From: nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,sci.econ
Subject: Re: NAFTA
Date: 21 Aug 92 13:01:17 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Corporation, Chelmsford, MA

In article <1992Aug17.170312.9396@oakhill.sps.mot.com> pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness) writes:
>In article <Bt4r48.12C@apollo.hp.com> nelson_p@apollo.hp.com (Peter Nelson) writes:
>>
>>  But none of these are part of NAFTA.   And this is my point.  I'll
>>  happily support NAFTA if the needs of those who will suffer as a result
>>  of it are addressed.  I'd prefer less-government-intrusive means than
>>  what you suggest above, but one way or another I want to see that this
>>  issue is ADDRESSED. 
>
>Well, what do YOU suggest? How would YOU address it?
>(Seems to me any 'addressing' of it would have to be outside NAFTA.)

  I have no idea . . . but note that I'm not one of the proponents of 
  NAFTA who say it will be "good for everybody".  I'm in the Lester
  Thurow camp which says that in a world economy a gradual decline
  in US (and probably Western European, too) living standards over
  the next few decades is inevitable.  And it can't be avoided by
  protectionism, because protectionism, ultimately does not work.
  


>>  (like my earlier complaint about the health care subject this is a
>>   good illustration of the weakness of conservative thinking these
>>   days:   The liberal solutions to the problem are all based on
>>   government, since this is their philosophy.  But at least the 
>>   liberals are intellectually honest enough to admit that there IS
>>   a problem.  The conservatives pretend there's no problem and so
>>   allow the liberals to own the issue.
>
>I beg to differ. The reason that conservatives might seem not to have
>solutions is that the dominant media doesn't tell you what they are
>thinking, while they are only too happy to relay any news release sent
>out by liberal groups like the Children's Defense Fund, NDRC, and
>Nader's Public Citizen.  However, you will find that, if you ask,
>you can get more than your fill of conservative (and classical liberal)
>ideas and solutions to our economic and social problems, from folks
>at the Heritage Foundation, Cato Institute, etc.

  I've read liberal proposals that had specific numbers on who would be
  covererd, what it would cost, etc (not that I necessarily believe
  their numbers).   There are also a large number of foreign countries 
  which have systems similar to those proposed by various liberal
  groups, so we have real-world instances to study (again, not that I 
  necessarily think they map to our society).   

  But I have never seen this degree of specificity from the conservatives
  on health care.  All the conservative proposals I've seen are very
  general.   If you have something specific please post it to the net!

  I think a good illustration of the problem was in Bush's speech last
  night where he said that "I have a plan" that would make it possible
  for even the "poorest of the poor" to have health care, but then
  he didn't tell us what it was!   Surely he can't be referring 
  to the "tax credit" idea he advanced a while back  -- besides the 
  fact that the poor don't pay taxes, the amount involved wouldn't
  come *close* to covering private health insurance premiums, especially
  for families with children, especially among the poor.  And it would
  do nothing for access -- that is, many people, and especially the 
  poor, have medical conditions that make them uninsurable by private
  insurance.


---peter
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.individualism