President Bush has just levied a tariff upon imported steel; this contravenes all the free market rhetoric he's been going on about. It's purely a political thing to gain him votes and funding, so once again we see the evils of unrestrained capitalism. It just makes me glad I live in the slightly less corporately dominated E.U (although that’s not a picture of virtue either.) But of course in the end they are all hypocrites, as long as they are doing well business love the free market, but as soon as they get into trouble all their ideology goes out the window and they go running for the governments protection. Boo! hiss! down with Bush and the free market, Its bad, its all bad.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Dramnek_Ulk:
President Bush has just levied a tariff upon imported steel; this contravenes all the free market rhetoric he's been going on about. It's purely a political thing to gain him votes and funding, so once again we see the evils of unrestrained capitalism. It just makes me glad I live in the slightly less corporately dominated E.U (although that’s not a picture of virtue either.) But of course in the end they are all hypocrites, as long as they are doing well business love the free market, but as soon as they get into trouble all their ideology goes out the window and they go running for the governments protection. Boo! hiss! down with Bush and the free market, Its bad, its all bad.<hr></blockquote>

Umm what free market stuff are you refering to?? I believe NAFTA was done during the previous administration....

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Dramnek_Ulk:
President Bush has just levied a tariff upon imported steel; this contravenes all the free market rhetoric he's been going on about. It's purely a political thing to gain him votes and funding, so once again we see the evils of unrestrained capitalism. It just makes me glad I live in the slightly less corporately dominated E.U (although that’s not a picture of virtue either.) But of course in the end they are all hypocrites, as long as they are doing well business love the free market, but as soon as they get into trouble all their ideology goes out the window and they go running for the governments protection. Boo! hiss! down with Bush and the free market, Its bad, its all bad.<hr></blockquote>

By the way, Steel Tarrifs will do wonders for US steel companies, about damn time the US decided to take care of its own for a change.

You don't list what country you are from Dramen, want to compare a list of tarrifs?? US goods seem to always be subject to rather stiff tarrifs...so why isnt it good for the goos if it is good for the gander?

<font color=lightblue> Taking a stab of a guess at what Dramnek means. Maybe he means, if the U.S.A government is not keeping to it's ideology then it shouldn't try to force other countries to conform to it's ideology? *gglz and wonders about democracy* I just wanna live in my lil' blue bubble ~noddz~

~blinkz~ *confuddled look* and I was wondering... when did the U.S. not take care of it's own?

</font>

No big surprise...I agree with Dramnek_Ulk on this issue. [img]smile.gif[/img]


Mark

You are either for free trade or against it. Bush is a hypocrite, plain and simple.

this is a bad move by bush.he should never have imposed tarriffs on imported steel.this will hurt the people who buy steel(construction,ship building,and so on).
the reason u.s. steel costs so much is the fact that their union workers make almost forty dollars an hour.they make almost twice what other industrial workers make for comparable work.where do you think the cost is going to be made up?the other reason for the cost of steel is many countries subsidize their steel companies,thus they have artificially low prices.

Just wait and see what tariffs other goverments put in place against us because of this. There is always a balance. Some other industry will be hurt by this.

We subsidize the steel industry because the companies do not know how to make steel cheaper.

The missing part of this Bush "gift" was that the steel industry wants the government to pony up a portion of the pension bill that bankrupt steel companies can't afford to pay. And it's these promised pension benefits that are keeping those bankrupt companies from reorganizing.

Mismanagement, plain and simple.

Mark

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Dramnek_Ulk:
President Bush has just levied a tariff upon imported steel; this contravenes all the free market rhetoric he's been going on about. It's purely a political thing to gain him votes and funding, so once again we see the evils of unrestrained capitalism. It just makes me glad I live in the slightly less corporately dominated E.U (although that’s not a picture of virtue either.) But of course in the end they are all hypocrites, as long as they are doing well business love the free market, but as soon as they get into trouble all their ideology goes out the window and they go running for the governments protection. Boo! hiss! down with Bush and the free market, Its bad, its all bad.<hr></blockquote>

<font color = lightgreen>Votes? [img]graemlins/1ponder.gif[/img] For what? Bush doesn't need votes; he's in office for another 2 years.

"The evils of unrestrained capitalism"? What of the evils of unrestrained socialism? Or unrestrained communism? Or unrestrained anything? Capitalism (or socialism, communism, etc.) is not, in and of itself, evil; it is simply a social/political theory and nothing more. Besides, there has never been any unrestrained capitalism in the history of the world; government always sets limits, controls, and/or taxes of some sort.

Are politicians hypocrites? Well, if they aren't then they probably wouldn't be elected. Why do people have this fairy-tale notion that politicians should never change their minds or never do anything to get reelected? Oh, well. Politicians have always and will always do expedient things or make deals with others to try and get their own little pet projects done; it is the nature of politics to make deals, not be ideologically inflexible. Or am I just cynical?

In general, though, tarriffs are almost always a bad idea. They restrict trade, which ultimately increases prices and reduces competition.</font>

Its not just steel. Check Bushes soft wood lumber issue that is hurting British Columbia severely.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Azred:


<font color = lightgreen>Votes? [img]graemlins/1ponder.gif[/img] For what? Bush doesn't need votes; he's in office for another 2 years.

</font><hr></blockquote>

He needs votes for The Republicans in the congressional elections.

By Paul Blustein
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, January 17, 2002; Page A02

President Bush admonished Latin America yesterday against straying from the path of free markets, a sign of mounting worries in Washington that Argentina's wrenching economic crisis may lead Buenos Aires and neighboring countries to resort to protectionism and government intervention.

"Argentina -- and nations throughout the hemisphere -- need to strengthen our commitment to market-based reform, not weaken it," Bush declared. Although expressing sympathy for that nation's plight and reiterating that Washington will support international aid for Argentina's new government provided it embraces a "sound and sustainable economic plan," Bush said, "Shortcuts to reform only lead to more trouble."

---------

That last sentence may well come back to haunt him. George Bush is engaged in pure pork-barrel politics, paying off his debts to big business whilst at the same time looking for votes for fellow republicans in the upcoming congressional elections in steel states such as West Virginia and Ohio.

Of course the US is the biggest boy in the playground and if you want to bully the rest of the world you can. But even Bush's poodle is yapping around his ankles:

Blair condemns US steel tariffs

Staff and agencies
Wednesday March 6, 2002

Tony Blair today condemned the US decision to impose punitive tariffs on steel imports as "unacceptable and wrong" in a rare attack on the Bush administration.

Despite "standing shoulder to shoulder" with the US on most issues, Mr Blair did not mince his words during prime minister's question time as he called America's move totally unjustified.

Mr Blair called on the US steel industry to restructure rather than hide behind trade barriers, adding: "We have made representations at every level of government. We will continue to do so through the European Union."

Number 10 said President Bush's move clearly flouted World Trade Organisation (WTO) rules and that Britain would introduce "safeguard measures" to protect British steel firms.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Donut:

By Paul Blustein
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, January 17, 2002; Page A02

President Bush admonished Latin America yesterday against straying from the path of free markets, a sign of mounting worries in Washington that Argentina's wrenching economic crisis may lead Buenos Aires and neighboring countries to resort to protectionism and government intervention.

"Argentina -- and nations throughout the hemisphere -- need to strengthen our commitment to market-based reform, not weaken it," Bush declared. Although expressing sympathy for that nation's plight and reiterating that Washington will support international aid for Argentina's new government provided it embraces a "sound and sustainable economic plan," Bush said, "Shortcuts to reform only lead to more trouble."
<hr></blockquote>


this only shows that (not only bush) but the system is hypocritical. all that talk about free trade is bull, as its only meant to work for the small countries. not only the us is doing this. the eu has gigantic subventions on their agriculture that hurts exporting by other countries (like argentina). of course, the us, china and a lot of other countries also have subventions on their agriculture.

now bush is paying in advance for the votes he is going to need for his reelection by (as usual in him) putting his feet in his mouth by doing the exact opposite of what hes been preaching on... the wonders of capitalism and free trade. and this will not only hurt foreign countries. the us people will have to pay for more expensive, less quality products because of the inefficient us steel industry, that has declared more than 20 companies in bankrupcy in the last 5 years because of their worker privileges and high manufacturing costs.

petty politics at its best. who said bush was an honourable man? what an idiot of a president.

edit: for spelling.

[ 03-07-2002: Message edited by: norompanlasolas ]</p>

Here is what my favourite French radio said this morning on the subject. I let you find an adequate translation, the one Altavista gave me is terrible ...


Il y a un siècle de cela, un siècle plus un an, c'était en 1901, un évènement industriel énorme eut lieu aux Etats-Unis. Selon les journaux de l'époque, il s'agissait de la plus grosse opération économique de tous les temps. Le financier J.P. MORGAN racheta au sidérurgiste Andrew CARNEGIE pour 250 millions de dollars des acieries de la Carnegie Steel Company. Andrew CARNEGIE devint l'homme le plus riche du monde et J.P. MORGAN le plus puissant de la planète. L'acier était et devait rester encore longtemps le symbole et l'aliment principal de la nouvelle puissance américaine. L'acier fut l'instrument de la construction d'un pays dont on discernait qu'il serait différent des autres, de ses gratte-ciel qui faisaient rêver le monde entier, de ses voies ferrées qui reliaient les océans de l'Atlantique au Pacifique, de ses ouvrages d'art gigantesques et bientôt d'une machine de guerre appelée à régner sur le monde.

Aujourd'hui, les Etats-Unis ne pointent plus dans la production mondiale, qu'en quatrième position, bien loin derrière l'Union Européenne, mais aussi la Chine et le Japon. Les Carnegie d'aujourd'hui se nomment ARCELOR en Europe, Nippon Steen ou Kawasaki au Japon, Bosco en Corée du Sud, Shanghaï Baosteel en Chine. La première entreprise américaine US Steel qui fut la première du monde n'arrive qu'en 14ème position. La puissance américaine n'a fait que grandir tandis que son industrie de l'acier déclinait dans un marché mondial saturé. C'est que souvent des alliages nouveaux, des matériaux synthétiques ont remplacé cet acier qui n'a plus tout à fait le caractère stratégique unique qu'il possédait au vingtième siècle.

L'Amérique s'est envolée en laissant à l'abandon ce fardeau trop lourd. Brutalement, elle se réveille en découvrant un peu tard qu'une grande nation et a plus forte raison l'Unique Super Puissance mondiale ne peut pas dépendre totalement des importations étrangères pour la fabrication de ses armements et de l'armature de ses gratte ciel. Les Etats-Unis, qui depuis plus de vingt ans, a prêché toujours, forcé parfois l'ouverture des marchés étrangers au nom du libre-échange, dresse aujourd'hui des barrières douanières dignes de celles qu'érigeait autrefois l'Union Soviétique, la Chine communiste ou des pays du Tiers Monde qui ont l'excuse d'être en phase de décollage économique. Le président George W. BUSH ne parait pas avoir compris qu'être à la tête d'un Empire mondial implique quelques responsabilités vis à vis des populations qu'on domine. On ne peut pas exiger l'appui de toutes les nations pour lutter contre le terrorisme, faire la morale dans ce domaine et dans bien d'autres à la planète entière et renier d'un seul coup les leçons quie l'on a prêchées pendant tant d'années.

L'unique superpuissance ne peut pas faire subir aux autres pays producteurs d'acier les conséquenes de son absence de prévoyance dans un secteur essentiel et transférer vers d'autres les problèmes qu'elle s'est créés. Ou bien alors, elle devra s'attendre à ce que son règne soit de plus en plus vivement contesté, y compris par ses amis et ses alliés.


[ 03-07-2002: Message edited by: Moiraine ]</p>

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Rolla ZE:
You are either for free trade or against it. Bush is a hypocrite, plain and simple.<hr></blockquote>

Oh that is just ludicrous. You want a one size fits all when you are comparing apples and oranges. Free trade works for NAFTA because all the nations involved are working to agree with it. NAFTA is NORTH AMERICAN FREE TRADE not global free trade...Now if other nations want free trade, then work out a deal, otherwise we should be levieng tarrifs on your goods just as you do to ours. It is totaly bullshite to say your either for it or against it. You have to look at the situation and not make uninformed generalizations.

Noro if you want free trade tell your government to work out a deal with the USA, quit taxing the hell out of US goods and maybe we will respond in kind? We are totaly free trade..when it is a fair and reciprocal deal, not when it is a one way charity fest for foreign governments.

As for British Columbia lumber, I don't believe that there are exceptions for lumber, It was never mentioned in the NAFTA articles I have read. As far as I know there is free trade accross the boarders with mexico and canada. BUT as for FREE TRADE that was not even one of BUSH's planks for election. The NAFTA stuff was during the last (Clinton) administration.. Now you are blaming one president for the policies of another...gee while we are at it why not blame Helmut Kole for Nazi Germany in 1939?

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by norompanlasolas:

(as usual in him) putting his feet in his mouth by doing the exact opposite of what hes been preaching on... the wonders of capitalism and free trade. ]<hr></blockquote>


FiRST BUSH did not campaign on FREE TRADE, Second, CAPITALISM is not the same as FREE TRADE, Third, CAPITALISM does not IMPLY free trade.
fourth, CAPITALISM does not have anything to do with free trade. The idea of free trade and tarrifs is how governments protect their own native industries. Don't bitch at the USA for having tarrifs, untill your own country gets rid of all its tarrifs. the USA (except for the NAFTA thing) hasn't really been saying much of anything about "free" trade vs tarrifs in the last year.


IF you people want to bitch about something, at least come up with something current or new, tarrifs on goods is neither, and Bush pushing for adjusting the tarrifs is no big deal, it happens all the time. Presidents have to deal with the national economy all the time.

You asked Dramnek where he was from, but there's no mistaking where you're coming from Magik ;) . I guess I can look forward to a caustic reply very shortly, because to date almost no one has been allowed to challenge the Bush policy without getting an earful from you. You will be pleased to note that I come from a land with no protectionism for it's steel, sugar, beef etc - one that is quite use to getting regularly kicked by the subsidy wars.

************************************************** ***************
AUSTRALIA is considering a protest to the World Trade Organisation against a US decision to slap a 30 per cent tariff on imported steel to protect its moribund domestic industry.

The move risks a trade war with key US allies in the fight against terrorism, threw half of BHP's US steel exports into turmoil and potentially threatens hundreds of Australian jobs.

The Howard Government announced an immediate industry summit and raised the prospect of a WTO appeal.

The European Union promised action at the WTO, branding the decision a massive setback for world trade. Russia announced it was banning imports of US chickens, depriving American poultry producers of half their exports.

The decision affects 400,000 tonnes of BHP's rolled steel exports, worth about $200 million, and BHP Steel chief Kirby Adams described the decision by President George W. Bush as an "affront". Mr Adams would not rule out job losses at the Port Kembla steelworks, south of Sydney.

Trade Minister Mark Vaile, who was woken at 5am by a call from US Commerce Secretary Don Evans conveying the news, said the decision would have "serious negative impacts" on Australia.

The Government flagged better laws to protect the Australian market from becoming a dumping ground for cheap steel, but Mr Vaile said the Australian industry was "well placed – it is very, very competitive".

Mr Bush, a self-proclaimed free-trader, denied he was hypocritical or acting illegally.

He said the decision, made under heavy pressure from US steel states, was levelling the playing field against subsidised foreign competition.
************************************************** ******************

The news is just "Too Bad", if you are a superior and more cost effective "non-subsidised" competitor. Bush will try to drive you out of business to protect what plainly isn't working back home.


Don't get me wrong Magik, I support Bush on many things - certainly on his stance on terrorism, and the free trade ethics he espouses. The tariff moves that he made can be defended on the basis of an attempt to address national interest, but that infers that the hypocrisy inherent in his statements wrt free trade become indefensible.

Only my 2 cents - and in US terms (conversion rate) that is worth about 1.04 cents :D .

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by MagiK:



FiRST BUSH did not campaign on FREE TRADE, Second, CAPITALISM is not the same as FREE TRADE, Third, CAPITALISM does not IMPLY free trade.
fourth, CAPITALISM does not have anything to do with free trade.<hr></blockquote>

I think 2,3 & 4 are more or less the same thing but never mind. As for Bush did not campaign on free trade here is a quote from his campaign announcement speech in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, June 12, 1999.:

'I’ll work to end tariffs and break down barriers everywhere, entirely, so the whole world trades in freedom. The fearful build walls. The confident demolish them. I am confident in American workers and farmers and producers. And I am confident that America’s best is the best in the world.'

and from a Republican debate in West Columbia, South Carolina Jan 7, 2000:

I would be a free trading president, a president that will work tirelessly to open up markets for agricultural products all over the world. I believe our American farmers. can compete so long as the playing field is level. That’s why I am such a strong advocate of free trade and that’s why I reject protectionism and isolation because I think it hurts our American farmers.

Looks like he was in favour of free trade there.

Before anyone complains that this is an American bashing thread, I would like to say that I have read quite a few articles from US newspapers about this subject and they all appear to be against this move.

I think that a blanket statement that we are making uninformed generalisations is a bit rich coming from you Magik.

Hi Donut - that looks suspiciously like strike on and strike two for the Axis of Upheaval :D - do you think Pauly will throw a strike or a ball (or a walk ;) ).

So you firmly believe that the tariffs will benefit the US?

A tariff placed on imported steel will raise the price of steel in the US.

You want steel protection because the price of steel has been declining. But this has been happening for many years and can mainly be attributed to new technology lowering the cost of production, not from imports.

You believe that the tariffs will protect jobs, but what of the jobs in other industries such as auto, appliances etc. that rely on steel?

The big troubled steel companies have to worry about the domestic competition, not the foreign.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Davros:
You asked Dramnek where he was from, but there's no mistaking where you're coming from Magik ;) . I guess I can look forward to a caustic reply very shortly, because to date almost no one has been allowed to challenge the Bush policy without getting an earful from you. You will be pleased to note that I come from a land with no protectionism for it's steel, sugar, beef etc - one that is quite use to getting regularly kicked by the subsidy wars.

************************************************** ***************
AUSTRALIA is considering a protest to the World Trade Organisation against a US decision to slap a 30 per cent tariff on imported steel to protect its moribund domestic industry.

The move risks a trade war with key US allies in the fight against terrorism, threw half of BHP's US steel exports into turmoil and potentially threatens hundreds of Australian jobs.

The Howard Government announced an immediate industry summit and raised the prospect of a WTO appeal.

The European Union promised action at the WTO, branding the decision a massive setback for world trade. Russia announced it was banning imports of US chickens, depriving American poultry producers of half their exports.

The decision affects 400,000 tonnes of BHP's rolled steel exports, worth about $200 million, and BHP Steel chief Kirby Adams described the decision by President George W. Bush as an "affront". Mr Adams would not rule out job losses at the Port Kembla steelworks, south of Sydney.

Trade Minister Mark Vaile, who was woken at 5am by a call from US Commerce Secretary Don Evans conveying the news, said the decision would have "serious negative impacts" on Australia.

The Government flagged better laws to protect the Australian market from becoming a dumping ground for cheap steel, but Mr Vaile said the Australian industry was "well placed – it is very, very competitive".

Mr Bush, a self-proclaimed free-trader, denied he was hypocritical or acting illegally.

He said the decision, made under heavy pressure from US steel states, was levelling the playing field against subsidised foreign competition.
************************************************** ******************

The news is just "Too Bad", if you are a superior and more cost effective "non-subsidised" competitor. Bush will try to drive you out of business to protect what plainly isn't working back home.


Don't get me wrong Magik, I support Bush on many things - certainly on his stance on terrorism, and the free trade ethics he espouses. The tariff moves that he made can be defended on the basis of an attempt to address national interest, but that infers that the hypocrisy inherent in his statements wrt free trade become indefensible.

Only my 2 cents - and in US terms (conversion rate) that is worth about 1.04 cents :D .<hr></blockquote>


Your first point..yes I make it publicly known which country I live in its in my profile and at the bottom of my posts, so when I bash another country people know if I live there or not. I commented that Not everyone and ONE person in particular seem to prefer not to let that be known. It was a comment nothing more, no antipathy at all. Sorry to hear your country of Australia is doing so poorly. Mayhap that isnt the fault of the USA though. Actually Im pretty certain its the fault of the Australian government. Every country should be charged with taking care of its own business, sorry that big countries are better suited in some areas than smaller but thats life. As for Bush and his policy..he is following the advice of his cabinet, which by the way is made up of a people from both sides of our government..I read once that due to the closeness of the election Bush actually went out of his way to try and balance the cabinet.

Lastly Id like to say, that my posts are not written to be "caustic" I just TRY to make my point directly without too much extraneous BS but I fail miserably and I know it [img]smile.gif[/img] at least I try [img]smile.gif[/img] Im not a writer by nature and do much better in a live verbal debate than I do in type. So don't take it personally its just the way I am...I TRY not to take stuff from here personally.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Rolla ZE:
So you firmly believe that the tariffs will benefit the US?

A tariff placed on imported steel will raise the price of steel in the US.

You want steel protection because the price of steel has been declining. But this has been happening for many years and can mainly be attributed to new technology lowering the cost of production, not from imports.

You believe that the tariffs will protect jobs, but what of the jobs in other industries such as auto, appliances etc. that rely on steel?

The big troubled steel companies have to worry about the domestic competition, not the foreign.<hr></blockquote>

Its good to see Rolla that you are so much more qualified to make economic policy than the people who have dedicated their lives and carreers to it. Im looking foward to the day we can see your name in print as a cabinet member [img]smile.gif[/img] Ok that was sarcasm...your post just sounded like the Monday Morning Quarterbacks...seriously if you are an economic expert in the field of tarrifs and trade please, volunteer your services to the government, you will be able to make quite a decent living here in the nations capitol. This is a serious invite, because for people who really are talented it is very very easy to get involved. If I get some time Ill PM you a couple of addresses down on NewHampshire ave, they have an organization that does nothing but work on Economic models.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Donut:


I think 2,3 & 4 are more or less the same thing but never mind. As for Bush did not campaign on free trade here is a quote from his campaign announcement speech in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, June 12, 1999.:

'I’ll work to end tariffs and break down barriers everywhere, entirely, so the whole world trades in freedom. The fearful build walls. The confident demolish them. I am confident in American workers and farmers and producers. And I am confident that America’s best is the best in the world.'

and from a Republican debate in West Columbia, South Carolina Jan 7, 2000:

I would be a free trading president, a president that will work tirelessly to open up markets for agricultural products all over the world. I believe our American farmers. can compete so long as the playing field is level. That’s why I am such a strong advocate of free trade and that’s why I reject protectionism and isolation because I think it hurts our American farmers.

Looks like he was in favour of free trade there.

Before anyone complains that this is an American bashing thread, I would like to say that I have read quite a few articles from US newspapers about this subject and they all appear to be against this move.

I think that a blanket statement that we are making uninformed generalisations is a bit rich coming from you Magik.<hr></blockquote>

Hiho Davros I envy your research time [img]smile.gif[/img] And Ill have you know that MY generalisms are ANYTHING but Uninformed, unlike 90% of the posters here I have lived the events you guys speculate and pontificate on. Ive been out there, Ive been under fire and I have seen what I talk about. I dont mind youngsters proffering thier takes on things [img]smile.gif[/img] but I do discount the value of a lot of it because it lacks one lil tiny ingredient...experience... when you're 40 come talk to me. Or when you have actually been part of the process by helping to make policy talk to me... (in useing the term You're Im speaking in general and not meaning YOU in specific here)

There is a reason that most radicals are college students [img]smile.gif[/img] they are young, and impetuous and they have no concept of what cannot be done. They are the idealists, the dreamers and in a lot of cases the motivators of change....more often though they grow up, learn that things are the way they are because of the way things work in the real world So Ill sit here and make my INFORMED Generalisms and when PROVEN wrong, I will admit it.

As for your speech excerpts (nice job of finding them by the way) sounds like he is for free trade when it is possible, doesnt mean that he is going to blindly apply his idealisms despite the facts or the realities that his economic advisors give him.

And lastly I would like to say [img]smile.gif[/img] LONG LIVE KING GEORGE W BUSH! Im sure he is behind the black helicopters and the new world order too [img]smile.gif[/img]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by MagiK:



Your first point..yes I make it publicly known which country I live in its in my profile and at the bottom of my posts, so when I bash another country people know if I live there or not. I commented that Not everyone and ONE person in particular seem to prefer not to let that be known. It was a comment nothing more, no antipathy at all. Sorry to hear your country of Australia is doing so poorly. Mayhap that isnt the fault of the USA though. Actually Im pretty certain its the fault of the Australian government. Every country should be charged with taking care of its own business, sorry that big countries are better suited in some areas than smaller but thats life. As for Bush and his policy..he is following the advice of his cabinet, which by the way is made up of a people from both sides of our government..I read once that due to the closeness of the election Bush actually went out of his way to try and balance the cabinet.

Lastly Id like to say, that my posts are not written to be "caustic" I just TRY to make my point directly without too much extraneous BS but I fail miserably and I know it [img]smile.gif[/img] at least I try [img]smile.gif[/img] Im not a writer by nature and do much better in a live verbal debate than I do in type. So don't take it personally its just the way I am...I TRY not to take stuff from here personally.<hr></blockquote>

Hi MagiK - yes, I am aware that your location is displayed in your profile - I was maKing the point that it didn't need to be, because all and sundry can see where you're coming from via your replies.

You again missed the point- Australia's steel manufactureres aren't doing poorly - they are extremely competitive in an open playing field. In case you hadn't noted - that playing field has been changed. Yes, our government could play tit for tat on subsidies. Thing is we also have a belief on free trade, and we try not to be so hypocritical about it. It is not just something we espouse at election time or when visiting that country or area.

I understand your defense of his actions, but thinK you are being just a tad blinKered on the hypocrisy issue. So man goes on to prove blacK is white and gets Killed at the next zebra crossing. I wasn't trying to get personal when I addressed my first post at you, but it was a way of noting the obvious - anyone with a contrary opinin on the thread had already recieved a MagiKal reply. I knew mine was coming :D .

And what do you mean by slandering me when you were really replying to Donut :D - are you implying that we are the same person? Hey Donut - we have a Konspiracy theorist here ;) .

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Davros:


Hi MagiK - yes, I am aware that your location is displayed in your profile - I was maKing the point that it didn't need to be, because all and sundry can see where you're coming from via your replies.

You again missed the point- Australia's steel manufactureres aren't doing poorly - they are extremely competitive in an open playing field. In case you hadn't noted - that playing field has been changed. Yes, our government could play tit for tat on subsidies. Thing is we also have a belief on free trade, and we try not to be so hypocritical about it. It is not just something we espouse at election time or when visiting that country or area.

I understand your defense of his actions, but thinK you are being just a tad blinKered on the hypocrisy issue. So man goes on to prove blacK is white and gets Killed at the next zebra crossing. I wasn't trying to get personal when I addressed my first post at you, but it was a way of noting the obvious - anyone with a contrary opinin on the thread had already recieved a MagiKal reply. I knew mine was coming :D .

And what do you mean by slandering me when you were really replying to Donut :D - are you implying that we are the same person? Hey Donut - we have a Konspiracy theorist here ;) .<hr></blockquote>


Nonono!!! Im sorry I did not mean to imply you and Donut were the same [img]smile.gif[/img] I mixed my replies..I do that a lot especially when Im replying from work..I apologize for that. At any rate, I don't think Im being blinkered [img]smile.gif[/img] I like that term though [img]smile.gif[/img] I just realize that Wanting to do something and promising to try and do it in an election campaign and having to live with realities that are only revealed to you after you get into office are part and parcel of how things work... Bush doesnt make the economic policies...he does what his cabinet members say he has to, of course he can push for the things he thinks are more important but usually presidents allow the experts in the cabinet draw up the policies and then as president he tries to pick the ones most akin to his own personal beliefs. I dont see it as being hypocritical. I see it as the way the game is played.

Personally I never liked tarrifs on anything BUT i realize that they are going to exist and that some countries just will never agree to drop them...indeed some countries can't afford to drop them.

But the speaches someone found on here and posted aside Tarrifs and free trade were not a major "plank" in this past election. The election was fought over military, foreign relations, welfare, medicare, and a whole host of issues, but neither candidate made much of an issue over free trade and tarrifs. Or if they did the News agencies here in Washington faile dot point it out on the nightly news as much as they did the other issues.

Anyway, I love Aussieland, and NZ too [img]smile.gif[/img] both high on my places to visit..Im really torqued that I didnt get to stop by either place when I was in my globe trotting youth.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by MagiK:

There is a reason that most radicals are college students [img]smile.gif[/img] they are young, and impetuous and they have no concept of what cannot be done. They are the idealists, the dreamers and in a lot of cases the motivators of change....more often though they grow up, learn that things are the way they are because of the way things work in the real world So Ill sit here and make my INFORMED Generalisms and when PROVEN wrong, I will admit it.
<hr></blockquote>

"They are the idealists, the dreamers and in a lot of cases the motivators of change"

And your saying this like it is a bad thing????
Have you ever stopped to think that its because we are not so damn set in our ways we think one thing and cannot be convinced that anything else has a rats chance in hell of being right. Thats not just being conservative. That is stopping dead in the tracks and refusing to move forward any more.
Try actually listening to some of the "youngsters" for a change (even though some of them are just as old or older then you!) instead of outright dismissing their ideas as flights of fancy, and you may get a refreshing take on the world.
Try opening your eyes a bit, the world is changing and if you refuse to change with it you will be left behind.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by MagiK:


Hiho Davros I envy your research time [img]smile.gif[/img] And Ill have you know that MY generalisms are ANYTHING but Uninformed, unlike 90% of the posters here I have lived the events you guys speculate and pontificate on. Ive been out there, Ive been under fire and I have seen what I talk about. I dont mind youngsters proffering thier takes on things [img]smile.gif[/img] but I do discount the value of a lot of it because it lacks one lil tiny ingredient...experience... when you're 40 come talk to me. Or when you have actually been part of the process by helping to make policy talk to me... (in useing the term You're Im speaking in general and not meaning YOU in specific here)

There is a reason that most radicals are college students [img]smile.gif[/img] they are young, and impetuous and they have no concept of what cannot be done. They are the idealists, the dreamers and in a lot of cases the motivators of change....more often though they grow up, learn that things are the way they are because of the way things work in the real world So Ill sit here and make my INFORMED Generalisms and when PROVEN wrong, I will admit it.
<hr></blockquote>

ehmm... i could be wrong but as far as i know davros is in his 30s and donut in his 40s or somth like that. so i guess they are not what you would call "youngsters"... no offense you guys. [img]tongue.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/biglaugh.gif[/img]

Carefull Azzy, you're playing with fire :D [img]graemlins/blueblink.gif[/img]

Yes Magik, it would be good if you could differentiate between Davros and myself. So you have been under fire. Was it in a real tariff war?
:D

It wasn't too difficult to find the quotes - if you Know the subject. I found those quotes in seconds, there are hundreds of web sites devoted to the campaign promises of all the Presidential candidates. The idea that free trade was not a major planK of the Bush campaign is as ludicrous as your later assertion that he fought his campaign on foreign policy. He had no foreign policy until it was forced upon him.

Now to the part of your post that made me laugh the most. <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by MagiK:


I dont mind youngsters proffering thier takes on things [img]smile.gif[/img] but I do discount the value of a lot of it because it lacks one lil tiny ingredient...experience... when you're 40 come talk to me. )


<hr></blockquote>

Did you thinK I was a youngster? ROTFLSHMBB. I am 46 and have more experience than you can shake a sticK at. I have enough experience to Know that not having worn a uniform doesn't automatically make someone uninformed. Your other comment about not being able to have an opinion if you haven't been a policy maker. Do you really believe that?

BTW the 30% tariff on steel imports is expected to cost 6,000 jobs in Britain. Please don't tell me you don't care. You see, like Davros, I can see where you are coming from. ;D

[ 03-08-2002: Message edited by: Donut after re-reading Davros' post]

[ 03-08-2002: Message edited by: Donut ]</p>

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by MagiK:


Its good to see Rolla that you are so much more qualified to make economic policy than the people who have dedicated their lives and carreers to it. Im looking foward to the day we can see your name in print as a cabinet member.<hr></blockquote>

I am assuming we can also see yours there some time? If it goes for Rolla ZE, Donut, and Davros then it has to go for you too right?

What you appear to endorse is complete trust in any government on the basis that they are obviously more qualified than anyone else. I would say that the government are people just like us. We disagree with them on some issues and agree with them on others. They are not infallible, we are not infallible.

You do realise that the logical extension of yoru argument is dictatorship? After all, the voters are not expereinced enough to decide complicated economic issues. The government is the only one qualified to do that so the voters should not be allowed to mess it up. Bottom line - what you think may be siditious, scandalous, madness may be someone elses middle of the road.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by norompanlasolas:


ehmm... i could be wrong but as far as i know davros is in his 30s and donut in his 40s or somth like that. so i guess they are not what you would call "youngsters"... no offense you guys. [img]tongue.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/biglaugh.gif[/img] <hr></blockquote>

I'm not offended at all Noro :D - nice to be called a youngster once in a while. Hey Donut, you had me fooled - I thought you were younger than the Tartan Rodent (sorry Mouse) - must be that "young at heartedness" that had me fooled.

Pauly didn't roll the arm over I see, but I don't think we need the late innings relief this time :D .

Well, I do recall Bush once saying that his job would be A LOT easier if he were a dictator. ;)


Mark

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by MagiK:


Its good to see Rolla that you are so much more qualified to make economic policy than the people who have dedicated their lives and carreers to it. Im looking foward to the day we can see your name in print as a cabinet member [img]smile.gif[/img] <hr></blockquote>

No, no, no, Magik, you have it all wrong. Politics is NOT a professional job. Politics is a matter that concerns all citizens of a country. 'Polis' in ancient greek means 'city' - politics is literally the 'business of the city'. And 'democracy' comes from two greek words, 'cratos' meaning 'power' and 'demos' meaning 'people'. In a democracy, literally 'power to the people', every citizen, you, me and Rolla, has exactly the same right to put his/her nose into political stuff ! Many of our ancestors fought and died for us to have that right ...

The best thing about you, Magik, is your ability to say the most ridiculous things with a straight face. Your pontifications about age and wisdom are an absolute hoot, especially when you publicly assume that everyone who disagrees with you is younger. I realize that you are actually serious in your beliefs and opinions, but your presentation, especially your rhetorical dismissal of all opposing opinions as being ignorant or misinformed, quite destroys your credibility.
The credentials of age, travel, and military service you constantly fall back on are undermined by your lack of thoughtful discourse and bellicose debating style. With the background you claim, your arguments fall short of expectations. You seem constantly surprised at the "ignorance" of others, yet never seem to question your own standpoint.
I don't expect to get anything but vitriol in response to this, but I just had to try to get through, as you seem so sincere.

Now that was perfectly worded Absynthe! :D
I see MagiK's been p to the usual tricks of 'young people are uninformed and can't decide for themselves, I only listen to older people.'
A lot of new and inventive ideas come from young people who see more possibilities, and I think your thought is that all these ideas should be ignored due to age is just wasteful of a good resource.

[ 03-08-2002: Message edited by: Talthyr Malkaviel ]</p>

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by MagiK:

Bush doesnt make the economic policies...he does what his cabinet members say he has to,<hr></blockquote>

Read as "Bush does whatever he is told since he is nothing more than a running dog of the capitalist roaders"

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Dramnek_Ulk:


Read as "Bush does whatever he is told since he is nothing more than a running dog of the capitalist roaders"<hr></blockquote>


Actually, that might be a pretty heavy handed interpretation. ;)

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Dramnek_Ulk:


Read as "Bush does whatever he is told since he is nothing more than a running dog of the capitalist roaders"<hr></blockquote>

No actually read as : Bush like EVERY other president, makes the final descisions but is GUIDED by his cabinet, the people in the Cabinet are usualy (with the major exception of the first clinton term) experts in their fields. People who generally are recognized as knowing more aobut a particular subject than most others. No one president/man can be an expert in every field which is why they need and have cabinet's.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by AzureWolf:


"They are the idealists, the dreamers and in a lot of cases the motivators of change"

And your saying this like it is a bad thing????
Have you ever stopped to think that its because we are not so damn set in our ways we think one thing and cannot be convinced that anything else has a rats chance in hell of being right. Thats not just being conservative. That is stopping dead in the tracks and refusing to move forward any more.
Try actually listening to some of the "youngsters" for a change (even though some of them are just as old or older then you!) instead of outright dismissing their ideas as flights of fancy, and you may get a refreshing take on the world.
Try opening your eyes a bit, the world is changing and if you refuse to change with it you will be left behind.<hr></blockquote>

No azure, acutally I think that without the youngsters pushing for the impossible, that a lot of innovation would not happen. It is a good thing and I do value that freshness, What I do not like is that all too frequently the "dreamers and innovators" don't learn from the past and repeat previous failures because they are unwilling to admit that those who went before them might actually have tried to do some of the same impossible things and learned that SOME things quite literally are impossible...usualy this refers to the way things work due to the nature of the beast...the beast being man....some times things work the waythey do and are screwed up the way they are due to mans very nature. [img]smile.gif[/img] In case you had the idea that I didnt value your thoughts and views...you are wrong, I do..however I also think you are wrong on all the areas where we disagree..but that isnt anything person, its just my opinion [img]smile.gif[/img]