Opinions on Sanctions

[amy31416]

I keep reading about this huge push to levy massive sanctions on Iran, and it got me thinking about what would happen if the US were sanctioned at some point.

Aside from the initial hardships of trying to learn how to cope without cheap Chinese crap, I think that in the long run, we'd be better off and stronger for it.


oil shortages---->we'd have to tap into more of our own resources, develop more solar, more nuclear and various alternative energy sources. More jobs.

computers/cell phones/electronics----> we'd actually have to set up manufacturing facilities to make our own damned computers. More jobs.

medical devices----->we could keep what remains of that industry and re-expand it. Also more jobs.

recycling---->more creative uses for plastics, paper, etc. possibly even nuclear waste.

partisan BS---->wouldn't matter as much because we'd have to work together to get stuff done.

I know I'm missing some other things, and that there's obviously got to be some goods that we import that we can't produce ourselves, but it'd either trigger that "old-timey" self-reliance that we used to be known for, or we'd just crumble into a sobbing heap when we can't buy Chuck Taylors made in China for dirt cheap.

Why wouldn't sanctions in Iran also have the effect of ultimately strengthening and uniting them, especially considering that they're less ethnically diverse. (That might be a bit controversial, I know, but racism from all sides would be a much bigger issue here than it would there.

Thoughts?

[Danke]

And Sanctions on Chemistry Sets.

http://www.boingboing.net/200811241110.jpg

[amy31416]

And Sanctions on Chemistry Sets.

You son of a...:mad:

You wanna play? Huh?

Sanctions on blow-up dolls...so now withyerbadself.

http://thecount.com/wp-content/uploads/male_blow_up_doll_21173.jpg

[erowe1]

Sounds like a pretty collectivist way of looking at it.

Who knows what's best for me better than I do? How can some far away regime (whether in Washington or in another country) make me and my trading partners better off by using violence to limit our abilities to exercise those decisions that we with that superior knowledge of what's best for us would make?

[amy31416]

Sounds like a pretty collectivist way of looking at it.

Who knows what's best for me better than I do? How can some far away regime (whether in Washington or in another country) make me and my trading partners better off by using violence to limit our abilities to exercise those decisions that we with that superior knowledge of what's best for us would make?

Ooooookay.

If I'm talking about sanctions on an entire country, exactly how do I think about it without being somewhat collectivist? I can't know the individual nature of every single person in a nation, does that mean I can't talk or think about it?

[erowe1]

If I'm talking about sanctions on an entire country, exactly how do I think about it without being somewhat collectivist?
You don't. I think that's a good clue as to why it's a bad idea.



I can't know the individual nature of every single person in a nation, does that mean I can't talk or think about it?

No. It just means that when you do talk and think about it, that if you say and think you would make all those individuals better off by applying some one-size-fits-all law to all of them as a collective group that uses force to limit their choices in trading with others, you would be wrong.

[amy31416]

You don't. I think that's a good clue as to why it's a bad idea.



No. It just means that when you do talk and think about it, that if you say and think you would make all those individuals better off by applying some one-size-fits-all law to all of them as a collective group that uses force to limit their choices in trading with others, you would be wrong.

Dude. I didn't say that it would make everyone better off, I thought it may possibly have some positive effects.

The term "collectivism" is to libertarians as "racist" is to liberals. Over-used, obnoxious and almost always singularly intended to derail a discussion.

[erowe1]

Dude. I didn't say that it would make everyone better off, I thought it may possibly have some positive effects.

The term "collectivism" is to libertarians as "racist" is to liberals. Over-used, obnoxious and almost always singularly intended to derail a discussion.

I agree about libertarians using the term "collectivist" (I make no claim to being a libertarian, btw). In this case, though, it was appropriate. It was the most succinct way for me to make a perfectly valid point about why your suggestion (at least as I understood it) was not a good one.

I must have misunderstood you. When you said, "in the long run, we'd be better off and stronger for it" I interpreted that to mean that you thought the overall effects of the sanctions would be more good than bad. If what you really meant was that the overall effects would be more bad than good for most individuals, but that there would still be some good effects for some individuals somewhere, then of course that's probably true. But I wouldn't normally express that idea by saying, "in the long run, we'd be better off and stronger." I'd have said, "In the long run, most of us will be much worse off, but there may be some select privileged individuals who will be better off."

[Southron]

I think it would have a positive effect to some degree.

The money from those newly produced goods goes right back into your own economy, rather to another country where it may take years to have any effect.

But I think it also depends on how much your own citizens are restricted. Too many regulations and taxes and the benefits take longer to see as well.

Of course maybe right now with the Fed still printing fiat currency, we might not want all that paper back in our economy!

I think our heavy international trade allows the Fed to print like mad, and we don't see crazy inflation like you'd expect.

[amy31416]

I think it would have a positive effect to some degree.

The money from those newly produced goods goes right back into your own economy, rather to another country where it may take years to have any effect.

But I think it also depends on how much your own citizens are restricted. Too many regulations and taxes and the benefits take longer to see as well.

Of course maybe right now with the Fed still printing fiat currency, we might not want all that paper back in our economy!

I think our heavy international trade allows the Fed to print like mad, and we don't see crazy inflation like you'd expect.

Yeah, I was thinking along the same lines. In addition, some of the states that are evoking their 10th Amendment rights in regards to things like firearms will possibly be a motivator for more firearm/ammunition manufacturing to come to life in those states.

But you're right, it would depend quite a bit on how much the state taxes and restricts them.

[Brian4Liberty]

Various countries already have a whole host of trade sanctions against the US.

[torchbearer]

i had a chemistry set growing up. I also launched model rockets (multi-stage with payloads even). you can't really do any of this stuff anymore. model rocket engines are considered "bomb making material". wtf?

[specsaregood]

I keep reading about this huge push to levy massive sanctions on Iran, and it got me thinking about what would happen if the US were sanctioned at some point.

Thoughts?

It won't happen until the end of the dollar hegemony because other countries NEED our dollars in order to buy oil.
This was already posted in another thread today, well worth the read
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=543

Of course once the petro-dollar dies off, it will have the same effect as "sanctions" or an embargo, since no other country in the world will have need of our dollars.

[amy31416]

It won't happen until the end of the dollar hegemony because other countries NEED our dollars in order to buy oil.
This was already posted in another thread today, well worth the read
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=543

Of course once the petro-dollar dies off, it will have the same effect as "sanctions" or an embargo, since no other country in the world will have need of our dollars.

Thanks Specs..I'll read it when I get a chance.

Oh, and to Torch--all things are still possible if you know what you're doing.

[Kotin]

sanctions are an act of war.. so I think it is ridiculous that we throw them around like FRN's.. it is very irresponsible as a nation. and really it only hurts the people, not whatever current scapegoat regime that our country is pointing the finger at... a regime we probably helped create in the first place.

[amy31416]

sanctions are an act of war.. so I think it is ridiculous that we throw them around like FRN's.. it is very irresponsible as a nation. and really it only hurts the people, not whatever current scapegoat regime that our country is pointing the finger at... a regime we probably helped create in the first place.

Certainly that's the case with Iran, and in the past with Iraq. And it's incredibly irresponsible, but Hey, Madeleine Albright said it was worth it that a million or so Iraqi children died.

However, what I don't understand is how sanctions directly cause that many deaths, unless we're sanctioning food, water or air. I know that pharmaceuticals and medical supplies are important, but I guess I have a pretty shallow understanding of how this actually affects people.

Certainly, I'd like to have a better understanding of it.

[Fox McCloud]

I keep reading about this huge push to levy massive sanctions on Iran, and it got me thinking about what would happen if the US were sanctioned at some point.

Aside from the initial hardships of trying to learn how to cope without cheap Chinese crap, I think that in the long run, we'd be better off and stronger for it.


No offense, but this comes off as just silly; if other countries put embargoes on us, sanctions, or increased/more tariffs, it'd end up destroying jobs and reducing net wealth, which means that we're worse off in the long run.



oil shortages---->we'd have to tap into more of our own resources, develop more solar, more nuclear and various alternative energy sources. More jobs.

All of these are very highly subsidized by the US government and are unsustainable in terms of providing electricity for us; especially solar and other alternative energies. Under this scheme energy costs would absolutely skyrocket (so would the price of steel) which means that consumer have less consumable income (worse off for them) and investors have less money to invest, which means that you'll end up losing/destroying jobs.


computers/cell phones/electronics----> we'd actually have to set up manufacturing facilities to make our own damned computers. More jobs.

same problem here; we'd end up paying higher prices for our computers, which means, again less consumable income and less money for investors, which a gain means a loss of jobs.


medical devices----->we could keep what remains of that industry and re-expand it. Also more jobs.

See above arguments.


recycling---->more creative uses for plastics, paper, etc. possibly even nuclear waste.

Recycling is a gigantic waste of resources; it really only exists because its heavily subsidized by the government; currently those things that should be recycled are already profitable to do so (aluminum, steel, etc)...you see people going out of their way to dig through trash to get this stuff, because there's a financial incentive. The only reason why people engage in other forms of recycling is because they feel some strange moral obligation to do so and (the big one) they pay no cost to dump their plastic bottles and such at the recycling center, again, because it's subsidized by the government. I highly recommend this video:

YouTube - The Economics of Recycling (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PndeWksuTjg&fmt=35)


partisan BS---->wouldn't matter as much because we'd have to work together to get stuff done.

not so sure about this; it'd likely end up creating more divisiveness due to the wealth destroyed, and due to the fact that States will be more and more likely to want to engage in "trade wars". During the initial founding of the US (where foreign trade wasn't nearly as massive as it is today), this occurred quite frequently with the north lobbying for economic regulations or taxes that had little effect on the north but were extremely detrimental to the south; this was the primary cause of the civil war (what one historian said was a "trade war that went hot"). Do we really need that kind of divisiveness in today's society? I really don't think we do.


Check out these videos:

YouTube - ABC News : 20/20 : Myth : Outsourcing Bad for America (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2IRrfcvVCg&fmt=18)
YouTube - John Stossel - Sweatshops (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0VaHmgoB10E&fmt=18)

and these articles:
http://mises.org/daily/1488
http://mises.org/daily/877
http://mises.org/daily/1443