The 'Free Trade' *VS* 'Protectionism' Debate! Your thoughts?

[Sentient Void]

I wanted to post a poll to see how many of us are for either maximizing free trade regardless of other nations' protectionism, or responding to protectionism with protectionism?

This is in response to a number of threads that don't seem to want to die and keep popping up like weeds.

Here they are for some background and knowledge on the debate with both sides justifying their position :

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=257022&highlight=free+trade

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=251768&highlight=free+trade

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=248188&highlight=free+trade

And for those who are not familiar with Frederic Bastiat's Candlestick Maker's Petition Against the Sun... here it is... I suggest you familiarize yourself with it if you haven't already on the debate between protectionists and the free traders.

http://bastiat.org/en/petition.html

DISCUSS!

[Jace]

It appears the Federal Reserve's point of view is winning your poll.

[Anti Federalist]

It appears the Federal Reserve's point of view is winning your poll.

<<<chuckle>>>

[low preference guy]

it's good to see that the silent majority at RPF is for free trade, and that statists are losing.

the proper role of government is to protect life and property. that's it. and protecting life and property doesn't include engaging in trade or tariff wars.

[Sentient Void]

It appears the Federal Reserve's point of view is winning your poll.

Ah, yes. The familiar 'Association Fallacy'. Also, it seems the protectionistas are a big fan of Orwellian doublethink recently, I see. Apparently, such 'reasoning' is their last resort as they wallow in their own cognitive dissonance.

Freedom is slavery.
Ignorance is strength.
War is peace.

...and now the new one to be added...

Free Markets are statist.

:-/

[CryLibertyOrDeath]

Protectionism was the favorite tool of robber barons. I don't know how anyone could pretend to be an advocate of liberty and also advocate protectionism, the ultimate form of welfare.

[YumYum]

Protectionism was the favorite tool of robber barons. I don't know how anyone could pretend to be an advocate of liberty and also advocate protectionism, the ultimate form of welfare.

I thought the poll was dealing with the current situation the U.S. is facing and not some fantasy Free Market Utopia. I would love to live in a Free Market Utopia, but as long as the we have a corrupt federal government in control its never going to happen.

[Jace]

David Rockefeller, scion of the quintessential robber baron, is today an advocate for free trade in the Senate.

[Kludge]

Maximize potential individual profit, minimize government revenue, support the work of those who are truly indigent.

[low preference guy]

David Rockefeller, scion of the quintessential robber baron, is today an advocate for free trade in the Senate.

RON PAUL is the GREATEST ADVOCATE for free trade in CONGRESS AND THE SENATE. Hello?

[Jace]

it's good to see that the silent majority at RPF is for free trade, and that statists are losing.

the proper role of government is to protect life and property. that's it. and protecting life and property doesn't include engaging in trade or tariff wars.

How does support of Chinese government intervention into our economy, which is distorting our market, protect life, liberty and property?

The government of China devalues its currency to distort prices to artificially gain competitive advantage, depriving efficient Americans the ability to earn a living. They also reverse engineer American products, depriving Americans of profits from their own work.

China is engaging in a trade war against us now. Actually, the American government is engaging in a trade war against us to impoverish us for its own ends.

I wish we had a government that protected life, liberty and property, rather than supporting Goldman Sachs investments in China at taxpayers expense.

[YumYum]

^^^^There really isn't any logical way to refute what you just posted.

[crazyfacedjenkins]

Actually there is. If we used a gold standard the true value of the goods would be revealed by the depletion of the gold reserves. The money supply would contract with lower reserves driving up the cost of foreign goods. Thus China would lose its competitive edge.

[ironmanjakarta]

I do believe that foreign cartels whether it be banks or otherwise are a serious threat. When your enemy is organized and you are not you lose. Fortunately in a totally free market Amercan companies would also be able to form cartels to defend against the foreign cartels.

[Kregisen]

The government of China devalues its currency to distort prices to artificially gain competitive advantage, depriving efficient Americans the ability to earn a living. They also reverse engineer American products, depriving Americans of profits from their own work.

I never understood why a country wanted to devalue its currency....doesn't it just make other nations wealthier? If I have $1 and you just devalued your currency so if $1 used to be 2 hours of chinese labor, and it's now worth 10 hours of chinese labor, doesn't that simply help me out?

Sure, devaluing your currency makes demand for your exports go up, but you're gonna be buying less with those american dollars that you sold the exports for.

[lynnf]

I won't vote in your poll - not enough choices! but I'll let Devvy Kidd speak to the issue: (we see the result of "free" trade in the current economic mess! when you don't make anything, there's no jobs to create a boom with, so only have bust.)




http://www.rense.com/general90/finally.htm



Finally - A Bill To Get The
US Out Of NAFTA
By Devvy
3-10-10

"Free" trade has all but destroyed our most important and productive jobs sectors: manufacturing, agriculture and industrial. Not to mention stomping on our sovereignty.

On February 15, 2010, I wrote a column titled, Congress refuses to bring home millions of jobs.[1] For all the talk about unemployment and no jobs, why won't Congress get us out of the major, unconstitutional trade treaties that have killed MILLIONS of good paying jobs and bring them home?

Back in 2007, Rep. Marcy Kaptur introduced a Band Aid bill titled the NAFTA Accountability Act, H.R. 4329[2]

Former Congressman Virgil Goode (R-VA) also introduced a bill back in January 2007: H. Con. Res. 22.[3] However, it went no where because the Republicans still controlled Congress with Bush in the White House.

HOWEVER, we now have a new bill and if Americans don't fight like warriors to get it passed, we will never take the first step in bringing home jobs. If we can get this passed and sent to the usurper, he will veto it, no question. Congress can over ride Comrade Obama, but it will not happen without massive and consistent pressure on Congress.

I know, we're all worn out trying to stop the unconstitutional take over of the health care system. The usurper is hell bent on passing another unconstitutional and phony "climate change" bill aka cap and trade. [4]

The fake president, Marxist Obama, is also cranking up to give criminals (illegal aliens) a free pass with the help of vile senators, Lindsay Graham [R-SC] and Juan McCain [R-AZ]. They are pushing hard to reward these criminals who smuggled themselves across our borders with jobs that belong to Americans and naturalized citizens. It is beyond an outrage, it is a slap in the face for all of us.

Our plates are overflowing. We are full of rage, but here is our first very real shot at getting out of NAFTA. I sincerely hope the national tea party groups will embrace this fight and make it a priority as well as every American who fully understands how important it is to get out of that treaty.

Rep. Gene Taylor, [D-MS] has introduced H.R. 4759 - 'To provide for the withdrawal of the United States from the North American Free Trade Agreement'

111th CONGRESS
2d Session

H. R. 4759

To provide for the withdrawal of the United States from the North American Free Trade Agreement.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

March 4, 2010

Mr. TAYLOR (for himself, Mr. JONES, Mr. DEFAZIO, Mr. STUPAK, Mr. ARCURI, Mr. BACA, Mr. BARTLETT, Mr. BRALEY of Iowa, Mr. CAPUANO, Mr. COSTELLO, Mr. FILNER, Mr. GRIJALVA, Mr. HARE, Mr. HINCHEY, Mr. KAGEN, Ms. KAPTUR, Mr. KILDEE, Mr. KISSELL, Mr. KUCINICH, Mr. MASSA, Mr. MCINTYRE, Mr. MICHAUD, Mr. PAUL, Mr. SCHAUER, Mr. VISCLOSKY, Mr. WILSON of Ohio, Ms. WOOLSEY, and Mr. STARK) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

A BILL

To provide for the withdrawal of the United States from the North American Free Trade Agreement.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. WITHDRAWAL OF THE UNITED STATES FROM THE NAFTA.

(a) Withdrawal of Approval- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the approval of the NAFTA by the Congress provided for in section 101(a) of the North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act shall cease to be effective beginning on the date that is six months after the date of the enactment of this Act.

(b) Notification of Withdrawal- On the date of the enactment of this Act, the President shall provide to the Governments of Canada and Mexico written notice of withdrawal of the United States from the NAFTA in accordance with Article 2205 of the NAFTA.

(c) NAFTA Defined- In this section, the term `NAFTA' means the North American Free Trade Agreement entered into between the United States, Canada, and Mexico on December 17, 1992.

As you can see, this bill already has a fair number of co-sponors. I can tell you sure as the sun shines, Rep. John Boehner [R-OH] will not embrace this bill unless enough heat is put on him. I wrote a column back in October 2009, titled, "Where are the jobs congressman? I'll tell you.[5] Boehner sold out hundreds of thousands of jobs in Ohio, yet voters keep sending him back to Congress. See links in column (Footnote 1) for a list of who voted for and against NAFTA.

Comrade Obama won't embrace this bill because he's going all out to see American jobs never return to our country: Mexico Tops List of Trade Issues Facing White House.[6] Not content with seeing Americans remain unemployed while our factories grow weeds, the Marxist in the Oval Office is also pursuing yet more destruction: 'US industry groups warn on Obama trade plan in Asia'.[7] During the pretend primaries in 2008, Comrades Obama and Clinton exchanged spit over NAFTA. How many bills did they introduce to get the U.S. out of NAFTA? Not one. Both of them lie every time they open their mouth.

Unions are behind this bill big time.[8] There is also this: Union Cheers Broad Push To Repeal NAFTA[9]:

"One of the nation's oldest and largest labor unions is praising new, bipartisan legislation that would withdraw the United States from NAFTA, and vanquish one of the biggest enemies of American organized labor for more than 15 years.

"A remarkably broad coalition of lawmakers from across the political spectrum came together Thursday to sponsor a bill to repeal U.S. participation in the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).

"The lives of average workers in Mexico and in the U.S. have gotten so much worse since NAFTA, says Jim Hoffa, head of the Teamsters, which represents 1.4 million American workers. "When you realize you've made a bad deal, you try to get out of it.

These treaties are not Democrat or Republican, they are an American issue and it's damn time we put America First.

Let me tell you my own experience with NAFTA. When I ran for Congress eons ago, instead of wearing out my Jeep Cherokee, I purchased a Ford Escort with the extended warranty. That vehicle was in the shop more time the first year than I drove it. Ford lost a ton of money on rental cars and parts. The man at the dealership told me NAFTA was killing them. The parts coming out of Mexico were junk.

Do you want to restore those car parts jobs to America? Do you want to buy toasters, clothes, appliances and all the other things that used to be made here in America by American workers? Then, please get behind this bill. If you are union, spread the word and let us all do our part. If you'll notice on OpenCongress.org[10] -- the media is ignoring this major piece of legislation.

This MUST become a major election issue. Our very survival depends on a short list: Abolish the FED, get rid of the unnecessary income tax and replace it with constitutional revenues, get US out of Bretton Woods, the UN and ALL these destructive treaties. I am hammering on my congress critter. Please do the same and keep the pressure on day in and day out.

Here is more and again, only a massive demonstration and outcry by the American people will get us out of GATT:

"Meanwhile, the House of Representatives is expected to vote later this year on whether the United States should remain a member of the World Trade Organization."[11]

[BenIsForRon]

The poll is fucking bunk. Inreasing tariffs against China is not protectionism, because tariffs from countries that play fair remain unchanged. Protectionism is the attempt to preserve labor in your country alone.

What I'm talking about is protecting trade amongst FREE countries of the world, by discouraging trade with countries who purposely distort their labor market to drastically increase the wealth of the elites.

[erowe1]

I'm really encouraged by these results. I expected it to be the other way around.

[erowe1]

It appears the Federal Reserve's point of view is winning your poll.

The Federal Reserve's position (defining and establishing "free trade" by way of treaties) is not one of the options. If it were, I assure you that almost none of us who voted for the "free trade" option in this poll would have supported that, favoring instead a position of having our own government keep its hands off of whatever exchanges we choose to make with other people regardless of where they live and what their own governments do to interfere.

[erowe1]

How does support of Chinese government intervention into our economy, which is distorting our market, protect life, liberty and property?


That in itself doesn't. What does protect liberty is allowing me to decide for myself if I want to make exchanges with people in China without my own government interfering. If you want to boycott China, that's your choice. If I don't want to join your boycott, that should be mine.

Besides, if China wants to send foreign aid to us, we should let them. If you're right that they're doing that, then it's hurting them and helping us.

[Southron]

All I know is that what we are doing now is sucking our wealth and prosperity out of the country.

I believe China is working much like a company trying to create monopoly by taking a temporary loss to run it's competition out of business.

But what do I know.

[erowe1]

All I know is that what we are doing now is sucking our wealth and prosperity out of the country.

I believe China is working much like a company trying to create monopoly by taking a temporary loss to run it's competition out of business.

But what do I know.

I don't know. But if China is doing that, then they'll fail just as badly as the businesses that try that fail. And just as we shouldn't have our government intervene in any way against businesses that do it (and we definitely shouldn't), we also shouldn't have it intervene in any way against states that do it.

My exchanges with people in China is none of the government's or anyone else's business.

[LibertyEagle]

I am still very torn on this issue.

Currently, there are federal laws that encourage U.S. businesses to relocate overseas and there are a multitude of laws that make it impossible for U.S. businesses to compete.

Do we just grit our teeth and say too bad as the remaining businesses in America fails, similar to what happened as manufacturing was moving out of the U.S. in droves? Or, do we say, first remove the laws that inhibit fair competition?

Call me whatever, but I can't close my eyes while my country keeps dying. I agree with free trade in theory, I do. But, until the laws are removed that strangle American business, I just can't agree.

And finally, NAFTA, CAFTA and all the rest are NOT free trade; they are managed trade. They need to go, along with the WTO.

[Sentient Void]

I am still very torn on this issue.

Currently, there are federal laws that encourage U.S. businesses to relocate overseas and there are a multitude of laws that make it impossible for U.S. businesses to compete.

Do we just grit our teeth and say too bad as the remaining businesses in America fails, similar to what happened as manufacturing was moving out of the U.S. in droves? Or, do we say, first remove the laws that inhibit fair competition?

Call me whatever, but I can't close my eyes while my country keeps dying. I agree with free trade in theory, I do. But, until the laws are removed that strangle American business, I just can't agree.

And finally, NAFTA, CAFTA and all the rest are NOT free trade; they are managed trade. They need to go, along with the WTO.

Remember, america is having trouble and dying because of overtaxation and overregulation. The answer is and always was - more freedom.

[paulitics]

Skewed poll with typical semantic trickery. Most everyone is here for "free trade", but what we have is managed trade. Ron Paul talks a great deal about this so it is stunning to see people confuse the issue, and suggest Ron Paul is for the status quo.

Get rid of all of the "free trade" agreements so that we can actually engage in free trade with any country, without all of the government imposed barriers on this country.

[LibertyEagle]

Remember, america is having trouble and dying because of overtaxation and overregulation. The answer is and always was - more freedom.

Yes, that is why I talked about getting rid of the laws that don't allow American businesses to fairly compete.

I am just saying that the horse comes before the cart.

Get rid of the regulation, FIRST, and then bring on the free trade. To do otherwise, I fear, will continue the destruction of our country.

[Sentient Void]

Except, I wasn't meaning nor did I say anything about NAFTA, etc. I said, specifically 'free trade'. Not 'Free Trade'.

It's pretty safe to say that most of us here (including myself), dint support NAFTA and other manage trade policies being masked as 'free trade'.

The debate surrounding the issue is - what is the appropriate response to our situation? Embrace more real free trade and cut taxes and regulations, or engage in protectionism?Embrace freedom, or support govt intervention?

No semantic trickery here. It's pretty simple, really.

[Travlyr]

In the absence of central planned fiat money systems, laissez-faire free markets would dominate trade because the costs of making products would be minimized.
Protective tariffs merely increase the costs and make those products less competitive.

[erowe1]

Except, I wasn't meaning nor did I say anything about NAFTA, etc. I said, specifically 'free trade'. Not 'Free Trade'.

It's pretty safe to say that most of us here (including myself), dint support NAFTA and other manage trade policies being masked as 'free trade'.

The debate surrounding the issue is - what is the appropriate response to our situation? Embrace more real free trade and cut taxes and regulations, or engage in protectionism?Embrace freedom, or support govt intervention?

No semantic trickery here. It's pretty simple, really.

Exactly. Cutting taxes and regulations is always good, not matter what. And cutting tariffs is always good, no matter what. If you do one and not the other, it's still better than doing neither. And that's true regardless of which comes first.

In fact, given the existence of burdensome taxes and regulations within the USA, then if we have the opportunity to avoid those taxes and regulations by having something made outside our borders, we should consider that opportunity as a good thing, and to take away that precious little freedom we still might have, effectively telling all Americans, "Not only will we place these taxes and regulations on you, but we will also do all we can to impede your escape from them." would be an entirely bad thing.

[Anti Federalist]

Yes, that is why I talked about getting rid of the laws that don't allow American businesses to fairly compete.

I am just saying that the horse comes before the cart.

Get rid of the regulation, FIRST, and then bring on the free trade. To do otherwise, I fear, will continue the destruction of our country.

Sadly, this whole argument is moot, since what you fear may happen, has, in fact, already begun.

"Free Trade" is the accepted, official norm of the entire establishment and ruling class.

The results are obvious.

Think of tariffs for a moment as an economic bill of rights.

The idea being that the market is as stupidly democratic as our political process has become. That being the case, what protects my economic rights, my right to purchase what I want, and not have my choices limited to what the brain dead masses get shoved down their throats at the Wal Marx?

In another thread I posted a story about how the nation's oldest family farm is going out of business, mostly because the shit fertilized, GMO crap vegetables form China and Guatemala are cheaper than what they can grow it for.

I bought from these people on a regular basis. What about my economic freedom?

And what does that say in the macro sense?

Bad enough enough we can't make anything anymore, that our biggest exports are death, through the MIC, and lawyers, but a nation that cannot even feed itself anymore, well, that is not a nation in decline, that is nation that has died and just isn't smart enough to lie down.

Of course, the the one world Utopians of both the left and right love the idea of a failed nation, because they reject the whole concept of the nation/state or any sense of national purpose.

[Anti Federalist]

Except, I wasn't meaning nor did I say anything about NAFTA, etc. I said, specifically 'free trade'. Not 'Free Trade'.

It's pretty safe to say that most of us here (including myself), dint support NAFTA and other manage trade policies being masked as 'free trade'.

The debate surrounding the issue is - what is the appropriate response to our situation? Embrace more real free trade and cut taxes and regulations, or engage in protectionism?Embrace freedom, or support govt intervention?

No semantic trickery here. It's pretty simple, really.

Tariffs are constitutional.

You do both.

[Sentient Void]

That being the case, what protects my economic rights, my right to purchase what I want, and not have my choices limited to what the brain dead masses get shoved down their throats at the Wal Marx?

What? Huh? I don't see anyone forcing you to buy at Wal Mart. *No one* is forcing you to buy shit from Wal-Mart, or Target, or Express, or Nordstrom for that matter. Buy where you want, but be prepared to pay the price. There are many american made clothes and other products out there (they are harder to find, but they are out there, and much can be easily found on the internet actually) - but they're usually tons more expensive (again, thanks to overtaxation, regulation, etc in the US). Some of it is legitimately better quality compared to chinese counterparts - much of it can't compete, which is why the chinese products are in higher demand. For food, go to farmers markets - sometimes it's actually cheaper and the food is fresher and better (farmers markets are a result of local free trade and free markets, btw).

Once again, you guys are engaging in too much Orwellian doublethink, and simply exposes the fallacies and absurdity behind your arguments. Really, now? Having the ability and freedom to choose where you shop is now considered having the stuff shoved down our throats? This is getting ridiculous.


I bought from these people on a regular basis. What about my economic freedom?

What about your economic freedom? You don't (and shouldn't) have the 'freedom' to force your will and desire for taxation and your distorted idea of 'choice' down anyone else's throats. Getting in the way of voluntary transactions and trade is not an exercise in freedom, despite how much you believe that 'Freedom is slavery'.


Bad enough enough we can't make anything anymore, that our biggest exports are death, through the MIC, and lawyers, but a nation that cannot even feed itself anymore, well, that is not a nation in decline, that is nation that has died and just isn't smart enough to lie down.

That's complete BS. We make tons of food that feeds the US and parts of the world (especially meat). Despite having 350 million+ people consuming massive amounts of food (more per capita than anywhere else on earth, I believe), we are a net *exporter* of food. We control *half* of the world's grain export. Also, fruits, vegetables, cotton, fish. We create the most and best ideas and framework for technological advancement. IT technology exports. Research and development. We are the largest financial exporter and are the financial center of the world.

Also, you and others say we don't manufacture shit anymore - but that's also complete BS. We don't manufacture certain things and leave it to other countries (such as China), but the United States is the world's largest manufacturer, with a 2007 industrial output of US$2.69 trillion. In 2008, its manufacturing output was greater than that of the manufacturing output of China, India, and Brazil combined, despite manufacturing being a very small portion of the entire US economy as compared to most other countries. Some products are petroleum, steel, motor vehicles, aerospace, telecommunications, chemicals, electronics, food processing, consumer goods, lumber, and mining (natural resources).

In the end, the division of labor has simply allowed us to specialize more, and focus less on things we can get cheaper from others, allowing us to more easily meet the real demands of our lives. If we want to fix our problems, and grow our economy, and become as prosperous and stable as possible and maximize our economic potential - the answer is to embrace more freedom. Again, the first response is to *significantly* cut federal regulations and taxes across the board and embrace *freedom and liberty*. The first response is *NOT* to embrace the government and simply shift the tax burden to tariffs - our dependence on cheaper foreign imports in many sectors of our market keep our standard of living higher, and we are propped up because of it.

[Jace]

That in itself doesn't. What does protect liberty is allowing me to decide for myself if I want to make exchanges with people in China without my own government interfering. If you want to boycott China, that's your choice. If I don't want to join your boycott, that should be mine.

Besides, if China wants to send foreign aid to us, we should let them. If you're right that they're doing that, then it's hurting them and helping us.

China is sending foreign aid to us? I think you are misinterpreting what is happening.

The Chinese government uses its trade surplus to purchase US debt. It is using its trade surplus with us to fund the expansion and modernization of its military, and to purchase foreign companies and foreign technology.

China imports raw materials and then exports higher-value manufactured goods. It uses trade barriers to restrict competition for manufactured goods in its home market to allow those industries to grow. It also heavily subsidizes their development. It then uses an artificially devalued currency to give it its products a price advantage abroad. Goods produced in China sell abroad below the cost of production, and this market distortion allows them to capture whole markets.

These market distortions cause countries that follow free trade policies -- our country -- to run huge trade deficits with them. (Japan and Korea do not follow free trade policies to avoid the hemorraging of their home industries to Chinese imports.)

China does not use its trade surplus to send us aid. It uses the surplus to purchase US Treasuries, or debt. This debt finances American wars and the expansion of the welfare state, at interest. This interest and debt will be paid back through inflation or tax increases, or will result in default and all the ramifications that will bring (military conflict? end of the dollar? martial law?).

The Founding Fathers understood all this. They understood that the least intrusive way to protect the American free enterprise system from the predations of leviathan-like states like the British and French empires, or China today, is through tariffs. Tariffs also shift the cost of courts, defense, roads, etc., off the backs of the American populace and onto the backs of the foreign importers.

I don't see how anyone can be in favor or our current trade policy with China. That policy is hollowing out our free enterprise system while funding war and the growth of government at great expense to our children and grandchildren. Our standard of living is in decline and we are agreeing to this because Walmart gives us a deal on T-shirts and potato chips?

Incidentally, Woodrow Wilson gave us the Federal Reserve, the income tax, a world war and he tried to get us into his Leagues of Nation. He also slashed tariffs.

Why was Wilson so opposed to tariffs? Why do Bernanke and Geithner today start hyperventilating about protectionism whenever tariffs come up in conversation?

[osan]

it's good to see that the silent majority at RPF is for free trade, and that statists are losing.

the proper role of government is to protect life and property. that's it. and protecting life and property doesn't include engaging in trade or tariff wars.

I am afraid you are so very mistaken here.

First of all, proper tariffs on imports is rendering protection to life and property.

I'm feeling like a bloody broken record again, but let's do it anyway: you appear to be confusing "free trade" with "free market". The two are not only not related, they are entirely antithetical to each other.

Given that, if a free market nation wishes to trade with a non-free market partner, it behooves them to tariff against that partner to the degree that any artificially crafted and maintained comparative advantages put in place by that partner are neutralized. Free markets work ONLY when all the players work by the same rules.

Let us assume the USA is a free market economy - which is it not, but let us assume for the sake of illustration. As we know, Red China is anything but a free market player. They have put into place and cause to to be maintained a system of slave labor arbitrage wherein the epsilon (difference) in labor rates between them and the USA is simply staggering. Because of this enormous epsilon, the manufacturers have fled the USA to do their respective things in China. They stay because the Chinese government forcefully maintains the arbitrage market in labor to the point of murdering its own citizens when they attempt to secure higher wages or unionize.

One must understand the basics here in order to see just how misleading the "free trade" moniker is.

[Anti Federalist]

What? Huh? I don't see anyone forcing you to buy at Wal Mart. *No one* is forcing you to buy shit from Wal-Mart, or Target, or Express, or Nordstrom for that matter. Buy where you want, but be prepared to pay the price. There are many american made clothes and other products out there (they are harder to find, but they are out there, and much can be easily found on the internet actually) - but they're usually tons more expensive (again, thanks to overtaxation, regulation, etc in the US). Some of it is legitimately better quality compared to chinese counterparts - much of it can't compete, which is why the chinese products are in higher demand. For food, go to farmers markets - sometimes it's actually cheaper and the food is fresher and better (farmers markets are a result of local free trade and free markets, btw).

The herd choices are making those choices for me.

No one forces me to buy at so and so?

Yes they do, when the herd choices, being made on a distorted trade deal with a authoritarian prison economy puts my choice of supplier out of business.

You ought to take a ride up to Tuttle's farm, SV, and ask them for yourself. You live on the North Shore, shouldn't take but an hour or so to get to Dover.

Honestly though, you guys have long since won, I'm just a dead man walking here, why get upset?

[erowe1]

China is sending foreign aid to us?
Accoding to you they are, since you go on to say....


It also heavily subsidizes their development. It then uses an artificially devalued currency to give it its products a price advantage abroad. Goods produced in China sell abroad below the cost of production, and this market distortion allows them to capture whole markets.
According to you, American consumers are getting to buy Chinese goods at less than what it costs to make them because the Chinese government (i.e. the Chinese taxpayer) is subsidizing our purchase of them. If that's true, they're sending us foreign aid.

[Anti Federalist]

Incidentally, Woodrow Wilson gave us the Federal Reserve, the income tax, a world war and he tried to get us into his Leagues of Nation. He also slashed tariffs.

Why was Wilson so opposed to tariffs? Why do Bernanke and Geithner today start hyperventilating about protectionism whenever tariffs come up in conversation?

I'd like to hear an answer to those questions as well.

I'd also like to know how a tariff can be both deflationary and inflationary?

[Sentient Void]

I am afraid you are so very mistaken here.

First of all, proper tariffs on imports is rendering protection to life and property.

I'm feeling like a bloody broken record again, but let's do it anyway: you appear to be confusing "free trade" with "free market". The two are not only not related, they are entirely antithetical to each other.

That's it. I have now come to the absolute conclusion that the protectionistas here on this board (Jace, The Grinning Maniac, Osan, Anti Federalist, et al) - since they have no real logical, economic, nor moral leg to stand on - have ultimately resorted to Orwellian doublethink / doublespeak in order to justify their cognitive dissonance in support of protectionism.

War is peace.
Freedom is slavery.
Ignorance is strength.

And now the newest addition...

Voluntary trade (aka *free trade*) is statist.

Ridiculous.

[Sentient Void]

Honestly though, you guys have long since won, I'm just a dead man walking here, why get upset?

Because it pains me to see a fellow liberty lover such as yourself advocate blatantly anti-liberty policies as a first-response to our situation.

[Anti Federalist]

A little research reveals why Wilson was so opposed to tariffs.

He needed a bait and switch to get the income tax passed through the Congress.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revenue_Act_of_1913

The "father" of the income tax, the Federal reserve and the progressive movement favored tariff reduction or elimination.

[Anti Federalist]

Because it pains me to see a fellow liberty lover such as yourself advocate blatantly anti-liberty policies as a first-response to our situation.

I think we're just talking past each other here, is what the problem is.

It's not a "first response" it's part of a larger policy of economic national interest and national survival.

Let's be clear on terms and goals.

Is there a role, constitutionally, for a policy of economic national interest?

Does government have that duty and authority?

Excluding the ideal for the time being, a world wide free trade, no government, anacap utopia.

[Sentient Void]

A little research reveals why Wilson was so opposed to tariffs.

He needed a bait and switch to get the income tax passed through the Congress.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revenue_Act_of_1913

The "father" of the income tax, the Federal reserve and the progressive movement favored tariff reduction or elimination.

I'm thinking that perhaps Marx and other socialists / statists support(ed) free trade because they know that free trade is the only way to keep their otherwise insolvent systems sustainable for any decent period of time, while keeping the 'useful idiots' (progressives, social democrats, et al) railing for socialism while being ignorant of what is bringing them their levels of existing prosperity and cheaper goods.

[Anti Federalist]

I'm thinking that perhaps Marx and other socialists / statists support(ed) free trade because they know that free trade is the only way to keep their otherwise insolvent systems sustainable for any decent period of time, while keeping the 'useful idiots' (progressives, social democrats, et al) railing for socialism while being ignorant of what is bringing them their levels of existing prosperity and cheaper goods.

Then how is it a socialist/authoritarian economy is the one putting our lights out?

China is doing what the Russians were not, most likely because they spent all their efforts on military adventures, able to do: selling the capitalists the rope they will hang themselves with.

No, I disagree, Marx favored free trade because it would destroy the middle class, aka the bourgeoisie, hasten socialist revolution and destroy the nation/state:


Do not imagine, gentlemen, that in criticizing freedom of trade we have the least intention of defending the system of protection.

One may declare oneself an enemy of the constitutional regime without declaring oneself a friend of the ancient regime.

Moreover, the protectionist system is nothing but a means of establishing large-scale industry in any given country, that is to say, of making it dependent upon the world market, and from the moment that dependence upon the world market is established, there is already more or less dependence upon free trade. Besides this, the protective system helps to develop free trade competition within a country. Hence we see that in countries where the bourgeoisie is beginning to make itself felt as a class, in Germany for example, it makes great efforts to obtain protective duties. They serve the bourgeoisie as weapons against feudalism and absolute government, as a means for the concentration of its own powers and for the realization of free trade within the same country.

But, in general, the protective system of our day is conservative, while the free trade system is destructive. It breaks up old nationalities and pushes the antagonism of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie to the extreme point. In a word, the free trade system hastens the social revolution. It is in this revolutionary sense alone, gentlemen, that I vote in favor of free trade. - Karl Marx

[erowe1]

Is there a role, constitutionally, for a policy of economic national interest?


Absolutely not. Politicians have no business entertaining the ideas of policies designed to manipulate the economy, no matter how good their intentions.

[Sentient Void]

I think we're just talking past each other here, is what the problem is.

It's not a "first response" it's part of a larger policy of economic national interest and national survival.

Let's be clear on terms and goals.

Is there a role, constitutionally, for a policy of economic national interest?

Does government have that duty and authority?

Excluding the ideal for the time being, a world wide free trade, no government, anacap utopia.

I'm not even talking about ancap philosophy here. I don't think tariffs or any tax should ever be raised or merely shifted or replaced - period, until we have a federal government that is less than 2% or so of our GDP (and there are virtually nil federal regulations over the economy). Then, and *only then*, when we can completely remove federal domestic taxation of every form, should we consider having * very small*, across the board, non-targetted tariffs to *temporarily* sustain a miniscule federal government (which will then essentially and finally be within the confines of the constitution). This is not a statement of ancap philosophy but rather advocating a move towards constitutional federal government, and the process and methodology of moving towards it.

I don't advocate any form whatsoever of even merely replacing or shifting around revenue streams for the federal government, nor should any true liberty lover. The focus should be always on minimizing the role of taxation and government - not shifting it around, whether you're talking about domestic taxation or tariffs on foreign goods.

Then, after setting and leading the example of the success of free market policies (and letting states regulate themselves and seeing free market policies in action), can we begin to further breakdown the federal government and 'marketize' further and further, more and more locally (states, then municipalities), to move towards ancap philosophy, maximizing individual freedom and moving further and further away from statism until it can be finally and completely let go. But I digress, and that's part of other discussions that have been made on the board.

[Jace]

Accoding to you they are, since you go on to say....


According to you, American consumers are getting to buy Chinese goods at less than what it costs to make them because the Chinese government (i.e. the Chinese taxpayer) is subsidizing our purchase of them. If that's true, they're sending us foreign aid.

How is it aid if they devalue their currency by purchasing American debt, which is paid back to them at interest through higher taxes, or through inflation that lowers our standard of living in the long run?

Sounds like we get the cheap goods below cost in the short term by trading away our liberty in the long run.

[Jace]

I am afraid you are so very mistaken here.

First of all, proper tariffs on imports is rendering protection to life and property.

I'm feeling like a bloody broken record again, but let's do it anyway: you appear to be confusing "free trade" with "free market". The two are not only not related, they are entirely antithetical to each other.

Given that, if a free market nation wishes to trade with a non-free market partner, it behooves them to tariff against that partner to the degree that any artificially crafted and maintained comparative advantages put in place by that partner are neutralized. Free markets work ONLY when all the players work by the same rules.

Let us assume the USA is a free market economy - which is it not, but let us assume for the sake of illustration. As we know, Red China is anything but a free market player. They have put into place and cause to to be maintained a system of slave labor arbitrage wherein the epsilon (difference) in labor rates between them and the USA is simply staggering. Because of this enormous epsilon, the manufacturers have fled the USA to do their respective things in China. They stay because the Chinese government forcefully maintains the arbitrage market in labor to the point of murdering its own citizens when they attempt to secure higher wages or unionize.

One must understand the basics here in order to see just how misleading the "free trade" moniker is.

Excellent points.

[Jace]

I'm thinking that perhaps Marx and other socialists / statists support(ed) free trade because they know that free trade is the only way to keep their otherwise insolvent systems sustainable for any decent period of time, while keeping the 'useful idiots' (progressives, social democrats, et al) railing for socialism while being ignorant of what is bringing them their levels of existing prosperity and cheaper goods.

Wow. Talk about Orwellian doublespeak.

[Jace]

Let me get this straight. People like Marx, Woodrow Wilson and Ben Bernanke favor free trade because it keeps their bankrupt economic philosophies afloat?

People like Thomas Jefferson favored tariffs because they were statists, anti-liberty and ignorant?

Do I have that right?

[YumYum]

It isn't just the government that has denied "Free Trade". Its also the extreme wealthy; be it individuals or corporations. The wealthy tell the politicians what they can and cannot do.

Nobody can site an example or logically explain how the Free Market will prevent people who are extremely rich from exploiting those that do not have. My G-d, have some people been living in their basements, and staring at their computers so long that they forgot how real human beings conduct themselves and how the real world works? Are they not aware that people who are extremely wealthy didn't get there from selling fruit at a flea market?

Since none of the free marketers can site an example of their Free Market Utopia, I will do it for them. When the czar and his family were put into exile, for one year Russia did not have a centralized government; zero: zip, nada. For one year the communist were arguing on what kind of government should be established. In the meantime, the Russian people were conducting business everyday, making money and enjoying what people would call on this forum "Free Trade". You would think that there would have been anarchy and mayhem, but there wasn't. There was very little crime. But guess what? There were no rich people!! Yes, the cowardly bastards fled Russia with all their wealth and left the peasants and the common people to run their lives uninterrupted.

I'm all for the Free Market Utopia, lock, stock and barrel. But ya ain't gonna have your little dream world unless you get rid of the rich bastards who have brought this system down. Otherwise, all this discussion about Free Trade and Free Market is just mental masturbation.

[erowe1]

How is it aid if they devalue their currency by purchasing American debt, which is paid back to them at interest through higher taxes, or through inflation that lowers our standard of living in the long run?

Sounds like we get the cheap goods below cost in the short term by trading away our liberty in the long run.

But you're combining different things here. Buying American debt requires that our federal government run deficits by spending lavishly on things that every single person in this thread opposes. If you want to shut down the Chinese scheme you're describing by ending our welfare state and foreign interventionism so that there's no debt for them to buy, then I'm with you.

But if you attack in on the other end by having armed thugs from some criminal gang demand that I give them money any time I buy something cheap that was made in China (i.e. tariffs), then that's a different story entirely.

Plus, I'm not quite clear on how the two parts go together anyway. If China wants to buy U.S. govt. debt, it can do that without also subsidizing American consumers' purchases of Chinese made products.

[Sentient Void]

Wow. Talk about Orwellian doublespeak.

How so? Do you even know how Orwellian doublespeak works?

I don't believe Marx, progressives, et al support free trade because they feel it is right or at all in-line with their ultimate goal or philosophy - but merely to use it as a means to an end (as unprincipled folk, the ends justifies the means) to help sustain their otherwise insolvent systems through the state while they spread their propaganda about the desirability of socialism through said 'Useful Idiots'.

And I'm not saying this is absolutely the case - I may be completely wrong about that point (or may even be an unforeseen benefit), as I said I *think* it might be a reason. It just seems to make sense to me, is all.

As for Jefferson, he wasn't a socialist, and supported free trade for other (constitutional) reasons (much like how I support free trade for other very reasons as well), as well as only *after* he slashed domestic taxes significantly across the board, as well as during the rise of a fledgling nation that was figuring out it's true role and effect on it's people. Your 'point' on Jefferson is absolutely moot, and now I'm just repeating my answer to your same question as I did in the other thread. I'm seriously thinking that you may just be a protectionist troll and nothing else. At least AF and others are engaging the actual discussion - you just keep rehashing the same thing over and over again. It's really frustrating.

And as to your question in the other thread - yes, I have read Orwell. Obviously.

[Jace]

No, I disagree, Marx favored free trade because it would destroy the middle class, aka the bourgeoisie, hasten socialist revolution and destroy the nation/state:

And there it is, stated succinctly. When you strip away all the theories and arguing and claims, this is what it all boils down to.

[Anti Federalist]

Absolutely not. Politicians have no business entertaining the ideas of policies designed to manipulate the economy, no matter how good their intentions.

OK, here it is, SV, this is what I was talking about a few posts back.

Then this is how it should have read:


We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it.

What's the point of maintaining even a minimalist government if the prime directive cannot be carried out?

[CCTelander]

That's it. I have now come to the absolute conclusion that the protectionistas here on this board (Jace, The Grinning Maniac, Osan, Anti Federalist, et al) - since they have no real logical, economic, nor moral leg to stand on - have ultimately resorted to Orwellian doublethink / doublespeak in order to justify their cognitive dissonance in support of protectionism.

War is peace.
Freedom is slavery.
Ignorance is strength.

And now the newest addition...

Voluntary trade (aka *free trade*) is statist.

Ridiculous.


Since the imposition of tariffs is, in fact, a form of central economic planning, I'd alter your last (in bold above) to read:

Free markets are centrally planned and controlled markets.

Very Orwellian, and an excellent point.

[erowe1]

What's the point of maintaining even a minimalist government if the prime directive cannot be carried out?

If your premise is that the prime directive of a minimalist government is central management of the economy, then I don't accept that premise. But, supposing I did accept it, then I would certainly concede that there would be no point whatsoever of having even a minimalist government.

[low preference guy]

What's the point of maintaining even a minimalist government if the prime directive cannot be carried out?

So central economic planing is a prerequisite for the pursuit of happiness? Dude, don't make me laugh. You gotta do a quick review of the writings of Ron Paul, Mises, and Hazlitt. Or at least Peter Schiff.

[Anti Federalist]

And there it is, stated succinctly. When you strip away all the theories and arguing and claims, this is what it all boils down to.

I'm frankly surprised that somebody hasn't said yet, "Oh so you agree with Marx, then?"

I don't "agree", and he wasn't right about much, but he damn sure was right about what "free trade" (as it's understood and practiced now, which is not too different than what it was when made those remarks) would do to a nation, an economy and society.

[Anti Federalist]

If your premise is that the prime directive of a minimalist government is central management of the economy, then I don't accept that premise. But, supposing I did accept it, then I would certainly concede that there would be no point whatsoever of having even a minimalist government.

A non targeted import duty is not "central planning".


So central economic planing is a prerequisite for the pursuit of happiness? Dude, don't make me laugh. You gotta do a quick review of the writings of Ron Paul, Mises, and Hazlitt. Or at least Peter Schiff.

A non targeted import duty is not "central planning".

Duties (and variations of) are the only tax mentioned in the constitution.

[Sentient Void]

Both erowe1 and low preference guy responded to that question perfectly. I couldn't have said it better myself.

[Jace]

If you want to shut down the Chinese scheme you're describing by ending our welfare state and foreign interventionism so that there's no debt for them to buy, then I'm with you.

Well, we have common ground here.

China and Japan use their artificial trade surpluses to fund our massive budget deficits that pay for wars and the expansion of the welfare state. But trade policy is only one piece of the puzzle.

Even if our trade deficit ended or the Chinese stopped buying our debt, the Fed could still just print money to fund our budget deficits. So our trade policy is just one of the weapons used against the American people to get us to surrender our liberty and sovereignty.

I just finished Greenspan's book and he talked about how the budget surpluses that peaked in 2001 threatened to eliminate our government debt, with would end the power the Fed has over our economy and government.

I think expanding our debt is what the Fed is all about. Wars and trade deficits are the perfect tools to expand the Fed's power over our lives.

[low preference guy]

A non targeted import duty is not "central planning".


The problem ts that you were not referring to "non targeted import duties". You were responding to erowe1 who said


Absolutely not. Politicians have no business entertaining the ideas of policies designed to manipulate the economy, no matter how good their intentions.

I'd assume the best, but if any politician acted like that I could call him shamelessly dishonest.

[YumYum]

If your premise is that the prime directive of a minimalist government is central management of the economy, then I don't accept that premise. But, supposing I did accept it, then I would certainly concede that there would be no point whatsoever of having even a minimalist government.

Even if you have a "minimalist" government, it would be rich people running it. Every government, whether it be an inky winkie dinkie de-centralized government, or a huge government, is created and run by wealthy people. Our government was created and run by wealthy land owners and business men. Regardless as to whether there is Free Trade or protective tariffs, either way, it will benefit only the rich.

[Sentient Void]

A non targeted import duty is not "central planning".



A non targeted import duty is not "central planning".

Duties (and variations of) are the only tax mentioned in the constitution.

But that's the problem, your first response to the issues is protectionism, and merely shifting the burden of the revenue stream to the federal government from one area to the other when ultimately, no matter where you get the taxes from, will be destructive of the people, and actually hinder that very 'pursuit of happiness' that you mentioned.

The focus and first response should automatically be, as a liberty lover, to reduce federal government intervention, taxation, regulation, and other market distortions (central planning), not to maintain it as a first response and shift the burden to protectionism with a large tariff - especially while we are currently so dependent on foreign goods due to the very federal policies mentioned.

[Jace]

So central economic planing is a prerequisite for the pursuit of happiness? Dude, don't make me laugh. You gotta do a quick review of the writings of Ron Paul, Mises, and Hazlitt. Or at least Peter Schiff.

The Constitution is central planning now?

[low preference guy]

The Constitution is central planning now?

Can you read? Go back and read the posts before to get the context.

[Sentient Void]

The Constitution is central planning now?

Strawman, strawman, strawman. See my post directly above. How much does this stuff have to be repeated for you?

[Jace]

Strawman, strawman, strawman. See my post directly above. How much does this stuff have to be repeated for you?

Whatever. Jefferson was for tariffs that are allowed in our Constitution. You say tariffs are central planning, ergo Jefferson following our Constitution is central planning, at least how I am understanding your arguments.

Marx, Wilson, Bernanke, et. al., all are free trade zealots who attack tariffs. Yet it is a straw man argument to point this out? I'm still waiting for a rational explanation from you why central bankers are the biggest propagandists for the trade system you are arguing for.

[Sentient Void]

Whatever. Jefferson was for tariffs that are allowed in our Constitution. You say tariffs are central planning, ergo Jefferson following our Constitution is central planning, at least how I am understanding your arguments.

Wrong. Try actually reading and understanding our responses throughout this discussion. I'm done repeating myself.


Marx, Wilson, Bernanke, et. al., all are free trade zealots who attack tariffs. Yet it is a straw man argument to point this out? I'm still waiting for a rational explanation from you why central bankers are the biggest propagandists for the trade system you are arguing for.

Once again, you are basing your argument on fallacies. This is another one called the 'fallacy of association'.

Here's another one for you to show your logical reasoning... you like Jefferson. I like Jefferson. Jefferson owned slaves and supported the ownership of slaves. Therefore, we must both support the ownership of slaves.

Do you see the absurdity?

[Anti Federalist]

The focus and first response should automatically be, as a liberty lover, to reduce federal government intervention, taxation, regulation, and other market distortions (central planning), not to maintain it as a first response and shift the burden to protectionism with a large tariff - especially while we are currently so dependent on foreign goods due to the very federal policies mentioned.

SV, I've already said it it, but I'll say it again, I'm in favor of all those things, all done at the same time.

Reduce or eliminate regulation and taxation and put in place a non targeted import duty, and you'd have an economic boom the likes of which have never been seen before.

The powers that be are never going to do that, and never allow that to happen, because they have embarked on a course of action that requires the US to cease being an economic powerhouse.

The PTB are not going to repeal their own power, are not going to reduce their tax bite and are not going to erect tariffs in our best interest, so it comes back to the "dead man walking" again.

As much as loathe the MIC, I am still a nationalist and a patriot.

If the Chinese were shelling the west coast with battlewagons sitting offshore, I'd reply with a military response.

They are doing the same thing economically, right now, and we have the constitutional means to defend ourselves, if we'd only find the will to do so.

That is the real threat, not a bunch of CIA funded "radicals" in the Middle East.

Which is why, of course, it gets paid no mind.

[sratiug]

I'd just like to point out that a tariff cannot be protectionist or a hindrance to free trade unless the tariff raises the price of a foreign good more than the price of a domestic good is raised by existing internal taxation. Otherwise the protectionism is going to foreign producers, which it is now.

Free trade means freedom to trade with people within your country or other countries with the same freedom. Being free to trade with foreigners but not with your countrymen is in no way free trade, it is protectionism of foreign producers.

[Sentient Void]

SV, I've already said it it, but I'll say it again, I'm in favor of all those things, all done at the same time.

Reduce or eliminate regulation and taxation and put in place a non targeted import duty, and you'd have an economic boom the likes of which have never been seen before.

Well, then it seems to me you've at least partially changed your position - since throughout the other threads and discussions on free trade, this was not mentioned as part of your idea as the correct response.

I seem to remember you stating that we needed to focus on 'fair trade' and a specific *replacement* of the income tax with a 15% non-targetted wide tariff on all imports (I wouldn't call 15% a particularly small tax, neither). As well as stating that engaging in free trade with nations such as China is what is hurting us, citing your 'prison economy' metaphor as well as numerous other arguments about free trade with nations we can't compete with. When I, and other free traders, vehemently disagree - being that maximizing free trade (and liberty in general), regardless of the circumstances, is beneficial. We should never compromise free trade as a first response and merely shift the burden of taxation - in the end, it doesnt matter where the taxes are coming from - we will be hurt.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Whatever. Jefferson was for tariffs that are allowed in our Constitution. You say tariffs are central planning, ergo Jefferson following our Constitution is central planning, at least how I am understanding your arguments.

Marx, Wilson, Bernanke, et. al., all are free trade zealots who attack tariffs. Yet it is a straw man argument to point this out? I'm still waiting for a rational explanation from you why central bankers are the biggest propagandists for the trade system you are arguing for.

This is getting tiring. Even Neo-Classicists are right once in a blue moon. You should really try a different argumentative technique than guilt by association. It is a notoriously bad way of arguing. I can just as easily say since Frederic Bastiat, John Bright, Richard Cobden, Thomas Woods, and pretty much every other hardcore laissez-fairest are pro-free trade that, that is clearly evidence for the superiority of free-trade. That wouldn't be a compelling argument as it not only is a fallacy of guilt by association it also encompasses appeal to authority.

Free-trade is the superior position because just as the market is superior to socialism, so is to division of labor, and of reduction of market barriers. The only thing that protectionism does is to inculcate domestic producers from outside competition. This puts you at the mercy of our Government. If you thought the mercantilist/corporatist anti-market entry was bad now, just wait until you have that and protectionism. Goods and services will increase in price dramatically, while at the same reducing in quality. Right now large corporations have all ready crowded out most industries through Government regulation (which is a form of protectionism itself), so I don't know why you would want to even further cement their stranglehold. Why are you so pro-monopolist?

Besides, there was a great piece on Mises today authored by Thomas Woods on Richard Cobden one of the worlds most pre-eminent Free-Trade proponents.

It would do you well to read:

http://mises.org/daily/4639

[Sentient Void]

Free trade means freedom to trade with people within your country or other countries with the same freedom. Being free to trade with foreigners but not with your countrymen is in no way free trade, it is protectionism of foreign producers.

Wrong. You're talking about alleged 'fair trade'.

Maximizing *free trade* is about the ability to trade with others as unhindered as possible, regardless of anything, period. It's about free choice without government intervention. Stop trying to co-opt the term 'free trade'.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Even if you have a "minimalist" government, it would be rich people running it. Every government, whether it be an inky winkie dinkie de-centralized government, or a huge government, is created and run by wealthy people. Our government was created and run by wealthy land owners and business men. Regardless as to whether there is Free Trade or protective tariffs, either way, it will benefit only the rich.

And how has the proleteriate ruled? Why do you hate people who have more money than you? I am talking principally here. Envy, spite, malice, avarice, and the thing the prols abhorr the most greed -- are the hall mark and tenent of what you have been espousing lately. These ideals have led to the most brutal regimes in the history of man-kind. Murdering more than 200 million people. If I had a choice to either be ruled by the prols or the bourgeois, the answer is most unquestionably the bourgeois. But, you see that is a false dichotomy. There is another answer and that is Autarchy, with a fundamental basis in Laissez-Faire markets.

Why do you attack the symptom and not the cause? It is not the rich that is the problem, but the system that allows one to use State power to rig the system in their favor. The classic system which the Revolution in '76 fought against. Traders, artisans, merchants, etc. they are not your enemy.

[Jace]

This is getting tiring. Even Neo-Classicists are right once in a blue moon. You should really try a different argumentative technique than guilt by association. It is a notoriously bad way of arguing. I can just as easily say since Frederic Bastiat, John Bright, Richard Cobden, Thomas Woods, and pretty much every other hardcore laissez-fairest are pro-free trade that, that is clearly evidence for the superiority of free-trade. That wouldn't be a compelling argument as it not only is a fallacy of guilt by association it also encompasses appeal to authority.

Free-trade is the superior position because just as the market is superior to socialism, so is to division of labor, and of reduction of market barriers. The only thing that protectionism does is to inculcate domestic producers from outside competition. This puts you at the mercy of our Government. If you thought the mercantilist/corporatist anti-market entry was bad now, just wait until you have that and protectionism. Goods and services will increase in price dramatically, while at the same reducing in quality. Right now large corporations have all ready crowded out most industries through Government regulation (which is a form of protectionism itself), so I don't know why you would want to even further cement their stranglehold. Why are you so pro-monopolist?

Besides, there was a great piece on Mises today authored by Thomas Woods on Richard Cobden one of the worlds most pre-eminent Free-Trade proponents.

It would do you well to read:

http://mises.org/daily/4639

Please explain how China, Korea and Japan have achieved extraordinary economic growth and rising living standards while following protectionist trade policies. Honestly, I want to hear your explanation for it, without the condescending tone, please.

[low preference guy]

Please explain how China, Korea and Japan have achieved extraordinary economic growth and rising living standards while following protectionist trade policies. Honestly, I want to hear your explanation for it, without the condescending tone, please.

They had a mix of policies. Some favored freedom, some not. The ones that favored freedom are the policies responsible for their growth, and they were good enough to be effective despite the difficulties imposed by having protectionist policies.

[sratiug]

Wrong. You're talking about alleged 'fair trade'.

Maximizing *free trade* is about the ability to trade with others as unhindered as possible, regardless of anything, period. It's about free choice without government intervention. Stop trying to co-opt the term 'free trade'.

Fair trade as I understand it is reciprocity of tariffs, which I do not support and did not mention.

If you want to maximize free trade with your definition why are you talking about tariffs instead of the income tax when the income tax is destroying free trade at an incredibly higher rate.

Free trade generally means not imposing trade barriers against imports. It is not a trade barrier against imports to have equal taxation of American and foreign products, no matter what anyone says to the contrary.

Why support government intervention which makes American products artificially more expensive than imports causing Americans to buy more imports and call that free trade. It is nothing of the sort.

Without any American taxes or tariffs we would have free trade in America and with foreign nations. With internal taxes and no tariffs Americans will buy a larger percentage of imports. You cannot deny this is protectionism for foeign producers and skews the balance between American and imported products further away from what it would be with actual free trade.

Replacing all internal taxes with a flat tariff of 100% or more to raise the same revenue would increase free trade drasticly if the relative price impact to imports and domestic products does not matter. Why? Because free trade is more valuable with proximity. What good is free speech if you could only cuss foreign governments. What good is the 2nd amendment if you have to leave your guns at the border when you come home from overseas? What good are any rights if they only apply where you are not?

[Jace]

They had a mix of policies. Some favored freedom, some not. The ones that favored freedom are the policies responsible for their growth, and they were good enough to be effective despite the difficulties imposed by having protectionist policies.

No offense, but this is a very vague answer that implies that you are not well-informed about the economies of Japan, Korea and China. All three have experienced remarkable growth and rising standards of living by following the same development path of protectionism at home, while aggressively subsidizing exports. I think you need to do some research on the trade and development policies of Japan, Korea and China to understand this.

All three countries are collectivist societies that discourage individualism and reject free trade in favor of protectionism.

[low preference guy]

No offense, but this is a very vague answer that implies that you are not well-informed about the economies of Japan, Korea and China. All three have experienced remarkable growth and rising standards of living by following the same development path of protectionism at home, while aggressively subsidizing exports. I think you need to do some research on the trade and development policies of Japan, Korea and China to understand this.

All three countries are collectivist societies that discourage individualism and reject free trade in favor of protectionism.

No offense? None taken, as you can't even see that they have a mixture of policies. Read again your last statement and see how wildly inaccurate it is to describe any of those countries.

[Jace]

No offense? None taken, as you can't even see that they have a mixture of policies. Read again your last statement and see how wildly inaccurate it is to describe any of those countries.

What mixture of policies are you referring to, and how do they relate to free trade?

Please explain how my statement was wildly inaccurate.

[YumYum]

And how has the proletariat ruled?

I do not know of any so-called civilized government where the wage earner has ruled.


Why do you hate people who have more money than you? I am talking principally here. Envy, spite, malice, avarice, and the thing the prols abhorr the most greed -- are the hall mark and tenent of what you have been espousing lately.

I do not hate people who have more money than me, I hate the bankers and their associates. They have created a debt that I had no part in, and yet I and my generation will be stuck with paying it back. I do not have envy, spit, malice, avarice or greed. As I said, I hate the extreme wealthy who are the financiers and bankers who have brought on the world's financial dilemma. You owe them money, and yet you love them?

People that are well to do from honest hard work are pillars in our society and should be recognized as such. Extreme wealthy people who became rich by exploiting and abusing people should be punished.


These ideals have led to the most brutal regimes in the history of man-kind. Murdering more than 200 million people.

I do not subscribe to those ideals, if you mean Stalinist Communism.



If I had a choice to either be ruled by the prols or the bourgeois, the answer is most unquestionably the bourgeois. But, you see that is a false dichotomy. There is another answer and that is Autarchy, with a fundamental basis in Laissez-Faire markets.

That is your choice. Autarchy would be nice, but in the real world we live in it can never happen unless you get rid of the evil bankers and financiers.


Why do you attack the symptom and not the cause? It is not the rich that is the problem, but the system that allows one to use State power to rig the system in their favor. The classic system which the Revolution in '76 fought against. Traders, artisans, merchants, etc. they are not your enemy.

The rich are the cause. They control the system; the system doesn't control them. Why do you defend the rich when you are not rich? What has the rich done for you lately? Lay you off from your job? Charge you more interest at your bank?
Traders, artisans, merchants are not my enemies, these are honest endeavors. But today, these same people that you mention that once had small businesses, now work at WalMarx*.

* I borrowed WalMarx from anti-federalist.

[Anti Federalist]

* I borrowed WalMarx from anti-federalist.

Say it three times and you can keep it. ;)

[Anti Federalist]

Well, then it seems to me you've at least partially changed your position - since throughout the other threads and discussions on free trade, this was not mentioned as part of your idea as the correct response.

I seem to remember you stating that we needed to focus on 'fair trade' and a specific *replacement* of the income tax with a 15% non-targetted wide tariff on all imports (I wouldn't call 15% a particularly small tax, neither). As well as stating that engaging in free trade with nations such as China is what is hurting us, citing your 'prison economy' metaphor as well as numerous other arguments about free trade with nations we can't compete with. When I, and other free traders, vehemently disagree - being that maximizing free trade (and liberty in general), regardless of the circumstances, is beneficial. We should never compromise free trade as a first response and merely shift the burden of taxation - in the end, it doesnt matter where the taxes are coming from - we will be hurt.

Here I am, specifically agreeing with you on pretty much the same point the other day:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=2849029&postcount=107

To be fair, I said eliminate taxes/regulation AND impose a 15-30 percent import duty.

Not small?

How is 15 to 30 percent of 2.5 trillion (total US imports) not small compared to 2.5 trillion itself (rough estimate of total US federal tax revenues)?

[South Park Fan]

People like Thomas Jefferson favored tariffs because they were statists, anti-liberty and ignorant?

Total facepalm. Jefferson was an advocate of free trade or at best a revenue tariff. Hamilton and other Federalists advocated a protective tariff to benefit politically-connected Northern industries at the expense of the rest of the population. The Federalists later morphed into the Whigs, who were known for their protectionism. Look up a map of any election between 1828-1860 to see which party the Jeffersonian South favored more: the protectionist Whigs or the free-trade Democrats?

[South Park Fan]

Please explain how China, Korea and Japan have achieved extraordinary economic growth and rising living standards while following protectionist trade policies. Honestly, I want to hear your explanation for it, without the condescending tone, please.

China lived in almost complete isolation (which is about as protectionist as you can get) until 1976. 30 million people died from famine. It wasn't until after Deng Xiaopeng liberalized the Chinese economy that China began to prosper economically. Even though they still have some statist policies, it's still a great improvement over the totalitarian isolationist rule of Mao. IIRC, Korea and Japan have received a lot of aid from the United States. I also find it funny that you cite Japan's "protectionist" policies as the key to their "prosperity", considering that they have been in a depression for the last twenty years ("Lost Decade" doesn't ring any bells?). I am not as informed about the Korean economy, but if you compare the relatively free-trade economy of South Korea to the isolationist economy of the North, one would think that if protectionism were the key to prosperity, North Korea would be far more prosperous than South Korea.

[Anti Federalist]

The focus and first response should automatically be, as a liberty lover, to reduce federal government intervention, taxation, regulation, and other market distortions (central planning), not to maintain it as a first response and shift the burden to protectionism with a large tariff - especially while we are currently so dependent on foreign goods due to the very federal policies mentioned.

That dependency will cause pain, no doubt, just like the pain that will be caused by converting back to sound currency, undoing the damage of the FED debt bubbles and wholesale individual dependency, to name just few things.

We're not getting out of this one without some serious withdrawals and pain.

What it amounts to is: are we going to do on our terms or on the terms of some globalist institution like the IMF and suffer under internationally mandated "austerity measures"?

In other words, are we going to continue to be a free and independent nation or join the Borg hive of the international collective?

You think that taxes and regulations and bureaucracies are bad now, wait till the global collective gets it's hands on us.

[RedStripe]

I realize it wasn't directed at me but I just couldn't read this without reacting.


Why do you hate people who have more money than you? I am talking principally here. Envy, spite, malice, avarice, and the thing the prols abhorr the most greed -- are the hall mark and tenent of what you have been espousing lately.

Apologists for feudalism would make the same accusation against reformers. "Oh, you're just jealous that the aristocracy is so successful" :rolleyes:



These ideals have led to the most brutal regimes in the history of man-kind. Murdering more than 200 million people. If I had a choice to either be ruled by the prols or the bourgeois, the answer is most unquestionably the bourgeois. But, you see that is a false dichotomy. There is another answer and that is Autarchy, with a fundamental basis in Laissez-Faire markets.

The brutal regimes of history have, by and large, been run by the wealthy (although they will naturally carry out their campaigns of terror in the name of the working poor). Case in point: the United States of America.



Why do you attack the symptom and not the cause? It is not the rich that is the problem, but the system that allows one to use State power to rig the system in their favor.

The rich are both the products and the guardians of the system.



The classic system which the Revolution in '76 fought against. Traders, artisans, merchants, etc. they are not your enemy.

Hahaha, that is the absolute bullshit version of the American Revolution. Sure, the poor people weren't fans of the British, but they also weren't fans of the colonial elite who didn't give a rats ass about women, Native Americans, slaves, blacks, or poor whites. Just like today, the rich saw the English government as a threat to their power, so they used the rhetoric of freedom and liberty to push a war for independence which did nothing to actually increase the freedom of the vast majority of inhabitants of the colonies who were once again ruled by a small sliver of the population.

[South Park Fan]

That dependency will cause pain, no doubt, just like the pain that will be caused by converting back to sound currency, undoing the damage of the FED debt bubbles and wholesale individual dependency, to name just few things.

We're not getting out of this one without some serious withdrawals and pain.

What it amounts to is: are we going to do on our terms or on the terms of some globalist institution like the IMF and suffer under internationally mandated "austerity measures"?

In other words, are we going to continue to be a free and independent nation or join the Borg hive of the international collective?

You think that taxes and regulations and bureaucracies are bad now, wait till the global collective gets it's hands on us.

Free trade =/ Globalist managed trade.

[Anti Federalist]

Free trade =/ Globalist managed trade.

Right, which is why I make it a point to usually put "Free Trade" in quotes and usually capitalize it, to distinguish it from the "purist" ideal of two people freely trading their goods and services, unencumbered by government fetters and controls.

Apples and bowling balls.

[ChaosControl]

I see no reason why we should give other nations such trade advantages when they put their own economic interests first. The only thing that does is screw over our economic interest and the end result is important 99% of our products from China and not having any jobs for Americans anymore.

[South Park Fan]

Right, which is why I make it a point to usually put "Free Trade" in quotes and usually capitalize it, to distinguish it from the "purist" ideal of two people freely trading their goods and services, unencumbered by government fetters and controls.

Apples and bowling balls.

The type of free trade I desire is the latter, although I would beg to differ that it is "purist"

[Kregisen]

The idea being that the market is as stupidly democratic as our political process has become. That being the case, what protects my economic rights, my right to purchase what I want, and not have my choices limited to what the brain dead masses get shoved down their throats at the Wal Marx?

In another thread I posted a story about how the nation's oldest family farm is going out of business, mostly because the shit fertilized, GMO crap vegetables form China and Guatemala are cheaper than what they can grow it for.

I bought from these people on a regular basis. What about my economic freedom?


You always have the economic freedom to purchase what you want. You however do not have the right to force others to pay a tax if buying from a cheaper (usually more efficient) source than the one you buy from.

If they can't stay in the game then they lose

[Kregisen]

I'd just like to point out that a tariff cannot be protectionist or a hindrance to free trade unless the tariff raises the price of a foreign good more than the price of a domestic good is raised by existing internal taxation. Otherwise the protectionism is going to foreign producers, which it is now.

Free trade means freedom to trade with people within your country or other countries with the same freedom. Being free to trade with foreigners but not with your countrymen is in no way free trade, it is protectionism of foreign producers.

That is a very interesting point.

Only solution is to abolish the income tax AND tariffs.

[Jace]

That is a very interesting point.

Only solution is to abolish the income tax AND tariffs.

We already got rid of the tariffs, just as the Fed wanted. But we will never get rid of the income tax without violence.

Tariffs do no cause trade deficits. The income tax does. The American population -- forced to pay the income tax under threat of imprisonment -- is the collateral the Fed uses to pay off foreign loans made possible by our trade deficit.

The parasite will attempt to kill the host if we try to remove it.

[Anti Federalist]

You always have the economic freedom to purchase what you want.

Not from the Tuttle farm I don't.

That choice was taken away from me, by the zombie hordes that stampede into a Wal Marx, or for that matter a voting booth and vote for a McCain and Obama.

[RedStripe]

I see no reason why we should give other nations such trade advantages when they put their own economic interests first. The only thing that does is screw over our economic interest and the end result is important 99% of our products from China and not having any jobs for Americans anymore.

There is no "we" in some unified national sense. There are the owners and dominate economic interests which own this economy and this government, and then there are the worker drones, from unskilled labor to middle-management.

The big problem is that no matter what trade policy is called, be it "free trade" or "protectionist," it will be implemented in a way which benefits the interests of the ruling economic class. Debating over protectionism vs. free trade is like arguing over which color ink should be used to sign the contract which grants another portion of the lives of the masses to the elite.

[Kregisen]

Not from the Tuttle farm I don't.

That choice was taken away from me, by the zombie hordes that stampede into a Wal Marx, or for that matter a voting booth and vote for a McCain and Obama.

Not true at all. Businesses have the freedom to associate with anyone they wish. If a business you wish to associate with says "we can't find enough people to associate with us to make it profitable, so we're gonna stop associating with everyone", then find a new business to associate with. Nobody is forced to buy from anyone....why do you wanna force others to buy from the people you buy from??

Many people hate walmart, but keep in mind, it's created more wealth for everyone than any other company in the world. It's able to outprice anyone because it's the most efficient. It destroys the least amount of wealth in transporting goods and services to people.

[Jace]

Not true at all. Businesses have the freedom to associate with anyone they wish. If a business you wish to associate with says "we can't find enough people to associate with us to make it profitable, so we're gonna stop associating with everyone", then find a new business to associate with. Nobody is forced to buy from anyone....why do you wanna force others to buy from the people you buy from??

Many people hate walmart, but keep in mind, it's created more wealth for everyone than any other company in the world. It's able to outprice anyone because it's the most efficient. It destroys the least amount of wealth in transporting goods and services to people.

You are restricted from exporting to China or purchasing property there. Trade with China is a one-way street.

And Walmart employees are eligible for food stamps.

[Sentient Void]

In case anyone else hasn't voted on this and still needs to... and since AF loves to keep bringing up the debate of maximizing free trade vs responding to protectionism with more protectionism - I'm giving this bad larry a bump.

Protectionism is a statist, coercive position. Period.

[Dripping Rain]

respond to "free trade" with "free trade"
respond to "protectionism" with "protectionism"

I think even Von Mises is on our side on this issue. Us "Facist protectionists"

sorry meant von mises not rothbard. I always get them mixed up

[Sentient Void]

respond to "free trade" with "free trade"
respond to "protectionism" with "protectionism"

I think even Murray Rothbard is on our side on this issue. Us "Facist protectionists"

Um, I don't think so.

Feel free to try and source such ridiculousness. Stop spreading misinformation.

[Dripping Rain]

Um, I don't think so.

Feel free to try and source such ridiculousness. Stop spreading misinformation.

I meant Von Mises. And Ricardo. sorry, My thread is in GP discussing just that

[low preference guy]

Um, I don't think so.

Feel free to try and source such ridiculousness. Stop spreading misinformation.

the anti-free trade people in this forum are reaching the level of faking reality to hold on to their beliefs, just like marxists do

[silverhandorder]

Responding to protectionism with protectionism is like kicking your kid in the face after he got kicked in the face by a bully.

You are not helping the citizens by protecting business that is not competitive.

[Dripping Rain]

the anti-free trade people in this forum are reaching the level of faking reality to hold on to their beliefs, just like marxists do

arent you being a little over dramatic here.
can you make rational arguments instead of throwing accusations of marxism and communism?
Is Patrick j Buchanan a communist in your eyes?

[Sentient Void]

the anti-free trade people in this forum are reaching the level of faking reality to hold on to their beliefs, just like marxists do

Agreed wholeheartedly. They are resorting to blatant Orwellian doublethink to try and rationalize through their cognitive dissonance - and it's truly sad and disheartening.

Ignorance is strength.
War is peace.
Freedom is slavery.

And now the new one recently added by the protectionistas (aka mercantilists)...

Free markets are statist.

[Michigan11]

Free trade is a utopian idea, based on all nations dealing with sound money. If that were the case today, I'd be all for free trade, since it is not, I wait.

[Dripping Rain]

Free trade is a utopian idea, based on all nations dealing with sound money. If that were the case today, I'd be all for free trade, since it is not, I wait.

hear hear!

[nobody's_hero]

I had to pick the one that most-closely associated with my views, over the one that was furthest from them, but I must say that these choices suck.

Until we get back to a gold standard (one that the whole world plays by), neither of these choices has it profoundly correct. Both sides of this debate—perhaps the "free trade" supporters more than the "protectionists" (tariff-supporters)—are trying to play as though we're in a system where the rules aren't subject to be revised at any moment whenever the 'Federal Reserve & The Powers That Be' are gathered around their drawing board of dastardly schemes.

Basically, we're arguing about which nose to touch while the man up top is yelling "Simon Says!"

[ClayTrainor]

the anti-free trade people in this forum are reaching the level of faking reality to hold on to their beliefs, just like marxists do

haha, you've noticed that too, eh? :p

I'll say it again, as I've said it before.

Free Trade = Free Markets. You can't have one without the other, and you either support the idea or you don't.

"Free trade and free markets are, without a doubt, the best guarantor of peace. But this requires something all too few in Washington want: less government intervention." - Ron Paul, June 7th, 1999

"Free trade with all and entangling alliances with none has always been the best policy in dealing with other countries on the world stage." - Ron Paul, Sept 21, 2001

"The economic argument for free trade should be no more complex than the moral argument. Tariffs are taxes that penalize those who buy foreign goods. If taxes are low on imported goods, consumers benefit by being able to buy at the best price, thus saving money to buy additional goods and raise their standard of living. The competition stimulates domestic efforts and hopefully serves as an incentive to get onerous taxes and regulations reduced." - Ron Paul


http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/free-trade/

Ron Paul is a proponent of free trade and rejects protectionism, advocating “conducting open trade, travel, communication, and diplomacy with other nations.” He opposes many free trade agreements (FTAs), like the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), stating that “free-trade agreements are really managed trade” and serve special interests and big business, not citizens.

He voted against the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA), holding that it increased the size of government, eroded U.S. sovereignty, and was unconstitutional. He has also voted against the Australia–U.S. FTA, the U.S.–Singapore FTA, and the U.S.–Chile FTA, and voted to withdraw from the WTO. He believes that “fast track” powers, given by Congress to the President to devise and negotiate FTAs on the country’s behalf, are unconstitutional, and that Congress, rather than the executive branch, should construct FTAs.

[Michigan11]

To be against "Free/unfair Trade" doesn't exactly mean a person is for taxes and tarriffs...

How about "Free Trade" within the United States?

[nobody's_hero]

To be against "Free/unfair Trade" doesn't exactly mean a person is for taxes and tarriffs...

How about "Free Trade" within the United States?

I read your analogy in the other thread and I think you hit the nail on the head.


How about for those that need visualization as to realize what this so-called free trade looks like. Imagine adding all the other nations as states, so now let's say we have 200 states in the United States...

Picture the difference, they are all in different landscape, but let's say an ocean is a river and all states are close together, with their current differences. The money is all different and nobody can get a handle on the exchange rate, supposedly they all just like to fluctuate wildly, for no reason(so everybody thinks). That alone, is enough to cause major trade problems in and of itself.

Now imagine the same map of states using one currency "gold". For a certain job a floor would be reached, and than comparative advantage would take over from there. That floor wouldn't be so low considering one currency and what that one currency would buy.

That is all I'm saying...

[ClayTrainor]

To be against "Free/unfair Trade" doesn't exactly mean a person is for taxes and tarriffs...

To be against free-markets is to support some form of involuntary coercion. The same goes for free trade.

I'm not sure what free/unfair trade is.



How about "Free Trade" within the United States?

And if someone in the united states wants to voluntarily trade with someone over the border?

[low preference guy]

And if someone in the united states wants to voluntarily trade with someone over the border?

they should be free to do so. duh. why the hell would you want to attack the economic freedom of americans?

[Sentient Void]

How about "Free Trade" within the United States?

This is logically inconsistent. If I want to trade with someone on the outside of the United States - I'm *still* 'within the United States'. Free trade = Free market. Period.

You would be for telling me who I can and can't voluntarily trade with. This is a statist and oppressive position. Are you comfortable with being a statist and an oppressor?

[Michigan11]

To be against free-markets is to support some form of involuntary coercion. The same goes for free trade.

I'm not sure what free/unfair trade is.



And if someone in the united states wants to voluntarily trade with someone over the border?

Trust me I understand where you are coming from.. Even within a state there are counties, and townships/towns, cities, each with their own regulations, not to mention nations. If we placed all nations on a map of the United States and treated each state and nation just as a state, and removed the oceans and treated them as rivers. Anyone thinking of manufacturing something would most likely go to the state of China. Why is that?

Bottom line is there are far too many variables, try and setup a monoply type board game, using "Free Markets"... Compartive advantage of product and market has been replaced by currency manipulation and government regulation.

[Sentient Void]

Trust me I understand where you are coming from.. Even within a state there are counties, and townships/towns, cities, each with their own regulations, not to mention nations. If we placed all nations on a map of the United States and treated each state and nation just as a state, and removed the oceans and treated them as rivers. Anyone thinking of manufacturing something would most likely go to the state of China. Why is that?

Bottom line is there are far too many variables, try and setup a monoply type board game, using "Free Markets"... Compartive advantage of product and market has been replaced by currency manipulation and government regulation.

And the answer is more freedom, not more government. more freedom is always the answer. More coercive government *always* makes things worse. Always.

You're asking for the dudes to do more of what is hurting us, in order to try to fix us. This is absurd.

[Michigan11]

And the answer is more freedom, not more government. more freedom is always the answer. More coercive government *always* makes things worse. Always.

You're asking for the dudes to do more of what is hurting us, in order to try to fix us. This is absurd.

Nope, I am against any government intervention and fiat currency manipulation. In other words the market today has become the very things I am against. So to argue for Free Trade, is to argue for Government and Currency manipulation indirectly.

[AlexMerced]

I understand things arn't a perfect free market, but protecting the current system from falling apart with piecework protectionism only prolongs the inevitable collpase and rebuildin into something sustainable.

Protectionism a band aid with spikes on it that leads to wars to just postpone problems that will come due anyways... protectionism makes no sense.

[AlexMerced]

Nope, I am against any government intervention and fiat currency manipulation. In other words the market today has become the very things I am against. So to argue for Free Trade, is to argue for Government and Currency manipulation indirectly.

no... free trade is effected by things we're against, that's for sure, but supporting policy to mitigate the effect of symptoms instead of fighting to fix the problem isn't any better and makes us hypocrites for calling out the stimulus.

For example, glass stiegals seperation did mitigate a lot of the moral hazard from FDIC insurance but that moral hazard was symptom of the seperation liability from depsits which is the underlying problem.

Advocating a repeal of glass stiegal though isn't advocating deposit insurance though, in the same way advocating free trade doesn't mean advocating political control over money.

[Michigan11]

no... free trade is effected by things we're against, that's for sure, but supporting policy to mitigate the effect of symptoms instead of fighting to fix the problem isn't any better and makes us hypocrites for calling out the stimulus.

For example, glass stiegals seperation did mitigate a lot of the moral hazard from FDIC insurance but that moral hazard was symptom of the seperation liability from depsits which is the underlying problem.

Advocating a repeal of glass stiegal though isn't advocating deposit insurance though, in the same way advocating free trade doesn't mean advocating political control over money.

You are stuck on it's either this what we have "unfair trade/currency/government manipulation/subsidies" or else government manipulation/subsidies/currency".

We are not currently in a free trade system, nor have we ever been, in regards to dealing with other nations. All governments have added subsidies and regulations, as well as taxes over the previous decades/century, while also giving up on sound currencies, now just printed up script.

Are you advocating that we have "Free Trade" right now? Free trade = Free market right? Do we have "Free markets" anywhere in this world right now?

[mczerone]

respond to "free trade" with "free trade"
respond to "protectionism" with "protectionism"

I think even Von Mises is on our side on this issue. Us "Facist protectionists"

sorry meant von mises not rothbard. I always get them mixed up

So assume China, as a national entity, subsidizes certain industries and makes their product, X, cheaper for US consumers than X coming from US producers.

Then, in a sane world, what could be expected to happen? Well, the US producers could try cutting their expenses to compete, or they could go to their consumers as say "we know its a few more dollars, but long term it's going to hurt your bottom line more if we have to go out of business". Or they could go to China and say "we produce X, which you are subsidizing, and we know that the real cost is much higher than what they are being sold for in our market. If you continue to subsidize X, you are going to lose money for yourself and your tax-base on every sale that you make overseas. So you should stop subsidizing X, or at least stop exporting it for the same price you sell it for internally."

Or the producers could start arbitraging, buying the cheap Chinese X and reselling it at their higher local rate, working to increase the cost of the Chinese X due to lower available supply, and helping offset the production costs of the local X, while keeping their production facilities active.

Or the consumers could, voluntarily, say "we are not buying X that receives gov't privilege" because they know that the cheaper shelf price of X comes with the added cost of further gov't involvement, either here or abroad.

Or the producers could, if Chinese production of X were simply cheaper, aside from subsidies, simply close up shop and find another means of doing business where they have a marginal advantage over their competitors.

In the end, there are millions of better solutions that saying "the US gov't should charge people the difference between the current domestic price and the Chinese price." This solution (a) rewards domestic producers that could produce the product with less costs, but chooses to keep production costs high because he will be protected by gov't, (b) rewards the gov't for doing absolutely nothing except notice that there is a price difference, and incentivizes them to find more inefficient markets to tariff for new revenue streams, (c) hurts the domestic consumer who could be getting his needs met at a lower price, and (d) gives the foreign govt more incentive to subsidize their own product to keep it selling abroad despite all the added costs, perpetuating the the problem even further.

[Michigan11]

I get the feeling that those who are for "Free Markets" are literally trying to defend the theory and status quo, even though we are not living in free markets.

[AlexMerced]

I get the feeling that those who are for "Free Markets" are literally trying to defend the theory and status quo, even though we are not living in free markets.

If we became a neutral trade nation with open ports that would bring a lot of businesses to our shores just for ease of businesses

I mean we see this between state, the states that are more business friendly have growth while places like cleveland that are not business friendly and try protectionism to retain what it has just get worse.

[Vessol]

North Korea kidnaps American citizens, thus America should kinap North Korean citizens.

That's the logic I'm seeing here.

[Michigan11]

If we became a neutral trade nation with open ports that would bring a lot of businesses to our shores just for ease of businesses

I mean we see this between state, the states that are more business friendly have growth while places like cleveland that are not business friendly and try protectionism to retain what it has just get worse.

Again, I don't want or advocate more government, I thought that's why were all here, to get rid of the intrusive taxation and regulation brought upon us by an outlaw government. I'm not saying to do this or that, just that we don't have free trade right now. What we have now can only be fixed by getting a sound currency, getting rid of the taxes and regulations, and working hard. That is where I'm at.

[AlexMerced]

Again, I don't want or advocate more government, I thought that's why were all here, to get rid of the intrusive taxation and regulation brought upon us by an outlaw government. I'm not saying to do this or that, just that we don't have free trade right now. What we have now can only be fixed by getting a sound currency, getting rid of the taxes and regulations, and working hard. That is where I'm at.

I agree with that, and that's what we should be working towards getting rid of those things, but I wouldn't advocate more restrictions on trades pending those changes.

[Michigan11]

The bottom line is that we need a sound currency, no regulations, no taxes, in order to implement Free Trade.


Edit: And if other nations are on the same level playing field, free trade is definitely possible.

[Sentient Void]

Again, I don't want or advocate more government, I thought that's why were all here, to get rid of the intrusive taxation and regulation brought upon us by an outlaw government. I'm not saying to do this or that, just that we don't have free trade right now. What we have now can only be fixed by getting a sound currency, getting rid of the taxes and regulations, and working hard. That is where I'm at.

Yes, you do advocate more government. You want to institute protectionist policies to 'combat protectionism'. This is advocating more government.

Otherwise, I agree that we need far less regulation and taxation, obviously. Why can't you extend the same idea to international affairs? It takes domestic individuals to interact with foreign ones, and thus domestic individuals and their liberty, property, freedom and prosperity will be affected if you intervene in this area. For some reason, there is a logical disconnect when it comes to maximizing free trade and the fact that it is yet more regulation and taxation that you, and we all, are against.

And it will further impoverish *everyone*. This is an economic fact. History shows this to happen as well. And it's flatly *immoral* to get in between two consenting voluntary entities who want to transact with eachother.

[low preference guy]

Edit: And if other nations are on the same level playing field, free trade is definitely possible.

translation: let's never reduce trade barriers

[ClayTrainor]

And it will further impoverish *everyone*. This is an economic fact. History shows this to happen as well. And it's flatly *immoral* to get in between two consenting voluntary entities who want to transact with eachother.

+100000000000000000000000000000000

"The economic argument for free trade should be no more complex than the moral argument. Tariffs are taxes that penalize those who buy foreign goods. If taxes are low on imported goods, consumers benefit by being able to buy at the best price, thus saving money to buy additional goods and raise their standard of living. The competition stimulates domestic efforts and hopefully serves as an incentive to get onerous taxes and regulations reduced." - Ron Paul, March 2000

[Michigan11]

Yes, you do advocate more government. You want to institute protectionist policies to 'combat protectionism'. This is advocating more government.

And it will further impoverish *everyone*. This is an economic fact. History shows this to happen as well. And it's flatly *immoral* to get in between two consenting voluntary entities who want to transact with eachother.

No I am not advocating more government, I think that is what you are hoping I'd say to make your argument easier.

Do you think we are experiencing "Free Markets = Free Trade" right now?

That is the question.

[Michigan11]

translation: let's never reduce trade barriers

You are coming from the point of theory. Has China met us in the middle, or how about Mexico after our NAFTA? Did I say never reduce trade barriers?

[Michigan11]

Advocating for the principle of "free trade" is the inverse of arguing for government control in a sick way. You are expecting governments to follow the market. Instead the government affects the market.

[Anti Federalist]

And it will further impoverish *everyone*. This is an economic fact. History shows this to happen as well. And it's flatly *immoral* to get in between two consenting voluntary entities who want to transact with eachother.

How is it that the United States became an engine of industry and innovation, the likes of which the world had never seen before, under a system of tariffs and maximum freedom for domestic industry?

And I find it equally morally repugnant to "trade" with a nation that has built it's economic system on the backs of 50 million of it's own citizens that it killed and has a horrendous record of oppression and rights abuse..

If we are talking "morals" here...

[low preference guy]

And I find equally morally repugnant to "trade" with a nation that has built it's economic system on the backs of 50 million of it's own citizens that it killed and has a horrendous record of oppression and rights abuse..

then don't. what you do with your money should be up to you. although i wonder how you would trade with "a nation".

[Anti Federalist]

then don't. what you do with your money should be up to you. although i wonder how you would trade with "a nation".

It should be.

International and domestic government action have, in many cases, taken that choice away from me, however.

[ClayTrainor]

International and domestic National government action have, in many cases, taken that choice away from me, however.

Fixed. :p

[Sentient Void]

No I am not advocating more government, I think that is what you are hoping I'd say to make your argument easier.

Do you think we are experiencing "Free Markets = Free Trade" right now?

That is the question.

I acknowledge that we don't have true free markets or free trade right now. I have always acknowledged this. However, I support *maximizing* the free market, and thus maximizing free trade. The free market *is* free trade. The more free trade, and the more free market, the better. This is the same as the less government intervention, the less statism, the better.

Do you advocate responding to protectionism with protectionism (regardless of it's form) through government policy?

If yes, then you are advocating more government. It's that simple. If your answer is 'no', then congrats - you are a free trader and are simply pointing out the problems with our current system - which we all agree with. If this is the case, then you should be more forthcoming in your stance on this issue - since it's not hard to see your debating us on this issue as supporting further protectionism.

[low preference guy]

And I find it equally morally repugnant to "trade" with a nation that has built it's economic system on the backs of 50 million of it's own citizens that it killed and has a horrendous record of oppression and rights abuse..

also, those people are dead. the people who were born after them are not guilty of their deaths. so you don't want to trade with someone based on what their forefathers did. it's sad to see such unabashed collectivism at RPF.

[nobody's_hero]

Michigan is saying that we do not currently have "free trade = free markets". He is correct. The question is a matter of balance—not simply "free trade = free markets."

For example, if the tax rate were 99% but it applied to everyone equally, a free market could still exist in that system. It would exist based only on the remaining 1% of capital still left in the private sector with which to invest/spend/save, but it could still exist (IOW, although no one would be happy about the government getting 99% of their money, everyone would be in the exact same boat). However, the system we have now is neither balanced domestically or internationally. Some will pay 99%, and others will pay 83%, yet others will pay 30% and some might even pay 0.00%.

Right now, we tax the living hell out of our domestic industries, while at the same time, we can't even whisper the word 'tariff' without someone giving themselves an aneurysm over some perceived "protectionism".

[Michigan11]

I acknowledge that we don't have true free markets or free trade right now. I have always acknowledged this. However, I support *maximizing* the free market, and thus maximizing free trade. The free market *is* free trade. The more free trade, and the more free market, the better. This is the same as the less government intervention, the less statism, the better.

Do you advocate responding to protectionism with protectionism (regardless of it's form) through government policy?

If yes, then you are advocating more government. It's that simple. If your answer is 'no', then congrats - you are a free trader and are simply pointing out the problems with our current system - which we all agree with. If this is the case, then you should be more forthcoming in your stance on this issue - since it's not hard to see your debating us on this issue as supporting further protectionism.

I think we are all on the same page, just a different dimension. What I am advocating to correct the "situation" is a sound currency to start, then a dismanteling of the regulations and taxes to finish it off. Without taking these actions, we will progress along the road we are currently on..



Edit: Poster above me gets it!

[Michigan11]

The fiat currency situation and manipulation is such a factor, that I remember I'm not sure who wrote it .... "that not one in a million will understand it"... just paraphrasing here

[Anti Federalist]

Fixed. :p

Bah, state governments have been just as much as a pain in my ass when it comes to buying things like booze and tobacco.

;)

[Anti Federalist]

also, those people are dead. the people who were born after them are not guilty of their deaths. so you don't want to trade with someone based on what their forefathers did. it's sad to see such unabashed collectivism at RPF.

The regime that killed them is still in power for all intents and purposes.

Genocide will get you MFNn status and the world's mightiest industrial engine handed to you on a silver platter for pennies on the dollar.

Great idea, let's run with that...:rolleyes:

[low preference guy]

The regime that killed them is still in power for all intents and purposes.

Genocide will get you MFNn status and the world's mightiest industrial engine handed to you on a silver platter for pennies on the dollar.

Great idea, let's run with that...:rolleyes:

an individual =\= regime

[Sentient Void]

How is it that the United States became an engine of industry and innovation, the likes of which the world had never seen before, under a system of tariffs and maximum freedom for domestic industry?

Post hoc, ergo propter hoc, much? :rolleyes:

It became the economic superpower that it was due to virtually *nil* government regulation and taxation on the economy - not *due* to the protectionist policies.


It should be.

International and domestic government action have, in many cases, taken that choice away from me, however.

Great. So you ultimately advocate the same logic that because company A down the street from my house is about to be put out of business by company B at the next town over - and I really like company A's product much better myself, that I have the right to put a gun to everyone else's head that wants to buy from company B to keep company A in business, on the basis that they might 'take away my choice for company A'?

Your Orwellian logic apparently knows no bounds, AF. This is truly disappointing. You're a bigger statist then I thought, and the slippery slope of your logic is very, very dangerous, indeed.

[Sentient Void]

I think we are all on the same page, just a different dimension. What I am advocating to correct the "situation" is a sound currency to start, then a dismanteling of the regulations and taxes to finish it off. Without taking these actions, we will progress along the road we are currently on..



Edit: Poster above me gets it!

So then, I'm confused - you do *not* advocate *any* protectionist policies as a response? You purely accept the moral and economic truth that the answer to this situation is not more government, but more freedom? You do not wish to get in between me and the chinese entity I am trading with in any way, shape or form - and *simply* wish to reduce the regulation and taxation and monetary intervention by our government/the Fed as the adequate response?

[nobody's_hero]

Great. So you ultimately advocate the same logic that because company A down the street from my house is about to be put out of business by company B at the next town over - and I really like company A's product much better myself, that I have the right to put a gun to everyone else's head that wants to buy from company B to keep company A in business, on the basis that they might 'take away my choice for company A'?

Your Orwellian logic apparently knows no bounds, AF. This is truly disappointing. You're a bigger statist then I thought, and the slippery slope of your logic is very, very dangerous, indeed.

But what if the reality of the situation is that "Company B" gets unfair advantages currently?

The options are:

A) to increase "Company B's" taxes (with a tariff) to bring back things back to a balance, or

B) to say "Oh well, too bad for "Company A". No tariffs! They suck. Long live Free Trade!".

[Vessol]

Any advantages that China has are due to our own economic policies which push companies out of our market.

[Sentient Void]

But what if the reality of the situation is that "Company B" gets unfair advantages currently?

The options are:

A) to increase "Company B's" taxes (with a tariff) to bring back things back to a balance, or

B) to say "Oh well, too bad for "Company A". No tariffs! They suck. Long live Free Trade!".

Vessol's response above to this is dead-on accurate.

The true situation is that company A is being regulated and taxed out of existence in the first place - *by the very town it resides in*.

If you then, on top of that - increase or institute tariffs on Company B (which would in effect be putting a gun to consumers and the Company B's head) to 'bring things back to a balance' (lol) so that there is no 'unfair advantage' for company B over company A - *everyone in both towns, including company A's town ends up poorer*, because their cost ov living has risen at every turn - and they all have less money left over to not only buy more of Company B's products and raise their own standard of living, but also less money to buy more products from company A and *every other company* that's in the same town as company A. Even other companies in what would be Town A (where the failing company A is located) that are reliant on cheaper goods from Company B (as opposed to buying them from Company A because they are more expensive) would be greatly hurt as well, as the goods / services they sell would have to rise significantly in price. In addition, because everyone could buy less from Company B, Company B then has less money to buy other goods/services themselves from Company A and other companies in Town A.

This is the economic reality of such an idea. Consequentially, IT HURTS *EVERYONE*. Morally - it's flat out *WRONG*.

[Michigan11]

an individual =\= regime

Again which "state" would this most be successful for you as an individual?

[Anti Federalist]

Post hoc, ergo propter hoc, much? :rolleyes:

It became the economic superpower that it was due to virtually *nil* government regulation and taxation on the economy - not *due* to the protectionist policies.

But you said this:


And it will further impoverish *everyone*. This is an economic fact.

So if it became an economic powerhouse with tariffs in place, then it is not economic fact thay they impoverish everyone.

At worst, they are neutral.

Which can certainly not be said of the current tax structure.


Great. So you ultimately advocate the same logic that because company A down the street from my house is about to be put out of business by company B at the next town over - and I really like company A's product much better myself, that I have the right to put a gun to everyone else's head that wants to buy from company B to keep company A in business, on the basis that they might 'take away my choice for company A'?

Your Orwellian logic apparently knows no bounds, AF. This is truly disappointing. You're a bigger statist then I thought, and the slippery slope of your logic is very, very dangerous, indeed.

But you are, essentially, telling me to live with it.

What's worse, you're putting a foreign nation's gun to my head.

[low preference guy]

you're putting a foreign nation's gun to my head.

...and freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength

[nobody's_hero]

Any advantages that China has are due to our own economic policies which push companies out of our market.

True. But what if it's a question of imbalance?

You could either lower taxes domestically (which is not likely to happen any time soon) or increase tariffs (somewhat more likely to happen) to bring back a balance. Or you could do nothing and feel as though you're preserving something called "free trade" (which we don't have).

High taxes wouldn't affect free trade unless they were levied disproportionately (as is our current situation).

[Vessol]

How would tariffs bring a balance to anything? All it would do is increase the price of consumer goods directly because of the tariff and because the factories will relocate to other nations whose goods aren't tariffed as heavily.

[Anti Federalist]

an individual =\= regime

A business or nation has to accept the economic consequences of their actions, if this was any kind of "real world" example of free trade.

Didn't Rand Paul get in hot water for questioning the validity of the fedgov telling a business whether it could discriminate or not?

Wasn't the universal reaction among all of us, myself included that, yes, a business has that right, but we have the right to take our business away from a company that has reprehensible policies.

Now you're telling me I have no right to say a damn thing, when my own government is taking that option away from me, and in fact, I'm getting the vibe that somehow, as an individual that avoids shopping at Wal Marx and buying cheap Chinese made junk, that alone now is suspect.

[Sentient Void]

So if it became an economic powerhouse with tariffs in place, then it is not economic fact thay they impoverish everyone.

At worst, they are neutral.

Which can certainly not be said of the current tax structure.

Once again, *post hoc ergo propter hoc*. It was an economic powerhouse *in spite of* the protectionist tariffs - it would have been *even more* economically powerful and prosperous, and people here would have had an even higher standard of living, with further minimization of such tariffs/regulations.




But you are, essentially, telling me to live with it.

What's worse, you're putting a foreign nation's gun to my head.

What are you talking about? How am I putting a gun to your head by wanting to maximize your and others' voluntary choices in commercial transactions? How is you no longer being able to choose what the market has decided to eliminate, holding a gun to your head and forcing you to do something? How can you seriously believe that *forcing* individuals, down the barrel of a gun, to prop up companies that would no longer exist without such additional force is some form of 'freedom'?

Stop. JUST STOP. This Orwellian logic is utterly ridiculous.

The free market is *not force* - unless you're a marxist commie who believes property is force. *You* are the one who is advocating force. Your logical disconnect here and how you don't understand this is absolutely beyond me.

[Michigan11]

How would tariffs bring a balance to anything? All it would do is increase the price of consumer goods directly because of the tariff and because the factories will relocate to other nations whose goods aren't tariffed as heavily.

Let's say the market of demand for goods exists in a handful of countries, so one of them puts tarrifs up, if they relocate they pay more, in other words the country with the tarrifs is trying to artificially level the playing field.

To be honest the more I'm reading in this thread, the "free trade" proponents are hoping or wishing that "free trade" will bring freedom around the world. Not sure if you guys see how your argument is coming across here or not? I like a debate but if China or any country is able to manipulate their currency to gain an "artificial" compartive advantage, how are tarrifs any different?

[nobody's_hero]

If you then, on top of that - increase or institute tariffs on Company B (which would in effect be putting a gun to consumers and the Company B's head) to 'bring things back to a balance' (lol) so that there is no 'unfair advantage' for company B over company A - *everyone in both towns, including company A's town ends up poorer*, because their cost ov living has risen at every turn - and they all have less money left over to not only buy more of Company B's products and raise their own standard of living, but also less money to buy more products from company A and *every other company* that's in the same town as company A.

Do you feel that the system we have now is balanced?

Let's say that you have a dollar to run a business with.

And I have a dollar to run a business with.

We live in different but adjacent counties.

Now, I have a whole dollar and my government wants 15% of it before I even get a chance to invest it. "Grr. That makes me mad! My government sucks and all that!", I say. But I've got $0.85 to go about my business with.

Your government, on the other hand, wants 35% before you even get a chance to invest it. "Grr. That makes me mad! My government sucks and all that!", you say. But you've got $0.65 to operate your business with.

Now, right from the start, I've started producing and exporting into your county my wares. My county has a tariff on your imports but no one in your county cares because they're getting my goods on the cheap and thus, "life is good." Meanwhile, you're struggling to stay afloat and someone comes up with the idea for your county's government to institute a tariff. Knowing that you'll go out of business soon if some balance is not struck, what do you do? (Keep in mind that no one in your county gives a crap about the taxation differences because they're getting something for almost nothing.) In fact, some are even ardently opposed to establishing a tariff on my imported goods because it may threaten their high standard of living (made possible not by "free market = free trade", but by a poorly structured tax code).

[Cowlesy]

Threads like this make me wonder if the merchant class has simply become far too important in the common man's everyday life.

Progress for the sake of progress notwithstanding, I'm starting to wonder if some of the erosion of society has been caused by the morphing of the common man into the consummate consumer.

[Anti Federalist]

How would tariffs bring a balance to anything? All it would do is increase the price of consumer goods directly because of the tariff and because the factories will relocate to other nations whose goods aren't tariffed as heavily.

Huh?

Manufacturing would have an incentive to manufacture here, because they would avoid the tariff by doing so.

That's why Honda and Toyota make the two best selling cars in the country in Ohio and Kentucky and not Osaka and Tokyo.

[silverhandorder]

Tariffs and subsidies hurt economy overall. So if chine is placing tariffs and subsidizing business overall it's economy will not be able to produce as many things if they acted otherwise. This means that if we practiced fair trade and had hands off approach our consumers would take advantage of their subsidies and our companies would either find other markets or produce something Chinese can not produce since Chinese will not be able to hold this advantage across the board.

So what China is doing is that they are taxing their farmer to help a guy making cars. So what we do is we make more farmers and they make our cars. But if they do subsidies across the board they will hold no advantage to us. So then the only competition will come from tariffs. This basically does not hurt us domestically and only closes the Chinese market to us. This is of minimal concern to our well being.

[Anti Federalist]

Threads like this make me wonder if the merchant class has simply become far too important in the common man's everyday life.

Progress for the sake of progress notwithstanding, I'm starting to wonder if some of the erosion of society has been caused by the morphing of the common man into the consummate consumer.

A very valid point.

I've long made the case that "the slide" was marked by the time that, in common parlance, the "citizen" became the "consumer".

[ClayTrainor]

"Free trade with all and entangling alliances with none has always been the best policy in dealing with other countries on the world stage. This is the policy of friendship, freedom and non-interventionism and yet people wrongly attack this philosophy as isolationist. Nothing could be further from the truth. Isolationism is putting up protectionist trade barriers, starting trade wars imposing provocative sanctions and one day finding out we have no one left to buy our products." - Ron Paul

[Sentient Void]

Do you feel that the system we have now is balanced?

Let's say that you have a dollar to run a business with.

And I have a dollar to run a business with.

We live in different but adjacent counties.

Now, I have a whole dollar and my government wants 15% of it before I even get a chance to invest it. "Grr. That makes me mad! My government sucks and all that!", I say. But I've got $0.85 to go about my business with.

Your government, on the other hand, wants 35% before you even get a chance to invest it. "Grr. That makes me mad! My government sucks and all that!", you say. But you've got $0.65 to operate your business with.

Now, right from the start, I've started producing and exporting into your county my wares. My county has a tariff on your imports but no one in your county cares because their getting my goods on the cheap and thus, "life is good." Meanwhile, you're struggling to stay afloat and someone comes up with the idea for your county's government to institute a tariff. Knowing that you'll go out of business soon if some balance is not struck, what do you do? (Keep in mind that no one in your county gives a crap about the taxation differences because they're getting something for almost nothing.) In fact, some are even ardently opposed to establishing a tariff on my imported goods because it may threaten their high standard of living (made possible not by "free market = free trade", but by a poorly structured tax code).

Unbelievable. I'll repeat it again.


The true situation is that company A is being regulated and taxed out of existence in the first place - *by the very town it resides in*.

If you then, on top of that - increase or institute tariffs on Company B (which would in effect be putting a gun to consumers and the Company B's head) to 'bring things back to a balance' (lol) so that there is no 'unfair advantage' for company B over company A - *everyone in both towns, including company A's town ends up poorer*, because their cost ov living has risen at every turn - and they all have less money left over to not only buy more of Company B's products and raise their own standard of living, but also less money to buy more products from company A and *every other company* that's in the same town as company A. Even other companies in what would be Town A (where the failing company A is located) that are reliant on cheaper goods from Company B (as opposed to buying them from Company A because they are more expensive) would be greatly hurt as well, as the goods / services they sell would have to rise significantly in price. In addition, because everyone could buy less from Company B, Company B then has less money to buy other goods/services themselves from Company A and other companies in Town A.

This is the economic reality of such an idea. Consequentially, IT HURTS *EVERYONE*. Morally - it's flat out *WRONG*.

Ultimately, what you're advocating, results in *everyone* being poorer and worse off. The domestic taxes and regulations don't help, but trying to 'create balance by instituting tariffs on your competitor' will only make things worse and impoverish everyone, including yourselves, more. The only 'true balance' is to try and get the taxes and regulations on one's own town reduced or eliminated, and let your neighboring government do what they want, at their own expense.

Ultimately, it seems that you are favoring domestic businesses over overall prosperity and increased standard of living for *everyone*, including your own people. The point of maximizing the free market and free trade - is to raise the standard of living and prosperity for everyone - NOT to protect uncompetitive business at the expense of everyone through an increased cost to living and thus a lowered standard of living. Domestic businesses that can't compete must close up shop and they'll either have to start a different type of business, or get other jobs. Ultimately, as a result - people have more money to spend on other things they really want, and this creates a new demand for other businesses that can set up shop to meet those demands - often domestically.

Jesus christ, what's next? Should we protect the job of the domestic ice delivery man from the 'evil competition' of the cheap refrigerator manufacturers in China? Unbelievable.

http://cafehayek.com/2010/10/if-trade-wars-were-like-real-wars.html

If Real Wars were like Trade Wars...


In response to this report at Reuters on the looming trade war between Uncle Sam and Beijing, [HT Andy Roth] I sent in this comment (which, as of 1:03pm EDT today, has yet to appear on the Reuters’ site):

If governments fought real wars like they fight trade wars, here’s how the transcript of the communiqués between the leaders of two warring nations would read:

Leader of Absurditopia (A): I say, leader of Stupidia – we demand that you stop occupying that contested strip of land. If you refuse, we’ll have no choice but to shoot our own citizens.

Leader of Stupidia (S): You don’t scare us! That land is ours. And if you do kill some of your own people, make no mistake that we will immediately – and just as cruelly – commence to killing our own people. Courage is our national motto!

(A): Ha! You’re bluffing. But I’m not. I’ve just courageously ordered my troops to mow down in cold blood ten percent of my fellow countrymen. Take that!

(S): How dare you attack you like that! You leave us no choice but to attack us. I am ordering the Stupidian army to slaughter 15 percent of innocent Stupidians here in Stupidia. How do you like them apples?!

(A): You are cruel and inhuman to damage us by killing your people. I hereby instruct all of my fellow Absurditopians to commit suicide! Only then will you nasty Stupidians get your proper comeuppance and we Absurditopians the justice that we are due!

(S): You can’t beat us, you Absurditopian you! Listen up. I’m ordering all of my fellow citizens – Stupidians all! – to commit suicide. We’ll see who emerges victorious!
….
Then a long, long silence.

[Michigan11]

Another point to bring into this discussion is the definition of a 2nd or even a 3rd world economy. What is it and what is missing in a 3rd world economy?

Either way it's been great reading the points but gotta go, I'm running down to Mexico to find work tonight where there is a comparative advantage! Adios

[Vessol]

Huh?

Manufacturing would have an incentive to manufacture here, because they would avoid the tariff by doing so.

That's why Honda and Toyota make the two best selling cars in the country in Ohio and Kentucky and not Osaka and Tokyo.

Whose to say that they won't just relocate to Africa and build factories there and export?

America is no industry friendly. What with all our labor unions owning the government, minimum wages, and all that. You'd be forcing the price up.

And if you forced them by taxes to only do business in America, how the hell is that in any what capitalism? That's like you holding a gun to a carpenter's head and telling him that he can make all he wants, as long as it is in YOUR basement.

[nobody's_hero]

Ultimately, what you're advocating, results in *everyone* being poorer and worse off. The domestic taxes and regulations don't help, but trying to 'create balance by instituting tariffs on your competitor' will only make things worse and impoverish everyone, including yourselves, more. The only 'true balance' is to try and get the taxes and regulations on one's own town reduced or eliminated, and let your neighboring government do what they want, at their own expense.

Ultimately, it seems that you are favoring domestic businesses over overall prosperity and increased standard of living for *everyone*, including your own people. The point of maximizing the free market and free trade - is to raise the standard of living and prosperity for everyone - NOT to protect uncompetitive business at the expense of everyone through an increased cost to living and thus a lowered standard of living. Domestic businesses that can't compete [because of high taxes that foreign businesses don't have to deal with? Fixed it for you?] must close up shop and they'll either have to start a different type of business, or get other jobs. Ultimately, as a result - people have more money to spend on other things they really want, and this creates a new demand for other businesses that can set up shop to meet those demands - often domestically.


As the business owner, what do you do?

You're looking at it through the vision of the consumer: "What can I get out of it?"

I'm not "favoring" business—I just believe in equality under the law. The law currently says domestic industries must pay exhorbitant taxes while foreign industries are welcome to flood the market with their goods, free of the threat of the taxation which domestic industries have to deal with.

And who says that our businesses are "uncompetitive"? Right now the gun is pointed at Business A and we've got "free-traders" sitting here saying: "Not my problem. Deal with it. —But don't even think about pointing the gun back towards the middle."

[silverhandorder]

In matters of living standards consumer is king. Consumer can be replaced with citizen and the meaning will stay the same.

To be honest you guys are arguing for an easy way out by talking about us not being able to stop regulations. Two wrongs do not make a right and giving up is even worse.

[djdellisanti4]

Considering that the latter has a tendancy to lead to war, I vote in favor of the former.

[Sentient Void]

As the business owner, what do you do?

You go work for someone else, or start a new business that caters to new demands due to the now increased standard of living. In the end, either way - you enjoy a higher standard of living. You may need to retrain or get some new skills - but that's the market at work. Just like the ice-delivery man had to get new skills when the refrigerator was invented.


You're looking at it through the vision of the consumer: "What can I get out of it?"

No I'm looking at it all through the eyes of how everyone wants to live - How can I raise my standard of living? How can I live a better, more fulfilling life?

This is done through lowering the costs of goods and services, freeing up money that I can now use towards other goods and services that I demand.


I'm not "favoring" business—I just believe in equality under the law. The law currently says domestic industries must pay exhorbitant taxes while foreign industries are welcome to flood the market with their goods, free of the threat of the taxation which domestic industries have to deal with.

So strive for equality under the law through lowering the taxes and regulations on domestic goods and services so that they are more competitive, and everyone's standard of living rises as a result. You are instead willing to make *everyone* poorer as a means to justify the ends of 'fairness' under taxation. Way to cut off your nose to save your face.

With your same logic you're using here, because the sun is unfairly able to flood the market with it's service of infinite light at *no* cost to anyone during the day, free of the threat of taxation to which domestic industries have to deal with, that we should tax everyone significantly who uses sunlight - so we can help the domestic candlestick maker stay in business.

Can you see how ridiculous this sounds? And how it would make everyone poorer at the special interest of the candlestick maker - getting him more business at the expense of everyone else, simply because he couldn't compete due to the 'unfair situation'?

*It's the same exact thing*.


And who says that our businesses are "uncompetitive"? Right now the gun is pointed at Business A and we've got "free-traders" sitting here saying: "Not my problem. Deal with it. —But don't even think about pointing the gun back towards the middle."

Yeah? Who's holding the gun? That's right - *our own government*. Stop blaming the Chinese when it's our government's fault. If not for the Chinese, our economy would be up shits creek without a paddle, and we'd be a HELLA lot poorer and experiencing a much lower standard of living.

[Sentient Void]

Considering that the latter has a tendancy to lead to war, I vote in favor of the former.

Another great point. I'm surprised no one else brought this up. On top of the decreased standard of living for everyone in both countries participating in protectionism or retaliatory protectionism... as the great economist Frederic Bastiat once said...

"When goods don't cross borders, armies will."

[Sentient Void]

Bump for anyone who has not yet voted their position on this (sadly) ongoing debate.

Glad to see that over 70% of RPF members value sound economics, protecting voluntary exchange and action, and actually maximizing liberty.

[Pericles]

Protectionism was the favorite tool of robber barons. I don't know how anyone could pretend to be an advocate of liberty and also advocate protectionism, the ultimate form of welfare.

Thomas Jefferson Second Inaugural Address
March 4, 1805


Proceeding, fellow citizens, to that qualification which the constitution requires, before my entrance on the charge again conferred upon me, it is my duty to express the deep sense I entertain of this new proof of confidence from my fellow citizens at large, and the zeal with which it inspires me, so to conduct myself as may best satisfy their just expectations.



On taking this station on a former occasion, I declared the principles on which I believed it my duty to administer the affairs of our commonwealth. My conscience tells me that I have, on every occasion, acted up to that declaration, according to its obvious import, and to the understanding of every candid mind.

In the transaction of your foreign affairs, we have endeavored to cultivate the friendship of all nations, and especially of those with which we have the most important relations. We have done them justice on all occasions, favored where favor was lawful, and cherished mutual interests and intercourse on fair and equal terms. We are firmly convinced, and we act on that conviction, that with nations, as with individuals, our interests soundly calculated, will ever be found inseparable from our moral duties; and history bears witness to the fact, that a just nation is taken on its word, when recourse is had to armaments and wars to bridle others.



At home, fellow citizens, you best know whether we have done well or ill. The suppression of unnecessary offices, of useless establishments and expenses, enabled us to discontinue our internal taxes. These covering our land with officers, and opening our doors to their intrusions, had already begun that process of domiciliary vexation which, once entered, is scarcely to be restrained from reaching successively every article of produce and property. If among these taxes some minor ones fell which had not been inconvenient, it was because their amount would not have paid the officers who collected them, and because, if they had any merit, the state authorities might adopt them, instead of others less approved.



The remaining revenue on the consumption of foreign articles, is paid cheerfully by those who can afford to add foreign luxuries to domestic comforts, being collected on our seaboards and frontiers only, and incorporated with the transactions of our mercantile citizens, it may be the pleasure and pride of an American to ask, what farmer, what mechanic, what laborer, ever sees a tax-gatherer of the United States? These contributions enable us to support the current expenses of the government, to fulfil contracts with foreign nations, to extinguish the native right of soil within our limits, to extend those limits, and to apply such a surplus to our public debts, as places at a short day their final redemption, and that redemption once effected, the revenue thereby liberated may, by a just repartition among the states, and a corresponding amendment of the constitution, be applied, _in time of peace_, to rivers, canals, roads, arts, manufactures, education, and other great objects within each state. _In time of war_, if injustice, by ourselves or others, must sometimes produce war, increased as the same revenue will be increased by population and consumption, and aided by other resources reserved for that crisis, it may meet within the year all the expenses of the year, without encroaching on the rights of future generations, by burdening them with the debts of the past. War will then be but a suspension of useful works, and a return to a state of peace, a return to the progress of improvement.



I have said, fellow citizens, that the income reserved had enabled us to extend our limits; but that extension may possibly pay for itself before we are called on, and in the meantime, may keep down the accruing interest; in all events, it will repay the advances we have made. I know that the acquisition of Louisana has been disapproved by some, from a candid apprehension that the enlargement of our territory would endanger its union. But who can limit the extent to which the federative principle may operate effectively? The larger our association, the less will it be shaken by local passions; and in any view, is it not better that the opposite bank of the Mississippi should be settled by our own brethren and children, than by strangers of another family? With which shall we be most likely to live in harmony and friendly intercourse?

And so on

[osan]

That's it. I have now come to the absolute conclusion that the protectionistas here on this board (Jace, The Grinning Maniac, Osan, Anti Federalist, et al) - since they have no real logical, economic, nor moral leg to stand on - have ultimately resorted to Orwellian doublethink / doublespeak in order to justify their cognitive dissonance in support of protectionism.

War is peace.
Freedom is slavery.
Ignorance is strength.

And now the newest addition...

Voluntary trade (aka *free trade*) is statist.

Ridiculous.

THis is somewhat silly, I must say. It is not "protectionist" in the commonly held sense of the word to hold a trading partner responsible for the market distortions he causes. That is all of which I am in favor. What I proposed was the neutralization of another's purposefully instituted distortions of organically free and sound markets. Such neutralization protects the markets from that sucking sound.

Consider Nation A with a standard of living rated at 100 arbitrary units. Nation B is rated at 1 of those same units. Nation B will provide labor at 1/20th the rate found in nation A. So far, nothing wrong in the world. Manufacturers in Nation A flock to Nation B to take advantage of this comparative cost advantage (this assumes equal quality - a rather boldly generous assumption I might add). If the market in Nation B is free and undistorted, the labor rates will in time rise to a level somewher within spitting distance of those of Nation A, whose rates will have lowered in proportion to the decreased demand. The way things have worked in the past, the empirical observations tend to lean toward the standard of living in Nation B rising far and away faster than any possible fall in Nation A. Rising tides float all ships. Well and good.

But if Nation B forces the artificial element of slave labor arbitrage, the comparative advantage now becomes a source of severe market distortion wherein the standard of living in Nation B rises for those in privileged positions while the rest remain in a state of relative poverty. This cannot be seen as good. Far worse yet, the greater proportion of people in Nation A end up in precisely the same situation as their standard of living crashes, albeit slowly at first, to a level nearer that of Nation B than where it had once been. Ebbing tides run all ships in shallow waters aground.

The enacted policies of Nation B have served to bring harm to Nation A. It is therefore an act of national defense, of the protection of the rights of the people of Nation A that its governing officers impose protective measures in response to the imposition of such inorganic distortions by their counterparts in Nation B. All people should be free from the deleterious and dangerous economic distortions that the abandonment of free market practices brings.

What you appear to advocate is pure suicide. It is loosely but appropriately analogous to you and I agreeing to a duel with flintlock pistols, only you show up with a minigun. If I wish to have any hope of surviving, I'd better do something fast, smart, and probably drastic. The world is not quite so simple that we can just say "free markets" and walk away happy. People cheat. Nations cheat, and not always sneakily. I would call China's slave labor market a bald-faced finger in the eye of the rest of the world. They showed up with the minigun and if we stand by and let them have their way, we are all doomed.

I am in full support of free markets, contrary to your somewhat histrionic claim to the contrary. The ONLY way free markets work is when all markets are free in the basics, which means no artificial interferences that cause distortions. When those come into play, simply leaving them alone to have their way will not work out well as we can plainly see. China pumps out and endless sea of cheap, inferior quality products and Americans quietly buy them up despite growing hatred. Nations such as China need to be read the riot act. If you want to trade with us you will dispense with all interferences. If that is unacceptable to you, you will have no further access to our markets.

If you have a better solution, please do elaborate upon it for us. I am sure there will be many more than just a few here that would be very interested. I know I am.

The bottom line is that this international trade thing is not easy to manage. Where do we draw the lines? I'm not sure there are too many pat answers there. But one thing I feel is certain - dangerous interferences by government must be addressed. How to do this, I am not 100% certain. If you have ideas, let us all hear them. I'm dead serious.

[Anti Federalist]

But if Nation B forces the artificial element of slave labor arbitrage, the comparative advantage now becomes a source of severe market distortion wherein the standard of living in Nation B rises for those in privileged positions while the rest remain in a state of relative poverty. This cannot be seen as good. Far worse yet, the greater proportion of people in Nation A end up in precisely the same situation as their standard of living crashes, albeit slowly at first, to a level nearer that of Nation B than where it had once been. Ebbing tides run all ships in shallow waters aground.


The state run prison economy, exactly.

Good post!

[Sentient Void]

Glad to see that 70% of RPF members *actually support liberty*, freedom, capitalism and voluntary exchange.

Was kinda hoping it would be greater, though - TBH.

Restrictionism FTL.