Off duty police killed by invader

[tw]

Originally Posted by 9th Engineer

By tw's logic, wouldn't we be causing massive economic and social collapse in other countries as well?

Obviouisly not. It you think that, then you did not see what is happening. However, notice the disruption of Mexican tortilla prices when Americans started spending money on ethanol - and suddenly shortages of American corn appeared in Mexico. Why do Mexicans not grow their own corn? They cannot. Mexican grown corn does not get subsidized by the American government. They import American corn.

Do we make life harder for some by restricting free trade? Are you denying what most all nations walked out of Cancun three days early? They made that point bluntly years ago. Are you denying why the only GAAT trade round has collapsed? Or are you denying this only because you never heard it?

[9th Engineer]

So why hasn't the Mexican government put tariffs on American goods to make their own industry more profitable within the domestic market?

[tw]

Originally Posted by 9th Engineer

So why hasn't the Mexican government put tariffs on American goods to make their own industry more profitable within the domestic market?

Why would they want to start a trade war? This is working for Mexico. Sending so many workers to work in Mexico or the US - Mexico prospers either way. Why do American farmers not move operation to Mexico where they could grow the same crops with less labor costs? Because they would not get those massive American corporate welfare payments.

The question here is why do so many Mexicans must come to America to work? The problem is so easy to fix. Stop subsidizing an agriculture industry because it has so much Congressional influence (Archer Daniels Midland). Then crops would be grown where crops are best grown and where labor is plentiful and hard working. Anti-free trade by United States and France makes that difficult.

Perchance are you denying massive corporate welfare to big corn, big sugar, big cotton, etc? Do you love it when the American government subsidizes all these industries? Why? Why would you support corporate welfare? Why do you approve of industries that exist and must import 1.8 million illegal immigrants only because of foolish laws?

[9th Engineer]

Obviouisly not. It you think that, then you did not see what is happening.

Nice tactic. Even in 8th grade debate class we understood that "if you don't know the answer then I won't tell you" was bullshit. So everyone walked out of the conference, I don't even need to address that because you haven't used to to say anything directly relevant to Mexico's situation.

You obviously have never taken economics at any reasonable level tw, or you've selectively forgotten rules. "Post hoc, ergo propter hoc", 'after this, therefore because of this'. Econ 101 tw, one of the classic errors in economic reasoning. You rant about American businesses and cite an example of other countries getting angry, yet you never drew a line from that conference directly to the situation in Mexico.

By your logic we should be in total economic collapse due to competition from countries like China that use strict wage control and other tactics that are illegal here to keep their prices below our operating costs.

[9th Engineer]

Perchance are you denying massive corporate welfare to big corn, big sugar, big cotton, etc? Do you love it when the American government subsidizes all these industries? Why? Why would you support corporate welfare? Why do you approve of industries that exist and must import 1.8 million illegal immigrants only because of foolish laws?

Dear god, I can just imagine the spittle on your screen after that little gem.

"Perchance are you denying massive conspiracy to attack America? Do you love it when the Arab nations subsidize all these terrorist training camps? Why? Why would you support people who want to kill Americans? Why do you approve of leaving ourselves vulnerable to future attacks only because of foolish laws?"

I knew I recognized that style of debate from somewhere!

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by tw

The question here is why do so many Mexicans must come to America to work? The problem is so easy to fix. Stop subsidizing an agriculture industry because it has so much Congressional influence (Archer Daniels Midland). Then crops would be grown where crops are best grown and where labor is plentiful and hard working. Anti-free trade by United States and France makes that difficult.

I've asked you this before, and so far you've completely ignored me: do you believe that it is a good idea for all of our food production to take place outside of the country? Do you not see how that could put us in a very precarious position the moment those particular countries decide they are not our allies anymore?

[tw]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

... do you believe that it is a good idea for all of our food production to take place outside of the country? Do you not see how that could put us in a very precarious position the moment those particular countries decide they are not our allies anymore?

Why do you see enemies everywhere? For example, the entire lemon crop was lost in California (according to reports). Did you notice how much of our fruits come from Chile - and have for decades? Yes there are problems with some sources. But, for example, American chickens are too dirty for China standards. Don't think for one minute that America has some market to purity. And don't believe all these myths that crops from outside America are at risk. Do you avoid bananas because you fear?

Getting food from numerous nations only puts us in a precarious position when we see enemies lurking everywhere and when we hate free trade.

Let's see. Titanium is essential now in paints. Russia is the world leaders in titanium production. Therefore the American paint industry is at risk? Nonsense. Interdependence among nations is essential to world stability.

Its a good thing only American spinache is trying to kill people. Otherwise we might start threatening other nations as evil. Its a good thing only American food processing factories spread listeria in KFC and Taco Bells for years. After all, American food is so safe.

[tw]

Originally Posted by 9th Engineer

Nice tactic.

Its not a tactic. Posted are the facts. So why do you see anything but those facts? If you think otherwise, then where are your numbers?

Defined is a condition that other nations have called unfair. They wants their fair share of the pie as promised by free trade. How does the world self destruct only because the US perverts free trade using corporate welfare? The only place that exists is in a fantasy. Nothing posted here even implies that. Where are the millions committing suicide in the streets because America subverts free agricultural trade? These events only occur when you expolate things I never said nor even implied.

Meanwhile I still don't see you admitting or denying a single fundamental fact. Why do you ignore basic fact to try and start a pissing war? So the world did not walk of Cancun three days early because US and France refused to open agriculture to free trade? You are the one challenged to admit or deny that fact. Why so much silence on fundamental facts? Why instead do you now want to start a pissing war.

Or why do you now see a worldwide conspiracy? Explained is why America does not have enough illegal immigrants. Why do you forget the topic? I explained a good reason why we need more illegal immigrants. You will not even discuss Cancun? Why do you completely ignore massive government corporate welfare?

You tell me. Why did the world walk out of Cancun blaming two nations for subverting free trade. Notice my questions stay on topic. Why do so many American businesses need illegal immigrants? If you don't like the reasons why, then pray tell us.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Tw hasn't taken into account Mexico's near-complete lack of a middle class. Wouldn't suit his argument, I suppose, nor his instincts.

And why France in particular when the action seems to be general across the E.U., I do not know. Their hugest subsidy is over 9B Euros for beef production. Sugar's way down the list.

I'm right in the middle of the California lemon crop. It took damage, but it was not totally destroyed in the late freeze. It's still a solid number three moneymaker in this county, after strawberries and nursery stock and in spite of very tough Chilean competition.

[yesman065]

[sidebar] What happens when you start with an incorrect ASSumption and go off on it repeatedly - then are proven incorrect or challenged on your initial ASSumption only to argue some point derrived from that originally incorrect ASSumption? I'm just askin cuz I think I've been seein it and awful lot lately. [sidebar]

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by tw

Why do you see enemies everywhere? For example, the entire lemon crop was lost in California (according to reports). Did you notice how much of our fruits come from Chile - and have for decades? Yes there are problems with some sources. But, for example, American chickens are too dirty for China standards. Don't think for one minute that America has some market to purity. And don't believe all these myths that crops from outside America are at risk. Do you avoid bananas because you fear?

Getting food from numerous nations only puts us in a precarious position when we see enemies lurking everywhere and when we hate free trade.

Let's see. Titanium is essential now in paints. Russia is the world leaders in titanium production. Therefore the American paint industry is at risk? Nonsense. Interdependence among nations is essential to world stability.

Its a good thing only American spinache is trying to kill people. Otherwise we might start threatening other nations as evil. Its a good thing only American food processing factories spread listeria in KFC and Taco Bells for years. After all, American food is so safe.

Everything marked in red has nothing to do with what I said. The relative safety or cleanliness of American food is completely irrelevant, and people will not starve without paint.

The rest of your points are reasonable. Yes, interdependence is good, and no, we cannot operate as if every country is going to suddenly cut off our food supply just for spite. But the fact is we already do have a large degree of imported food. As you pointed out, much of our fruit comes from South America, up to almost 100% of it in the winter. But if we eliminated all farm subsidies, then that number would basically go up to 100% of all of our food, all of the time. Being entirely dependent on other countries for our food is not a good tactical position to be in. The lemon crop in California failed, so we had the Chilean crop to back it up. But what happens when the Chilean crop fails, and we have no more California lemon orchards because we drove them out of business? No lemons at all for anyone. Diversification of food sources is important even if it is not the most economically beneficial in the short term.

I'm all for free trade and eliminated subsidies--for every industry except food.

[freshnesschronic]

Wait a second....one step back....

Ducky is back??

[9th Engineer]

tw, you need a serious course in proper argument style and common fallacies. I suggest you start with A Rulebook for Arguments by Anthony Weston.

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by freshnesschronic

Wait a second....one step back....

Ducky is back??

No, that's a shitty step back. No one cares. We're discussing something else now. Get over it.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

Everything marked in red has nothing to do with what I said. The relative safety or cleanliness of American food is completely irrelevant, and people will not starve without paint.

Titanium means we must resort to leaded paint again. The point was a comparison to food and all other human life necessary products. Nobody can corner the market on food. But titanium comes from too few places and is required for American essential materials. Lead is no longer acceptable. If you worry about "a good tactical position", then worry far more about titanium. Nobody can corner the market in food.

Completely bogus is that American agriculture will disappear - a 100% collapse - without corporate welfare. I routinely tire of those fear tactics from that (and other) industries. We protected the American tire industry for so long that the entire industry became anti-American. As a result, most of the American tire industry had to be sold to foreigners.

Remove the welfare and agriculture still produces more that enough to feed America. And exports should not be subsidized by American taxpayers. Suddenly without that corporate welfare, then America is richer, more productive, still produces more than enough food, and all those other countries also produce food so that America has many new sources should we need them.

History shows that deregulation and free markets result in increased industry productivity and greater market diversity. You have assumed that without corporate welfare, then all agriculture will go bankrupt. Why do American farmers who are productive need corporate welfare? They don't. And American agriculture still provides more than enough to meet domestic needs. Another dirty little secret is who prospers most from that corporate welfare - and it's not the farmers.

Review who gets that welfare - ie Archer Daniels Midland. IOW if we eliminated corporate welfare, then ADM who is one of the largest purchasers of Congressman would have to make profits from innovating - not buying government favors. BTW, where is most of the cost in food? Almost nothing goes to the farmer - maybe about one slice in a loaf of bread. The majority of those bread slices goes to the middle men - ADM, et al. Who most prospers from corporate welfare - both from export subsidizes and from government price supports that increase food costs to the consumer. That's called corporate welfare. It mostly goes to the middle men.

It is ridiculous to assume American agriculture would fail without corporate welfare. Without that welfare, the nation's wealth would increase by not subsidizing exports. The industry would do just fine. And those illegal immigrants suddenly find agricultural jobs in their own countries.

Most worry about imported foods only because we cannot trust THEIR crops. China wheat glutton is a latest example of what people fear most and therefore what I assumed you were posting. Since nobody can corner the market on food, then I never even considered that is what you meant. Since removing government subsidies does not mean loss of domestic agriculture, then I never assumed you would even consider that impossible probability. Remove all government subsidizes and America still harvests 100% of our domestically produced foods - 0% dependent on foreign sources for those foods.

What happens when the Chilean lemon crop fails? American lemon crop that is also productive without corporate welfare does quite nicely. If the American crop also fails, then suddenly lemons from Africa arrive. Why? Because as soon as American stops subsidizing exports with government money, then suddenly African nations also join the lemon industry. A diversity of sources then increases because we stopped silly corporate welfare - we stopped subsidizing exports mostly to enrich the middle men such as ADM - we stop needing so many illegal immigrants - and those immigrants find agricultural jobs at home.

Returning to the original point. We need more illegal immigrants with so much corporate welfare subsidizing exported foods. Our nation would be richer, would still produce more than sufficient food domestically, AND other nations would also become food producers - if we eliminate corporate welfare to the middle men. Suddenly we don't need so many illegal immigrants, they have jobs at home, AND we then have far more sources for our food requirements. In the case of fruit, we need not be so dependent only on Chile. Africa and the Middle East are other excellent food sources if they were permitted by free markets to be competitive.

That fear of free markets was the reason for complete and angry collapse of the Doha Round of GAAT. The entire world walked out three days early because France and the United States so fear free market economics in agriculture. France, BTW, is represented by the EU. But it is quite obvious who sits right beside the EU representative constantly - a Frenchman.