To my best knowledge, no one asked anybody to "group-around like a bunch of sticks (fascio) around the broomhandle". The question on the table are more or less about the solid religious dogm alike opinion versa dynamic and developing vierws on certain things. I am on the side of the later.
Mr. Shapiro seems to intechange the rituals with the values. If we take so called free trade (as I referred in m ost) that we may either go with solid Shapiro alike "no trade restrictions/tariffs FROM US (this point in important) versa negotiating an efficient trade.
The former is solely based on some sort of trade framework signed back in the beginning of 70-s. During that time everything from the financial environment (fixed system of Bretton Woods) to the oil embargo imposed by Arabs. By that time US was neither close to energy independency nor able to pay the higher costs of imported energy due to stagflation caused by damn policies of democratic administrations.
The things such as financial environment, technology (including thechnologies used in energy production and business models and structure changed drastically since then. Why shall we follow the old "free trade doctrine" instead of changing it taking into account all aforementioned changes?
Do we really recognize the value of a free trade or just try to follow free trade ritual? Trade is made by negotiotion and for negotiation in its essence.
Note, GATT was not working back in 1994, that was a mere reason Clinton the Husband replaced it with NAFTA, WTO was founded in 1995 solely to address Chinese dumpings since there was no chance to address it under old good GATT.
Instead of addressing the issue for good, Clinton the Husband's administration just put yet another patch. Shall we follow the same just as pretending to solve the problems with the hope that they solve on their own?
The same thing with so called "conservative values". You put an excellent post about "понятийная Конституция". For the last 20 years Ann coulter claims we have about 20% of voters who has no problem with SCOTUS "explaining" us the Bill of Rights, that very action called but Shapiro alike something like judicial activism.
How Mr. Shapiro would explain those voters who otherwise lean towards right on every other issue (such as property, the rule of law, pro-life...) that judicial activism is not acceptable?
People who grew up in non Judeo-Christian cultural environment may have hard time understanding the concept of inalienable rights (rights given not by the government but the power above it). What Mr. Shapiro would do?
About the unions: unions are bad, however, it is next to impossible to get rid of them at once. If there are some manufacturing in the US, tax inversions are not profitable and the states would assume most of decisionmaking (and responsibilities) the "light states" (non-unionized, right to work) will lure the population(labor) drying out unions on both shores without any kind of adverse executive actions. Although, unions may understand that scenario too, they cannot openly protest the withdrawal from TPP yes, TPP does benefit unions). What's wrong with that?
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2017-01-24 04:40 pm (UTC)Mr. Shapiro seems to intechange the rituals with the values. If we take so called free trade (as I referred in m ost) that we may either go with solid Shapiro alike "no trade restrictions/tariffs FROM US (this point in important) versa negotiating an efficient trade.
The former is solely based on some sort of trade framework signed back in the beginning of 70-s. During that time everything from the financial environment (fixed system of Bretton Woods) to the oil embargo imposed by Arabs. By that time US was neither close to energy independency nor able to pay the higher costs of imported energy due to stagflation caused by damn policies of democratic administrations.
The things such as financial environment, technology (including thechnologies used in energy production and business models and structure changed drastically since then. Why shall we follow the old "free trade doctrine" instead of changing it taking into account all aforementioned changes?
Do we really recognize the value of a free trade or just try to follow free trade ritual?
Trade is made by negotiotion and for negotiation in its essence.
Note, GATT was not working back in 1994, that was a mere reason Clinton the Husband replaced it with NAFTA, WTO was founded in 1995 solely to address Chinese dumpings since there was no chance to address it under old good GATT.
Instead of addressing the issue for good, Clinton the Husband's administration just put yet another patch. Shall we follow the same just as pretending to solve the problems with the hope that they solve on their own?
The same thing with so called "conservative values". You put an excellent post about "понятийная Конституция". For the last 20 years Ann coulter claims we have about 20% of voters who has no problem with SCOTUS "explaining" us the Bill of Rights, that very action called but Shapiro alike something like judicial activism.
How Mr. Shapiro would explain those voters who otherwise lean towards right on every other issue (such as property, the rule of law, pro-life...) that judicial activism is not acceptable?
People who grew up in non Judeo-Christian cultural environment may have hard time understanding the concept of inalienable rights (rights given not by the government but the power above it). What Mr. Shapiro would do?
About the unions: unions are bad, however, it is next to impossible to get rid of them at once. If there are some manufacturing in the US, tax inversions are not profitable and the states would assume most of decisionmaking (and responsibilities) the "light states" (non-unionized, right to work) will lure the population(labor) drying out unions on both shores without any kind of adverse executive actions.
Although, unions may understand that scenario too, they cannot openly protest the withdrawal from TPP yes, TPP does benefit unions). What's wrong with that?