Flip-Flopping Away

Why do the Dems have no clear national front-runner for '04? This column says it's because the candidates are flip-flopping on key issues. For example:

Former Gov. Howard Dean of Vermont, long a free-trade advocate, has now turned into his party's strongest critic of unfettered trade, pledging to cancel trade agreements with any country whose labor laws do not meet U.S. standards.

Trade protection is the pivotal issue for organized labor, whose unions have been major supporters of Rep. Richard A. Gephardt of Missouri. But Mr. Dean's new position has helped him move ahead of Mr. Gephardt in Iowa, a big labor state.

Comments

[Jeff Clothier]

drf - No offense taken. Your points are valid, assuming that you can convince FOREIGN governments, as well as our own, of the glorious miracle that is free trade. That is my point. Production falls off when fewer consumers - read that also as workers - can afford to buy the goods plants produce, n'est pas? Only under a command economy does production remain steady despite loss of demand.

Now, if you have local workers displaced because foreign workers - who have lived under a coerced system of artificially low wages such as those in Mexico, Guatemala and other Latin American countries - are willing to do their jobs for less (which would be legitimate if the labor market were both free and FAIR across national borders, which it isn't) then you have a larger local population with fewer actually working. With me so far?

With the original workers displaced, but presumeably still around, and the newer ones working for much, much less, you have twice as many in the potential labor force with roughly half as much money to spend in the aggregate.

Which way do YOU think demand for consumer goods will go?

You really cannot separate the market for consumer goods and services from the labor and capital markets. They are one and the same. Right now, the balance is tipped way in favor of capital, which is why there is so much thoughtless, knee-jerk anti-corporatism spouted on these boards. NAFTA and other so-called free trade initiatives have done much to tip that balance.

Free trade is great in theory, but when theory and reality clash, reality always wins, and the theorist must check his or her premises.

[fyodor]

Jeff Clothier,

You missed the part in Econ 101 on comparative advantage.

Or maybe that's covered in Econ 201.

Anyway, Adam Smith first described it in "The Wealth of Nations."

[Jeff Clothier]

fyodor -

Yup, that's the title of the book alright, at least part of the title. But have you actually read it? It describes in detail the relationship of labor to capital, etc. and it is pretty much the way I described it.

As to comparative advantage - If we threw open the floodgates right now ( which won't happen, because the EU and other protectionist trade blocs won't allow it. It takes at least two to tango after all. Even Smith knew that.), our *competetive* advantage, which I think is what you meant to say, would evaporate pretty quickly.

IF we are the number one economic power in the world, which is debatable, (Seen our balance of trade lately?) but we'll accept it for now, then we have nothing to gain and everything to lose by unilaterally eliminating all trade barriers for the same reason that valuables are kept locked in vaults.

Do you put your cash out on the street at night and expect it to be there the next morning?

[david f]

hi jeff!

a coupla points:

"Free trade is great in theory, but when theory and reality clash, reality always wins, and the theorist must check his or her premises"

very true. that's why theories, whether in physics, economics, or linguistics are always getting revisited. we don't hear too much about john maynard anymore, for example (still too much, however)

it seems that your gripe is against illegal aliens rather than free trade. if you think those two are part-n-parcel, how would that work?

your local situation where illegal workers 1) accept lower wages and 2) take jobs. locally, this causes those with a job to demand less. factories are at too-great capacity, and have to layoff, thus causing the unemployment to rise. with you on that point. on the local level. but that which is produced stays local? it doesn't get sold nationally? how would reduced price on the goods leaving the factories not get snapped up if they're available to wholesalers at a price lower than what they can get the same good for elsewhere?

i'd like to buy butter for my store at a cheaper rate from Lefty's farm in minnesota, and i'll prefer that to Steve's in Wisconsin. after factoring in transportation costs, yeah -- i can charge less for Lefty Butter, still make a profit, and my consumers here at Clark and Fullerton are happy.

continuing with this: as a consumer who has nothing to do with that sector of production, how is the ability to purchase a different market basket at the same price, moving to "a higher indifference curve", in theory :), hurt? the pharma marketing person in Princeton isn't affected negatively by your scenario. illegal aliens or cheap imports: it's the same for Joe Pharma: he has more to purchase.

your scenario, fewer workers locally, is addressed by technological improvements, as well. that causes those in manufacturing or agricultural areas to loose work. however, the availability of, say, chickens (cheaper in real dollars than in 1920, 1930, 1950...), makes the population better off. should we eschew production factors that make additional workers unnecessary, too?

furthermore, acknowledging your description that the majority of these workers are illegal who have come into our country from elsewhere, it is the responsibility of that home country to prevent these people from leaving? our trade barriers are to prevent those people from leaving costa rica or wherever and coming here? how about the ability for them to produce their agricutlre at home and we have access to the market?

electronics are built in cheap places so a chip is basically a commodity. prices have fallen, sure some work has closed down here, but my $800 computer sure has helped my decisions of what to purchase. i would still argue that the market clearing price, based on the intersection of supply and demand curves is a theory that works.

technology can explain the job loss in your area just as much as illegals does (afterall, the illegals wandered to where the jobs were, don't you think they'd wonder off chasing the jobs after all jobs go?), so what are the causes for the general, widespread market failure that free trade allegedly causes?

thanks!

drf

[david f]

with all the talk about trade deficits and poor balance of trade, and realizing that asking three different people about each, you'll get about 19 different opinions, most of the anti-free trade arguments are at the "for the children" level (i remain unconvinced that the local, iowa example we've been given where illegal aliens take jobs and ruin the local economy is "proof" that free trade is bad). following are some discussions of points we all raised. if there are differing links, please send!!!

freetrade.org/issues/deficit.html

freetrade.org/pubs/briefs/tbp-006.pdf

cse.org/trade/index.php

townhall.com/columnists/walterwilliams/ww20030827.shtml

the microeconomic concept of the deadweight loss (wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadweight_loss), the above-cited articles, and such, and in terms of thinking of how reality here on the north side of chicago benefits from cheap food, cheap computers, cheap clothes, etc., and through the lower use of our incomes, we can purchase more, purchase higher end stuff, we can have the freedom to do with our resources that which we deem fit. all of a sudden, with protectionism, we're NOT as free to do that.

by trying to explore the economics of free trade, finding out what is the "most intelligent" way of achieving it.

thanks again!
drf

[Anonymous]

It isn't "competitive advantage" in Smith, as Fyodor D. said correctly. He talked about the comparative advantage. That would be

Comparative Advantage:
A situation in which a person or country can produce one good more efficiently than another good in comparison with another person or country

Depending on the price elasticity of supply, even an optimal tariff, assuming no trade wars or reciprocity, might not even be a good ideaa.

Free trade for everyone. It's safest. It is for the Children. It defeats the Terrorists.

[Jeff Clothier]

drf -

I think you miss my point. Or, more likely, I fail to get it across. Your end of the argument is largely academic. I am talking about real people here. Unfortunately, most of the discussion on these boards makes it sound like if it isn't quoted on some website or other, it can't be proven, while reality itself is the final proof.

You have two different classes of people here who are suffering - displaced workers, and those who displaced them. They are certainly NOT suffering from a lack of free trade, but from lawlessness on the part of both employers and those encouraging migrants to come here undocumented.

I am happy that your $800 computer gives you pleasure, as it should, but are you sure that would be the free market price of such a device if the country its assembly was exported to had an uncoerced labor market?

There seems to be an assumption among free trade rhetoriticians that the ridiculously cheap labor in developing countries is the "natural state" while the more expensive labor here is the "unnatural state." That has yet to be demonstrated. Given the political climate in much of Latin America, Asia, Africa and the Middle East, is it not more logical to presuppose that that cheap labor abroad is an unnatural, coercive situation, and not a demonstration of the joys of free trade?

[Jeff Clothier]

My point about Howard Dean (Remember Howard Dean, one of the political candidates whose supposed flip flops on issues such as free trade sparked this debate?) and other political leaders is that they don't have the luxury of debating the academic niceties of free trade. They are responsible for actual lives, livelihoods and economies both local and national. I personally prefer to give the man the benefit of the doubt that his views on the subject are being tempered with some good old, non-academic reality, which I applaud. Having met the man, I think the benefit of the doubt is well placed in his case.

[fyodor]

Anon @ 4:47

Thanks. I *thought* I knew what I was talking about! 🙂

Jeff Clothier,

Your "I'm talking reality not academic theory" rap makes me sick. I suppose doctors should stop reading their damn overly academic medical journals and concentrate on real people, eh?!? To elaborate on what David F alludes to, and to try to explain what you should have learned in fifth grade, WHATEVER we say is fricken theory, but GOOD theory correctly explains reality. Saying that you're talking reality not theory is just a very stupid way of trying to say that your theory is better at explaining reality. Obviously I disagree.

As for "ridiculously cheap labor" being part of a "natural state," you don't know what you're talking about. There's no "natural" price for labor. Obviously any business will seek cheaper labor, all other things being equal. The fact that all other things are never equal is one reason why dropping trade barriers would not mean that all businesses would hire only in third world countries. But removing the requirement pay to do business across borders lowers costs and therefore lowers prices to consumers, lowers prices to other businesses, increases profits (helping all workers with investments), AND increases efficiency, which helps us all. And this is so regardless of whether other nations follow suit. It's a subtle point, I know, but maybe someday you'll understand...

[david f]

hi jeff!

the thought that "if something isn't documented, then it's not true" syndrome is definitely a concern. those dangers were highlighted in the many debates about the war in iraq, and that point is well taken. the expert effect is a pain in the ass!!!!!

on the other hand, the sites i was referring to were to address this so-called "reality". the economic measurements were to model and try and describe this thing called reality. the goal was to see how free trade affects the USA in general. how a society's economy, in general, responds to free trade, not your part of iowa.

individuals are helped by lower prices, displaced workers are harmed in the quest to use labor to minimize costs -- we have conflicting stories, both of which deal with reality of the individuals in the local situations. but without some sort of comprable measuring system, how can any cause-effect analysis of political, economic, or social policy be assessed?

when discussing issues that do have mathematics, what is wrong with citing sources to show how one makes a particular decision? when we talk about dieting, you could show me long-range studies that show how controlled groups respond to diets. this way, i could make an informed decision. if we took, say, fred's case, he lost 52 lbs, two years ago and has kept it off using the "balanced diet and exercise method", how do we know how well that diet could work for us? going to a source that tested these cases might be an idea.

citing sources is not ignoring reality, rather it expands it. you have your experiences with your real people. you have seen these negatives. in this neighborhood, i have seen positives. both make an important contribution to figuring this thing out. looking for predictability or systematic descriptions of that which we observe is a useful way of seeing if our observations are routine or extrordinary.

afterall, for someone who only observed people swimming in the great salt lake, they would believe that people float on water. or that the rock is affected by gravity more than the feather. or that decaf is as good as the real thing!

the real people who are hurt by the lawlessness you describe is terrible. however, the libertarian position of being against coercion does come through -- it is indeed wrong to oppress.

that said, the economic descriptions of free trade are not the same as economic descriptions of a slaveholding society .

I don't think the (overly) academic 🙂 definitions of free trade would incorporate that (just as consumer preferences doesn't address the "sophie's choice scenario"). additionally, how our consumer econ 101 would deal with that would look totally different. so would the discussion, because the parameters change. however, we're talking about a free society here in the us.

it really does seem that your issue is not with the theoretical or even real application of free trade, rather the nefarious souls who dare and violate the individual's sovereignty. and yes, we could be in strong agreement about the economic damage lawbreaking can cause. we can also be in agreement about the awful negative impact that has on the lives of people.

free traders have an answer to that issue: by dropping, say, farm subsidies or textile subsidies, the trading opportunities for the third world nation improve. globalization opponents disagree with that statement. again, looking at how each side got to those ideas is important. we're not talking about a subjective issue of taste. we can measure improvements in wealth, buying power, real incomes. so, how someone uses numbers, observation, etc. to arrive at the conclusion does matter.

we do have the real world. how it can be described and compared in a useful way can be achieved by measurement. otherwise the impasse of your experience -- illegal aliens and the economic and probably social ills caused by conditions that created the illegal alien issue etc., and the impasse of mine -- the small shops that benefit from access to cheap, plentiful goods, cannot be resolved.

whenever someone is coerced or whenever someone looses a job, it's awful. and it sucks thinking that "in aggregate, people are better off". we had that in the 90s. it's just that in descriptions of protectionistic measures, consumers are hurt more than producers are helped, in general, across the board.

that's why i'm for free trade. after all, it did help get rid of those commies....

cheers!
drf

[Jean Bart]

fyodor,

Good theory never explains reality; it can approximate reality however, just as a map can for example.

"I suppose doctors should stop reading their damn overly academic medical journals and concentrate on real people, eh?!?"

Actually, they should do both.

[fyodor]

Jean Bart,

Well, yer pickin' with my nits, thar!! Reality hurts my brain, anyhow...

[david f]

oh, sorry jeff -- your second comment, about Mr. Dean, 🙂

*grin* yes, that is the topic!!!

did you meet him in iowa? he certainly is taking the country by storm. my sister and her husband live in Vt., and they're certainly excited about him, too! do you think he has good chances in 2004?

cheers!
drf

[Jean Bart]

BTW, one of the major reasons why unemployment figures in Europe are higher than the US is due to Europe's differing system of counting the unemployed. It is argued by many that it's a more honest system; whether that is the case or not, it tends to lead to figures which are higher than that in the US by say 50% or so.

[david f]

hey JB,

unemployment *is* higher in europe, in general -- structural unemployment and all, in any way of measuring the "active workforce" and "discouraged workers". however, with these differences in measurement, how are figures compiled exactly? and is this why all of a sudden in the economist in the early to mid 90s, the unemployment figures for europe changed?

thanks!!

drf

[Don]

"There seems to be an assumption among free trade rhetoriticians that the ridiculously cheap labor in developing countries is the "natural state" while the more expensive labor here is the "unnatural state." "

Since I ascribe to the subjective theory of value, I'm fine with a wide range of labor rates.

But, aside from that, I don't see how it hurts me that people in other countries produce things I want real cheap. I do see, however, how "protecting" their American competition can drive up my prices, and hurt me.

[Don]

Jean Bart,

I fail to see why theory "can't explain" reality; indeed, that's the whole point of theory. Granted, most theories are subject to change or revision. But theory isn't restricted to mathmatical models that can only approximate reality.

[david f]

and jean bart,

i went a-diggin' to see what you were talking about. your claim about the unemployment counting is correct to an extent, but it's not as far off as you claim. also, even the OECD doesn't say that the european method is "more honest"... that's a bit of a stretch, to put it politely. actually, that's pretty far-off what this OECD report from 2000 i'm lookin' at says.

oecd.org/dataoecd/50/10/1961362.pdf
bls.gov/opub/mlr/2000/06/art1full.pdf

the EU rate according to US calculations would be 9.8, EU methodology to measure EU unemployment was 10.2.

according to this study, the us rate really doesn't change. only 10% of the difference is explained by methodological differences.

regards,
drf

[Kevin Carson]

As Al Smith would say, there is no evil caused by statism that can't be cured by more statism." Not to beat a dead horse, wouldn't it make more sense for the U.S. government to stop propping up regimes with anti-labor policies, and subsidizing the export of capital to them, in the first place?

Here's a simple recipe for free trade: 1) withdraw from the IMF/World Bank/WTO; 2) drop all tariffs and import restrictions; 3) stop subsidizing the merchant marine and airlines. Period.

[david f]

Kevin,

how about adding agriculture to point number three...

then we could get out of the UN and ignore the olympics, too!

very nice!

one argument that was oft kicked around when prez bush did the steel tariffs was that "there were a lot of exceptions, so it really didn't apply to most". besides this is a european-politics style answer, dean has the chance to use this kind pf flip flop on this issue as well. (free trade with exceptions for those badguys)

for example, he claims that his state is fiscally well-run. true, ben-n-jerryland is a "green" state in this month's reason article, but cato.org lists dean as a not very good gov, fiscally speaking.

can anybody please put gephardt's eyebrows on correctly... that's worse than watching a bad rug flop around...

cheers!
drf

[Eric Lindholm]

Apparently, this isn't the only issue that Dean has changed to the polar opposite of his "old" beliefs. Check out today's Boston Globe - Tom Oliphant column.

[Jeff Clothier]

Kevin, you left one important point in your prescription for free trade: Get OTHER countries to do likewise, otherwise the whole damn thing falls apart. Dean's "flip-flop" on trade reads to me more like a maturing sense that unilateral disarmament in trade is economic suicide for the U.S.

[david f]

jeff,

how does it fall apart? we hear that unilateral dropping of trade restrictions ought to be bad, but (for a novice in trade theory), do you have any links, readings, or such on that?

thanks!

drf

[PLC]

david & jeff - you don't need the other countries to drop their trade barriers. It is always in the economic interests of the citizens of any nation to drop trade barriers. It may not be in the interests of particular industries or unions, but for the economy as a whole, trade barriers are always bad, no matter what the trading partners do...

For reference, see any basic International Economics text.

[Jeff Clothier]

drf. PLC -

Um, this is outside the realm of the academic, fellas. Don't read, go to WalMart and just try to buy some clothing or cheap plastic stuff that's made in America. Better yet, get off your ass and visit some of the maquiladoras south of the border, as I have in a former corporate communications job, or come up here to Iowa where people are on unemployment while abundant factory jobs are being occupied by illegal aliens.

Our borders are about as porous as they can be - less so than the doctrinaire Libertarians among us would like, but still pretty damn porous - we've blindly pursued more open trade with unscrupulous governments while asking for little reciprocity from our trading partners, and it isn't looking too well for us, I think you'd have to agree.

Free trade means nothing unless it's fair. For that, as in any transaction, the rules of the game, as well as the language of the contract, must be satisfactory to both parties or the transaction ought to be voided and renegotiated. That's how business is done, and I think that's what Dean is saying.

[david f]

PLC:

i'm not one of those people who think it should be in conjunction with other countries. the opposite.

we hear so much from those who are against free trade, i was interested in some sources they have. you know, like pro gun control people. it's always interesting to see those arguments...

your thoughts on why free trade is good make sense, of course, to the libertarian. I'm lookin' for what the other side thinks here.

so: what "basic international economics books" do you recommend? which have you had in international econ courses?

and that still doesn't address the question to jeff: HOW would free trade fall apart? that's what i'm interested in.

drf

[david f]

jeff,

you're against walmart, too?

i don't understand what you're saying -- it's bad to have mass, cheap retail? we should have more expensive retail?

should we impose tarifs on stuff like we did in the 80s to protect american jobs while really shitty cars get produced?

the illegal aliens argument: are you suggesting that it's the trade policy of, say, mexico or peru to send people to work in the us illegally?

by those empirical statements, i guess the stone falls faster than the feather, too...

the "academic" realm is testable. i'm lookin for something that's beyond the "smokin' ain't bad fer yeh. look at my uncle ned. he smoked for 80 years and he's fine..."

but -- what part of iowa? i'm in chicago...

[david f]

hey jeff!

sorry -- hit send too soon and left the sign-off out!! (whoops)

thanks!
drf

[PLC]

david f - way back when in the early 90's when I took International Economics, our basic text was "International Economics" by Ingram & Dunn. You might be particularly interested in Chapter 7: "Arguments for Protection: Good and Bad, Mostly Bad".

[PLC]

"it isn't looking too well for us, I think you'd have to agree."

Yeah, it really does suck being the wealthiest nation on Earth with unemployment rates half as high as those found in say, Europe.

I guess you're right - this trade thing hasn't worked out at all...

[david f]

PLC:

thanks! most appreciated!

cheers,
drf

[Jeff Clothier]

Okay, basic Consumer Econ. 101 - Fewer domestic jobs, fewer domestic workers, fewer workers, less wages, less wages, less spendable $$$ in the marketplace, less $$$ in the marketplace, fewer goods bought, fewer goods bought, less demand, yeah, stuff gets cheaper, but production falls off, thus, fewer jobs... et cetera, ad nauseum.

What has fueled this downward spiral in the U.S. are free trade implementations (they are not laws) which have allowed United States chartered companies to locate their main plants outside the U.S. without penalty, and lack of due discrimination between legal and illegal immigrants. We cannot compete with corrupt, third world countries who hold their wages artificially low to benefit local plutocrats. We have the same corruption here, but not nearly to the degree as in, say, Mexico or Guatemala. I was married to a Guatemalan emigre'. I've been there and saw the situation on the ground. It is not pretty.

Now, I support free trade, but arrived at intelligently. I would indeed start with systematic lowering and eventual elimination of our agricultural subsidies which would allow for more and better exports of commodity crops from, say, Central and South America. This will raise the economies of these nations in a systematic and widely-distributed way while perhaps not quite killing ours off. We'll be paying more for food, of course, but, hey, that's fair trade.

I also would not prevent companies from locating overseas or across borders. I would simply say "Ta-ta, you are now a Guatemalan corporation, with all the rights, priviledges and confiscation attaching thereto.

I, too, would pull us out of trading organizations such as WTO. These do not have U.S. interests at heart. I would, however, act as a trade bloc ourselves, and not assume that a spirit of goodwill and mutuality exists between nations. It does not and never has.

[david f]

hi Jeff,

regarding consumer econ 101, the steps between the introduction of foreign (illegal) labor -- which seems to be the only element you cite -- and loss of domestic jobs is lost on me. what is the cause of those job losses? how does production fall off if it's replaced by foreign workers or foreign goods?

ignoring illegal aliens free aliens for now, because that is not free trade --- that's illegal and that existed with the protectionistic policies in the 80s, and getting rid of welfare or setting up a berlin wall on the border with mexico etc., introduces other variables that go beyond the "jobloss --- losss of $" loop you describe. yes -- those externalities can and do cause market failure. however, keeping this at a 101 level (unfortunatlely, that's just about my level, grin), i still don't see that negative impact of free trade and i don't see the positive, saving nature of this kind of protectionism you cite.

anyhow, the conventional thought that free trade causes prices on goods and commodities to fall, that makes consumers spend less of their disposal income, and that helps with prosperity in general.

the so-called "deadweight loss" in these scenarios point to loss of production in the presence of protectionism (e.g., price controls): consumers loose more than what producers gain.

regarding, the "loss of production" how? i thought in your description, those foreigners took over production... so it wouldn't fall off. look at the auto industry -- sure, protectionism saved a few jobs, but consumers still flocked to the more expensive japanese cars, spent more of their income, had less to spend on other things, consumption and savings went down...

because of those two non-scientific, localized, conflicting scenarios was exactly why i was interested in the actual academics of the matter, not a "consumer econ 101" lesson that doesn't seem to come from a book but from the fallacy affirming the consequent.

The benefit of free trade is of course in general. we can find sectors (unionized, certain mass producing factories, etc) where free trade is definitely not welcome, but for the economy as a whole, i don't see your negative feedback loop functioning.

what percentage of the us economy is in manufacturing? what is the trend in job growth, job creation, etc. what percentage of the us economy is involved actually in trade? what is that trend?

what happens when technology or other functions of production change, making farming or manufacturing more efficient? should we shun that too, due to that negative feedback loop from earlier?

how can free trade be "intelligently" reached when much of nafta is criticized for mexican farm workers coming up to work the fields? what is an "intelligent" plan according to you?

thanks! (and writing in the spirit of good-natured, enjoyable debate -- i'm not intending at any point to be anything other than a good-natured sounding board here)

respectfully,
drf

[Jeff Clothier]

drf -

I appreciate your thoughts, as I see that is what they are, as opposed to ideological cant or sentiment.

I met Dean at my mother's house, as a matter of fact. My folks are Democratic organizers in Western Iowa, while I'm an independent living in Des Moines. I have made it a point to meet as many of the candidates as possible this year as I intend to cast an "anyone but Bush" vote. So far, even though I do not agree with many of his views including health care, Dean strikes me as the only sincere individual with enough fire in his belly to stand up to the neocon propaganda machine.

My folks, being yellow-doggers, are afraid Dean is unelectable. I think they may be mistaken.

Don -

There are other people on Earth than you. You ought to pay some attention to them sometime, as their plight does affect you.

I am all for free trade and the market dictating the price of goods, services and labor in an unrigged game. Having traveled some, however, I am aware that the game is indeed rigged, and NOT on the side of labor. It is naive in the extreme to believe that simply abolishing tariffs, trade restictions, etc. unilaterally will produce the theoretical economic Nirvana Lib. theory describes. What it would help ensure, among other things, is that plutocrats in Mexico through their government proxies, not the free market of the United States, would dictate the price of unskilled and semiskilled agricultural labor in Iowa as they pretty much already do in California. Does that sound free to you?

I don't know what you do for a living, but I have been a field hand, maintenance person, housepainter, schoolteacher, communications professional in an agribusiness concern, musician, writer and public speaker. I've worked for myself and I've worked for others. I pretty much trust the free market to dictate the value of my labor, but I do not trust academics or foreign politicians to do so.

fyodor - Feel free to be sick. It seems to suit you. 😉

[david f]

hi jeff!

thank you for the thoughts and discussion on this matter!

looking forwards to more fun discussions in the future,

regards,
drf

[Rick Barton]

Jeff Clothier wrote
"Don't read, go to WalMart and just try to buy some clothing or cheap plastic stuff that's made in America."

An abundance of WalMart goods are made in China which is subsidized with IMF and World Bank funds
which US taxpayers heavily subsidize. The problem is not free trade, its government support for the international banking industry. History is replete with examples of low tax, free trade countries doing quite well vs subsidizing and/or
high tariff governments. But now WE are paying the cost of propping up the competition while at the same time putting international banking firms
(via our governments support for the IMF and WB) on the dole.

[Meyers Ben]

EMAIL: [e-mail]
IP: 62.213.67.122
URL: http://www.QUALITY-PENIS-ENLARGEMENT-PILLS.NET

DATE: 12/10/2003 09:23:16
Gratitude is the most exquisite form of courtesy.

[Johnson Andrea]

EMAIL: [e-mail]
IP: 62.213.67.122
URL: http://uncircumcised-penis.nonstopsex.org
DATE: 12/20/2003 11:51:32
Only when we have nothing to say do we say anything at all.

[Leo Kristen]

EMAIL: [e-mail]
IP: 68.173.7.113
URL: http://loose-weight.weight-loss-central.org
DATE: 01/09/2004 11:51:45
The fear of death is the beginning of slavery.

[Youman Leah]

EMAIL: [e-mail]
IP: 200.62.146.126
URL: http://preteen-sex.info
DATE: 05/19/2004 06:51:00
Nature is not anthropomorphic.