(August 9, 2018 at 12:22 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: I never said it resulted in a competitive advantage.  I said it was hypocritical.

If it doesn't result in a competitive advantage, then... how is it hypocritical?

---

(August 9, 2018 at 12:25 pm)Crossless2.0 Wrote: Yes.

They generally didn't.

So I'm no worse off regarding information than what the framers dealt with, yet you somehow think this is a problem for the republic.

Quote:Of course, but thanks for the remedial civics lesson.

Point being that the framers didn't trust the citizenry much, but you claim they envisioned an educated and engaged citizenry. Seems contradictory.

---

(August 9, 2018 at 12:28 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: Soybean Subsidies in the United States totaled $35.6 billion from 1995-2016.

https://farm.ewg.org/progdetail.php?fips...de=soybean

OK. And?

(August 9, 2018 at 12:37 pm)alpha male Wrote:

---

(August 9, 2018 at 12:25 pm)Crossless2.0 Wrote: Yes.

They generally didn't.

Quote:So I'm no worse off regarding information than what the framers dealt with, yet you somehow think this is a problem for the republic.

I wasn't talking about the information available to the framers, who were among the best informed and educated people in the country at that time. I was talking about the information available to Joe Schmoe. You have better sources of information available to you than they had. And yes, if you and millions of others choose not to avail yourself of it, that is a problem for the republic.

Quote:Of course, but thanks for the remedial civics lesson.

Point being that the framers didn't trust the citizenry much, but you claim they envisioned an educated and engaged citizenry. Seems contradictory.

I assume I don't need to belabor the difference between what is and what we might aspire to.

I share the framers' distrust of the citizens. You've just reinforced that.

(August 9, 2018 at 12:47 pm)Crossless2.0 Wrote: I assume I don't need to belabor the difference between what is and what we might aspire to.

No, but if you argue that the framers counted on the citizenry becoming educated and engaged, you need to support that. Maybe you're right, but you haven't provided evidence, and the claim seems incompatible with the limited role the framers gave to the general public.

Enacting your own subsidies while claiming that Canada should not enact subsidies is hypocrisy.

Whatever. We don't even talk the same language. Regardless, tariffs aren't going to accomplish fuckall other than to further alienate our allies and demonstrate the emptiness of Trump's policies.

(August 9, 2018 at 12:50 pm)alpha male Wrote:

(August 9, 2018 at 12:47 pm)Crossless2.0 Wrote: I assume I don't need to belabor the difference between what is and what we might aspire to.

No, but if you argue that the framers counted on the citizenry becoming educated and engaged, you need to support that. Maybe you're right, but you haven't provided evidence, and the claim seems incompatible with the limited role the framers gave to the general public.

I love how the right bitches about big government, but seem to be the only ones who add to the long term debt that end up in bubbles.

(August 9, 2018 at 12:54 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: Enacting your own subsidies while claiming that Canada should not enact subsidies is hypocrisy.

I never argued that Canada shouldn't have subsidies. I specifically said that it's their own business whether to do so or not.

(August 9, 2018 at 11:17 am)alpha male Wrote:

(August 9, 2018 at 11:14 am)Whateverist Wrote: Suggested rewrite

Religious Views: Bad person, worse Christian

Aw, somebody's butt-hurt that his position was shown to be ridiculous.

Darn and I missed it.

(August 9, 2018 at 12:54 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: Whatever.  We don't even talk the same language.  Regardless, tariffs aren't going to accomplish fuckall other than to further alienate our allies and demonstrate the emptiness of Trump's policies.

Why didn't anyone complain about other countries' tariffs on US goods before Trump started his?

Seems like Trump Derangement Syndrome.

(August 9, 2018 at 12:58 pm)alpha male Wrote:

(August 9, 2018 at 12:54 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: Enacting your own subsidies while claiming that Canada should not enact subsidies is hypocrisy.

I never argued that Canada shouldn't have subsidies. I specifically said that it's their own business whether to do so or not.

I wasn't accusing you of hypocrisy, I was saying that Trump's policies and rhetoric were hypocritical. If I misspoke, I apologize.

(ETA: Since Trump's tax cuts applied across the board, and not all foreign imports from all nations are subsidized, it still amounts to hypocrisy for him to say that he is simply trying to level the playing field.)

(August 9, 2018 at 1:00 pm)alpha male Wrote:

(August 9, 2018 at 12:54 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: Whatever.  We don't even talk the same language.  Regardless, tariffs aren't going to accomplish fuckall other than to further alienate our allies and demonstrate the emptiness of Trump's policies.

Why didn't anyone complain about other countries' tariffs on US goods before Trump started his?

Seems like Trump Derangement Syndrome.

Because:

1. it is better to export low value added activity abroad than to keep it at home, and if foreign tariffs accelerate that so much the better?

2. Tariffs always distort allocation of domestic resources by shifting available investment and labor from efficient and competitive industrial sectors that should be kept and expanded to inefficient and uncompetitive industries that should be jettisoned.  If a foreign nation is willing to abuse its own resource allocation, who are we to complain?

The economy overall is not always worse off if a sector is losing rather than winning. You can only win overall for yourself by not fighting battles with others that’s not worth winning.  With trump we instead devote our resources to winning battles that we are better off losing or not fighting.

Clear?