling to their belief by not verifying what they were told.
It needs to be spelled out for people that sanctions do not alleviate the threat to American security posed by foreign nations.
Before China started its bid to join the WTO and trade with the United States and the world, it directly funded and supported anti-American, Maoist rebels all over the world. Not only has that activity ceased, China is now an active force for stability in Africa and elsewhere in the developing world. They’ve had the fastest transformation in history, from the world’s largest peasant population to having what’s quickly becoming the world’s largest middle class, and instability in the developing world makes it harder to get their hands on the raw materials they need. Nowadays, when people talk about “Maoist rebels”, they’re talking about their ideology–not their funding and support.
Before China joined the WTO in 2001, we used to have ongoing arguments in Congress about whether to extend them MFN status periodically. Since then, to the extent that trade with the United States has influenced their behavior, it’s been positive. To the extent that they are sensitive to our criticism on human rights, etc., it isn’t because they have goodness in their heart. It’s because trade with the United States is so important to their economy.
If we had similar trade relationships with Iran, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, et. al., and their prosperity, likewise, depended on trade with the United States, that would lessen the security threat they pose to the United States–not increase it. The idea that isolating bad actors for their bad behavior is good for security is what ties progressives and neoconservatives together. It’s just that where neoconservatives are horrified at the prospect of working together with vicious dictators for the good of American security, progressives would rather see Americans suffer economically than trade with a foreign dictator who, like Putin, doesn’t respect LGBTQI rights.
From what I can tell so far, in both foreign policy and trade, when Donald Trump is talking about putting America first, this is the kind of thing he’s talking about. Barack Obama was more concerned about how Dutere was treating Filipino drug dealers than how trade with the Philippines might impact the job prospects of gang affiliated kids in Long Beach, California. Obama was more concerned about whether Putin supported gay marriage than whether working with Putin might help address our security concerns with ISIS in Syria. It’s amazing that it has become a point of controversy that Donald Trump considers American interests first in his dealings with these and other countries.
I’m as free trade a guy as you’re ever likely to meet, but what’s the point of talking about why free trade is in America’s best interests if you’re talking about a president who doesn’t think America’s best interests should be the top priority? And we’ve got the same problem with these progressives and neoconservatives in congress, as well. From progressives telling me that the problems of refugees are more important than whatever level of security threat they pose to the American public or whether it’s necons telling me that American interests are secondary to the problems of the people of Iraq, Syria, and Iran . . .
Yeah, trade with these countries would be better for the United States, but I’m to the point where even though I disagree with Trump on trade, I can’t even begin to convince people that free trade is better for the United States–when they don’t have America’s interests as the top priority. Donald Trump does. He’s wrong on strategy, but at least he has the right goal. Sometimes I win deals because I don’t start out calculating a business plan based on my best interests. I figure out what’s in the best interests of the client–and then convince them to do that with my help. That sometimes puts me head and shoulders above the competition.
It should be hard to convince people to make sacrifices for other people’s interests.
It shouldn’t be hard to convince congress or the president that America’s interests should come first. Get back to that basic, simple assumption, and then maybe I’ll start complaining about how trade restrictions aren’t in our best interests.
Your China example is spot on.
By the same token however, Chinese government tampers far more in their internal government and economic operations that we should/would permit. It *shouldn’t* be virtually impossible to open a business in China without taking on Chinese partners.
Similarly, Chinese “interference” overseas is hardly 100% benign either – just look at their attempts to monopolize even local markets in Central Africa, etc. A big part of it is them feeling up their historic destiny complex (just like in the South China Sea) and their need to reassert themselves as a hegemon.
I think the creation of a merchant class is a good start towards power decentralization. Once the government gets a taste of its cut of the revenue generated by trade, those producing that revenue start having some leverage to demand more freedom.
But unfortunately it’s a lot like the Russian merchant class post-communism – aka oligarchs. The former politicos get the hookups from their party buddies as things get sold off, etc. That’s why you have all these billionaires with such tight party ties. It doesn’t make it any easier to get started on the ground level.
True, but how long can that last? At some point, they’ll either expand or they’ll die. Long term greed greater than short term greed.
Although I suppose they could just focus on solely criminal activities like the cartels.
We should unilaterally end all tariffs and subsidies except for those pertaining to national security. I would say the same about trade restrictions. Selling widgets to Iran doesn’t endanger us as long as those widgets can’t throw rocks.
Watch how fast lawmakers will claim grain production, cars and water sprinklers are national security issues.
Well regarding food production, I would say that you do not want to outsource 100% of your food supply. Of course, I suppose an argument could be made that with our military capabilities we could take whatever we want from elsewhere in case of a global “event”.
Good point. There’s a big gap generally between dual-use tech and normal “stuff”.
The one I always like is when I’m browsing somewhere like Optics Planet for some cheap weapon optics. You make a selection, accept the delivery, open the box.
Made in China.
Huge sign on the instructions. “Government Export Restriction”. And you know exactly who is on that ITAR prohibition.
Ohio prosecutors defeat proposals for more grand jury independence
“The committee reviewing Ohio’s grand jury process voted 7-1 – twice – to recommend two big changes. The first would have amended the Ohio Constitution to provide an independent legal adviser to grand juries….
“But the proposal ran into resistance from prosecutors. So did a proposal that would have allowed defense attorneys to review transcripts of grand jury testimony but only when that witness is also planning to testify in open court.
“[Committee chair Janet] Gilligan Abaray says the only path now open for the changes would be for a citizen-led referendum to amend the Ohio Constitution.”
Well I would say that the next Governer of Ohio will be our current super prick AG DeWine and there’s no doubt he’ll fight those changes.
I’m picturing a political cartoon, where the state citizens, represented by The Skipper, starts hitting Little Buddy (Janet Gilligan) with his hat.
ALEC’s scary plan for electing your senators
The radical right is intent on destroying democracy as we know it
“As John Nichols, who broke the story for the Nation, wrote: “If successful, they will reverse one of the great strides toward democracy in American history: the 1913 decision to end the corrupt practice of letting state legislators barter off Senate seats in backroom deals with campaign donors and lobbyists.”
“The language of this draft resolution, however, frames this in precisely the opposite way. It argues that the 17th amendment, ratified in 1914, did not empower voters but instead disempowered states. As a result, there have been ‘many unintended consequences, including runaway federal deficits, unfunded mandates, overreach by federal agencies and burdensome impositions by the federal government upon the states.’
“If this sounds nutty and far-fetched, however, it’s a position with growing weight inside the conservative movement…
“Under this proposal, Democratic senators such as Michigan’s Debbie Stabenow, Virginia’s Tim Kaine and Mark Warner, and Wisconsin’s Tammy Baldwin, for example, would be unlikely to be reappointed if the GOP continued to control those legislatures. Would partisan chambers allow for independent voices such as Bernie Sanders or Angus King? Indeed, the draft legislation might not even tolerate independence in office. It includes a provision stating that “state legislatures may issue instructions to, or recall, their Senators at any time.”
“The model legislation hasn’t become an official policy resolution yet. It was scheduled to be debated at ALEC’s annual meeting in Denver this weekend.”
I think that repealing the 17th Amendment, or any similar change, in the wake of Reynolds v. Sims is not going to work out the way people expect. In fact, I think conservatives should be more focused on allowing state legislatures to be controlled by state constitutions instead of federal courts, rather than focusing on how senators get chosen.
My wife really likes that Sister Wives show. Personally, I think the dude is insane. That’s way too much estrogen for me to deal with 24/7/365.
http://hotair.com/archives/2017/07/29/acceptance-polygamy-rising-liberal-issue/
It’s her way of telling you that she wants a 3 way.
Nah. Don’t think I didn’t check:)
With another guy..
Let’s be fair, all he wants is to be more certain he will get a sandwich when he orders one.
I can order a sandwich from anywhere in the city with Amazon Prime.
I would just tell Elizabeth Nolan Brown to make me one.
Careful, Ted.
ENB isn’t worth oppressing through the patriarchy. I mean, I wouldn’t even rape her.
Yeah, I don’t get it or approve of it but *shrug*
LOL
I bet those numbers are not from Mormon apologists.
“We have a jihadist terrorism problem. But we also have a neo-Nazi, far right-wing terrorism problem,” said Peter Bergen, a national security analyst and vice president of the Washington think tank New America.
Okay, let’s add up the body counts and see where each problem sits.
Where did he document the occurrences and casualties of this neo-Nazi, far right-wing terrorism? I am anxious to read this.
There’s an interesting framing narrative where a jihadist convert is rooming with some neo-nazis, etc.
I remember that. He’s going to need a lot more than that to make it convincing.
“As a political theology, Trumpian evangalicalism arises from the Christian Right’s history of wedding church and state in order to further the political goals of Christian theocracy and triumphalism. In other words, Trumpian evangelicalism seeks to impose on all Americans a particular brand of evangelical thought and morality through legislation and court decisions that affirm government by the dictates of the (political evangelical) church and the triumph of the (political evangelical) church over other forms of religious and political organization.
“Trumpian evangelicalism, then, rests on a number of theological tenets developed through the rise of the Christian Right and refined to direct the most effective political gain:
God sides with the powerful….
All people are equal at the foot of the cross, but some are more equal than others….
“Ends justify means in the struggle for God, gold, and glory….
“The “Wall of Separation” is between people, not church and state….
“Trumpian evangelicalism seeks to impose on all Americans a particular brand of evangelical thought and morality through legislation and court decisions”
The Christian Left totally doesn’t do this through the “charity” of taxes and government welfare programs. The Christian Left is generally just as supportive of war and moral puritanism as the Christian Right.
The Warning Signs of Fascism on Campus
Toronto has a long history of white nationalists using “free speech” as a cover for extremism.
“…’Free speech’ to the far right is—often—a veil held to obscure broader aims. In Fromm’s case, this obscures his white supremacy, but should we take [Students in Support of Free Speech] at their word that nothing lies behind the curtain of their free speech argument? To some, that remains to be seen….
“Just as SSFS defends the Proud Boys and other nascent fascist movements today, Fromm and friends in 1967 defended “American Nazis,” questioned their opponents on the grounds of “free speech,” and engaged in deep anti-communist activism.”
Attacks on free speech for the far right are often a veil held to obscure broader aims of the left, such as the restriction of any free speech the left doesn’t like.
First Nations leader urges Canada to prosecute ‘out of hand’ hate speech
As indigenous peoples face vicious online attacks, including threats to their lives, Chief Bobby Cameron says those ‘spurring death online deserve to go to jail’
“He pointed to last year’s fatal shooting of 22-year-old Colten Boushie, who was driving home with friends to Red Pheasant First Nation when a tyre blew out. The car pulled into a nearby farm, where Boushie was shot dead.
“Police charged the farm’s owner, 55, with second-degree murder, sparking a torrent of racist comments on social media. Some linked First Nations to crime while others praised the idea of vigilante justice.
“The hateful reaction provoked a response from aboriginal leaders across Canada. “To see racist, derogatory comments about this young man – and about First Nations people online and on social media in response to this tragedy – is profoundly disturbing,” said Perry Bellegarde, national chief of the Assembly of First Nations. “They are racist, insensitive and ignorant. They are disheartening and a stark reminder of how much work we have to do to eliminate racism and discrimination.”
“Soon after, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police said they were looking into the hundreds of racist comments to determine whether hate charges were warranted. So far, no charges have been laid.”
Huh, condemnation of racism by a guy at the head of a race-based membership group.
What the RCMP actually said was ‘we’ll pretend to look at it, but fuck off’ because even with hate speech legislation in this country it has been specifically stated that you can’t be charged for online content.
http://allafrica.com/stories/201707280674.html
“Nairobi — The National Cohesion and Integration Commission says that it has flagged at least 176 social media accounts that are involved in propagating hate speech….
“In particular, the NCIC has identified and flagged out at least 176 social media accounts that are involved in the propagation of hate speech. So far, 31 cases are under prosecution in various courts across the country” a statement published in newspapers Friday said.
“”Any person contravening Section 13 of the NCI Act 2008 is liable to a fine of one million or imprisonment of three years. Section 62 offences of ethnic contempt or racial discrimination, one is liable to a fine of one million or imprisonment of five years or both,” they asserted.”
http://allafrica.com/stories/201707280674.html
The reason that true free trade advocates are vanishingly small in number is that true free trade would require good faith actors all and that is just not going to happen.
The closest that seems realistic to me is simple reciprocity. Whatever terms you want for me, you have to accept them as well. Provide an incentive for other countries to play on a more level field.
I think what we really need is for our government to let US companies play on a more level paying field by eliminating corporate taxes and massively cutting regulations. Don’t worry about the other guy. If they want to subsidize the wealth creation of the American consumer, why do them.
Why stop them.
I left that out. Yes. Sanctions against US companies is the height of stupidity or malice…or both.
I can tell you first had the failure of protectionism plus high taxes and regulations. You can see the direct results of this in Brazil. First of all they have very protectionist policies in place, supposedly to boost their own businesses and protect them from cheap foreign imports. At the same time, they throw up all sorts of bureaucratic roadblocks which prevent their own businesses from producing much of anything that’s profitable and affordable. So basically they have prevented more affordable imports while at the same time shooting their own producers in the foot. The result is that consumer goods are uber expensive and only the most well off can afford them. People I know fly to Miami and buy every damn thing they can in consumer goods, filling up 3 or 4 large checked bags in electronics, clothing, etc. And even though they had to pay for a plane ticket and the dollar is 3x one Real, it is STILL cheaper than buying the same things in Brazil.
So that’s how that works, it doesn’t.
‘hand’ where are you, magical edit fairy?
Obviously need to tax hand carried imports, plane tickets, and put exit currency controls in place.
What could go wrong?
They’re allowed to bring $500 in with no fees. But they take a LOT more than that, so that only applies if they get caught, which most will not. For them, it’s like Americans speeding, they might get caught or not, but it doesn’t stop them from doing it. If they get caught, they argue and then agree to pay whatever, and then next time they’ll do it again.
100% shakedown inspections, increased penalties for violators, more jobs created for border guards. This is turning into a win win win!
Yeah, and the border guards will get bonuses from getting handed 50 Reais and letting people walk without paying a tariff and government revenue from tariffs will fall. So they can try it if they want, but it will fail. Trust me on this, I know Brazilians.
The harder the squeeze, the more things slip through? Crazy talk!
A bit of constructive criticism if I may. When making a ‘these people say’ type argument one should give a few specific examples of those ‘these people’. Perhaps ‘these people’ are so abundant that their existence is beyond question, and I should know exactly whom Just Say’n is referring to, but I don’t and to my ears it sounds a bit like tilting at straw-men. Again this is not a criticism of the overall argument or the conclusions about trade that Just Say’n makes, just a small nit about how Just Say’n made them.
Minneapolis mayoral candidate Raymond Dehn proposes disarming cops after Muslim cop kills unarmed woman
https://www.jihadwatch.org/2017/07/minneapolis-mayoral-candidate-raymond-dehn-proposes-disarming-cops-after-muslim-cop-kills-unarmed-woman
***
A CANDIDATE in the race for Minneapolis mayor has proposed disarming police officers in the wake of Justine Damond’s shooting.
The Australian woman was shot dead by police officer Mohamed Noor after calling 911 to report a suspected sexual assault.
“Officers don’t need to carry a gun on their person all the time,” said Raymond Dehn, one of the frontrunners in the mayoral race and who currently serves in the Minnesota House of Representatives.
“Currently, officers carry all sorts of assault weapons in their cars. So why can’t one of those weapons be the side arm (such as a baton that sits on a holster)? It’s important that we begin to have a conversation, and I would say that all things are on the table.”
“We live in a culture where guns are pervasive. Cops carrying guns is part of a larger conversation about guns in our society,” he said, according to the Star Tribune….
***
[head desk]
Yeah, union is gonna let that Happen anyways.
The gun grabber true believers turn their attention to the King’s Men. As if using batons against people would be much better. Hello! The problem is that the police are hardly ever personally liable for their actions and can act with virtual impunity, aided by an excess of laws that allow any copper to fuck with whoever they wish. Using firearms is just a manifestation of that approach.
It’s a stupid fucking idea. The cops need to be able to carry guns, they just don’t need to be able to shoot people without hesitation and without accountability. Leftists are so fucking stupid that I don’t know how they manage to tie their own fucking shoes and get themselves to work in the morning. Make the fuckers wear their damn cameras and punish them when they don’t and when they gun down unarmed Americans like this, send them to prison for manslaughter the same as would happen to everyone else. Do this and this shit will stop. Do what a retarded leftist suggests and it will get worse.
Seriously, what’s so fucking hard about holding cops to the same standard as everyone else?
The thing that’s so hard is that apparently most Americans are retarded.
Can’t argue with that.
I’ll do you one better:
What’s so fucking hard about holding cops to the same standard as servicemen in an active combat zone?
I feel like if I try using that argument to any cop apologists (I know a bunch of them) I’m just going to get “the ROE should be changed too.”
What’s with the smiley mugshots?
http://nbc4i.com/2017/07/29/u-s-marshals-announce-top-wanted-fugitives-18/
Buggy driver union strikes again
http://hotair.com/archives/2017/07/29/government-wants-self-driving-cars-self-driving-trucks-not-much/
The First Openly Transgender Infantry Soldier in U.S. Army Speaks out on Trump’s New Military Ban
Staff Sergeant Patricia King has served in the Army for 18 years, including three active combat deployments to Afghanistan.
http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/first-openly-transgender-infantry-soldier-us-army-speaks-out-trumps-new-military
worth mentioning: she was a he while serving in the infantry
***
Yes, I did. I came out as transgender in January of 2015, after sharing this information with my family and receiving overwhelming support. I decided that it was time to move forward and that I wanted to live an authentic life. So, the next people I decided it was important to come out to was my leadership in the military. I sat down with them, and I shared that I was transgender and what this meant. At the time, the policy did not support transgender service. But my leadership knew the difference between what is allowed and what is right, and they wanted to support me in any way they could. So they supported me, while adhering to policy. And shortly thereafter, transgender integration began to happen, and I was accepted by the military.
***
And of course, every single article about this does not frame ‘transgender integration’ correctly, that is, translated from bullshit: “We’re going to accept a group with pre-existing medical conditions into the military to serve because they’re being propped up as an identity group, despite the fact that we will openly refuse to recruit people with far less serious conditions that require less medical attention.”
This entire discussion is bullshit theatre.
One would think that a face tattoo would be less of an impediment to military service than being on the hormones of the opposite gender.
Too bad for people who identify as Mike Tyson.
Eventually they’ll let it face tattoos…for a five month period, then change the bloody rules again, like they keep doing up here with sleeves.
I hate to sound like a broken record, but if you just tell people they can identify as soldiers, then the situation is tied up in a nice logical bow and we can go on to the next Urgent Issue.
That’s a nice start, but I would take it further: everyone can identify as whatever. Want to be a doctor? Buy a lab coat and presto!
Why not? If you can identify as whatever gender you want, why not identify as whatever profession you want?
There, at least that would take a chunk out of the regulatory state.
But specifically with soldiers, I’d have the government give them a Napoleon uniform and tell them they’re on a super-secret mission, and give them a phone to contact “headquarters” which would actually be a nurse at St. Elizabeth’s Hospital with special training in humoring patients.
Cheaper than subsidized hormone treatments.
Look, I’m just brainstorming here.
That’s a nice start, but I would take it further: everyone can identify as whatever. Want to be a doctor? Buy a lab coat and presto!
+1 Bill Nye.
From TSTSNBN:
First of, no they don’t. They exist foremost to protect the institution and its’ employees. Schools should not be adjudicating anything, let alone policing a relationship between two adults. Possibility of a criminal matter (rape, unlawful assault)?, send it to police (not controlled by the same institution). He said, she said short of that?, tell them to fuck off, go to class and act like adults.
TSTSNBN.
/derp
I was over there earlier today and they had an article, which in my opinion, completely excused John McCain’s disgusting behavior in voting against a repeal of Obamacare and instead talked about how the Republicans have failed to save Obamacare, or something to that effect. They’re a lost fucking cause at the moment.
Sooooooooooooooooooooooooddddddddddddddddeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeemannnnnnn?
Yes. I thought he’s the good one? Anyway, the GOP are not the only ones who don’t have a plan. If it continues like this, the ACA collapses and then the Democrats, who are even dumber than Republicans, think they are getting single payer and they’re going to run with it, knowing full well it’s impossible. So maybe that’s the best outcome. While the GOP fails to do anything, the Democrats overplay their hand and run for single payer, which is not reality. In the meantime, the market improves things.
See, there was a point where I tolerated Reason’s particular brand of ‘cosmotarianism’. But that point is past. Reason now publishes blatant falsehoods and lies while specifically rejecting libertarian thought. Whether it’s Gillespie snidely implying that libertarianism is rife with anti-Semitism to article after article going full journalistic tribalism over defending Gawker rather than defending a man’s right to privacy and property, they’ve shown time and time again a willingness to throw away any kind of principle in order to cuddle up with some particular cause, most of them left-leaning and Beltway. It’s an embarrassment to the libertarian ‘brand’ and philosophy for their institution to identify as such. Reason must be delegitimatized, undermined, and discredited for the good of the ‘movement’ (though they’re doing a fine job of that already).
Reason delenda est.
If their massive traffic drop hasn’t changed anything, I’m not sure anything will, short of firing the entire staff.
I guess the cocktail parties are more important to them now or something, I’m not sure why they insist on cozying up to the Cosmos so much.
Note that I mention nothing about reform, because, barring a sudden change in editorial staff and moving their HQ out of the DC groupthink, Reason is just going to continue down the path of left-wing submission. Currently they have writers who try to qualify political violence against speech and try to destroy the careers of people who make dumb jokes on Twitter. Where is the ‘libertarianism’ in this? My point is more that libertarians need to go out of their way to indicate that Reason is not representative of their ideology. Because it’s not.
I know this may be triggering, but apparently two of Pope Francis’ prog buddies are promoting a “liberal atomization” which the Pope himself rejects. But it’s in the name of bashing U. S. conservatives, so it’s being promoted as “the Pope’s people TOTALLY PWN the American Religious Rights!!!”
Here is the article
Not that the pope had any value to begin with. Sorry if anyone here is Catholic, no offense intended, but here we have a guy running around in a silly fucking costume who thinks he’s important because he’s some ritualistic token from a 2000 year old religion? But now that the guy is nothing more than another commie apologist, what makes him special?
I warned that it was triggering.
And it’s not even the Pope writing it, and they’re going against some of what the Pope said.
But now that the guy is nothing more than another commie apologist, what makes him special?
1.2 billion people who think God thinks he’s super-cool?
Yeah, I know. But really? What the hell does he stand for except for being a leftist token?
Hey now, Catholic communism has been a thing for like seventy years.
I didn’t realize, since I’m not religious, but a lot of people are acting like this is a new thing.
He shows that the Church can survive even a Medici Pope or a Peronist Pope.
semi-related thoughts
The questions of how people should behave and what is the best way to promote good behavior are important questions. The problem from the religious perspective is that they want jump straight to the end: no need to debate anything, it’s all here in this special book.
I keep meeting people who speak as though there are no other religions in the world, which is like meeting someone who thinks everyone on earth speaks English and has since the beginning of history.
I can see the advantage of a shared belief in absolute morality. If there is some moral standard that no person can alter or override, that puts a big obstacle in the way of any wannabe tyrant.
I don’t think it does any good to appeal to a moral standard based on faith. Sloppy as consensus is, it is the only alternative left. As attitudes change, the consensus changes. That’s a drawback, but I doubt the moral consensus on things like theft and murder will change anytime soon.
randomness: found this GKC quote a bit disturbing
speaking to a young man whose behavior he disapproved of:
“If we had a real fighting democracy, someone would burn you in it; like the devil-worshipper you are.”
OK, Torquemada, take a chill pill.
Settle down there Nietzsche.
These ideas came to me while I watching this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vl3A87-iVj4
They meant to make GKC look good, but it did appear that way to me.
He’s got another one on ‘GKC vs. Nietzsche’ and it’s as dumb as I thought.
TL;DR version: “DURR HURR NIETZSCHE WAS CRAZY”
In general, I think people have a natural inclination towards truth, but here and there, they can really go off the deep end.
Donor to gay-lib causes wants to “punish the wicked” – but it’s OK, says Rolling Stone, because he’s not targeting Christians. No, “the wicked” means “anyone who stands in the way of progress on equal rights for LGBTQ people: politicians, activists, lawyers, some people of faith, and plenty more with no religious affiliation whatsoever.”
Off topic here, and I do realize that this is not permitted here and has never happened before, so I plead forgiveness. Does anyone here have VR? I just got my headset and am learning now, so just wondering if anyone else has some experience to share?
STEVE SMITH NOT NEED VIRTUAL RAPE.
It makes me dizzy?
Really? I’m surprised because any game that I play on my PC monitor that’s less than 90 FOV will make me anywhere from slightly nauseous to sick for hours. But on VR, I can play a game for hours (did so last night) that gives me occasional surges of disorientation, but no lasting effect, so no problem at all so far.
It does after a while.
I think it’s getting really close.
Tell me about the porn
Five million Finns have VR.
no time to read post = assume answer is, “Both of them”, just with different industries or corporate/vs. labor, etc.
no politician is pro free trade because you can’t *game it* and take a slice off the top and take credit for any prosperity at the same time.
What I’m listening to:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BDK8hpfQbCA
Cool album art, nice throwback 80s metal sound
disabled comments? oh, you better believe there’s gonna be derp
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iI7rWFSEWj0