WSJ: Mexico Retaliates

[Oakman]

Rob Graham wrote:

A trade war is exactly what we need right now, never mind that one helped prolong the last great depression.

Rob, in my humble opinion, we have been in a trade war with much of the world for quite some time. And we have been losing, badly. The Mexican aspects of NAFTA have never been what was written into the treaty, and I suspect they never can be. A treaty is a contract and either both sides live up to it or none should. Isn't there a small amount of irony in Mexico declaring a trade war with us while begging for millions (billions?) in aid?

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

[73Zeppelin]

I was going to reprimand you for the accent on the final 'a', but then I realized you were right! :laugh: You googled that, didn't you?

[Rob Graham]

There is a right way and a wrong way to do this. If the treaty is flawed, or Mexico isn't living up to the provisions of the treaty, then withdraw from the treaty. The wrong way is to not live up to our side of the deal by slipping some dumb provision to cancel funding into a stimulus bill just to please the teamsters union. My point had nothing to do with whether NAFTA was good, smart, or beneficial to US. It has to do with how nations this nation should behave with respect to the agreements it makes with others. We certainly can't expect Mexico, Canada, or any others to abide by their agreements with us if we sneak out from under our obligations.

[Oakman]

Rob Graham wrote:

We certainly can't expect Mexico, Canada, or any others to abide by their agreements with us if we sneak out from under our obligations.

I hear you and want to agree with you. But when Mexico doesn't live up to their side of the agreement, why should they expect us to do so? I believe the answer is that we are so concerned about not being seen as a bully that we ignore being taken advantage of, time and time again. One of the things I have heard no-one say is that American drivers are making deliveries deep inside Mexico, even in the pilot program. As long as we are talking about obligations, shouldn't we expect Mexico to stop aiding and abetting illegal entry into the U.S.? I don't mean that they should do anything to stop it, just stop providing government assistance to those who attempt to enter our country illegally.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

[Rob Graham]

Oakman wrote:

But when Mexico doesn't live up to their side of the agreement, why should they expect us to do so? I believe the answer is that we are so concerned about not being seen as a bully that we ignore being taken advantage of, time and time again.

When Mexico doesn't live up to their side of the treaty we should point that out clearly, give them a deadline for compliance, then cancel the agreement when they fail to. What we should not do is behave just like them and try to cheat on the treaty. As to the bully business, we get "credit" for that anyway. We should just be forthright and insist on mutual compliance.

Oakman wrote:

One of the things I have heard no-one say is that American drivers are making deliveries deep inside Mexico, even in the pilot program.

Given the Narco-revolution going on down there, I doubt you could pay enough to get an American trucker to deliver there. But if they are being prevented from doing so by the Mexican government, then the above reply applies.

[Oakman]

Rob, it has occurred to me that we are battling should against possible. It's an argument I deal with every day since I truly believe that a libertarian society is the only rational alternative to the cycle of republic-democracy-dictatorship-republic-etc. that seems to have been the choice of civilized humans for quite some time. When i think of our world's and/or our nation's problems I know what I think should be the answer, but I am also aware of what can be the answer. Right now you are saying, we should keep our word, and I cannot argue with that. When I said that as soon as one can no longer count on contracts as being enforceable, one of the basic premises of our society is broken, I meant it. I am saying only that given the way the rest of the world works, that may be a recipe for a national death by a thousand cuts. And I am asking, in a world of oath-breakers, can we afford to play by the rules? Heinlein's answer was: "Certainly the game is rigged. Don't let that stop you." Obama's answer seems to be it doesn't matter how you play the game; it only matters whether you win or lose.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

[Rob Graham]

Yeah, but I still like Heinlein's answer better than Obama's. I think Heinlein's point was that somebody has to take the initiative or nothing will ever improve. I think we're capable of being a cut above the rest, and just want us to live up to our potential. I'm not saying we should willingly suffer fools and the thousand cuts they deliver, but rather that we should play rough, but honest and aboveboard. Given the politicians that are running the show, that is probably a pretty silly hope on my part. Like all the rest Obama talked a much better line than he's walking. Too bad. I happen to think that how one plays the game may be the most important thing of all, but then that comes from an old fashioned sense of honor and it's importance to how men and nations should behave. You hardly ever hear that word mentioned any more. I just wish I thought there was any serious contemplation of outcomes and consequences involved in most of the crap going on these days, and provoking our neighbors with the NAFTA duplicity is just a tiny example.

[Oakman]

Rob Graham wrote:

but rather that we should play rough, but honest and aboveboard.

I agree, but I immediately have to wonder what the political life-expectancy of an administration that followed that precept would be. When you think of the people this country elects, I am afraid we'll never see anyone in power again who will value honesty or integrity or honor. It would seem the prevailing opinion is Stan's: "Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing."

Rob Graham wrote:

I just wish I thought there was any serious contemplation of outcomes and consequences involved in most of the crap going on these days, and provoking our neighbors with the NAFTA duplicity is just a tiny example.

Well, it's cold comfort, but I suspect that once inflation reaches 20% @ year - on its way to 100% @ year, what our southern neighbors think of us won't matter a lot. But I confess I will smile a bit when they start to nationalize all those factories the internationals built for them. Not because it'd be good for the US, but because I can say, 'I told you so," one more time. ;)

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

[Rob Graham]

Oakman wrote:

but I suspect that once inflation reaches 20% @ year - on its way to 100% @ year, what our southern neighbors think of us won't matter a lot.

I don't worry too much about them either. I do worry what the Chinese will do about us monetizing their Treasury bond holdings into worthless paper. I suspect they didn't really see that as a likely outcome when they bought them. The same probably goes for some Saudi royalty, but they don't have the wherwithall to show us just how pissed they might be. Do you suppose it will be hard to adapt to Mandarin as the official language?

[Oakman]

Rob Graham wrote:

Do you suppose it will be hard to adapt to Mandarin as the official language?

I let you whippersnappers worry about that. Babel Fish can probably teach me everything I need to know. I mean, how hard is it to learn to say, "fuck you and the horse you rode in on?" in any language?

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

[Stan Shannon]

Oakman wrote:

It would seem the prevailing opinion is Stan's: "Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing."

That has always been the prevailing opinion.

Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

[Oakman]

Stan Shannon wrote:

That has always been the prevailing opinion.

Perhaps so, more's the pity.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

[Mike Gaskey]

73Zeppelin wrote:

You googled that, didn't you?

:-\ good call.

Mike - typical white guy. The USA does have universal healthcare, but you have to pay for it. D'oh. Thomas Mann - "Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." The NYT - my leftist brochure. Calling an illegal alien an “undocumented immigrant” is like calling a drug dealer an “unlicensed pharmacist”. God doesn't believe in atheists, therefore they don't exist.

[Rob Graham]

Oakman wrote:

I mean, how hard is it to learn to say, "f*** you and the horse you rode in on?" in any language?

Yeah, that's pretty much a single digit statement in any language... I don't think I qualify for the whippersnapper part any more, having reached the age of 26.

[Stan Shannon]

Oakman wrote:

Perhaps so, more's the pity.

Yeah, because its really too bad that we don't live in a world controlled by slave owning Nazis.

Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.

[Oakman]

Rob Graham wrote:

I don't think I qualify for the whippersnapper part any more, having reached the age of 26.

I can remember when I was that age. I wondered last night; had you seen the need to learn Mandarin coming from finacial or military conquest? I assumed the latter, probably just because that's the way my mind works.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

[Oakman]

Stan Shannon wrote:

because its really too bad that we don't live in a world controlled by slave owning Nazis.

You've taught me better than that. I have learned the world is being conquered by slave-owning Commies.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface

[Rob Graham]

Your assumption would be correct. With the economy collapsing and their investments being infated into vapor, i think the chinese will need a distraction for their masses to avoid open rebellion. We make a convenient target for that, and likely will be disarming our military soon anyway, as funds and attention are diverted to the social projects more valued by the current batch of politicians in power. We should be a relative pushover by the second half of the 2nd Obama administration (if not the first administration).

[Rob Graham]

Stan Shannon wrote:

That has always been the prevailing opinion.

Actually, I think the self loathing part is a rather new phenomenon that appeared in the late 1960's or early 1970's right alongside LSD.

[Oakman]

Rob Graham wrote:

i think the chinese will need a distraction for their masses to avoid open rebellion.

I'm sure you read that they are spending 585 billion on their own massive stimulus package, but the Chinese government agreed to provide only $170 billion of the funds. So they need to raise over 400,000 billion from other sources - like their foreign investment reserve. They hold about 400,000 billion in T-bills. If I were the Chinese finance minister, I'd be thinking that now, while a lot of countries actually are fleeing to T-bills, would be a good time to convert that into cash to fund their own TARP program. A perfect excuse to stop being the U.S.'s banker, just as the US starts looking more and more like the morning after a drunken sailor spending spree. And then they can politely refuse to buy any more of our debt and watch our interest rate skyrocket while their economy remains basically stable. A ballsier guy than Obama might actually think of attacking China as a distraction for the masses.

Rob Graham wrote:

We should be a relative pushover by the second half of the 2nd Obama administration

Hard to believe that we had over 500,000 men in uniform in Vietnam, isn't it? - and enough more stateside that no-one ever had to do a second tour unless he chose to. :sigh: Obama may decide to go whole-hog and just outsource the army to Blackwater.

Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface