Zillow Advice: Housing Market - Which Candidate Do You Think WIll Better Address The Current State of the Housing Market?

You make excellent ...

Wed, 08 Oct 2008 14:06:00 GMT

You make excellent points Pasa .

I never claimed NAFTA was ...

Tue, 07 Oct 2008 22:45:00 GMT

I never claimed NAFTA was fair; I suggested it be repealed, as well as most other present trade agreements that only benifit the mega-corporations.

I simply stated there is no way to define or impliment a "fair" system; the closest we can come is to tax products that try to cut corners to undermine others; thus making the playing field more level.

This is no different than a handicap in certain types of sports.

We will always have some protectionism in the U.S., especially in the "defence" (weapons) industry. There would be a security breach risk otherwise. And many government contracts will require american products, and prevailing wage.

I'm not suggesting overtaxing foreign labor or foreign products; only taxing sufficiently so that U.S. companies that have to comply by U.S. rules and regulations have a chance to compete, and a reason to choose to hire local rather than hire over the internet or telephone.

Actually, I think all U.S. cities should also adapt "work-local hire-local" laws and policies. If the U.S. is going to collect taxes from workers here, why should a company outsource to other countries just so that the government cannot collect any tax benifits from the work that was performed? Tax that outsourced labor too to keep the jobs local.

Oh I don't ...

Tue, 07 Oct 2008 20:31:00 GMT

Oh I don't know Pasadenan. I think the way NAFTA is set up its not fair for us in some cases. I don't know much about it or economics on that kind of level. I think tariffs are fine as long as they don't lead to protectionism.

What I've seen promoted as ...

Tue, 07 Oct 2008 20:03:00 GMT

What I've seen promoted as "fair trade" is not "fair" to anyone; just overpriced product of things most people don't need, marketed with messages about how you will be hurting other people if you don't buy the overpriced product.

How can anyone determine what is "fair"? Are you just trying to add additional governmental regulation and price controls? How can you mandate that the exporters are actually paying their workers properly and not taking too big a profit as the "middle man"?

The only thing that works is terriffs. If a product is being produced in a harmful way; it needs to be taxed by the importing country so that other products can compete better. And if the producer/exporter corrects the problems, the terriff is reduced or removed.

Otherwise, all local jobs will eventually be shipped overseas where Highly skilled labor jobs (lawyers...) are paid less than $3 per hour instead of over $200 per hour.

Sure, we have some "protections" for "licenced professionals" like myself, but there is no guarentee of those protections remaining, and that still is undermined by professionals signing documents produced by overseas workers.

...

Tue, 07 Oct 2008 19:42:00 GMT

Cant they just have fair trade instead of free trade? Why should we continue with NAFTA if its unfair to us?

The "purpose" for terriffs ...

Tue, 07 Oct 2008 19:40:00 GMT

The "purpose" for terriffs is to compensate for environmental impacts when not properly done so by those providing the product, and/or for compensating for inadequate wages or other human rights violations.

Terrriffs should never be used for "retaliation" as retaliation never works.

But if the policy is clear on how the terriffs are established, than those that don't want their products to have extra taxes will make the changes to remove the tax. This benifts all parties.

...

Tue, 07 Oct 2008 19:33:00 GMT

I agree with Pasadenan. I think choosing between Mc Cain and Obama is like choosing between Coke and Pepsi. Neither has any value. I think that is because whomever is president is going to sorely wish they never were after about 6 months.

It really doesn't matter ...

Tue, 07 Oct 2008 19:30:00 GMT

It really doesn't matter what the general public "thinks" about which candidate's policies might be better for housing. The public's opinion is only based on advertisement propaganda, and has nothing to do with actual policies that may or may not be implimented. And even if it slightly influenced some people's vote; more people are concerned about the general economy rather than just housing, and are more concerned about war and international policy than just one aspect of political leadership.

Besides, all the candidates are already bought out by the mega-corporations, so you will get exactly the same thing for economic policy regardless of which candidate ends up in office. The argument is one of Coke verses Pepsi and it is competely irrelivant since neither has any nutritional value, both taste like brown carbonated corn-syrup sugar water and are both poison.

Nutcream,It seems one of ...

Tue, 07 Oct 2008 19:21:00 GMT

Nutcream,

It seems one of us on this board graduated with a BSBS. You are the dumbest smart person I know. It seems you know nothing about anything other than the fact that you can insult someone else's point of view without anything to back it up. You, sir, are a person with subnormal intelligence.

I would ...

Tue, 07 Oct 2008 19:18:00 GMT

I would like NAFTA become fair trade. Not free trade. What is the point of having free trade if it benefits others but not us?