Posted by Sir Four at 10:46pm Sep 25 '12" it requires a Congress working in tandem with a President to get things done. Congress wouldn't go along with something this drastic, therefore it wouldn't happen, therefore there'd be no undefined "catastrophe", and therefore it disqualifies no one."
No, you don't get it. The fact that he thinks this is a good idea is what disqualifies him. It's not that I think it could really happen.
"Free trade needs to be fair trade, which I doubt Johnson supports.
Explain this please."
Free trade agreements with countries that have a mostly poor population (can't afford American products) that works without Western compensation, safety, and environmental standards are not in our country's interest.
"...and consumers would catch on to those shady practices and seek out companies that aren't engaging in them,
They wouldn't because they couldn't. Companies that don't aggressively go after only the least-risk customers would inevitably be more expensive than those companies that do. This leads to a classic insurance death spiral for the former. Perversely, the very customers with the power to "discipline the market" (i.e. the low risk ones) stand to benefit from going with the companies with the most aggressive risk rating practices. The customers who face difficulties from these aggressive practices due to being higher risk have less choice--the aggressive companies are happy not to have them as customers!
No, you don't get it. The fact that he thinks this is a good idea is what disqualifies him. It's not that I think it could really happen.
"Free trade needs to be fair trade, which I doubt Johnson supports.
Explain this please."
Free trade agreements with countries that have a mostly poor population (can't afford American products) that works without Western compensation, safety, and environmental standards are not in our country's interest.
"...and consumers would catch on to those shady practices and seek out companies that aren't engaging in them,
They wouldn't because they couldn't. Companies that don't aggressively go after only the least-risk customers would inevitably be more expensive than those companies that do. This leads to a classic insurance death spiral for the former. Perversely, the very customers with the power to "discipline the market" (i.e. the low risk ones) stand to benefit from going with the companies with the most aggressive risk rating practices. The customers who face difficulties from these aggressive practices due to being higher risk have less choice--the aggressive companies are happy not to have them as customers!
Re: Picking Through Gary Johnson's Positions - Sir Four