|
|
|
|
|
|
by dragontamer
4048 days ago
|
|
|
I disagree with your characterization of the TTIP. TTIP is a trade agreement. It is the conditions under which American legislatures will declare various trades legal or illegal. The Embargo Act of 1807 was specifically designed to tell Great Britain: "STOP DRAFTING OUR SAILORS!". (It failed spectacularly at doing that... but that was clearly the intent). We saw what Great Britain was doing, we didn't like what they were doing, and we created a trade policy (ie: stop all trade... everywhere) in an attempt to punish Great Britain. The difference is that TTIP is more nuanced and better reasoned. It is also more intricate in defining what is and isn't a trade violation. You're right, we care more about American Exports today because we have an understanding of how American jobs will be affected by TTIP. By pushing American Chemicals on the TTIP, we are favoring American trade. Now European health groups will push back. But in the end, the trade dispute will probably benefit all countries involved. |
|
|
The Embargo Act was a declaration. TTIP is a negotiation.
But let's collapse this conversation back to the top, shall we? My response (and the arguments contained in the conversation that ensued) was to the claim that the "founding fathers" would have liked for other nations to check-and-balance the US; that they would have liked there to be political interdependence, even veto power from other nations.
That commenter said "On the global scale, more countries need to say "no" to keep the US government in check. It's what the founding fathers would have wanted"
This is not the case. It is only past century of America has been okay with this. Before the turn, and as argued by the "founding fathers" themselves, America was against political entanglement.