I was closest to Evilcam.

Daz or Foman were worst.

So, is he actually going to respond to my argument or just keep pretending he's a libertarian?

No, free-trade agreements are bad. Here's why

For starters the North American Free-Trade Agreement (NAFTA) has shown to be an atrocity to not only the working class but to the environment as well. The U.S has seen a staggering drop of over 765,000 jobs in result to NAFTA and when these Americans do find new jobs, there wages are less than 23% than their previous wage. On top of that, from 1995-1999, Mexican manufacturing wages have dropped 21% and the number of Mexican citizens in poverty has increased. The U.S-Mexican border is also home to maquiladora zones where pollution and improper disposal of toxic waste results in birth defects

Sources please? And make sure it's not a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. Regardless, even if this were true, the unanimity of professional economists must mean something to you? Not to mention, you completely ignored consumer surplus, which is pretty much the biggest benefit.

I also should mention that comparative advantage pretty much proves that free trade outweighs any losses with its benefits. By as much as 100 to 1!

The NAFTA experience demonstrates how basic labor rights and the interests of working families are eroded by "free trade" agreements that lack enforceable labor protections. Corporations move high-paying jobs to countries with lower wages and bust unionization drives with threats to transfer production abroad. According to a Cornell University study, since NAFTA two-thirds of manufacturing and communications companies faced with union organizing campaigns threatened workers with moving their jobs abroad. This "race-to-the-bottom" will accelerate under the FTAA as corporations pit exploited workers in Mexico against even more desperate workers in countries such as Haiti and Guatemala. Already, Mexico is losing maquiladora jobs to countries with cheaper wages. In the last two years, some 280,000 jobs have vanished with the closure of more than 350 maquiladoras.

You do realise low wages isn't the only factor firms take into account, right? The institutions and infrastructure that America offers will only ever be ignored when wage demands are literally too high, unions are creating too much of a deadweight loss or when the country being outsourced to has sufficiently low wages with sufficiently developed infrastructure.

Not to mention, if production is cheaper in those other countries: good! We want labour to be re-allocated to the most efficient places.

The export-driven growth model promoted by "free trade" agreements and the policies of the World Bank and the IMF have destroyed ecosystems around the world. Under this unsustainable model, many countries in the Global South cut down their forests, overfish their waters and exploit other natural resources to pay off foreign debts. Since NAFTA, 15 US wood product companies have set up operations in Mexico, and logging there has increased dramatically. In the Mexican state of Guerrero, 40 percent of the forests have been lost in the last eight years, and massive clear cutting has led to soil erosion and habitat destruction.

You as a libertarian should know tragedy of the commons is due to poor definition and enforcement of property rights, not free trade. . . Of course places are going to be over-fished - or whatever resource is there - if the owner doesn't actually own the land and the labour is entitled to keep whatever it reaps.

Oh, and you also ignored how free trade protects against monopolies.

As I said yesterday, Corporate taxes are good. Corporate profits depend on tax-financed public goods: healthy and educated workforce; good infrastructure; publicly enforced respect for contracts and property rights, and so on. When corporations avoid or evade tax, legally or illegally, they free ride on the backs of the rest of us. Stop taxing them, and you savagely undermine political community.

I already told you that it could be replaced by a land value tax, which has virtually no deadweight loss and, as it happens, is incredibly progressive.

It's called giving back to what they were given.

I know right! They have to pay for giving consumers what they want!

The Institute for Taxation and Economic Policy has even stated the incidence of corporate tax fell mostly on capital owners, not employees. It added that corporate income tax was among the most progressive taxes, because stock ownership was heavily concentrated among the wealthiest taxpayers.

And I've cited two studies which dispute that, suggesting the evidence is dubious at best. Forget the incidence of the taxation, the fact that it has a large deadweight loss is reason enough to have it replaced with a better alternative.

Also, that study doesn't say anything about incidence, it says: "As the chart on this page shows, the
wealthiest one percent of Americans held just over half of all corporate stock in 2007, while the poorest ninety percent of Americans owned just ten percent of the total."

That doesn't tell you who's paying for the tax. It just assumes that whoever holds the most stock is actually bearing the brunt, which is a ludicrous assumption to make. Sure, the people with the stock are writing the cheques, but are you really going to ignore the fact that lower wages to the workers could easily serve as a substitute to make it easier on the people writing those cheques.

Holding stock =/= feeling the burden of the tax.

Oh, ever heard of corporate personhood? it's an American legal concept that a corporation may be recognized as an individual in the eyes of the law. This doctrine forms the basis for legal recognition that corporations, as groups of people, may hold and exercise certain rights under the common law and the U.S. Constitution

Funnily enough, a legal quirk doesn't give corporations the actual ability to pay taxes. Only people will ever pay taxes.

I'm actually off to a party now, so I'll reply when I get home.

You must be the Pope of that religion.

Yeah.

I have a billion followers in Africa that routinely die from my poor judgement and people are duped into paying for my palace.

Faggotism.

So a girl from, I assume, Yorkshire made a pretty average vine (first clip in the video) and people have begun latching onto it and turning it into some funny shit.

There's also a few other one's not in that compilation:




Has this spread across the pond yet?

If not, welcome to ground zero.

Kinder's online; I feel morally obligated to bump this.

I would rather pay higher taxes for better services and having more money pumped into vital services like police, education, health than pay lesser taxes and have all those services go private.

UKIP opposes same-sex marriage, Farage might not personally but it's the stance his party took during the European elections.

More money =/= better services.

The NHS needs to reform its fiscal structure before worrying about its budget, and lessons from France, Denmark, Norway and even here has shown that private management of healthcare can be amazingly efficient and cost-effective. Also, UKIP, I believe, have promised no cuts to frontline policing.

Now, if you want to pay more taxes for these services, go ahead and send a cheque to the Treasury, but you shan't impose a cost on me for it.

As far as I'm aware, UKIP is against the forcing of faith groups to conduct these marriages, and want to take it out of the hands of the State altogether. But, nobody can really comment until they release their manifesto.

EDIT: Well, isn't that funny. There's literally nothing on gay marriage in their European Manifesto.

Nor do I agree with him wanting to lift the ban on fox hunting, his stance on same sex marriage and many others that I cba to list.

Once Labour gets back in we can get this country back on track.

Farage doesn't oppose same-sex marriage.

Labour is also, easily, the worst of the three parties. Rent and price controls? Raising taxes? Statutory living wage? Wage controls? Freezing corporation tax?

All incredibly, incredibly stupid ideas.

At least if we had the U.S.S.R. I wouldn't have to deal with people who advocate a planned economy.

God damn, is this some sort of special home or is this just an act?

He's hearing and speech impaired I think.

*sigh*

I know racism is still a thing, but it doesn't warrant a response at all like this.

I don't know what's going on in this thread.

Sapphire was chill until Jay became a feminazi and Harlow started to dick ride her, then everyone joined in on Jays ideals out of fear.


https://twitter.com/jaythenerdkid

This is some cringe worthy shit right here.

Oh my God this is golden.

Funny, I'm actually going to a party tonight.

Yeah, I wouldn't mind if you magically appeared. So long as you have nothing against cigars.