Donald Trump correct on trade - free trade crowd are traitors for profit!

[johnwk]

While on GretaWire Thursday evening [11-4-10, FoxNews], Donald Trump correctly questioned Congress‘ trade policy which has been responsible for America’s manufacturing base to be slowly closed down over the past 30 years. For example, Donald asked why are we not producing toys in America and allowing toys made in China, which are poisonous, to enter our country tax free which in turn closes down our domestic toy manufactures? Of course, Donald was being polite by not following up and questioning such policy as both un-patriotic and adopted because it may personally be profitable for the personal fortunes of those who have enacted such policy.


Unlike our current Washington Establishment’s trade policy which certainly is not in America’s best interests and has allowed cheaply made inferior products ___ everything from plumbing supplies, tools and toys ___ to flood our market and put our domestic manufactures out of business which creates unemployment, our founding father’s power over trade and taxation was carefully used with America’s best interests in mind and was used by our founding fathers to encourage the development and expansion of America’s domestic manufacturers and industries.

In fact our founding fathers use of their power over trade and taxation was very much responsible for America becoming the economic marvel of the world, until our modern day Congress became infested with disloyal money hungry members who were, and are, more than willing to sell out America to foreign manufactures to personally profit in the process! When these members of Congress talk about “free trade”, they are talking about allowing foreign manufactures to freely flood our market with untaxed cheap inferior goods, while Congress then freely taxes America’s manufactures, industries and labor to fill its national treasury. That is what they mean when they talk about “free trade”.

By contrast, instead of taxing our domestic manufactures, industries and labor to fill our national treasury, our founding fathers taxed at our water’s edge and had foreigners paying for the privilege of doing business on America soil! What a novel idea … an America first policy!

Madison sums up our trade policy as follows during the creation of our Nation‘s first revenue raising Act (http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&fileName=001/llac001.db&recNum=55)


“…a national revenue must be obtained; but the system must be such a one, that, while it secures the object of revenue it shall not be oppressive to our constituents.”

The Act went on to tax specifically chosen imported articles and not one dime was raised by taxing American domestic manufacturers, the working man’s wage, or the returns on invested capital ___ all of which contributed enormously to America becoming the economic marvel of the world! It should also be noted the Act was signed by George Washington on July 4th, 1789, as if to give England a second notice of America’s independence while exercising her power to tax foreign imports in order to fill our national treasury.

In addition to imposing a specific amount of tax on specifically chosen articles imported, our founding fathers imposed an across-the-board tax on imports which was higher for imports arriving in foreign owned foreign built vessels, and discounted the tax for imports arriving in American owned American built ships:

"...a discount of ten percent on all duties imposed by this Act shall be allowed on such goods, wares, and merchandise as shall be imported in vessels built in the United States, and wholly the property of a citizen or citizens thereof." see: An Act imposing duties on Tonnage July 20, 1789 (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=001/llsl001.db&recNum=150)

This patriotic use of taxing at our water’s edge not only filled our national treasury, but gave American ship builders a hometown advantage and predictably resulted in America's ship building industry to flourish and America’s merchant marine to become the most powerful on the face of the planet. Unfortunately, last time I visited the docks in New York's Hell's Kitchen area, I was very saddened that I can no longer read the names on the docked ships as they all seem to now be foreign owned foreign built vessels...an irrefutable sign of America's decline traceable to the ravages of our international “free trade crowd” and the sellout of America’s sovereignty to the highest international bidders.

You bet Donald Trump is correct on trade policy and realizes a nation which has no manufacturing base, is a nation doomed to foreign dependency with an unemployed population dependent upon folks in government, both of which is our progress and one world leader’s dream! And with this in mind, John Boehner, our stealth RINO in Congress, who has sold his vote to China, Australia, Central America, Peru and Chile is already reaching across the isle to Obama to create more “free trade” with India, with South Korea, and Japan, which will all but finalize the closedown of America‘s manufacturing base, make America almost totally dependant upon foreign nations, and create a permanent unemployed population in America which will be very much dependent upon folks in government for their subsistence. And this character wants to be speaker of the House and lead the Republican Party?


JWK


America, we have a problem, we have been attacked from within! We are being destroyed from within by a group of DOMESTIC ENEMIES (http://cpc.grijalva.house.gov/index.cfm?ContentID=166&ParentID=0&SectionID=4&SectionTree=4&lnk=b&ItemID=164) who have managed to seize political power and whose mission is in fact to bring “change” to America ___ the dismantling of our military defensive power; the allowance of our borders to be overrun by foreign invaders, the diluting of our election process by allowing ineligible persons to vote; the destruction of our manufacturing capabilities; the strangulation of our agricultural industry and ability to produce food under the guise of environmental necessity; the destruction of our nation’s health care delivery system, the looting of both our federal treasury and a mandatory retirement pension fund; the brainwashing of our nation’s children in government operated schools; the trashing of our nation’s traditions and moral values; the creation of an iron fisted control unauthorized by our written Constitution over America’s businesses and industries; the devaluation of our nation’s currency, and, the future enslavement of our children and grand children via unbridled debt and inflation, not to mention an iron fisted government which intends to rule their very lives!

[Anti Federalist]

That ^^^

[Lord Xar]

This article is awesome, but unfortunetly will fall on deaf or no ears.....

What is the solution? Big business has bought out the politicians right? They can get cheap labour, no/low taxation for importing their products into the US etc.. So, we have a crowd that wants a better deal for america (manuf. in U.S, jobs etc..) vs. the very business that is suppose to create jobs opposing.. ie. big busniess?

Lets talk about solutions. How can this be turned around?

[sratiug]

This article is awesome, but unfortunetly will fall on deaf or no ears.....

What is the solution? Big business has bought out the politicians right? They can get cheap labour, no/low taxation for importing their products into the US etc.. So, we have a crowd that wants a better deal for america (manuf. in U.S, jobs etc..) vs. the very business that is suppose to create jobs opposing.. ie. big busniess?

Lets talk about solutions. How can this be turned around?

Pass an amendment to replace all internal federal taxes with a flat tariff over a period of 10 years or so.

[Pericles]

+ rep for the OP

[phill4paul]

When these members of Congress talk about “free trade”, they are talking about allowing foreign manufactures to freely flood our market with untaxed cheap inferior goods, while Congress then freely taxes America’s manufactures, industries and labor to fill its national treasury. That is what they mean when they talk about “free trade”.

By contrast, instead of taxing our domestic manufactures, industries and labor to fill our national treasury, our founding fathers taxed at our water’s edge and had foreigners paying for the privilege of doing business on America soil!

Succinct.

[Anti Federalist]

Pass an amendment to replace all internal federal taxes with a flat tariff over a period of 10 years or so.

That^^^

Reduce or eliminate corporate and personal income taxation and capital gains taxation and replace it with constitutional import duties.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

So you don't think these toy manufacturers are paying taxes in China? That is one of the biggest fallacies I have ever seen -- ever. The idea that foreign manufacturers aren't paying any taxes, because they do not pay American corporate taxes, etc. and therefore since they pay no tax it eliminates our manufacturing. Even if this was true, why would you not be in favor of importing goods that are able to be manufactured cheaper? Jobs are not entitlements. If you are unable to compete with other firms given they have a better commercial climate, why would you want to subsidize (Tariffs), and preclude competition? The individual is worse off in almost every way.

It seems to me also that conservatives who favor strong protectionism don't even realize the contradiction in their argumentation. For some reason they blame competition as leading to a loss of manufacturing, but not looking at commercial conditions which are the prime factor in whether or not an economy flourishes or dwindles. Even if we take the argument at face value it is equally absurd, because they argue that other entities can compete better than we can (And let me tell you, America is one of the most subsidized nations in the world by far), and therefore since these companies can compete better we should punish them, but then in the same breath believe in the exact opposite in the arbitrary boundries known as the USA. It is mind-boggling.

If we shut off the world completely had 100% tariffs, and had police presence to prevent smuggling, we would still hemorrhage our manufacturing because of the commercial policies enacted within this territory. It is completely anti-capitalist (free-market).

[furface]

Free trade? Are you joking? What we have is certainly not free trade. Domestically manufactured goods are taxed quite heavily while foreign made products are imported completely free of implicit tariffs like minimum wage, environmental regulations, threat of employee lawsuits, payroll taxes, etc.

The only explanation of why this is allowed to happen is that there is a natural competitive advantage towards small business, but not if they are forced to accept the overhead of dealing with offshore manufacturers. Also, all the regs and lawsuit threats are harsher on small business. It's a bias towards big corporations.

[Modern_Matthew]

Taxation, regulation, and labor unions are what ruined America's manufacturing base.

Free trade, which we do not have, has nothing to do with it. :rolleyes:

[libertarian4321]

For example, Donald asked why are we not producing toys in America and allowing toys made in China, which are poisonous, to enter our country tax free which in turn closes down our domestic toy manufactures? Of course, Donald was being polite by not following up and questioning such policy as both un-patriotic and adopted because it may personally be profitable for the personal fortunes of those who have enacted such policy.

[/i]

Trump is demagoguing the issue. BTW, there are plenty of toys still made in the USA. Do a Google search of "Toys made in the USA" and you'll find dozens of companies making toys here, large and small.

The reason most (but certainly not all) of the cheap plastic toys sold in the USA are made in China is that people would rather pay $5 for a plastic toy made in China than to pay $15 for the same toy made here.

That isn't about tax rates or tariffs, it's about consumers making a choice. The same choice they make when they buy a $15 shirt from China rather than a $30 shirt from the USA or a $15 pair of shoes from China rather than a $80 pair of shoes made here.

Congress isn't going to change that by tinkering with tax and tariff rates.

About the only way they can change that is to shut down overseas trade, which would not only reduce consumer choice, but likely cause a global economic meltdown.

Doesn't Trump have a failing casino to run, or a beauty pageant to lord over?

[Anti Federalist]

So you don't think these toy manufacturers are paying taxes in China?

Taxes paid in China, to the Communist Chinese government, benefit us, how?

This is a society that killed 50 million people for "the better good".

Do you honestly think "they" meaning the Chinese ruling class, give a shit whether Chinese taxes are high or not?



Even if this was true, why would you not be in favor of importing goods that are able to be manufactured cheaper? Jobs are not entitlements. If you are unable to compete with other firms given they have a better commercial climate, why would you want to subsidize (Tariffs), and preclude competition? The individual is worse off in almost every way.

No, a job is not an entitlement.

"Pursuit of happiness" is a right.

Governments are instituted among men to protect those rights.

It's hard to pursue happiness, living in a cardboard box because you can't find decent work anywhere because government has adopted a policy that is directly contrary to work, industry and jobs being created.


It seems to me also that conservatives who favor strong protectionism don't even realize the contradiction in their argumentation. For some reason they blame competition

Trying to maintain a competitive business with a prison economy is impossible.


If we shut off the world completely had 100% tariffs, and had police presence to prevent smuggling, we would still hemorrhage our manufacturing because of the commercial policies enacted within this territory. It is completely anti-capitalist (free-market).

Yes, which is why they need to change as well.

[NYgs23]

If you want to replace the current tax system with a revenue-raising tariff on the basis that it would less harmful, that's okay. But don't make the mistake of thinking that such a tariff would be positive good for the economy. Protectionism makes everyone poorer. If protectionism made people richer, embargoes and trade sanctions would be considered an act of charity. The wealthiest people on Earth would be hermits; after all, at least hermits have "jobs."

[furface]

The reason most (but certainly not all) of the cheap plastic toys sold in the USA are made in China is that people would rather pay $5 for a plastic toy made in China than to pay $15 for the same toy made here.

The question is why can't Americans produce toys for $5. The main reason I can think of is that workers in China and other places:

1) Get paid a lot less.

2) Are less likely to sue their employers.

3) Are taxed a lot less.


#2 is really interesting. When I hear Rand Paul talking about Osha and regulation, I can hear the frustration of a small business person in his voice. Employers are terrified of their employees in America, especially small businesses. They're afraid they're going to sue them. A client of mine said that he was just threatened by an employee over taking long breaks during work, saying that if she didn't get enough sunlight the company would be responsible for her asthma acting up. You could say the employer should tell her to go to hell, but believe me, employees sue for even stupider reasons.

The solution is tort reform ultimately. Maybe the Tea Parties can take this up as a cause, but I don't know. A lot of them seem like the suing type as opposed to the employer types.

Regardless, Chinese manufacturers aren't afraid of losing everything from an employee lawsuit when they open a factory.

Same thing for environmental lawsuits. There are law companies whose sole business is to go around suing manufacturers, developers, etc over environmental laws. It's one thing to say, yeah follow the rules. It's another to sick lawyers after small business.

You don't see this in other countries. Just part of the problem, but a big one.

[Anti Federalist]

If you want to replace the current tax system with a revenue-raising tariff on the basis that it would less harmful, that's okay. But don't make the mistake of thinking that such a tariff would be positive good for the economy. Protectionism makes everyone poorer. If protectionism made people richer, embargoes and trade sanctions would be considered an act of charity. The wealthiest people on Earth would be hermits; after all, at least hermits have "jobs."

If tariffs make the situation universally worse, in every case, with no exceptions, why are nations that now have a higher standard of living and higher median income that we do also nations that impose import tariffs, some pretty stiff as well as immigration control?

How are the tariffs that prompted Toyota and Honda to manufacture the two best selling cars in the US, arguably of the highest quality in the world, selling for a reasonable price, employing thousands of non union manufacturing workers at good wages, making "everybody poorer"?

Please, somebody explain to me how shutting those plants down in Kentucky and Ohio, throwing all those people out of worker and getting them new, better jobs as part time Wal Marx greeters, somehow enhances prosperity for all?

[nobody's_hero]

Silly Donald, we don't have to build ships because we can keep borrowing money from China to buy their goods and call it wealth.

[Anti Federalist]

The question is why can't Americans produce toys for $5. The main reason I can think of is that workers in China and other places:

1) Get paid a lot less.

2) Are less likely to sue their employers.

3) Are taxed a lot less.


#2 is really interesting. When I hear Rand Paul talking about Osha and regulation, I can hear the frustration of a small business person in his voice. Employers are terrified of their employees in America, especially small businesses. They're afraid they're going to sue them. A client of mine said that he was just threatened by an employee over taking long breaks during work, saying that if she didn't get enough sunlight the company would be responsible for her asthma acting up. You could say the employer should tell her to go to hell, but believe me, employees sue for even stupider reasons.

The solution is tort reform ultimately. Maybe the Tea Parties can take this up as a cause, but I don't know. A lot of them seem like the suing type as opposed to the employer types.

Regardless, Chinese manufacturers aren't afraid of losing everything from an employee lawsuit when they open a factory.

Same thing for environmental lawsuits. There are law companies whose sole business is to go around suing manufacturers, developers, etc over environmental laws. It's one thing to say, yeah follow the rules. It's another to sick lawyers after small business.

You don't see this in other countries. Just part of the problem, but a big one.

That too +1776

Somehow this all got boiled down to a "tariffs or nothing" argument.

There many things affecting the jobs environment, so called "free trade" is just one of them, tax burdens, regulatory burdens, and lack of any sort of tort sanity are part of it as well.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

That too +1776

Somehow this all got boiled down to a "tariffs or nothing" argument.

There many things affecting the jobs environment, so called "free trade" is just one of them, tax burdens, regulatory burdens, and lack of any sort of tort sanity are part of it as well.

You are acting like these manufacturing bases wouldn't go out of business if we had stiff tariffs. That simply isn't true. To state otherwise implies you don't think anything else is affecting the decline of capitalization in this country. We are getting poorer because of Government policies, not because the lack of them (The problem with our trade-policies today aren't in the rate of tariffs which I agree with, but the stipulations presented there-in in those massive regulatory bodies known as WTO, NAFTA, etc.).

[Anti Federalist]

(The problem with our trade-policies today aren't in the rate of tariffs which I agree with, but the stipulations presented there-in in those massive regulatory bodies known as WTO, NAFTA, etc.).

We're in agreement on that.

Regardless of where you are on the issue, the decision has been taken out of our hands, once having signed over the right to set trade policy that benefits us, to unelected, unrepresentative, unaccountable global governing bodies like the ones you mentioned and a myriad of others.

[AlexMerced]

So you don't think these toy manufacturers are paying taxes in China? That is one of the biggest fallacies I have ever seen -- ever. The idea that foreign manufacturers aren't paying any taxes, because they do not pay American corporate taxes, etc. and therefore since they pay no tax it eliminates our manufacturing. Even if this was true, why would you not be in favor of importing goods that are able to be manufactured cheaper? Jobs are not entitlements. If you are unable to compete with other firms given they have a better commercial climate, why would you want to subsidize (Tariffs), and preclude competition? The individual is worse off in almost every way.

It seems to me also that conservatives who favor strong protectionism don't even realize the contradiction in their argumentation. For some reason they blame competition as leading to a loss of manufacturing, but not looking at commercial conditions which are the prime factor in whether or not an economy flourishes or dwindles. Even if we take the argument at face value it is equally absurd, because they argue that other entities can compete better than we can (And let me tell you, America is one of the most subsidized nations in the world by far), and therefore since these companies can compete better we should punish them, but then in the same breath believe in the exact opposite in the arbitrary boundries known as the USA. It is mind-boggling.

If we shut off the world completely had 100% tariffs, and had police presence to prevent smuggling, we would still hemorrhage our manufacturing because of the commercial policies enacted within this territory. It is completely anti-capitalist (free-market).

^^^^^^

That

[TheBlackPeterSchiff]

Sounds like more protectionist bullshit IMO.

[NYgs23]

If tariffs make the situation universally worse, in every case, with no exceptions, why are nations that now have a higher standard of living and higher median income that we do also nations that impose import tariffs, some pretty stiff as well as immigration control?

I don't know which countries you're talking about, and I don't accept that comparisons between countries are a good way of determining anything. There are too many different factors. It's comparing apples and oranges. I do know that the US government, at all levels, is doing all kinds of things making us poorer. So it would be no shock to discover that we're poorer than some other country, despite higher tariffs in that country.


How are the tariffs that prompted Toyota and Honda to manufacture the two best selling cars in the US, arguably of the highest quality in the world, selling for a reasonable price, employing thousands of non union manufacturing workers at good wages, making "everybody poorer"?

Please, somebody explain to me how shutting those plants down in Kentucky and Ohio, throwing all those people out of worker and getting them new, better jobs as part time Wal Marx greeters, somehow enhances prosperity for all?

In a free market, you don't need to worry about unemployment. There's always scarcity, so there's always more work for people to do. The only question is who does which work most efficiently according to comparative advantage.

Say, what about Japanese workers unfairly and unjustly unemployed by Toyota "outsourcing" jobs to America due to violently imposed trade barriers. Japanese workers who now will have less money to purchase American products. Are only American workers worthy of concern?

If protectionism works, why don't we erect trade barriers between the states? Between counties? Between households? Surely it would be better for a household to stop trading with anyone else. Then they'd always have jobs...as subsistence farmers.

[Anti Federalist]

Say, what about Japanese workers unemployed by Toyota "outsourcing" jobs to America due to violently imposed trade barriers. Japanese workers who now will have less money to purchase American products. Are only American workers worthy of concern?

What American products?

No American products are allowed to be sold on the Japanese market without being subjected to high import tariffs.

Ditto, China.

Ditto, Korea.

Ditto the EU.

Ditto Australia.

Ditto New Zealand.

Ditto Switzerland.

And why is it my business or my country's business to worry about the status of Chinese or German or Japanese working people?

We should mind our own business and follow trade policy that is good for us.


If protectionism works, why don't we erect trade barriers between the states? Between counties? Between households? Surely it would be better for a household to stop trading with anyone else. Then they'd always have jobs...as subsistence farmers.

Because there is no need.

Trade between states, counties or households within the US is trade that falls under similar regulatory and tax burdens, not trade managed by unaccountable globalist trade organizations or trade with genocidal prison state economies.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

What American products?

No American products are allowed to be sold on the Japanese market without being subjected to high import tariffs.

Ditto, China.

Ditto, Korea.

Ditto the EU.

Ditto Australia.

Ditto New Zealand.

Ditto Switzerland.

And why is it my business or my country's business to worry about the status of Chinese or German or Japanese working people?

We should mind our own business and follow trade policy that is good for us.



Because there is no need.

Trade between states, counties or households within the US is trade that falls under similar regulatory and tax burdens, not trade managed by unaccountable globalist trade organizations or trade with genocidal prison state economies.

Actually that is factually wrong. Each state has vastly different regulatory burdens, tax burdens, commercial climates, scarce resources, etc. Like I have brought up before, businesses in NH are vastly more competitive than businesses located in NY. Do you honestly believe the people of NY would be better off if they shut off NH because NH was 'stealing' their manufacturing and jobs because NH can compete better than NY (and similarly vice versa -- NH shutting off NY, MD, MA, etc.)?

[NYgs23]

No American products are allowed to be sold on the Japanese market without being subjected to high import tariffs.

All the more reason to spread the blessings of free trade.


And why is it my business or my country's business to worry about the status of Chinese or German or Japanese working people?

Human solidarity and good will toward men?


We should mind our own business and follow trade policy that is good for us.

Who's "us"? People who happen to lie within some arbitrary scribbles on a map? I'm sure I have more in common with some Japanese than with some Americans


Trade between states, counties or households within the US is trade that falls under similar regulatory and tax burdens, not trade managed by unaccountable globalist trade organizations or trade with genocidal prison state economies.

Nevada doesn't have the same regulatory and tax burdens as California. Under your philosophy, California should impose tariffs on Nevada to keep jobs in California, despite California's higher regulatory and tax burdens. Even if this were true, wouldn't the pro-liberty solution be to lift those Californian burdens rather than impose barrier to try to keep people and businesses in? So wouldn't the pro-liberty solution for the US be to remove federal tax and burdens that punish business here?

[phill4paul]

All the more reason to spread the blessings of free trade.

Only works in countries with mutual agreements. Since you mentioned the Japanese I'll give ya an example.

When I served in the Navy in Yokosuka I frequented a bar where I could pay off my monthly tab for a few cases of Budweiser.
The reason why. In the '80s Bud cost 4 times higher than the nations beer. Why? Import tax.


Human solidarity and good will toward men?

For that to work there would have to be reciprocation. We are not dealing with "individuals" in other nations just as they are not dealing with "individuals" in ours.



Who's "us"? People who happen to lie within some arbitrary scribbles on a map? I'm sure I have more in common with some Japanese than with some Americans

Christ I dunno. Maybe your neighbors that just lost their house? WTF? We're not trying to save the WORLD on RPFs.


Nevada doesn't have the same regulatory and tax burdens as California. Under your philosophy, California should impose tariffs on Nevada to keep jobs in California, despite California's higher regulatory and tax burdens. Even if this were true, wouldn't the pro-liberty solution be to lift those Californian burdens rather than impose barrier to try to keep people and businesses in? So wouldn't the pro-liberty solution for the US be to remove federal tax and burdens that punish business here?

Interstate commerce is one of the FEW things afforded by the federal government.

[Pericles]

Actually everything is a flat 6.5% import tariff in Switzerland and Cadillac and Jeep are two of the top five cars sold in the country.

That being said, nowhere in the DoI or Constitution is promoting free trade listed as a duty of government - it is to provide for the common defense, domestic tranquility, and promote the general welfare, protecting individual, not corporate rights.

Otherwise, add me as a +1 for Anti-Federalist.

[nobody's_hero]

So wouldn't the pro-liberty solution for the US be to remove federal tax and burdens that punish business here?

How can we achieve your pro-liberty solution? I suggest this:

So long as relatively few have to endure the pain of market intervention, nothing will be done about it. Before you misconstrue me as a sadist after making that comment, let me entertain you with this thought:

Suppose this happens:

We institute a tariff AND our industries pay high domestic taxes. Something eventually has to give. Eventually, people will arrive at the conclusion that too much taxation across the board is draining the economy. The next step is a revolution.

But consider the current situation:

Consumers don't really care right now how much taxation is placed upon domestic industries. It's the oldest trick in the progressive playbook: Tax the wealthiest and keep the lowest income people able to buy whatever junk they want to keep them entertained and satiated. Since there are typically less wealthy people than poorer people, how many people are going to just go out of their way to support lower domestic taxes? This is why I believe AF is correct in that there is a plan to suppress domestic industry, through so-called 'free trade'. You have to keep the number of dependents (crouchers and hand-lickers) higher than the number of self-sufficient people, if you intend to stay in power by means of wealth redistribution.

Raise tariffs, let everyone (producers and consumers alike) know what taxation feels like, and the system will be reformed.

(our current government would never allow this to happen, so my suggestion is probably moot)

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Actually everything is a flat 6.5% import tariff in Switzerland and Cadillac and Jeep are two of the top five cars sold in the country.

That being said, nowhere in the DoI or Constitution is promoting free trade listed as a duty of government - it is to provide for the common defense, domestic tranquility, and promote the general welfare, protecting individual, not corporate rights.

Otherwise, add me as a +1 for Anti-Federalist.

Actually the vaunted commerce clause is the promotion of free-trade (It's sort of funny -- free trade is good for us, not for you suckers). Many of the Founders especially Jefferson who had a bust of Anne Roberte Jacques Turgot the great French liberal economist and free-trader was the head of American free-trade. You know that famous speech of his where he proclaims:


"Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations; entangling alliances with none."

"The exercise of a free trade with all parts of the world [is] possessed by [a people] as of natural right"

I thought most of us on RPF were Jeffersonian and not Hamiltonian/Lincoln (who advocated for high tariffs). Apparently, I was wrong :(

[Anti Federalist]

Actually that is factually wrong. Each state has vastly different regulatory burdens, tax burdens, commercial climates, scarce resources, etc. Like I have brought up before, businesses in NH are vastly more competitive than businesses located in NY. Do you honestly believe the people of NY would be better off if they shut off NH because NH was 'stealing' their manufacturing and jobs because NH can compete better than NY (and similarly vice versa -- NH shutting off NY, MD, MA, etc.)?

True enough, there are differences, but all the states have to abide by the same federal corporate taxation rates and regulations and labor regulations.

Now, I'm assuming that you don't see the NH advantage as an unfair market distortion do you?

(I was having that discussion with somebody a week or so ago)

[Anti Federalist]

Actually everything is a flat 6.5% import tariff in Switzerland and Cadillac and Jeep are two of the top five cars sold in the country.

That being said, nowhere in the DoI or Constitution is promoting free trade listed as a duty of government - it is to provide for the common defense, domestic tranquility, and promote the general welfare, protecting individual, not corporate rights.

Otherwise, add me as a +1 for Anti-Federalist.

Thanks, Pericles.

Listen, I know you lived there for a while, it's my recollection that foodstuffs had a pretty high import duty on them, is this correct?

I wasn't sure about cars, it would seem to make sense though, since they, as far as I know, never manufactured cars.

I know you have a better chance of seeing god than immigrating there permanently.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

True enough, there are differences, but all the states have to abide by the same federal corporate taxation rates and regulations and labor regulations.

Now, I'm assuming that you don't see the NH advantage as an unfair market distortion do you?

(I was having that discussion with somebody a week or so ago)


Now, I'm assuming that you don't see the NH advantage as an unfair market distortion do you?

Of course it is a distortion. All taxation is a distortion. Now as to unfair, no I do not. Inequal, yes. Unfair? No.

[Anti Federalist]

But consider the current situation:

Consumers don't really care right now how much taxation is placed upon domestic industries. It's the oldest trick in the progressive playbook: Tax the wealthiest and keep the lowest income people able to buy whatever junk they want to keep them entertained and satiated. Since there are typically less wealthy people than poorer people, how many people are going to just go out of their way to support lower domestic taxes? This is why I believe AF is correct in that there is a plan to suppress domestic industry, through so-called 'free trade'. You have to keep the number of dependents (crouchers and hand-lickers) higher than the number of self-sufficient people, if you intend to stay in power by means of wealth redistribution.


Exactly.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Exactly.

Utilitarianism is dangerous to liberty as evidenced...I am sorry, but the means must match the ends or else you won't ever reach your ends. You can't achieve peace through violence.

[Pericles]

Thanks, Pericles.

Listen, I know you lived there for a while, it's my recollection that foodstuffs had a pretty high import duty on them, is this correct?

I wasn't sure about cars, it would seem to make sense though, since they, as far as I know, never manufactured cars.

I know you have a better chance of seeing god than immigrating there permanently.

I have a Swiss green card, but the fight is here. But, if the planes are flying, I have an escape.

Tarriffs on food is still 6.5%, but you need an import permit - which you can't get for a business, so there is a individual limit on what subsidized by the EU edibles you can bring in to the Swiss confederation. (Unless you are not competing with a Swiss product - so Oreos, Orange juice, and such are in abundant supply)

Switzerland has no Auto industry, so all the importers play by the same rules.

I have my company based in Switzerland, as the different Kantons (states) make deals on taxes and rates. No capital gains tax BTW.

OTOH, you see practically 0 US cars in the EU - guess why and the 18% VAT is just a starter.

[Anti Federalist]

I have a Swiss green card, but the fight is here. But, if the planes are flying, I have an escape.

Tarriffs on food is still 6.5%, but you need an import permit - which you can't get for a business, so there is a individual limit on what subsidized by the EU edibles you can bring in to the Swiss confederation. (Unless you are not competing with a Swiss product - so Oreos, Orange juice, and such are in abundant supply)

Switzerland has no Auto industry, so all the importers play by the same rules.

I have my company based in Switzerland, as the different Kantons (states) make deals on taxes and rates. No capital gains tax BTW.

OTOH, you see practically 0 US cars in the EU - guess why and the 18% VAT is just a starter.

That is worth it's weight in gold.

I spent a summer there when I was young teenager.

No US cars in the EU? What a suprise...:rolleyes:

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Actually the vaunted commerce clause is the promotion of free-trade (It's sort of funny -- free trade is good for us, not for you suckers). Many of the Founders especially Jefferson who had a bust of Anne Roberte Jacques Turgot the great French liberal economist and free-trader was the head of American free-trade. You know that famous speech of his where he proclaims:


"Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations; entangling alliances with none."

"The exercise of a free trade with all parts of the world [is] possessed by [a people] as of natural right"

I thought most of us on RPF were Jeffersonian and not Hamiltonian/Lincoln (who advocated for high tariffs). Apparently, I was wrong :(

Bump :D

[Pericles]

That is worth it's weight in gold.

I spent a summer there when I was young teenager.

No US cars in the EU? What a suprise...:rolleyes:

Moving money from the US to CH has become a major PITA in the last two years, and no prizes for guessing why.

[Anti Federalist]

Utilitarianism is dangerous to liberty as evidenced...I am sorry, but the means must match the ends or else you won't ever reach your ends. You can't achieve peace through violence.

Being prepared for violence thwarts violence.

Thus the logic of concealed carry.

But the statement I was agreeing to had a great deal to do with the self sufficiency aspect of all this, as a nation.

[Anti Federalist]

Who's "us"? People who happen to lie within some arbitrary scribbles on a map? I'm sure I have more in common with some Japanese than with some Americans

There's the nub of it.

I happen to agree, which is why I think the whole thing should come apart.

There are no more shared values or shared experience or shared family or religion or anything.

Such a highly "Balkanized" and fragmented "country" cannot be held together, except by authoritarian force.

[Anti Federalist]

Reposted from another thread:



Originally Posted by ClayTrainor

“When goods do not cross borders, soldiers will.” - Bastiat

Anti Federalist's reply:

I dispute this quote, vigorously.

The history of military interventionism has almost always been to pave the way for some internationalist money making scheme.

It seems to me, and history indicates, that goods are forced across, (or resources absconded with) at the barrel of a soldier's gun, not the other way around.


I believe in adequate defense at the coastline and nothing else. If a nation comes over here to fight, then we'll fight. The trouble with America is that when the dollar only earns 6 percent over here, then it gets restless and goes overseas to get 100 percent. Then the flag follows the dollar and the soldiers follow the flag.

I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912 (where have I heard that name before?). I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.

Major General Smedley Darlington Butler - USMC Ret. 1933

[phill4paul]

Such a highly "Balkanized" and fragmented "country" cannot be held together, except by authoritarian force.

Succinct.

[Anti Federalist]

Human solidarity and good will toward men?

I'd say that ending the wars would go a much longer way towards that goal than exporting Bic Macs and porn or importing a bunch of cheap Chinese shit.

[nobody's_hero]

Utilitarianism is dangerous to liberty as evidenced...I am sorry, but the means must match the ends or else you won't ever reach your ends. You can't achieve peace through violence.

True enough, and for the most part, even our government has abided by that. Let me explain that statement, because it is relative:

Freedom's modern tyrannical foe (the government) does not just go out and execute thousands of people in the street to keep others in-line and afraid. Tyrants have tried to rule like that in the past (and some still try), and our modern-day tyrants would seek to avoid making such errors which inevitably lead to their downfall. The modern day tyrant seeks to exploit the poorest and most-numerous (I keep using the word 'poor', but understand that I consider myself rather poor and I don't mean it in a derogatory sense), by offering them something to the effect of a 'falsely compassionate gesture.' In other words, if you want someone to lick your hand, you have to feed them (how kind). You aren't going to get them to lick your hand by slapping them (though you might, or at worst, they might find somewhere else to get their food, which means they no longer have need of you—which means you no longer have power over them).

If government screws up and slaps them so hard that get up off their knees and punch the government in the balls, then I might suggest encouraging the government to do just that. We might actually get somewhere.

Also, the 'violence' we're talking about is an increase in tariffs. I'm not literally advocating any slapping (or shooting, jailing, or even stealing newspapers from your neighbor's driveway before he gets up in the morning).

Take another example, and I know this is off-topic but it is an analogy:

2008 election.

If John McCain had won, the American people would not be angered over 'big government.' They wouldn't even realize that 'big government' was happening to them. The apathetic independent American would calmly have twiddled his thumbs until the neocons' plan for slow-socialization would have been implemented some decades from now, without anyone realizing what had happened.

Thank God, Barack Obama won (I hope I didn't just say that—oh wait, I did :p). Swift socialization shocked people out of their apathy. The frog jumped out of his boiling water. Not everyone is awake now (we still have a ways to go), but there are more awake now than before, or ever would have been under McCain's gradual approach.

The moral of the story?:

'Slow and imperceptible wins the race.'.

So raise tariffs. Jump into the water. Or at least, if you don't want the personal guilt of raising tariffs, hope someone does, so we can finally get to see the fireworks start.

[silverhandorder]

LOL article is dead wrong. The traitors are those that would harm our citizens at the for the benefit of their business aka the protectionists.

[lynnf]

LOL article is dead wrong. The traitors are those that would harm our citizens at the for the benefit of their business aka the protectionists.

lol - actually you are dead wrong. would you defend your house from an intruder by shooting them dead? that's protectionism, and we should protect our jobs from marauders also. those that suggest otherwise are of the same ilk as those that say we shouldn't allow guns for home protection. in both cases it's protection and the protection is needed, and needed badly.

"free trade" is a siren song (don't know what that is? look it up). it's part of the UN Agenda 21's "social justice" mandate. Agenda 21 is a plan to institute UN control over the whole world. don't believe that? read the Agenda 21 document for yourself.

lynn

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

lol - actually you are dead wrong. would you defend your house from an intruder by shooting them dead? that's protectionism, and we should protect our jobs from marauders also. those that suggest otherwise are of the same ilk as those that say we shouldn't allow guns for home protection. in both cases it's protection and the protection is needed, and needed badly.

lynn

Someone needs a protectionist history lesson. You think Lincoln and Hamilton were 'protecting our jobs'? Don't think so. Hamilton and Lincoln were protecting business interests at the expense of everyone else. That was the whole platform of the Republican party in the 1850s and 1860s onwards. Protectionism has never been about 'protecting your job'. It has always been about protecting the interests of business elites from outside competition. Plain and simple.

Also, your analogy is horrible.

[Anti Federalist]

Someone needs a protectionist history lesson. You think Lincoln and Hamilton were 'protecting our jobs'? Don't think so. Hamilton and Lincoln were protecting business interests at the expense of everyone else. That was the whole platform of the Republican party in the 1850s and 1860s onwards. Protectionism has never been about 'protecting your job'. It has always been about protecting the interests of business elites from outside competition. Plain and simple.

Also, your analogy is horrible.

Then why are the modern day "business elites" the ones pushing "free trade"?

[silverhandorder]

Then why are the modern day "business elites" the ones pushing "free trade"?

Because that is what lets them provide cheaper products to us. They do not want to be stuck with punishing US regulations.

edit: I also understand many free trade laws in US are not free trade at all and are used to create favors from the lesser trading partners. Like only Americans companies can have advantage A, B and C.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

I support high tariff's immediately. Tax the shit out of all imports starting with oil.

Let's get familiar with top U.S. Imports and Exports and hammer out this scenario:
http://www.worldsrichestcountries.com/top_us_imports.html
http://www.worldsrichestcountries.com/top_us_exports.html

Thank goodness for U.S. aircraft. At least we can still export something.


1. Price of everything goes up since we import 2.5 trillion in goods.
2. Decrease in retail and service sectors.
3. Unemployment increases.
4. Surge of new welfare recipients.
5. Other countries respond in kind with tariffs.
6. Decrease in exports.
7. Unemployment increases.
8. Surge of new welfare recipients.
9. More companies leave the U.S. because locating in any country other than the U.S. and trading with the rest of the world is better than being located in the U.S.
10. Unemployment increases.
11. Surge of new welfare recipients.

I am liking this cycle. Many people will experience benevolent government. When do we fire up the high tariff campaign? I'm on board!

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Then why are the modern day "business elites" the ones pushing "free trade"?

Because even they realized they make more money with international-trade, than being able to solely produce in one territory. That and it is much easier to run a multi-national in todays technological era, than it was in say 1750 or 1870. Protectionism no longer serves them as the best avenue to maximize guaranteed profits (Also, WTO etc. set up favorable conditions for multi-nationals). I however, am still glad I can purchase from individuals in other countries. Wouldn't it suck if you couldn't purchase any goods from other countries without paying tribute of 100%+ to the Federal Government. Yeah, real lovely. Say goodbye to the internet-market. :mad: (You will bet your ass that international mailers will get heavily clamped down upon and customs will be massively increased -- oh yeah, it costs money to do all that)

[Pericles]

Then why are the modern day "business elites" the ones pushing "free trade"?
Sir James Goldsmith had it right - it is the ability to use the political system to lower cost of production, raise barriers to competition, keeping the price of products artificially high and cloaking it all under the propaganda of "free trade".

The only real benefit I can see id=s lower cost of computer equipment and some consumer electronics - but those have also been the most competitive in real terms.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Sir James Goldsmith had it right - it is the ability to use the political system to lower cost of production, raise barriers to competition, keeping the price of products artificially high and cloaking it all under the propaganda of "free trade".

The only real benefit I can see id=s lower cost of computer equipment and some consumer electronics - but those have also been the most competitive in real terms.

That's exactly what Protectionism does...

If you want to see how bad protectionism fails (for us common folk), look no further than the Corn League and the history surrounding it.

[nobody's_hero]

Being prepared for violence thwarts violence.

Thus the logic of concealed carry.


Wouldn't that be 'open carry'?
(unless it is illegal in your state?)

Strap that .44 magnum on your hip and see who wants to press their luck. :D

[Pericles]

That's exactly what Protectionism does...

If you want to see how bad protectionism fails (for us common folk), look no further than the Corn League and the history surrounding it.
It is protectionism, but of the corporation, not of the country. The current term is "crony capitalism". The current political system protects the corporation from competition, at the expense of the citizenry.

[nobody's_hero]

I support high tariff's immediately. Tax the shit out of all imports starting with oil.

Let's get familiar with top U.S. Imports and Exports and hammer out this scenario:
http://www.worldsrichestcountries.com/top_us_imports.html
http://www.worldsrichestcountries.com/top_us_exports.html

Thank goodness for U.S. aircraft. At least we can still export something.


1. Price of everything goes up since we import 2.5 trillion in goods.
2. Decrease in retail and service sectors.
3. Unemployment increases.
4. Surge of new welfare recipients.
5. Other countries respond in kind with tariffs.
6. Decrease in exports.
7. Unemployment increases.
8. Surge of new welfare recipients.
9. More companies leave the U.S. because locating in any country other than the U.S. and trading with the rest of the world is better than being located in the U.S.
10. Unemployment increases.
11. Surge of new welfare recipients.

I am liking this cycle. Many people will experience benevolent government. When do we fire up the high tariff campaign? I'm on board!

You forgot the last parts:
12. The system collapses more quickly because its unsustainable.
13. It has to be rebuilt on a more honest monetary system in order to avoid repeating the same failure.
14. We get an opportunity to establish a TRUE free-market and we can engage in TRUE free-trade with other nations using REAL medium of exchange.

------------------

Or we can keep pretending, as many on this board seem to pretend, that we actually have anything left even remotely resembling a 'free-trade' system, and for the love of all that is holy, "don't institute tariffs to ruin this great thing we've got going for us!!!"


It's all moot, though. The international banking cartel will never allow across-the-board tariffs. They'll never allow domestic taxes to be decreased. Their lawyers have written our 'free-trade' agreements and they've got the system set up just the way they want it, so they'll win the bets they've placed against us.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

You forgot the last parts:
12. The system collapses more quickly because its unsustainable.
13. It has to be rebuilt on a more honest monetary system in order to avoid repeating the same failure.
14. We get an opportunity to establish a TRUE free-market and we can engage in TRUE free-trade with other nations using REAL medium of exchange.

------------------

Or we can keep pretending, as many on this board seem to pretend, that we actually have anything left even remotely resembling a 'free-trade' system, and for the love of all that is holy, "don't institute tariffs to ruin this great thing we've got going for us!!!"

It's all moot, though. The international banking cartel will never allow across-the-board tariffs. They'll never allow domestic taxes to be decreased. Their lawyers have written our 'free-trade' agreements and they've got the system set up just the way they want it, so they'll win the bets they've placed against us.

That isn't our view at all. Our view is that since tariffs are ~1% or lower, that is a net positive for liberty (like if taxes were ~1% instead of 60%). Less of my property is being expropriated from me for conducting voluntary transactions with whom I wish. Similarly, we recognize that what we have now isn't great (we aren't after-all living in an An-Cap society), but that it is better than what we would have under protectionism. Stop using the Nirvana Fallacy. I am getting sick and tired of it :(

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


The Nirvana fallacy is the logical error of comparing actual things with unrealistic, idealized alternatives. It can also refer to the tendency to assume that there is a perfect solution to a particular problem.

Example: "If we go on the Highway 95 at four in the morning we will get to our destination exactly on time because there will be NO traffic whatsoever."

By creating a false dichotomy that presents one option which is obviously advantageous—while at the same time being completely implausible—a person using the nirvana fallacy can attack any opposing idea because it is imperfect. The choice is not between real world solutions and utopia; it is, rather, a choice between one realistic possibility and another which is merely better.

[Fox McCloud]

Not this complete bullcrap again. I'm getting really sick of this. More perplexing is that there are a few fairly strong friends of liberty who refuse to budge on this matter; it makes no sense--they agree free markets are good, but then dis free trade every single chance they get.

How many times do I have to explain that trade deficits don't matter and are, as a matter of fact, beneficial to the United States? http://mises.org/daily/1955

How many times do I have to explain that China's manipulation of their own currency just harms the real wages of their own workers, thus allowing us to have cheaper than regular products,which, again, is beneficial and should be enjoyed, while it lasts, as it will end. http://mises.org/daily/4256

How many times do I have to explain that complete free trade enables both nations to benefit with cheaper goods and allows specialization and division of labor to reach its maximum efficiency? How many times do I have to explain trade partners don't go to war with each other? Or that trade wars precede real wars? (http://mises.org/media/1077) How often do I have to explain that violence as an aggressive action is always wrong and should never be advocated?

How may times do I also have to explain that no true libertarian supports NAFA, CAFTA, GATT, or the WTO, as they are protectionistic policies that create trade blocks that are designed to war with other trade blocks and protect entrenched Corporations? When can I stop explaining this? When will you at least read or listen to a few of the materials, articles, and videos I've provided here, and many times in the past?

Protectionism and tariffs are nothing more than the old mercantilist and imperialist tradition of many years ago; they're designed, by nature, to protect entrenched corporations at the expense of consumers; it's a coercive and violent means that benefits a few at the expense of the many.

YouTube - The Case for Free Trade, Not Imperialism [Walter Block] (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdqa67ao_2Q)
YouTube - Free Trade [Walter Block] (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NEHuD2WHQMg)
YouTube - Free Trade | by Walter Block (Lecture 1 of 10) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-2FH4A6ShS0)

[NYgs23]

Only works in countries with mutual agreements.

If a country sets up protectionist barriers around itself, that will tend to hurt the protectionist country more than foreign countries engaged in free trade with it. If Japan, for example, sets up high tariffs, that hurts the whole economy of Japan. Japanese consumers will have to pay more; they're standard of living will go down. And Japanese have to invest their labor and resources producing goods and services they could have more cheaply and efficiently obtained through international trade. Meaning that the Japanese will hurt their own export market, since they'll have fewer resources they'll be able to invest in producing exports. Whereas a free trade country, by purchasing a large quantity of imports from overseas, frees up its own labor, resources, and capital to produce other goods and services domestically.

The only reason people fear foreign protectionism is because they think protectionism, on some level works. But it doesn't work. It damages the country that engages in it more than any other. Like I said, just imagine if a state, county, town, household, or individual decided to "protect" itself by not trading with others. Who will be hurt the most?


Maybe your neighbors that just lost their house? WTF? We're not trying to save the WORLD on RPFs.

When the US government engages in violence (and protectionism inherently involves violence) that will unjustly hurt innocent Japanese, I do feel compassion for those people, just as much as I feel compassion for innocent Americans who are unjustly hurt by state-based violence. Sorry.


Interstate commerce is one of the FEW things afforded by the federal government.

Free trade is preferable if its multilateral but it does not have to be. If China or Japan want to shoot themselves in the foot through protectionism, that's no reason for the United States to do the same.

[NYgs23]

How can we achieve your pro-liberty solution? I suggest this:

So long as relatively few have to endure the pain of market intervention, nothing will be done about it. Before you misconstrue me as a sadist after making that comment, let me entertain you with this thought:

Suppose this happens:

We institute a tariff AND our industries pay high domestic taxes. Something eventually has to give. Eventually, people will arrive at the conclusion that too much taxation across the board is draining the economy. The next step is a revolution.

But consider the current situation:

Consumers don't really care right now how much taxation is placed upon domestic industries. It's the oldest trick in the progressive playbook: Tax the wealthiest and keep the lowest income people able to buy whatever junk they want to keep them entertained and satiated. Since there are typically less wealthy people than poorer people, how many people are going to just go out of their way to support lower domestic taxes? This is why I believe AF is correct in that there is a plan to suppress domestic industry, through so-called 'free trade'. You have to keep the number of dependents (crouchers and hand-lickers) higher than the number of self-sufficient people, if you intend to stay in power by means of wealth redistribution.

Raise tariffs, let everyone (producers and consumers alike) know what taxation feels like, and the system will be reformed.

(our current government would never allow this to happen, so my suggestion is probably moot)

So your saying we should advocate more statism in the hope that people will get so fed up they'll demand freedom. Sorry, that's a no-sale from me. If anything, I think freedom tends to beget for freedom. The more freedom people have, the more they want and feel entitled to. When you're enslaved, you acquire the psyche of a slave. When you're free, you acquire the psyche of a freeman.

[NYgs23]

There's the nub of it.

I happen to agree, which is why I think the whole thing should come apart.

There are no more shared values or shared experience or shared family or religion or anything.

Such a highly "Balkanized" and fragmented "country" cannot be held together, except by authoritarian force.

Okay, so what's the point of "economic nationalism" according to such meaningless boundaries?


I'd say that ending the wars would go a much longer way towards that goal than exporting Bic Macs and porn or importing a bunch of cheap Chinese shit.

We can't do both?

[angelatc]

I'm not buying into the free trade AnCap mythology Utopian crap. Tariffs level the playing field.

Free trade might work if both partners actually engaged in it.

Never gonna happen. Not how human nature works.

[Fox McCloud]

I'm not buying into the free trade AnCap mythology Utopian crap. Tariffs level the playing field.

Free trade might work if both partners actually engaged in it.

Never gonna happen. Not how human nature works.

it's not an anarcho-capitalist utopian ideal; Hong Kong has almost nearly complete free trade and it flourishes (it also has a 92% service economy, which also disproves the notion you have to have a ton of manufacturing to do well).

[ClayTrainor]

Free Trade = Free Markets. You can't have one without the other.

If you claim to support one, and not the other, than there's a pretty good chance that you're being a giant hypocrite. ;)

And now for the ol' argument from authority.



"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

"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

"There is another way. 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 7, 1999

"Conflicting and inconsistent views on trade policy result largely from a lack of understanding of basic economic principles. Free trade is not a zero-sum game where some countries benefit and others inevitably suffer. On the contrary, true free trade by definition benefits both parties." - Ron Paul, Feb 12, 2001

[ClayTrainor]

I'm not buying into the free trade Market AnCap Conservative/Libertarian mythology Utopian crap.

Free trade markets might work if both partners actually engaged in it.

Never gonna happen. Not how human nature works.


There, with only slight modifications, you now have the common socialist argument against free markets. ;)

[NYgs23]

Hong Kong has almost nearly complete free trade and it flourishes...

So it's not North Korea flourishing with its policy of "economic nationalism"? I'm flabbergasted.

[down-under]

Free trade crowd traitors for profit? :D

Got to love it, excellent idea. Let's enact tariffs, lets make the American consumers, businesses pay more for less. Let's take away disposable income to the American consumer so he/she can spend less money on the local restaurant, retailer...that would surely prop up the economy.

Tariffs only benefit a select number of UNCOMPETITIVE businesses, they hurt US all. Protectionism only benefits special interests at the expense of the rest of the nation. Even unilateral tarif reductions have proven time and time again to be positive for the local economy. Worse yet tariff increases just create tariff wars which is what sunk the US into its long depression on 29.



Free trade is the cornerstone of free market policy.

[johnwk]

.

If we shut off the world completely had 100% tariffs, and had police presence to prevent smuggling, we would still hemorrhage our manufacturing because of the commercial policies enacted within this territory. It is completely anti-capitalist (free-market).

And, we need to address our internal anti-free market system!

But keep in mind with regard to foreign trade, there is no free market under governments which dictate what labor shall bring, such as in China. And to allow products imported into our country produced under such conditions (where working people are not free to negotiate the value of their labor) is to support a form of slavery and undermine “free trade”.

So why does the leadership of the Republican Party have a love affair with John Boehner who voted yes in 2000 to give China, an oppressive government which dictates what labor shall earn, permanent normal trade relations with the US?



JWK


Our federal government personifies a living creature, a predator: it grows, it multiplies, it protects itself, it feeds on those it can defeat, and does everything to expand and flourish, even at the expense of enslaving a nation’s entire population.

[johnwk]

Originally Posted by Austrian Econ Disciple
(The problem with our trade-policies today aren't in the rate of tariffs which I agree with, but the stipulations presented there-in in those massive regulatory bodies known as WTO, NAFTA, etc.).
We're in agreement on that.

Regardless of where you are on the issue, the decision has been taken out of our hands, once having signed over the right to set trade policy that benefits us, to unelected, unrepresentative, unaccountable global governing bodies like the ones you mentioned and a myriad of others.


Just for the record, John Boehner voted NO on withdrawing from the WTO in 2000.

Boehner is an international collectivist!


JWK



"Of all the contrivances for cheating the laboring class of mankind, none have been more effectual than that which deludes them with paper money. This is the most effectual of inventions to fertilize the rich man's field by the sweat of the poor man's brow."_____ Daniel Webster.

[johnwk]

Free trade crowd traitors for profit? :D

Got to love it, excellent idea. Let's enact tariffs, lets make the American consumers, businesses pay more for less. Let's take away disposable income to the American consumer so he/she can spend less money on the local restaurant, retailer...that would surely prop up the economy.

Tariffs only benefit a select number of UNCOMPETITIVE businesses, they hurt US all. Protectionism only benefits special interests at the expense of the rest of the nation. Even unilateral tarif reductions have proven time and time again to be positive for the local economy. Worse yet tariff increases just create tariff wars which is what sunk the US into its long depression on 29.



Free trade is the cornerstone of free market policy.

You speak with an air of authority, but historical facts seem to suggest there may be more to consider than your generalize and sweeping comments concerning taxing at our water’s edge.

The irrefutable fact is, our founding fathers trade policies, which included tariffs at our water’s edge, were designed to encourage America’s domestic manufactures and did in fact pave the way for America to becoming the economic marvel of the world.

By the year 1835 America was manufacturing everything from steam powered ships, to clothing spun and woven by powered machinery and the national debt [which included part of the revolutionary war debt] was completely extinguished and Congress enjoyed a surplus in the federal treasury from tariffs, duties, and customs. And so, by an Act of Congress in June of 1836 (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=005/llsl005.db&recNum=92) all surplus revenue in excess of $ 5,000,000 was decided to be distributed among the states, and eventually a total of $28,000,000 was distributed among the states by the rule of apportionment in the nature of interest free loans to the states to be recalled if and when Congress decided to make such a recall.

JWK

Health care by consent of the governed (Article 5) our amendment process --- tyranny by a PROGRESSIVE (http://cpc.grijalva.house.gov/index.cfm?ContentID=166&ParentID=0&SectionID=4&SectionTree=4&lnk=b&ItemID=164) majority vote in Congress!

[angelatc]

it's not an anarcho-capitalist utopian ideal; Hong Kong has almost nearly complete free trade and it flourishes (it also has a 92% service economy, which also disproves the notion you have to have a ton of manufacturing to do well).

That's great. How much of our stuff are they buying?

I'd happily trade tariffs for the income tax any day of the week.

Hong Kong has the ability to take advantage of the Chinese labor force. I suspect almost everything they "trade" is stuff made in China, and much of it in violation of copyright and patent protections.

I watched what happened when the government slapped tariffs on foreign cars. They started building them here.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

If you have to pay three-times more for goods and services, that means you will use less goods and services..THAT DOES NOT CREATE JOBS. That kills them, and makes you poorer. You do not have to have this reciprocal effect for free-trade to work..Free-trade works regardless. The problem today is not because we have 1% tariffs, but because of the Federal Government, State Governments, and local Governments all enacting horrendous anti-commercial policies.

It is idiotic to say the USSR was better off behind the Iron Curtain than it would have been from trading with everyone.

PS: Angela you should look up the Nirvana Fallacy. We aren't saying that free-trade is utopic and everything will be all roses and sunshine. What we are saying is that Free-Trade regardless of the nature of trade policy of our trading partner, is better than the alternative of trade barriers. I hate this stupid ass fallacy. It is the #1 thing that always comes up in arguments.

[awake]

Government interventionism and manipulated trade, deceivingly under the term "free trade", is definably a bad thing.

Freedom to trade; the unrestricted right to buy and sell to whom ever, where ever is the good kind.

This is a great example of the bad guys cloaking their meddling behind a friendly term - masking poison with sugar. Just another parasitic usurpation that ends up making people unknowingly cheer for the government to do something about free trade.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

And now for the ol' argument from authority.

I liked your appeal to authority. ;)

[awake]

The defining fallacy of protectionism is laid bare when the ones advocating it, freely adopt these policies on their own, for when they see the ridiculousness of it, they can't help but understand the consequences.

Stop buying China products, anyone can do this, they don't need a bureaucratic department.

Tax / tariff all products you think are not proper or unfair, purposely set aside say 30% above the price in each of these transactions, give the collected money to the government yourself.

Yell at, and threaten, everyone who does not do the same...then you will be government.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

The defining fallacy of protectionism is laid bare when the ones advocating it, freely adopt these policies on their own, for when they see the ridiculousness of it, they can't help but understand the consequences.

Stop buying China products, anyone can do this, they don't need a bureaucratic department.

Tax / tariff all products you think are not proper or unfair, purposely set aside say 30% above the price in each of these transactions, give the collected money to the government yourself.

Yell at, and threaten, everyone who does not do the same...then you will be government.

Pure win. I would speculate they don't want to do that. Instead of organizing boycotts or voluntary self assessed government donations they would prefer to advocate pointing a gun at you.

[Fox McCloud]

That's great. How much of our stuff are they buying?

Irrelevant point; a nation doesn't have to necessarily buy any of our goods and service to be considered wealthy--if a country doesn't want goods or services from a particular country, why should they buy them?

Incidentally though, they do import quite a bit from us: http://www.suite101.com/content/top-hong-kong-imports-exports-a66155


I'd happily trade tariffs for the income tax any day of the week.

And I'd happily trade a flat sales tax on all goods (regardless of origin) over an income tax or a tariff, but that doesn't really matter, since we're not talking about how to best fund government; we're talking about the merits and benefits of free trade.


Hong Kong has the ability to take advantage of the Chinese labor force. I suspect almost everything they "trade" is stuff made in China, and much of it in violation of copyright and patent protections.

roughly 48% of what they export goes to China, which is, indeed, very large, but they also export a decent amount to the US as well (12.5%). As for "violating copyrights and patents", this is rapidly changing; China is finally starting to file for and enforce patent law; eve then, let's assume they are violating patents and copyrights. So what? They're still not pointing a gun at anyone's head--if you throw your idea out into the public sphere, then its fair game for anyone to pick up and use it---ideas and other types of "intellectual property" are not real property, as they are not scarce nor divisible; I can copy your idea and I haven't taken anything from you, at all; you still have the original idea.

Furthermore, form a utilitarian perspective, copyrights and patents have been shown to decrease innovation and wealth in society, not to mention delaying it (see "Against Intellectual Monopoly")....more on intellectual property: YouTube - Intellectual Property in History | Stephan Kinsella (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D--N8FF3eVQ)


I watched what happened when the government slapped tariffs on foreign cars. They started building them here.

Again, an irrelevant and moot point that has absolutely no bearing on anything regarding this debate; the US could have an infinite tariff (embargo) on, say, sugar. More sugar will start to be farmed here in the United States, sure, I'll agree with you 100%...but that doesn't mean we're better off, in the slightest. Sugar costs would be astronomically higher than they would have been otherwise; instead of paying for your 50 cent candybar, it might be a $1.25 candybar...your food would be more expensive, meaning you wouldn't have as much money to spend elsewhere.

Sure, the government could tout "creating jobs' with said embargo, but it would be at the expense of the American consumer; jobs would be lost in the food industry and elsewhere as a result of it, and the net income of the country would fall.

That same goes for automobiles; just because a tariff causes more to be produced in the States doesn't automatically mean it's good for the economy or consumers.

[johnwk]

And I'd happily trade a flat sales tax on all goods (regardless of origin) over an income tax or a tariff, but that doesn't really matter, since we're not talking about how to best fund government; we're talking about the merits and benefits of free trade.



And I am inclined to stick with our founding father’s trade policy (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=2969235&postcount=70) which apparently worked and was in America’s best interests.

JWK

[susano]

While on GretaWire Thursday evening [11-4-10, FoxNews], Donald Trump correctly questioned Congress‘ trade policy which has been responsible for America’s manufacturing base to be slowly closed down over the past 30 years. For example, Donald asked why are we not producing toys in America and allowing toys made in China, which are poisonous, to enter our country tax free which in turn closes down our domestic toy manufactures? Of course, Donald was being polite by not following up and questioning such policy as both un-patriotic and adopted because it may personally be profitable for the personal fortunes of those who have enacted such policy.


Unlike our current Washington Establishment’s trade policy which certainly is not in America’s best interests and has allowed cheaply made inferior products ___ everything from plumbing supplies, tools and toys ___ to flood our market and put our domestic manufactures out of business which creates unemployment, our founding father’s power over trade and taxation was carefully used with America’s best interests in mind and was used by our founding fathers to encourage the development and expansion of America’s domestic manufacturers and industries.

In fact our founding fathers use of their power over trade and taxation was very much responsible for America becoming the economic marvel of the world, until our modern day Congress became infested with disloyal money hungry members who were, and are, more than willing to sell out America to foreign manufactures to personally profit in the process! When these members of Congress talk about “free trade”, they are talking about allowing foreign manufactures to freely flood our market with untaxed cheap inferior goods, while Congress then freely taxes America’s manufactures, industries and labor to fill its national treasury. That is what they mean when they talk about “free trade”.

By contrast, instead of taxing our domestic manufactures, industries and labor to fill our national treasury, our founding fathers taxed at our water’s edge and had foreigners paying for the privilege of doing business on America soil! What a novel idea … an America first policy!

Madison sums up our trade policy as follows during the creation of our Nation‘s first revenue raising Act (http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&fileName=001/llac001.db&recNum=55)


“…a national revenue must be obtained; but the system must be such a one, that, while it secures the object of revenue it shall not be oppressive to our constituents.”

The Act went on to tax specifically chosen imported articles and not one dime was raised by taxing American domestic manufacturers, the working man’s wage, or the returns on invested capital ___ all of which contributed enormously to America becoming the economic marvel of the world! It should also be noted the Act was signed by George Washington on July 4th, 1789, as if to give England a second notice of America’s independence while exercising her power to tax foreign imports in order to fill our national treasury.

In addition to imposing a specific amount of tax on specifically chosen articles imported, our founding fathers imposed an across-the-board tax on imports which was higher for imports arriving in foreign owned foreign built vessels, and discounted the tax for imports arriving in American owned American built ships:

"...a discount of ten percent on all duties imposed by this Act shall be allowed on such goods, wares, and merchandise as shall be imported in vessels built in the United States, and wholly the property of a citizen or citizens thereof." see: An Act imposing duties on Tonnage July 20, 1789 (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=001/llsl001.db&recNum=150)

This patriotic use of taxing at our water’s edge not only filled our national treasury, but gave American ship builders a hometown advantage and predictably resulted in America's ship building industry to flourish and America’s merchant marine to become the most powerful on the face of the planet. Unfortunately, last time I visited the docks in New York's Hell's Kitchen area, I was very saddened that I can no longer read the names on the docked ships as they all seem to now be foreign owned foreign built vessels...an irrefutable sign of America's decline traceable to the ravages of our international “free trade crowd” and the sellout of America’s sovereignty to the highest international bidders.

You bet Donald Trump is correct on trade policy and realizes a nation which has no manufacturing base, is a nation doomed to foreign dependency with an unemployed population dependent upon folks in government, both of which is our progress and one world leader’s dream! And with this in mind, John Boehner, our stealth RINO in Congress, who has sold his vote to China, Australia, Central America, Peru and Chile is already reaching across the isle to Obama to create more “free trade” with India, with South Korea, and Japan, which will all but finalize the closedown of America‘s manufacturing base, make America almost totally dependant upon foreign nations, and create a permanent unemployed population in America which will be very much dependent upon folks in government for their subsistence. And this character wants to be speaker of the House and lead the Republican Party?


JWK


America, we have a problem, we have been attacked from within! We are being destroyed from within by a group of DOMESTIC ENEMIES (http://cpc.grijalva.house.gov/index.cfm?ContentID=166&ParentID=0&SectionID=4&SectionTree=4&lnk=b&ItemID=164) who have managed to seize political power and whose mission is in fact to bring “change” to America ___ the dismantling of our military defensive power; the allowance of our borders to be overrun by foreign invaders, the diluting of our election process by allowing ineligible persons to vote; the destruction of our manufacturing capabilities; the strangulation of our agricultural industry and ability to produce food under the guise of environmental necessity; the destruction of our nation’s health care delivery system, the looting of both our federal treasury and a mandatory retirement pension fund; the brainwashing of our nation’s children in government operated schools; the trashing of our nation’s traditions and moral values; the creation of an iron fisted control unauthorized by our written Constitution over America’s businesses and industries; the devaluation of our nation’s currency, and, the future enslavement of our children and grand children via unbridled debt and inflation, not to mention an iron fisted government which intends to rule their very lives!

OP, what a great article. I saw the Trump interview and thought the same things. Being aware of our history and what made us the most successful nation on earth, this just only affirms the genuis of our founders who were NOT libertarians. Now I see these replies to your great piece that argue for the continued destruction of our country and it makes me sick because the authors of those replies are so all up in libertarian intellectual wanking that they forgot to learn American history and read our founders.

Donald Trump is certainly not someone opposed to doing business on an international level. He just knows what is required to also protect his home turf. Last I checked, that's a patriot. I hope he runs in 2012.

[Fox McCloud]

And I am inclined to stick with our founding father’s trade policy (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=2969235&postcount=70) which apparently worked and was in America’s best interests.

JWK

the "it's constitutional argument" is not important; slavery and aggressive war (if declared) are both constitutional, but I don't think you'll find very many people on these boards that supports either. Just because and idea is Constitutional still doesn't meant its necessarily a good idea.

also, if you examine US history, you'll find that the reason protectionism was used was for the same reason it was today; to coddle established industries to insulate them from competition--Hamilton and his ilk were huge perpetrators of this; it did not act in the "nation's" best interest (there's no such thing as a nation anyway, only individuals who have their own personal interests), it acted in the interest of a small number of businessman and industry leaders to artificially raise their profits at the expense of the American consumer in those days.

[Anti Federalist]

Not this complete bullcrap again. I'm getting really sick of this. More perplexing is that there are a few fairly strong friends of liberty who refuse to budge on this matter; it makes no sense--they agree free markets are good, but then dis free trade every single chance they get.

You are correct, I will not budge on this and I will not equivocate.

Specifically, with China, how many times do I have to say that Ricardo's law and comparative advantage does not apply when dealing with a communist prison state that built it's "comparative advantage" on the backs of 50 million dead Chinese peasants.

I'll let the facts speak for themselves:

For the first 150 years of this nation's history, tariffs funded a small, limited federal government. During that time the United States became an engine of industry and innovation, the likes of which the world had never seen before. That industry supported a middle class that also became the envy of the world, and rightly so.

For the last fifty years (roughly) all that has been turned upside down. The currency has been devalued, unpegged from any source of intrinsic value, the fedgov is broke, the American people are hanging only by accumulating a mountain of debt, that, just like government's debt, can never be repaid, industry is leaving in droves, the infrastructure of the nation is falling down around our ears and the only things the fools in government can agree to is "take on more debt" financed by China.

All of this is done under the regulatory framework of a slew of supra national, unelected, unrepresentative bureaucracies that take trade decisions out of the hands of the people and put them into the hands of global governors. I'm living this, in the line of work I am in, I have to comply with these edicts every day.

"Free trade" as it stands and is understood right now is insanity, it is, in fact economic suicide.

You may get rich by owning, but you remain free and independent by making.

Freedom > than a fat bank account stuffed with worthless FRNs.

[djdellisanti4]

Mercantilism is dead! Lets keep it that way.

Sorry, I didn't really have anything of substance to say at the moment.

[johnwk]

And I am inclined to stick with our founding father’s trade policy (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=2969235&postcount=70) which apparently worked and was in America’s best interests.

JWK


the "it's constitutional argument" is not important; slavery and aggressive war (if declared) are both constitutional, but I don't think you'll find very many people on these boards that supports either. Just because and idea is Constitutional still doesn't meant its necessarily a good idea.

also, if you examine US history, you'll find that the reason protectionism was used was for the same reason it was today; to coddle established industries to insulate them from competition--Hamilton and his ilk were huge perpetrators of this; it did not act in the "nation's" best interest (there's no such thing as a nation anyway, only individuals who have their own personal interests), it acted in the interest of a small number of businessman and industry leaders to artificially raise their profits at the expense of the American consumer in those days.

I'm sure the constitutional issue is unimportant to you. There are many people who think they would be comfortable in a lawless system. Fortunately their dream is only a dream as the reality of the dream would turn out to be a living nightmare.


Aside from that, I have studied my history very carefully with regard to our founding fathers trade policy, and it worked as I have noted and documented for you. As for your attack upon businessman I suggest you study the history of Ford and his workforce.


JWK

[johnwk]

You are correct, I will not budge on this and I will not equivocate.

Specifically, with China, how many times do I have to say that Ricardo's law and comparative advantage does not apply when dealing with a communist prison state that built it's "comparative advantage" on the backs of 50 million dead Chinese peasants.

I'll let the facts speak for themselves:

For the first 150 years of this nation's history, tariffs funded a small, limited federal government. During that time the United States became an engine of industry and innovation, the likes of which the world had never seen before. That industry supported a middle class that also became the envy of the world, and rightly so.

For the last fifty years (roughly) all that has been turned upside down. The currency has been devalued, unpegged from any source of intrinsic value, the fedgov is broke, the American people are hanging only by accumulating a mountain of debt, that, just like government's debt, can never be repaid, industry is leaving in droves, the infrastructure of the nation is falling down around our ears and the only things the fools in government can agree to is "take on more debt" financed by China.

All of this is done under the regulatory framework of a slew of supra national, unelected, unrepresentative bureaucracies that take trade decisions out of the hands of the people and put them into the hands of global governors. I'm living this, in the line of work I am in, I have to comply with these edicts every day.

"Free trade" as it stands and is understood right now is insanity, it is, in fact economic suicide.

You may get rich by owning, but you remain free and independent by making.

Freedom > than a fat bank account stuffed with worthless FRNs.

Excellent response!

Regards,

JWK


If we can make 51 percent of America’s population dependent upon a federal government check, we can then bribe them for their vote, keep ourselves in power and keep the remaining portion of America’s productive population enslaved to pay the bills ____ Our Washington Establishment’s Republican/Democrat Marxist game plan, a plan to establish a federal plantation and redistribute the bread which labor and business has earned.

[Fox McCloud]

You are correct, I will not budge on this and I will not equivocate.

If you refuse to accept the ideas of free trade, then you automatically reject the ideas of a free market, and thus the ideals of reason, peace, and libertarianism.


Specifically, with China, how many times do I have to say that Ricardo's law and comparative advantage does not apply when dealing with a communist prison state that built it's "comparative advantage" on the backs of 50 million dead Chinese peasants.

And we went through a period of slavery, as did much of the world; I don't, at all, support those events; if you're going to incite this argument, then you might as well cite the argument of the social contract; when do you stop going back further? 1 year? 50 years? 100 years? 1,000? Initial creation of the earth? There's no logical reason to stop merely at the 50 year mark in your argument; it's purely picked as an arbitrary emotional point to serve your weak construct against free trade.


I'll let the facts speak for themselves:

For the first 150 years of this nation's history, tariffs funded a small, limited federal government. During that time the United States became an engine of industry and innovation, the likes of which the world had never seen before. That industry supported a middle class that also became the envy of the world, and rightly so.

post hoc ergo propter hoc.

I ate at McDonalds the day before the earthquake, therefore, me eating at McDonalds results in there being an earthquake.

as ridiculous as the statement above is, that's exactly the type of argument you're making....I could use a more modern example:

since the inception of OSHA, workplace accidents have declined.

You're fitting the data to your argument, which is neither honest, nor accurate--yes we have protective tariffs during our nation inception, yes we protected industries by subsidizing them and coddling to their want and wishes; yes our economy grew quite rapidly.

But that doesn't mean it grew because of the tariffs and the coddling of industry, it grew in spite of it; by economic law it's impossible for a nation to be better off if it engages in protectionism over free trade; as others have repeatedly shown here and how a number of articles and videos demonstrate succinctly and easily as well. This means the nation would have become even more wealthy if we had a free trade policy from the very beginning as opposed to a protectionist one.

One needs only look at the Smoot-Hawley tariff, which transformed the Great Depression from a crisis to an absolute disaster (and which immensely hurt our exports, surprise surprise) to see the logical conclusions of protectionism.


For the last fifty years (roughly) all that has been turned upside down. The currency has been devalued, unpegged from any source of intrinsic value, the fedgov is broke, the American people are hanging only by accumulating a mountain of debt, that, just like government's debt, can never be repaid, industry is leaving in droves, the infrastructure of the nation is falling down around our ears and the only things the fools in government can agree to is "take on more debt" financed by China.

All of this is done under the regulatory framework of a slew of supra national, unelected, unrepresentative bureaucracies that take trade decisions out of the hands of the people and put them into the hands of global governors. I'm living this, in the line of work I am in, I have to comply with these edicts every day.

strawman; most of what you're describing has absolutely nothing to do with free trade--it has more to do with tax structure, regulatory environment, central banking, bailouts, overspending, and the likes--very very little to do with free trade. Will some jobs leave our shores under free trade? You bet; the jobs that can be performed better in a foreign country than Americans can, or where the resources are cheaper/more abundant (or the climate is better for a crop...unless you really do seriously believe the US should grow all of its bananas).


"Free trade" as it stands and is understood right now is insanity, it is, in fact economic suicide.

You may get rich by owning, but you remain free and independent by making.

You get rich by providing services, a product, or something that the market really wants, not merely by producing---the production vs service is a moot point: a nation can get rich having either or--the proper thing is to let the proper ration, in a country, form on its own...for some, there may be heavy "manufacturing" and for others, there may be virtually nil (like Hong Kong): http://mises.org/daily/2702

[johnwk]

One needs only look at the Smoot-Hawley tariff, which transformed the Great Depression from a crisis to an absolute disaster (and which immensely hurt our exports, surprise surprise) to see the logical conclusions of protectionism.




Well, how about posting your version of the Smoot-Hawley tariff, and then we will talk about it?


JWK

[Anti Federalist]

If you refuse to accept the ideas of free trade, then you automatically reject the ideas of a free market, and thus the ideals of reason, peace, and libertarianism.

NAFTA, CAFTA, IMO, WTO GATT is not "free trade".


And we went through a period of slavery, as did much of the world; I don't, at all, support those events; if you're going to incite this argument, then you might as well cite the argument of the social contract; when do you stop going back further? 1 year? 50 years? 100 years? 1,000? Initial creation of the earth? There's no logical reason to stop merely at the 50 year mark in your argument; it's purely picked as an arbitrary emotional point to serve your weak construct against free trade.

They are still doing it.

China is a very authoritarian state, with an atrocious record on civil liberties.


post hoc ergo propter hoc.

I ate at McDonalds the day before the earthquake, therefore, me eating at McDonalds results in there being an earthquake.

Free traders make the case that no economy can survive tariffs, that the end results is always grinding poverty of North Korea or Cuba.

I have pointed out the many examples of nations that enact tariffs and are more prosperous than we are.

If we are going to use Latin argumentative descriptions, the free traders argument when they make that case would be a reductio ad absurdum.


One needs only look at the Smoot-Hawley tariff, which transformed the Great Depression from a crisis to an absolute disaster (and which immensely hurt our exports, surprise surprise) to see the logical conclusions of protectionism.

Debunked as many times as the "WWII got us out of the Depression" myth.


The debate over free trade is riddled with myth after myth. One that keeps resurfacing, no matter how many times it is discredited, is the idea that protectionism caused the Great Depression. One occasionally even hears that this same protectionism -- specifically, the Smoot-Hawley tariff of 1930 -- was responsible in significant part for World War Two! This is nonsense dreamed up for propaganda purposes by free traders, and it can easily be debunked.

Let's start by reminding ourselves of a basic fact: The Depression's cause was monetary. The Federal Reserve had allowed the money supply to balloon excessively during the late 1920s, causing it to pile up in the stock market as a bubble. The Fed then panicked, miscalculated, and let the money supply collapse by a third by 1933, depriving the economy of the liquidity it needed to breathe. Trade had nothing to do with it.

The Smoot-Hawley tariff was simply too small a policy change to have so large an effect as triggering a depression. For a start, it applied to only about one-third of America's trade: about 1.3 percent of our GDP. One point three percent! America's average tariff on goods subject to tariff went from 44.6 to 53.2 percent -- not a very big jump at all. America's tariffs were higher in almost every year from 1821 to 1914. Our tariffs went up in 1861, 1864, 1890, and 1922 without producing global depressions, and the great recessions of 1873 and 1893 spread worldwide without needing the help of any tariff increases.

http://www.idealtaxes.com/post3105.shtml



You bet; the jobs that can be performed better in a foreign country than Americans can, or where the resources are cheaper/more abundant (or the climate is better for a crop...unless you really do seriously believe the US should grow all of its bananas).

I already stated that a product that cannot be made or grown here, then yes, by all means, trade for it.

But the way things are set up now, nothing is cheaper here.

So therefore, nothing will be made here.


there may be heavy "manufacturing" and for others, there may be virtually nil (like Hong Kong)

Glad you brought up Hong Kong, even though I've made this point before.

Hog Kong has often been held up as the free trade paradise, very little income or business restrictions, no tariffs, all wealth being created by simply buying and selling of other people's goods, since, on a small, very densely populated island, there wasn't the resources or the space to do anything else.

But, all of that depended on the good graces of the British.

And when the feckless Brits decided to leave Hong Kong and turn it back over to the Chinese, guess what?

The people of Hong Kong had no say in the matter, they couldn't change that outcome even if they wanted to or tried to.

Being sold off as so many pawns or assets or "human resources", with no chance at self determination, is not my idea of freedom.

[susano]

You are correct, I will not budge on this and I will not equivocate.

Specifically, with China, how many times do I have to say that Ricardo's law and comparative advantage does not apply when dealing with a communist prison state that built it's "comparative advantage" on the backs of 50 million dead Chinese peasants.

I'll let the facts speak for themselves:

For the first 150 years of this nation's history, tariffs funded a small, limited federal government. During that time the United States became an engine of industry and innovation, the likes of which the world had never seen before. That industry supported a middle class that also became the envy of the world, and rightly so.

For the last fifty years (roughly) all that has been turned upside down. The currency has been devalued, unpegged from any source of intrinsic value, the fedgov is broke, the American people are hanging only by accumulating a mountain of debt, that, just like government's debt, can never be repaid, industry is leaving in droves, the infrastructure of the nation is falling down around our ears and the only things the fools in government can agree to is "take on more debt" financed by China.

All of this is done under the regulatory framework of a slew of supra national, unelected, unrepresentative bureaucracies that take trade decisions out of the hands of the people and put them into the hands of global governors. I'm living this, in the line of work I am in, I have to comply with these edicts every day.

"Free trade" as it stands and is understood right now is insanity, it is, in fact economic suicide.

You may get rich by owning, but you remain free and independent by making.

Freedom > than a fat bank account stuffed with worthless FRNs.


Well said.

I can't even read many of the posts on this thread because they piss me off that much. Every time I come to this board I have to steel myself because of the anti American, anti Constitution, globalist libertarians.

Though the term "fair trade" is something that I think came from the left (environmentally sound, no slaves or sweat shops, etc), that should very much be a consideration, imo. America first, followed by only trading for what we cannot produce ourselves (trade based upon need), and ethical considerations that do not prop up brutal dictatorships and dehumanization.

Except for those who are only interested in personal profit, I cannot understand what it is that people fail to grasp about self sufficiency being a good thing. I feel they get so caught up in theory that that common sense and self interest is totally lost.

I have a friend who is a landscaper. He has a little shed filled with vintage gardening impliments, all made in the USA. Everything all STILL WORKS. Everything is top quality and well made. When you hold these items, you get a sense of what they represent - people who had local jobs that allowed one person to support a whole family, buy a house, send kids to college, pay for family vacactions, have some pride and individual responsibility, and the opportunity to move up if they chose. All of that is GONE.

A globalist has far more in common with a communist than they do with a Constitutionalist.

[ClayTrainor]

You are correct, I will not budge on this and I will not equivocate.

hmmmm... Interesting first sentence. Reason and Evidence will get me to re-think my position, every time.

[Sentient Void]

This is unbelievable. We've covered all of these arguments and refuted all of the protectionist reasons for responding to protectionism with protectionism over and over and over again. This is ridiculous that you protectionists (read: mercantilists) are *still* stuck in the quicksand of your cognitive dissonance.

I seriously give up trying to deal with you guys on this and putting in significant effort in pointing out the absurdity of your claims - though I applaud everyone else still putting in the time and effort to refute your BS, fallacious arguments based purely on knee-jerk emotional responses, hypocrasy and Orwellian doublethink as opposed to acknowledging what is just, moral, and sound economics (the free trade position).

It is quite obvious that you protectionists aren't open to reason.

Oh, and *of course* Donald Trump would support protectionism - he and his business buddies would be winning out and effectively subsidized at the expense of the american consumer. This is the same BS as to why corporations push for regulations that concentrate marketshare in themselves and push out competition at the expense of everyone.

ONCE AGAIN:

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


A PETITION From the Manufacturers of Candles, Tapers, Lanterns, sticks, Street Lamps, Snuffers, and Extinguishers, and from Producers of Tallow, Oil, Resin, Alcohol, and Generally of Everything Connected with Lighting.

To the Honourable Members of the Chamber of Deputies.

Open letter to the French Parliament, originally published in 1845 (Note of the Web Publisher)

Gentlemen:

You are on the right track. You reject abstract theories and have little regard for abundance and low prices. You concern yourselves mainly with the fate of the producer. You wish to free him from foreign competition, that is, to reserve the domestic market for domestic industry.
We come to offer you a wonderful opportunity for your — what shall we call it? Your theory? No, nothing is more deceptive than theory. Your doctrine? Your system? Your principle? But you dislike doctrines, you have a horror of systems, as for principles, you deny that there are any in political economy; therefore we shall call it your practice — your practice without theory and without principle.

We are suffering from the ruinous competition of a rival who apparently works under conditions so far superior to our own for the production of light that he is flooding the domestic market with it at an incredibly low price; for the moment he appears, our sales cease, all the consumers turn to him, and a branch of French industry whose ramifications are innumerable is all at once reduced to complete stagnation. This rival, which is none other than the sun, is waging war on us so mercilessly we suspect he is being stirred up against us by perfidious Albion (excellent diplomacy nowadays!), particularly because he has for that haughty island a respect that he does not show for us [1].

We ask you to be so good as to pass a law requiring the closing of all windows, dormers, skylights, inside and outside shutters, curtains, casements, bull's-eyes, deadlights, and blinds — in short, all openings, holes, chinks, and fissures through which the light of the sun is wont to enter houses, to the detriment of the fair industries with which, we are proud to say, we have endowed the country, a country that cannot, without betraying ingratitude, abandon us today to so unequal a combat.

Be good enough, honourable deputies, to take our request seriously, and do not reject it without at least hearing the reasons that we have to advance in its support.

First, if you shut off as much as possible all access to natural light, and thereby create a need for artificial light, what industry in France will not ultimately be encouraged?

If France consumes more tallow, there will have to be more cattle and sheep, and, consequently, we shall see an increase in cleared fields, meat, wool, leather, and especially manure, the basis of all agricultural wealth.

If France consumes more oil, we shall see an expansion in the cultivation of the poppy, the olive, and rapeseed. These rich yet soil-exhausting plants will come at just the right time to enable us to put to profitable use the increased fertility that the breeding of cattle will impart to the land.

Our moors will be covered with resinous trees. Numerous swarms of bees will gather from our mountains the perfumed treasures that today waste their fragrance, like the flowers from which they emanate. Thus, there is not one branch of agriculture that would not undergo a great expansion.

The same holds true of shipping. Thousands of vessels will engage in whaling, and in a short time we shall have a fleet capable of upholding the honour of France and of gratifying the patriotic aspirations of the undersigned petitioners, chandlers, etc.

But what shall we say of the specialities of Parisian manufacture? Henceforth you will behold gilding, bronze, and crystal in candlesticks, in lamps, in chandeliers, in candelabra sparkling in spacious emporia compared with which those of today are but stalls.

There is no needy resin-collector on the heights of his sand dunes, no poor miner in the depths of his black pit, who will not receive higher wages and enjoy increased prosperity.

It needs but a little reflection, gentlemen, to be convinced that there is perhaps not one Frenchman, from the wealthy stockholder of the Anzin Company to the humblest vendor of matches, whose condition would not be improved by the success of our petition.

We anticipate your objections, gentlemen; but there is not a single one of them that you have not picked up from the musty old books of the advocates of free trade. We defy you to utter a word against us that will not instantly rebound against yourselves and the principle behind all your policy.

Will you tell us that, though we may gain by this protection, France will not gain at all, because the consumer will bear the expense?

We have our answer ready:

You no longer have the right to invoke the interests of the consumer. You have sacrificed him whenever you have found his interests opposed to those of the producer. You have done so in order to encourage industry and to increase employment. For the same reason you ought to do so this time too.

Indeed, you yourselves have anticipated this objection. When told that the consumer has a stake in the free entry of iron, coal, sesame, wheat, and textiles, ``Yes,'' you reply, ``but the producer has a stake in their exclusion.'' Very well, surely if consumers have a stake in the admission of natural light, producers have a stake in its interdiction.

``But,'' you may still say, ``the producer and the consumer are one and the same person. If the manufacturer profits by protection, he will make the farmer prosperous. Contrariwise, if agriculture is prosperous, it will open markets for manufactured goods.'' Very well, If you grant us a monopoly over the production of lighting during the day, first of all we shall buy large amounts of tallow, charcoal, oil, resin, wax, alcohol, silver, iron, bronze, and crystal, to supply our industry; and, moreover, we and our numerous suppliers, having become rich, will consume a great deal and spread prosperity into all areas of domestic industry.

Will you say that the light of the sun is a gratuitous gift of Nature, and that to reject such gifts would be to reject wealth itself under the pretext of encouraging the means of acquiring it?

But if you take this position, you strike a mortal blow at your own policy; remember that up to now you have always excluded foreign goods because and in proportion as they approximate gratuitous gifts. You have only half as good a reason for complying with the demands of other monopolists as you have for granting our petition, which is in complete accord with your established policy; and to reject our demands precisely because they are better founded than anyone else's would be tantamount to accepting the equation: + x + = -; in other words, it would be to heap absurdity upon absurdity.

Labour and Nature collaborate in varying proportions, depending upon the country and the climate, in the production of a commodity. The part that Nature contributes is always free of charge; it is the part contributed by human labour that constitutes value and is paid for.

If an orange from Lisbon sells for half the price of an orange from Paris, it is because the natural heat of the sun, which is, of course, free of charge, does for the former what the latter owes to artificial heating, which necessarily has to be paid for in the market.

Thus, when an orange reaches us from Portugal, one can say that it is given to us half free of charge, or, in other words, at half price as compared with those from Paris.

Now, it is precisely on the basis of its being semigratuitous (pardon the word) that you maintain it should be barred. You ask: ``How can French labour withstand the competition of foreign labour when the former has to do all the work, whereas the latter has to do only half, the sun taking care of the rest?'' But if the fact that a product is half free of charge leads you to exclude it from competition, how can its being totally free of charge induce you to admit it into competition? Either you are not consistent, or you should, after excluding what is half free of charge as harmful to our domestic industry, exclude what is totally gratuitous with all the more reason and with twice the zeal.

To take another example: When a product — coal, iron, wheat, or textiles — comes to us from abroad, and when we can acquire it for less labour than if we produced it ourselves, the difference is a gratuitous gift that is conferred up on us. The size of this gift is proportionate to the extent of this difference. It is a quarter, a half, or three-quarters of the value of the product if the foreigner asks of us only three-quarters, one-half, or one-quarter as high a price. It is as complete as it can be when the donor, like the sun in providing us with light, asks nothing from us. The question, and we pose it formally, is whether what you desire for France is the benefit of consumption free of charge or the alleged advantages of onerous production. Make your choice, but be logical; for as long as you ban, as you do, foreign coal, iron, wheat, and textiles, in proportion as their price approaches zero, how inconsistent it would be to admit the light of the sun, whose price is zero all day long!

Frédéric Bastiat (1801-1850), Sophismes économiques, 1845

and...

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


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.

[ClayTrainor]

A globalist has far more in common with a communist than they do with a Constitutionalist.

and a Nationalist has more in common with a nazi, than a libertarian. See how disingenuous this form of talk is?

[ClayTrainor]

This is unbelievable. We've covered all of these arguments and refuted all of the protectionist reasons for responding to protectionism with protectionism over and over and over again.

I think this explains it...


"Conflicting and inconsistent views on trade policy result largely from a lack of understanding of basic economic principles. Free trade is not a zero-sum game where some countries benefit and others inevitably suffer. On the contrary, true free trade by definition benefits both parties." - Ron Paul, Feb 12, 2001

[awake]

Most of the destabilizing and destructive effects that people tend to describe as China's fault are a direct result of prolonged and increasing currency debasement on the domestic front. This is a deliberate government policy enacted atop of a monopoly position in currency with in it's controlled territory. All bad ideas that many people over time have warned of. But power does not listen to reason, it operates by force.

But, but, everyone is doing it you say? China does this , China does that... Never America..We don't do these evil things... look again.

The bed is made and shat in by none other than the individuals who convinced the masses to go along with these policies, and of course this includes these individuals compromising the masses. Now that we have to lay in it, its time to pass the buck.

Some people are borrowing to hold onto their standard of living, some to increase it wildly when the money is easy. The reality is that they are putting off reality ; poverty is breathing down their neck - this applies to both the individual and his collective all powerful government.

If we can't compete with slave labor then I guess we need to create more serfs. Lock up the borders and deny entry of all goods hurting America. While we are at it, prevent all companies from leaving, and any individual as well; aren't they taking themselves and their productive capacity off shore? The striking comparison can be made to the vampire economy of the National Socialists, the difference was not protectionist policies, they were much more consistent and ambitious about it.

If we can't find a quick way out of the poor state of affairs that the government has forced upon us then we need to find a willing coat hook to hang our blame - it always involves deflecting the blame away from those responsible.

In my book a 'country built on the backs of slaves' could apply to the textile industries of the Americas not long ago. Millions were enslaved millions were made, and it was abolished regardless, as it was more productive to hire non slaves.

[low preference guy]

Conflicting and inconsistent views on trade policy result largely from a lack of understanding of basic economic principles.

that and refusal to think... you give many of them arguments, and they don't even bother to respond, but just ignore you and continue spouting statist nonsense.

[Sentient Void]

I think this explains it...

That's the thing though... it seems like they *don't even care* about the economic realities of it all.

It's as if to them that the economic realities and reasons behind wanting to maximize free trade regardless of the situation, are just simply irrelevant. This is purely irrational.

Not to mention that getting in the way of free trade is simply *morally wrong*.

[silverhandorder]

No matter how you spin it comparative advantage does not change. Unless you simply do not want to trade with China.

[Anti Federalist]

Well said.

I have a friend who is a landscaper. He has a little shed filled with vintage gardening impliments, all made in the USA. Everything all STILL WORKS. Everything is top quality and well made. When you hold these items, you get a sense of what they represent - people who had local jobs that allowed one person to support a whole family, buy a house, send kids to college, pay for family vacactions, have some pride and individual responsibility, and the opportunity to move up if they chose. All of that is GONE.

Thanks.

And agreed.

In the line of wok I am in, it is required that heavy pieces of equipment be lashed down with chains and binders to prevent motion.

Company and customer policy forbids use of Chinese made chain or binders, due to the high failure rate.

Go compare a Kitchen Aid blender to a Wal Marx Chinese made knock off. I have one that I bought 25 years ago, still going strong.

You get what you pay for.

The only reason the floodgates to all this cheap crap are open in the first place, is to keep "inflation" meaning currency devaluation in check long enough to gut us.

Once the assets have been mostly offshored, the rug will pulled out from under us, the sheeple will get a blunt reminder of how worthless the currency has become and the nation will default and go bankrupt.

This is almost exactly the road the USSR followed.

We're heading over the same damn cliff.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

AF is no different than Old Ducker. Both are the quintiessential central banker in the argument. No matter the evidence, logic, reason, or anything else will never get them to take a position contrary to their personal work. No matter everything against IP Old Ducker fights tooth and nail for it because he personally benefits. The same with AF. He will fight tooth and nail for protectionist policies because he personally benefits from it. The same goes for the Central Banker. Under these circumstances you don't keep arguing with the Central Banker that Central Banking is bad, he will never acqueisce no matter the facts -- he personally benefits.

At least we know now that AF is in a position of clear bias. Everyone should take note of that.

[susano]

I would like to add that I see a disturbing trend that is going to cost conservatives dearly if gets legs: That is some people on the left are asking the same questions as Donald Trump and the OP. This really annoys the shit out of me because the whole idea (in this country) of globalization was first floated by the left with all of their "one world", "one human family" kumbaya bullshit. Ed Schultz has been pushing this very issue of returning manufacturing and self sufficiency to America. He's a big union guy so he can see how that one world model has not worked out for his commie utopian buddies. If conservatives allow the left to make this part of their platform we will be continue to be viewed as anti American, pro corporatists. Of course, that's exactly what globalist Republicans and Democrats are, but they'll successfully spin it that it's due to conservatives. This is all the more reason that Constitutionalists have to press this issue and demand that Republicans return to the policies of our founders. That a bunch of left wing communists could make this their issue would be the ultimate irony and a very bitter pill for me.

[anthonyca]

Taxes paid in China, to the Communist Chinese government, benefit us, how?

This is a society that killed 50 million people for "the better good".

Do you honestly think "they" meaning the Chinese ruling class, give a shit whether Chinese taxes are high or not?




No, a job is not an entitlement.

"Pursuit of happiness" is a right.

Governments are instituted among men to protect those rights.

It's hard to pursue happiness, living in a cardboard box because you can't find decent work anywhere because government has adopted a policy that is directly contrary to work, industry and jobs being created.



Trying to maintain a competitive business with a prison economy is impossible.



Yes, which is why they need to change as well.

Very well put.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

I would like to add that I see a disturbing trend that is going to cost conservatives dearly if gets legs: That is some people on the left are asking the same questions as Donald Trump and the OP. This really annoys the shit out of me because the whole idea (in this country) of globalization was first floated by the left with all of their "one world", "one human family" kumbaya bullshit. Ed Schultz has been pushing this very issue of returning manufacturing and self sufficiency to America. He's a big union guy so he can see how that one world model has not worked out for his commie utopian buddies. If conservatives allow the left to make this part of their platform we will be continue to be viewed as anti American, pro corporatists. Of course, that's exactly what globalist Republicans and Democrats are, but they'll successfully spin it that it's due to conservatives. This is all the more reason that Constitutionalists have to press this issue and demand that Republicans return to the policies of our founders. That a bunch of left wing communists could make this their issue would be the ultimate irony and a very bitter pill for me.

Wow, I didn't know Richard Cobden, Anne Robert Jacque Turgot, Jean-Baptiste Say, Ludwig von Mises, Murray Rothbard, Walter Block, Thomas Jefferson, Frederic Bastiat, et. al. were communists. Well, there you have it -- Classical Liberalism is Communism. ::laugh::

You protectionistisas should look into the Anti-Corn Law League for facts about the economic destruction that protectionism reeks across the land.


http://mises.org/daily/2604
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Corn_Law_League

AF is arguing for a return to Mercantilism, no less, no more.

[Anti Federalist]

hmmmm... Interesting first sentence. Reason and Evidence will get me to re-think my position, every time.

Well, before it gets personal in this thread, let me just say this:

You guys have won the field.

Clearly, globalization and globalized free trade is now the norm.

I am in a recalcitrant position because my back is against the wall.

Not that my insignificant opinions matter fuck all to the global PTB.

We'll take stock in 30 years, if any of us are even alive, and see how it all ended.

But I know how it's going to end and it ain't gonna be pretty.

[awake]

Principled Libertarians can accept net tax reductions and replacing with on net lower tariffs, but at this point tax policies are a complicated labyrinth, it is a out of control shell game. You can hardly verify a net lowering of overall taxes, which is why incrementalisim will not work.

[ClayTrainor]

Wow, I didn't know Richard Cobden, Anne Robert Jacque Turgot, Jean-Baptiste Say, Ludwig von Mises, Murray Rothbard, Walter Block, Thomas Jefferson, Frederic Bastiat, et. al. were communists. Well, there you have it -- Classical Liberalism is Communism. ::laugh::

Oh, Haven't you heard? If you support free-trade, you're clearly a communist.

That's the kind of "logic" we're dealing with here, sadly. :(

[low preference guy]

At least we know now that AF is in a position of clear bias. Everyone should take note of that.

and it requires him spectacular mental gymnastics to maintain his position. he pretends he distrusts politicians, but who will decide which industries that will be protected by the tariffs and how much exactly they would be?

fucking politicians. you can't expect much from someone like AF who trusts politicians to be fair and take care of him.

[ClayTrainor]

Well, before it gets personal in this thread, let me just say this:

You guys have won the field.

Clearly, globalization and globalized free trade is now the norm.

That's equally as silly and untrue as saying "free-markets are now the norm"

[johnwk]

Originally Posted by Fox McCloud
If you refuse to accept the ideas of free trade, then you automatically reject the ideas of a free market, and thus the ideals of reason, peace, and libertarianism.

NAFTA, CAFTA, IMO, WTO GATT is not "free trade".



It's amazing how some people see the title "free trade" as in "The North American Free Trade Agreement" (the NAFTA) and they really believe the title.

You are correct! The NAFTA is not about “free trade”, it’s about a managed trade which is managed by a group of individuals who are not elected by the American people, who have no allegiance to America or any nation, and their only guiding principle is their bottom line profits, regardless of how it affects the nations involved!


The NAFTA allows an un-elected group to manage our trade a majority of whom are foreigners, and who may make arbitrarily binding decisions concerning America’s commerce with Canada and Mexico see Establishment of Binational Panels (http://www.sice.oas.org/trade/nafta/chap-192.asp#An1901.2)

Free trade has been killed by the NAFTA!

JWK

[low preference guy]

Clearly, globalization and globalized free trade is
now the norm.

wrong. if our position won, we would have free trade, not highly regulated trade ensured by treaties like NAFTA and CAFTA.

[low preference guy]

That's equally as silly and untrue as saying "free-markets are now the norm"

dude. the soviet union failed because they had too much free trade! don't believe me? just ask AF!

[awake]

Guys , no need to go personal, healthy debate is a good thing. I think many of the disputes are arising from the difference in the political definition of the term "free trade" versus the economic liberty definition.

[susano]

and a Nationalist has more in common with a nazi, than a libertarian. See how disingenuous this form of talk is?

It is not "disengenuous". It happens to be true. Communism is internationalist/globalist. They want the same damn global plantation that multi nationals do. A few years ago, on Lou Dobbs, the reporter Christine Roman made an interesting remark in show on China and US trade: [i]"The dirty little secret is that multi national corporations love totalitarian government"[i]. That is exactly why banksters backed the Bolsheviks.


Of course, the communists always compare anyone who believes in Constitutional government and national soveriegnty to fasists. No matter that our founders were not corporatist tyrants (Mussolini) or socialist aggressors (Hitler).

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

John, no one is saying we have free-trade now. Clearly not, however, we are arguing that to raise the tariff rates (I wish them to be 0%, but 1% will do), would be worse than having them remain at 1%.

That so much is clearly an economic fact. Trade is mutually beneficial. I am also getting tired of people thinking the 'trade-deficit' is directly tied to our national debt. IT ISN'T! Not one bit. Our National Debt comes directly from law-makers in DC writing spending bills. Me buying a product in Taiwan, or China, or France, or Germany has nothing whatsoever to do with our national debt.

[ClayTrainor]

It is not "disengenuous". It happens to be true. Communism is internationalist/globalist.

And Nazism being nationalist is also true, but that doesn't mean it's lending anything of intellectual value to this discussion.


Of course, the communists always compare anyone who believes in Constitutional government and national soveriegnty to fasists. No matter that our founders were not corporatist tyrants (Mussolini) or socialist aggressors (Hitler).

I don't do that. My Nazi comment was used to demonstrate how ridiculous and absurd your "Communist" argument is, in this discussion.

[Sentient Void]

Oh, Haven't you heard? If you support free-trade, you're clearly a communist.

That's the kind of "logic" we're dealing with here, sadly. :(

Freedom is slavery
War is peace.
Ignorance is strength.

and now...

Free-markets are statist.

I don't know what it's going to take to cure these folks of their cognitive dissonance.

[susano]

Wow, I didn't know Richard Cobden, Anne Robert Jacque Turgot, Jean-Baptiste Say, Ludwig von Mises, Murray Rothbard, Walter Block, Thomas Jefferson, Frederic Bastiat, et. al. were communists. Well, there you have it -- Classical Liberalism is Communism. ::laugh::

You protectionistisas should look into the Anti-Corn Law League for facts about the economic destruction that protectionism reeks across the land.


http://mises.org/daily/2604
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Corn_Law_League

AF is arguing for a return to Mercantilism, no less, no more.

Don't put words in my mouth or twist what I've said.

You anti Constitution, anti protectionist, globalists should look into American history and get a clue about what made this country the greatest, most successful nation on earth. The OP laid it all out and NOBODY has refuted those truths.

We see the results of globalization - American racing to the bottom, a decimated middle class, a quarter of the country on food stamps. THAT is where the global plantation leads. Soon we'll be like France with the slaves fighting each other for better gruel from the massah. Exactly what the international banksters want.

[ClayTrainor]

You anti Constitution, anti protectionist, globalists should look into American history and get a clue about what made this country the greatest, most successful nation on earth.

Do you throw Ron Paul into that category?




"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

"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

"There is another way. 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 7, 1999

"Conflicting and inconsistent views on trade policy result largely from a lack of understanding of basic economic principles. Free trade is not a zero-sum game where some countries benefit and others inevitably suffer. On the contrary, true free trade by definition benefits both parties." - Ron Paul, Feb 12, 2001

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Don't put words in my mouth or twist what I've said.

You anti Constitution, anti protectionist, globalists should look into American history and get a clue about what made this country the greatest, most successful nation on earth. The OP laid it all out and NOBODY has refuted those truths.

We see the results of globalization - American racing to the bottom, a decimated middle class, a quarter of the country on food stamps. THAT is where the global plantation leads. Soon we'll be like France with the slaves fighting each other for better gruel from the massah. Exactly what the international banksters want.

Of course. Protectionism made America great -- it wasn't individual liberty, very low tax burdens, strong property rights, a miniscule regulatory environment, a Government which constituted single digit GDP, monetary environment which stemmed heavy Government intervention, etc. It was those nice tariffs which made us great. You have to be joking. I have rebutted this absurd argument.

If your argument was true, then the USSR, Cuba, North Korea, et. al. would be prosperous, but they aren't. The solution isn't as simple as you want people to believe. As I said before, if we had 100% tariffs right now we would be vastly poorer and worse off than we are now. That much is FACT.

I am still waiting for the argument from AF that North Korea is better off with their current trade policies than they would be with 0% or 50%, or 75% tariffs. Come on AF, defend it. That's your position.

[johnwk]

John, no one is saying we have free-trade now. Clearly not, however, we are arguing that to raise the tariff rates (I wish them to be 0%, but 1% will do), would be worse than having them remain at 1%.

That so much is clearly an economic fact. Trade is mutually beneficial. I am also getting tired of people thinking the 'trade-deficit' is directly tied to our national debt. IT ISN'T! Not one bit. Our National Debt comes directly from law-makers in DC writing spending bills. Me buying a product in Taiwan, or China, or France, or Germany has nothing whatsoever to do with our national debt.


I understand exactly what you guys are saying and it is tied to a personal philosophical ideology.

But, I look at our current situation with one eye on our Constitution, and the best decisions which can be made in America’s best interests. In other words, while you and others are driven by a philosophical ideology, you forget we must work within the framework of our Constitution, and make decisions which are in our country’s best interest. But let me add, I am sympathetic to your ideology, but also know it cannot be applied within the frame work of our Constitution and enforced upon other nations.

JWK

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

I understand exactly what you guys are saying and it is tied to a personal philosophical ideology.

But, I look at our current situation with one eye on our Constitution, and the best decisions which can be made in America’s best interests. In other words, while you and others are driven by a philosophical ideology, you forget we must work within the framework of our Constitution, and make decisions which are in our country’s best interest. But let me add, I am sympathetic to your ideology, but also know it cannot be applied within the frame work of our Constitution and enforced upon other nations.

JWK

So Iraq was better off with sanctions than without? Iran better off with sanctions than without? You really believe that?

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

I understand exactly what you guys are saying and it is tied to a personal philosophical ideology.

But, I look at our current situation with one eye on our Constitution, and the best decisions which can be made in America’s best interests. In other words, while you and others are driven by a philosophical ideology, you forget we must work within the framework of our Constitution, and make decisions which are in our country’s best interest. But let me add, I am sympathetic to your ideology, but also know it cannot be applied within the frame work of our Constitution and enforced upon other nations.

JWK


I understand exactly what you guys are saying and it is tied to a personal philosophical ideology.


Free-Trade is not philosophy or ideology. It is economics.

Also, who wants to force anything? That is orwellian. It isn't me who wants anyone to force anyone to do anything. I want people to be left alone to make their own decisions on what products to buy, who to trade with, etc. The protectionists are the ones trying to use force and violence. Not me.

If I want to buy a shirt from a dude in Germany I should be able to without getting taxed on top of the tax I all ready pay, nor should the guy in Germany be punished for trading with me. Absolutely insane orwellianess.

[susano]

NAFTA: Ross Perot and Al Gore Debate 1993

YouTube - NAFTA: Ross Perot and Al Gore Debate 1993 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GhwhMXOxHTg)

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

According to the protectionists we should be cheering when a country sanctions us :p We would be wealthier for it, just like Iraq (were) and Iran are, for the sanctions against them. ::lol::

I mean those 500,000 kids killed because the US Government forcefully stopped any resident of the US from trading with Iraq was awesome for Iraq. /sarc

[Anti Federalist]

Oh, Haven't you heard? If you support free-trade, you're clearly a communist.

That's the kind of "logic" we're dealing with here, sadly. :(

Well, Marx did support free trade.

That's not in question.

[ClayTrainor]

Well, Marx did support free trade.

That's not in question.

And Nazi's supported Nationalism and protectionism, do you have a point?

[low preference guy]

And Nazi's supported Nationalism and protectionism, do you have a point?

Did you know that Hitler ate vegetables?

[Anti Federalist]

And Nazi's supported Nationalism and protectionism, do you have a point?

No point greater other than Marx was in favor of free trade.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

No point greater other than Marx was in favor of free trade.

So Iraq was better when they were sanctioned?

[ClayTrainor]

No point greater other than Marx was in favor of free trade.

Okay and hitler was in favor of protectionism, and nationalism. I fail to see how either of us are lending anything of intellectual value to this discussion with such points.

[susano]

Of course. Protectionism made America great -- it wasn't individual liberty, very low tax burdens, strong property rights, a miniscule regulatory environment, a Government which constituted single digit GDP, monetary environment which stemmed heavy Government intervention, etc. It was those nice tariffs which made us great. You have to be joking. I have rebutted this absurd argument.

If your argument was true, then the USSR, Cuba, North Korea, et. al. would be prosperous, but they aren't. The solution isn't as simple as you want people to believe. As I said before, if we had 100% tariffs right now we would be vastly poorer and worse off than we are now. That much is FACT.

I am still waiting for the argument from AF that North Korea is better off with their current trade policies than they would be with 0% or 50%, or 75% tariffs. Come on AF, defend it. That's your position.

Nobody here is asserting that liberty and property rights didn't make a America great. The argument is about securing ones best interests to keep the country self sufficient and economically strong. You are advocating global interdependence which not only results in a destoyed American economy, higher taxes for Americans, removes local control, but makes the entire nation vulnerable to foreign governments and multi nationals.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Nobody here is asserting that liberty and property rights didn't make a America great. The argument is about securing ones best interests to keep the country self sufficient and economically strong. You are advocating global interdependence which not only results in a destoyed American economy, higher taxes for Americans, removes local control, but makes the entire nation vulnerable to foreign governments and multi nationals.

Free-Markets are 'inter-dependence!'. Only primitivists promote no-trade. We would all be back to subsistence living without trade. I hope people realize the economic environment you are proposing.

I don't want to be a farmer. I don't want to be a carpenter. I don't want to be an electrician. I don't want to be an engineer. Most people don't. We are all dependent on each other -- it's the whole point to civilization and free-markets/capitalism.

[susano]

According to the protectionists we should be cheering when a country sanctions us :p We would be wealthier for it, just like Iraq (were) and Iran are, for the sanctions against them. ::lol::

I mean those 500,000 kids killed because the US Government forcefully stopped any resident of the US from trading with Iraq was awesome for Iraq. /sarc

A non aggressive, self sufficiant nation is far less vulnerable to something like sanctions. We have the ability to provide for ourselves.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

A non aggressive, self sufficiant nation is far less vulnerable to something like sanctions. We have the ability to provide for ourselves.

That has nothing whatsoever to do with the question. Do you think Iraq was better off with sanctions? Do you think America would be wealthier if the world refused to trade with us? The protectionist must answer yes, but we all know that we wouldn't be wealthier if we traded with no-one, or if we made it harder or more punitive to trade with others. I get it, you want us all to be farmers, and live in an agrarian subsistence society. Luckily most here don't, and most realize that your economic plan would kill millions of people.

[Anti Federalist]

I don't want to be a farmer. I don't want to be a carpenter. I don't want to be an electrician. I don't want to be an engineer. Most people don't. We are all dependent on each other -- it's the whole point to civilization and free-markets/capitalism.

Count on it.

You won't be any of those things in the coming new world economy.

In the failed state of the USSA you will have two job choices, convict or guard.

Trouble is, your ideal takes away the choice for those of us who do want to be a framer an engineer a carpenter or an electrician rather than a cube dweller or a TSA goon.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Count on it.

You won't be any of those things in the coming new world economy.

In the failed state of the USSA you will have two job choices, convict or guard.

Trouble is, your ideal takes away the choice for those of us who do want to be a framer an engineer a carpenter or an electrician rather than a cube dweller or a TSA goon.

You refuse to acknowledge any economic law, or fact, and throw out conjectural non-sequitours left and right. I think I will take my absence from this thread. It is as useless as arguing the merits or demerits of IP with Old Ducker, or the demerits of Central Banking with Goldman Sachs.

[Anti Federalist]

So Iraq was better when they were sanctioned?

I'd make a guess that you were not alive when the Arab Oil Embargo happened?

That's the point, a free and self sufficient Iraq would not have been as vulnerable to sanctions as a dependent non self sufficient Iraq was.

Oil is not manufactured goods.

What do you suppose will happen when China embargoes us, for default on debt perhaps.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

I'd make a guess that you were not alive when the Arab Oil Embargo happened?

That's the point, a free and self sufficient Iraq would not have been as vulnerable to sanction as a dependent no self sufficient Iraq was.

Oil is not manufactured goods.

What do you suppose will happen when China embargoes us, for default on debt perhaps.

You seem to think that scarce resources are equally distributed throughout the Earth. I need not have to show how factually incorrect that is.

Ok, now I take my leave.

[johnwk]

Originally Posted by johnwk
I understand exactly what you guys are saying and it is tied to a personal philosophical ideology.

But, I look at our current situation with one eye on our Constitution, and the best decisions which can be made in America’s best interests. In other words, while you and others are driven by a philosophical ideology, you forget we must work within the framework of our Constitution, and make decisions which are in our country’s best interest. But let me add, I am sympathetic to your ideology, but also know it cannot be applied within the frame work of our Constitution and enforced upon other nations.

JWK

So Iraq was better off with sanctions than without? Iran better off with sanctions than without? You really believe that?


Amazing. When all else fails, resort to stupid debating tricks. In this case, simply switch the subject, make an exaggerated claim, and then pretend the one you are talking to supports such nonsense. Have a nice evening dude.


JWK

As nightfall does not come at once, neither does oppression. In both instances there is a twilight where everything remains seemingly unchanged. And it is in such twilight that we all must be aware of change in the air - however slight - lest we become unwitting victims of darkness.___Supreme Court Justice William Douglas

[Anti Federalist]

You refuse to acknowledge any economic law, or fact, and throw out conjectural non-sequitours left and right. I think I will take my absence from this thread. It is as useless as arguing the merits or demerits of IP with Old Ducker, or the demerits of Central Banking with Goldman Sachs.

Such is your right to take your leave.

I refuse to acknowledge economic law because, in this case, the law is an ass.

I know what I've seen over a course of 30 years of working for a living.

Has it ever occurred to you that the "law", or at least the way you see the law, may be wrong.

[susano]

Free-Markets are 'inter-dependence!'. Only primitivists promote no-trade. We would all be back to subsistence living without trade. I hope people realize the economic environment you are proposing.

I don't want to be a farmer. I don't want to be a carpenter. I don't want to be an electrician. I don't want to be an engineer. Most people don't. We are all dependent on each other -- it's the whole point to civilization and free-markets/capitalism.

Nobody here has suggested no trade. Once again, you paint in extremes to bolster your argument for globalization.

The Chinese manufacture all kinds of items that the US military uses - from computer chips to helmets. How in the hell is outsourcing the needs for our national defense a good idea? Oh, that's right, the US needs China to buy debt so we traded our own security and manufacturing base. Another score for the banksters and interdependence.

[ClayTrainor]

"Those not completely convinced of the benefits of free trade acknowledge a “cost” of lower tariffs for which they demand compensation and fair management. Thus, we have the creation of the WTO. By endorsing the concept of managed world trade through the World Trade Organization, proponents acknowledge that they actually believe in order for free trade to be an economic positive, it requires compensation or a “deal.” " - Ron Paul

[Anti Federalist]

Nobody here has suggested no trade. Once again, you paint in extremes to bolster your argument for globalization.

The Chinese manufacture all kinds of items that the US military uses - from computer chips to helmets. How in the hell is outsourcing the needs for our national defense a good idea? Oh, that's right, the US needs China to buy debt so we traded our own security and manufacturing base. Another score for the banksters and interdependence.

Agreed.

[ClayTrainor]

"Free trade is the process of free people engaging in market activity without government interference such as tariffs or managed-trade agreements. In a true free market, individuals and companies do business voluntarily, which means they believe they will be better off as a result of a transaction. Tariffs, taxes, and duties upset the balance, because governments add costs to the calculation which make doing business less attractive. Similarly, so-called managed trade agreements like WTO favor certain business interests and trading nations over others, which reduces the mutual benefit inherent in true free trade." - Ron Paul

[Jordan]

I can't take half the shit AED says seriously...mostly because he's a government employee.

[ClayTrainor]

I can't take half the shit AED says seriously...mostly because he's a government employee.

holy, random ad-hominem.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

I can't take half the shit AED says seriously...mostly because he's a government employee.

Not for much longer. I can't wait. :D You can say I am a hypocrite for not going AWOL, and that the contract is invalid because it is predicated upon theft, and I would agree. I don't hide or run from it. However, I was not a voluntaryist when I joined, so I am not a total hypocrite. I would be more a hypocrite if I stayed in. I still don't see how that diminishes my arguments.

Anyways, I refuse to follow orders that violate the liberty of my fellow humans. I am surprised I haven't been court-martialed yet. :p

[CCTelander]

holy, random ad-hominem.


No shit.

[CCTelander]

Not for much longer. I can't wait. :D You can say I am a hypocrite for not going AWOL, and that the contract is invalid because it is predicated upon theft, and I would agree. I don't hide or run from it. However, I was not a voluntaryist when I joined, so I am not a total hypocrite. I would be more a hypocrite if I stayed in. I still don't see how that diminishes my arguments.

Anyways, I refuse to follow orders that violate the liberty of my fellow humans. I am surprised I haven't been court-martialed yet. :p


It doesn't. Not in the slightest.

Some people will latch onto anything to be able to simply dismiss uncongenial arguments without actually having to think about them.

[low preference guy]

Has it ever occurred to you that the "law", or at least the way you see the law, may be wrong.

Has it ever occurred to you that if you stop holding the apple in your hand it won't fall? Has it ever occurred to you that gravity may be wrong?

See folks? This is the guy you are trying to help understand things. Good luck with that.

[Anti Federalist]

"Free trade is the process of free people engaging in market activity without government interference such as tariffs or managed-trade agreements. In a true free market, individuals and companies do business voluntarily, which means they believe they will be better off as a result of a transaction. Tariffs, taxes, and duties upset the balance, because governments add costs to the calculation which make doing business less attractive. Similarly, so-called managed trade agreements like WTO favor certain business interests and trading nations over others, which reduces the mutual benefit inherent in true free trade." - Ron Paul

Those are all good quotes of Ron's and illustrate, at the very least, his questions about "managed trade" and also his support and commitment to free trade.

But, correct me if I'm wrong, Ron is also in favor of border control and is also a Christian.

You are in favor of open borders and are agnostic or atheist, IIRC.

Simple point, all of us cannot agree on everything.

I think Ron's wrong on this issue.

[susano]

That has nothing whatsoever to do with the question. Do you think Iraq was better off with sanctions? Do you think America would be wealthier if the world refused to trade with us? The protectionist must answer yes, but we all know that we wouldn't be wealthier if we traded with no-one, or if we made it harder or more punitive to trade with others. I get it, you want us all to be farmers, and live in an agrarian subsistence society. Luckily most here don't, and most realize that your economic plan would kill millions of people.

You're just talking out of your ass.

This has NOTHING to do with Iraq.

Protectionist America was never not trading. It never caused the deaths of millions of Americans. On the contrary, it created the highest standard of living in the world.

Your remark about farmers, electricians, engineers and carpenters is just bizarre. These are the people who FEED YOU, BUILD YOUR HOUSE, RUN THE WIRING FOR YOUR COMPUTER. Your lack of appreciation for the work and skills of others is sheer stupidity. When a country can't even do those things for itself, it IMPORTS LABOR. All we need is the Communist Party to organize it! Or, the EU.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3513889.stm

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Those are all good quotes of Ron's and illustrate, at the very least, his questions about "managed trade" and also his support and commitment to free trade.

But, correct me if I'm wrong, Ron is also in favor of border control and is also a Christian.

You are in favor of open borders and are agnostic or atheist, IIRC.

Simple point, all of us cannot agree on everything.

I think Ron's wrong on this issue.

It is up in the air about Ron's position on border control. I happen to believe he currently advocates for 'border control' because of its populism (call it him politicking), not because he believes it. When he was at his best and outside the GOP or politics and running for the Presidency in 88' he let it known his true thoughts (Considering that we had welfare and warfare going on at the time just as much as we do today).

Of course the above is mere conjecture, but I think it has some basis that bolster the argument.

Of course, all propertarians are the most closed border people there are, so open border is not a true descriptor. Open borders for illegitimate property and arbitrary lines - yes. It should be up to the individual property owner who he wants on his property not the bureaucrats and politicos.

[Anti Federalist]

Has it ever occurred to you that if you stop holding the apple in your hand it won't fall? Has it ever occurred to you that gravity may be wrong?

See folks? This is the guy you are trying to help understand things. Good luck with that.

Talk about ad-hominems...:rolleyes:

[Anti Federalist]

It is up in the air about Ron's position on border control. I happen to believe he currently advocates for 'border control' because of its populism (call it him politicking), not because he believes it. When he was at his best and outside the GOP or politics and running for the Presidency in 88' he let it known his true thoughts (Considering that we had welfare and warfare going on at the time just as much as we do today).

Of course the above is mere conjecture, but I think it has some basis that bolster the argument.

Maybe he is and maybe he isn't.

I'm not going to get into a derailment over whether Ron is lying over this or not.

My point is simply that some people can disagree with single issues yet support the whole, the sum of the whole being greater than the sum of the parts, in other words.

That fact that I disagree with Ron over this issue is not going to make go off and sulk in the corner and give up on him.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Maybe he is and maybe he isn't.

I'm not going to get into a derailment over whether Ron is lying over this or not.

My point is simply that some people can disagree with single issues yet support the whole, the sum of the whole being greater than the sum of the parts, in other words.

I agree.

Like how I vociferously disagree with your Nationalism and protectionism, but nonetheless think you are a net good for liberty. :p (I still can't believe you think politicians will run this protectionism perfectly (or how you want) - they won't)

[ClayTrainor]

But, correct me if I'm wrong, Ron is also in favor of border control and is also a Christian.

Ron Paul has said very mixed things about his views on the borders, and can be quoted on multiple occasions voicing his support of open borders.



You are in favor of open borders and are agnostic or atheist, IIRC.

Simple point, all of us cannot agree on everything.

Ron Paul also drinks Fiji water, while i prefer Dasini. :rolleyes: :p

Sure, all of us have different opinions, but when you want your disagreement coercively enforced on others against their will, that's where I draw the line.

Where do you draw yours?



I think Ron's wrong on this issue.

[susano]

Those are all good quotes of Ron's and illustrate, at the very least, his questions about "managed trade" and also his support and commitment to free trade.

But, correct me if I'm wrong, Ron is also in favor of border control and is also a Christian.

You are in favor of open borders and are agnostic or atheist, IIRC.

Simple point, all of us cannot agree on everything.

I think Ron's wrong on this issue.

I do too because it's a utopian ideal.

We have to deal with the real world, not theory.

In theory we're all just one big happy family and borders are artifical divisions. In reality, a shoot out killed over 50 people in Matamoros, MX yesterday. In reality, the border kept that shit out of Brownsville, TX.

pro·tect (pr-tkt)
tr.v. pro·tect·ed, pro·tect·ing, pro·tects
1. To keep from being damaged, attacked, stolen, or injured; guard. See Synonyms at defend.
2. To help (domestic industry) with tariffs or quotas on imported goods.
3. To assure payment of (drafts or notes, for example) by setting aside funds.

Looks like we're losing on all three.

[Anti Federalist]

Sure, all of us have different opinions, but when you want your disagreement coercively enforced on others against their will, that's where I draw the line.

Where do you draw yours?

Clay, that just goes all the way back around the barn to the very "existence of government" argument.

All government is coercion, all taxation is theft.

Having my druthers, and assuming the need for government at any level, I'd prefer government coerce a bunch of foreigners (yah, ya damn Canucks :p) then me and mine.

'Sides, it's very easy to avoid the coercion of tariffs, don't buy the products.

Same for the manufacturers, don't want to be taxed under an import tariff? Build it here.

No problems.

[LibertyEagle]

Ron Paul has said very mixed things about his views on the borders, and can be quoted on multiple occasions voicing his support of open borders.


Not really. You are confusing the opinion he used to have years ago, with his stance now. He supported open borders a number of years ago, but that was before welfarism was expanded to the point it is now and before our borders were flat out overrun by illegal aliens. The fact is that he does not support open borders now.

[susano]

I agree.

Like how I vociferously disagree with your Nationalism and protectionism, but nonetheless think you are a net good for liberty. :p (I still can't believe you think politicians will run this protectionism perfectly (or how you want) - they won't)


Just curious; if you are anti protectionism and anti nationalism, would you favor abolishing the Constitution?

[Anti Federalist]

I agree.

Like how I vociferously disagree with your Nationalism and protectionism, but nonetheless think you are a net good for liberty. :p (I still can't believe you think politicians will run this protectionism perfectly (or how you want) - they won't)

And the same here.

And they won't, my ideal would be a flat, across the board type of thing with no special interests involved.

I know that's not the reality, but I can hope, I suppose.

In the meantime, let's all work to try to reset the clock to zero and start over.

[ClayTrainor]

Clay, that just goes all the way back around the barn to the very "existence of government" argument.

All government is coercion, all taxation is theft.

How much coercion and theft do you feel is absolutely necessary?



Having my druthers, and assuming the need for government at any level, I'd prefer government coerce a bunch of foreigners (yah, ya damn Canucks :p) then me and mine.

Where do you draw the line on this coercion? At what point does it become "too much coercion"?



'Sides, it's very easy to avoid the coercion of tariffs, don't buy the products.


That's like saying it's easy to avoid sales tax... don't buy anything locally. Where do you, or anyone else feel you have the right to coercively influence my voluntary purchasing decisions?



Same for the manufacturers, don't want to be taxed under an import tariff? Build it here.

And if I voluntarily choose to do business with someone who "builds it there", you feel our trade should be punished under the threat of violence, correct?



No problems.

For you, because you're the one holding the gun. I've just got my hands in the air, asking "why"? ;)

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Just curious; if you are anti protectionism and anti nationalism, would you favor abolishing the Constitution?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntaryism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polycentric_law

with preference for:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism

[Anti Federalist]

How much coercion and theft do you feel is absolutely necessary?

As much as is needed to protect my life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

Not an ounce more.;)

[susano]

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

with preference for:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism

So, you would prefer the Constitution be scrapped?

[ClayTrainor]

So, you would prefer the Constitution be scrapped?

You talk as though it's not already.

The "limited constitutional government" experiment has resulted in arguably the largest, most imperialistic government in the history of the world.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

So, you would prefer the Constitution be scrapped?

I prefer to say what I am for, than what I am against since it doesn't allow one to mischaracterize your positions and you give a workable building block to go from. It's like Ron only saying 'I am against the Fed'. Ok....so what is your solution? I bypass that question and get to the heart of the matter. You can read what I am for or not.

[Jordan]

holy, random ad-hominem.


No shit.

A question of character isn't always an ad hominem, especially if the certain action violates the ideals that someone promotes. Why would you promote them for others, but not yourself? It doesn't necessarily pertain to this topic, and I am aware.

But let's not get off topic.

The debate here is meh. On one side you have AF who is promoting the most simple "fix" within the realm of the political/economic sphere. On the other hand are the anarchists/voluntaryists/whatevernameyoucallyourselvestoday who want a complete overhaul.

It's like the classical argument of whether to elect libertarians, or just throw out the whole government. Or arguing against religion with someone arguing for religion. Neither of sides are going to agree because they stand on two very different battlegrounds. One within the system, one outside of it.

Quite frankly, I'm not sure if either answer is objectively better on the basis of improvement in the standard of living divided by the reality or possibility of either "fix."

[ClayTrainor]

As much as is needed to protect my life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

Not an ounce more.;)

Does this include Sending men with guns out to coercively threaten foreigners who want to voluntarily trade goods with your neighbors?

[low preference guy]

Does this include Sending men with guns out to coercively threaten foreigners who want to voluntarily trade with your neighbors?

Why talk about the threat to foreigners? It's a threat to your neighbors!

[LibertyEagle]

So, you would prefer the Constitution be scrapped?

To answer your question, yes, he is.

[ClayTrainor]

Why talk about the threat to foreigners? It's a threat to your neighbors!

Good point, I don't know why i said it like that.

[Anti Federalist]

Does this include Sending men with guns out to coercively threaten foreigners who want to voluntarily trade goods with your neighbors?

More men with guns have been sent out to demand and enforce "trade", including my great uncle, than have been deployed simply collecting import duties.

Would you prefer a 40 vessel fleet of littoral revenue cutters or a 600 vessel fleet, nuclear armed, offensive navy?

[ClayTrainor]

More men with guns have been sent out to demand and enforce "trade", including my great uncle, than have been deployed simply collecting import duties.

That's not really an answer to my question.

Would you argue, that me voluntarily doing business with someone in china is "forced" trade?

Do you think I should be threatened by men with guns for doing such a thing?



Would you prefer a 40 vessel fleet of littoral revenue cutters or a 600 vessel fleet, nuclear armed, offensive navy?

Neither. Are you claiming that the latter can only be prevented by your preference of tax policy?

[Anti Federalist]

The debate here is meh. On one side you have AF who is promoting the most simple "fix" within the realm of the political/economic sphere. On the other hand are the anarchists/voluntaryists/whatevernameyoucallyourselvestoday who want a complete overhaul.

Just to be clear, I am not declaring this to be the penultimate only "fix" but rather, one of the tools to achieve the fix from an independent, unilateral national interest position.

That's assuming that there is a national interest here or if there is even such a thing as a national interest and if there is, whether it's moral and ethical to defend it.

That's the larger argument.

[ClayTrainor]

That's assuming that there is a national interest here or if there is even such a thing as a national interest and if there is, whether it's moral and ethical to defend it.

That's the larger argument.

I'll start a thread on that topic in philosophy sometime soon, if you want. I'd really like to hash that one out in detail with you, sometime. It's really the center of anything we've ever disagreed on. Would you be down?

[forsmant]

Corporations want to eliminate governments

[Anti Federalist]

I'll start a thread on that topic in philosophy sometime soon, if you want. I'd really like to hash that one out in detail with you, sometime. Would you be down?

Sure, anytime.

;)

That's really what we're arguing about here.

[Anti Federalist]

Corporations want to eliminate governments

They'd like that, or, barring that, merging with them.

Corporate tyranny is as bad as government tyranny.

[ClayTrainor]

Corporations want to eliminate governments

Is that why so many of them spend absurd amounts of money to hire lobbyists?

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Corporations want to eliminate governments

That's absurd. Corporations are entities of the Government. They don't want to get rid of it. In fact, almost everything the Government does is for the Corporations! The last thing the Corporations want is a free-market.

You honestly think Corporations want to end licensing? Want to end subsidies? Want to end eminent domain? Want to end Medicare and Medicaid and SS? Want to end gasoline and other 'road' taxation? Give me a fucking break.

*Corporations love the Government because they externalize all their costs onto others. Corporatism/Fascism is merely socialism, but with private entities instead of Nationalizations.

[ClayTrainor]

That's really what we're arguing about here.

Always has been. I'm about to head out for the night, but i'll be sure to start that thread sometime soon. :)

[nobody's_hero]

Corporations want to eliminate governments

They want to eliminate governments that have even a thread of accoutability to the people and replace them with a one-world government which they can more easily control, you mean?

If that's what you meant, I could see that happening. Hell, it has already happened to an extent in the E.U.

If I had my rathers, I think it would be wiser to engage in intra-national trade and 'throw up the deuces' to the rest of the world, than to risk getting tangled up in that international law nonsense.

[Fox McCloud]

NAFTA, CAFTA, IMO, WTO GATT is not "free trade".

Never said they were; I explicitly stated they were fair trade agreements that should be opposed.




They are still doing it.

China is a very authoritarian state, with an atrocious record on civil liberties.

if you oppose the government, yes, the record for civil liberties is terrible, but the vast bulk of china's workforce is not forced labor, which is the very original point that I made.



Free traders make the case that no economy can survive tariffs, that the end results is always grinding poverty of North Korea or Cuba.

No, we do not--we'll state that if we have a complete embargo on everything and force domestic production of all goods and services, but we've never stated we'll become a nation of poverty with tariffs. We have, however, stated that individuals residing in a country that has tariffs will be poorer than a country that does not have tariffs. How much poorer? It depends on how much the tariff is....but any tariff, of any amount will decrease national wealth.


I have pointed out the many examples of nations that enact tariffs and are more prosperous than we are.

Thus far the European Union is the only "nation" that's more prosperous than we are, and surprise, surprise, they're a free trade zone; for per capita GDP? Singapore, which is yet another free trading nation has a per capita GDP higher than the United States. Where's Hong Kong in this? It's only $2,000 lower than the US...and keep in mind, this is a nation that has no natural resources and a tiny amount of manufacturing. There aren't very many protectionist nations high up on this list...if protectionism is so favorable, where are they?


If we are going to use Latin argumentative descriptions, the free traders argument when they make that case would be a reductio ad absurdum.

Again, I covered this earlier; we have never made the case that tariffs of a low to moderate variety will impoverish a nation, merely that it'll make us worse off.


Debunked as many times as the "WWII got us out of the Depression" myth.
http://www.idealtaxes.com/post3105.shtml

Strawman, yet again; I never stated smoot-hawley started or created or caused the depression; I said it exacerbated the Great Depression (in addition to FDRs alphabet soup programs).



I already stated that a product that cannot be made or grown here, then yes, by all means, trade for it.

But the way things are set up now, nothing is cheaper here.

So therefore, nothing will be made here.

you need to accept the fact that our economy is rapidly changing and that we may not be the ones that need to produce some goods anymore; it may be better suited for Mexico, China, or a plethora of other countries..are we unjustly losing some jobs? You bet, but it's not because of free trade; it's because of regulatory and tax schemes in the United States that make it very expensive to conduct business here....but somehow (I could be wrong) I think you'll still attack free trade if all of this is changed and we still "lose" "manufacturing jobs".




Glad you brought up Hong Kong, even though I've made this point before.

Hog Kong has often been held up as the free trade paradise, very little income or business restrictions, no tariffs, all wealth being created by simply buying and selling of other people's goods, since, on a small, very densely populated island, there wasn't the resources or the space to do anything else.

But, all of that depended on the good graces of the British.

And when the feckless Brits decided to leave Hong Kong and turn it back over to the Chinese, guess what?

The people of Hong Kong had no say in the matter, they couldn't change that outcome even if they wanted to or tried to.

Being sold off as so many pawns or assets or "human resources", with no chance at self determination, is not my idea of freedom.

And China gave them complete autonomy; your point is moot and invalid.

[Anti Federalist]

And China gave them complete autonomy; your point is moot and invalid.

Gave them...and government gives "rights", is that it?

What if China decides to rescind what they "gave" them?

What do the people of Hong Kong do then?

But hey, like I said, the entire establishment is for "free trade", I'm just a lone voice in the wilderness on this.

That 200 million a day entourage to India pays off for Obama...

See the next story VVV

[Anti Federalist]

Obama Announces $10B in Trade Deals With India

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/11/06/world/main7028709.shtml

At Start of 10-Day, Four-Nation Asia Tour, Says Exports to India Will Support More Than 50,000 Jobs in U.S.

President Barack Obama has announced $10 billion in trade deals with India that are expected to help pay for 54,000 U.S. jobs.

He's also unveiling new export rules to make it easier for U.S. companies to do business with the nation of 1.2 billion people. Some of the changes, including relaxing controls on India's purchase of "dual use" technologies that could be used for civilian or military purposes, have been top priorities for the business community.

Speaking Saturday to American and Indian chief executives on the first day of a 10-day trip through Asia, Mr. Obama said the relationship between the U.S. and India "will be one of the defining and indispensable partnerships of the 21st century."

In the wake of Democrats' midterm election losses, attributed partly to continued high unemployment in the U.S., the White House is working overtime to present the president's trip as singularly focused on U.S. jobs and the domestic economy.

The commercial deals include the purchase of 33 737s from Boeing by India's SpiceJet Airlines; the Indian military's plans to buy aircraft engines from General Electric; and preliminary agreement between Boeing and the Indian Air Force on the purchase of 10 C17s

[Anti Federalist]

33 Boeing 737s and a bunch of military hardware.

Boeing would not even be in business anymore if it wasn't for tariffs.

And they're not going to last too much longer.

All US manufacturers of mid size and feeder line jets have long since gone out of business.

Saab and Embraeur rule the roost there.

And free traders will try to tell me that socialist Sweden has less tax and regulatory burdens than we do...FFS.

[Anti Federalist]

But hey, who says there's not good jobs out there:



Be a 'Foreclosure Supervisor'—for $10 an Hour

http://www.newser.com/story/104720/be-a-foreclosure-supervisor-for-10-an-hour.html

(Newser) – In the wake of news that banks and law firms hired unqualified people to process the backlog of foreclosures, Pro Publica decided to spin through the want-ads to see whether things had changed. Not so much. The results varied, but "requirements for many foreclosure jobs—often advertised by staffing or temp agencies—still offer low pay and require little education," writes Marian Wang.

One ad from a law firm advertised for a "supervisor of foreclosure department" with a base pay of $10 to $12 an hour. A staffing agency required no experience for its entry level position, but "Extraordinarily FAST and ACCURATE typing is a MUST!" Ally, formerly GMAC, is one of the few that requires a college degree for its "foreclosure specialists." Bank of America doesn't, but applicants need some college experience or “two years of foreclosure or bankruptcy experience outside of Bank of America.” The mission, however, is clear: "Reconcile financial transactions to ensure maximum recovery" for the bank.

[forsmant]

Power is increasingly leaving the state and entering the corporate world. By that I mean the corporations are increasingly in charge of governments around the world. WOuld it no be to their benifit to eliminate governments and control the armies themselves?

[johnwk]

I understand exactly what you guys are saying and it is tied to a personal philosophical ideology.
Free-Trade is not philosophy or ideology. It is economics.



Wrong. "Free-Trade" is an ideology intended to influence economics. Just as the NAFTA is not about free trade, but is managed trade, and is managed not by those conducting trade, but is managed by a body not elected by the American people, who make arbitrary decisions concerning those who engage in trade.

Under our system of government and powers granted to Congress, we have elected representatives from each of the states who have been delegated a power to enact tax and foreign trade policy, presumptively for the best interests of the united States.


JWK

[torchbearer]

who owns my wealth? who has final say over how I spend it? me or the government?
if i want to buy widgets from mexico, I have the natural right to do so with the fruits of my labor.

[Sentient Void]

Wrong. "Free-Trade" is an ideology intended to influence economics. Just as the NAFTA is not about free trade, but is managed trade, and is managed not by those conducting trade, but is managed by a body not elected by the American people, who make arbitrary decisions concerning those who engage in trade.

Under our system of government and powers granted to Congress, we have elected representatives from each of the states who have been delegated a power to enact tax and foreign trade policy, presumptively for the best interests of the united States.


JWK

*WRONG*. Period. Free trade is a praxeological and logical result of sound economics.

*AND* it's morally correct, as well as being defended by natural law.

Try reading 'Economics in One Lesson', by Austrian Economist Henry Hazlitt and some Frederic Bastiat.

Until then, you and other protectionists are practicing Orwellian logic, mercantilism (which was debunked hundreds of years ago), nationalism, statism, coercion, and emotionalism.

[johnwk]

"Free trade is the process of free people engaging in market activity without government interference such as tariffs or managed-trade agreements.


What is forgotten here is, our wise founding fathers delegated powers to Congress to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and impose taxes in connection with foreign commerce.


Those who carry on and pontificate here, expressing their personal views on how things should be done under the banner of what they call “free trade”, when their ideas are not in harmony with the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted, is nothing more than meaningless table talk, and especially meaningless when the real issue is powers which have been granted to Congress are not being used to promote America’s best interest as was intended with the delegation of such powers.

Instead of rambling on and on about “free trade” and personal opinions concerning variant options of “free trade“, perhaps it is best to focus on how Congress’ delegated powers are not being used for the best interests of the people of the united states, but are being used to plunder America's remaing wealth

JWK



America, we have a problem, we have been attacked from within! We are being destroyed from within by a group of DOMESTIC ENEMIES (http://cpc.grijalva.house.gov/index.cfm?ContentID=166&ParentID=0&SectionID=4&SectionTree=4&lnk=b&ItemID=164)who have managed to seize political power and whose mission is in fact to bring “change” to America ___ the dismantling of our military defensive power; the allowance of our borders to be overrun by foreign invaders, the diluting of our election process by allowing ineligible persons to vote; the destruction of our manufacturing capabilities; the strangulation of our agricultural industry and ability to produce food under the guise of environmental necessity; the destruction of our nation’s health care delivery system, the looting of both our federal treasury and a mandatory retirement pension fund; the brainwashing of our nation’s children in government operated schools; the trashing of our nation’s traditions and moral values; the creation of an iron fisted control unauthorized by our written Constitution over America’s businesses and industries; the devaluation of our nation’s currency, and, the future enslavement of our children and grand children via unbridled debt and inflation, not to mention an iron fisted government which intends to rule their very lives!

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

What Ron Paul forgets here is, our wise founding fathers delegated powers to Congress to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and impose taxes in connection with foreign commerce.


Those who carry and pontificate here, expressing their personal views on how things should be done under the banner of what they call “free trade”, when their ideas are not in harmony with the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted, is nothing more than meaningless table talk, and especially meaningless when the real issue is powers which have been granted to Congress are not being used to promote America’s best interest as was intended with the delegation of such powers.

Instead of rambling on and on about “free trade” and personal opinions concerning variant options of “free trade“, perhaps it is best to focus on how Congress’ delegated powers are not being used for the best interests of the people of the united states, but are being used to plunder America's remaing wealth

JWK



America, we have a problem, we have been attacked from within! We are being destroyed from within by a group of DOMESTIC ENEMIES (http://cpc.grijalva.house.gov/index.cfm?ContentID=166&ParentID=0&SectionID=4&SectionTree=4&lnk=b&ItemID=164)who have managed to seize political power and whose mission is in fact to bring “change” to America ___ the dismantling of our military defensive power; the allowance of our borders to be overrun by foreign invaders, the diluting of our election process by allowing ineligible persons to vote; the destruction of our manufacturing capabilities; the strangulation of our agricultural industry and ability to produce food under the guise of environmental necessity; the destruction of our nation’s health care delivery system, the looting of both our federal treasury and a mandatory retirement pension fund; the brainwashing of our nation’s children in government operated schools; the trashing of our nation’s traditions and moral values; the creation of an iron fisted control unauthorized by our written Constitution over America’s businesses and industries; the devaluation of our nation’s currency, and, the future enslavement of our children and grand children via unbridled debt and inflation, not to mention an iron fisted government which intends to rule their very lives!

Yeah, those protectionists in the early American History were so enamored with the publics well-being, so much so that the crazy Southerners were totally for free-trade for selfish reasons. It wasn't those Northern mercantilists who wanted to shield themselves from competition, punish the South, or do any other crazy thing. They were good folk, trying to help you by tripling the cost of everything you have to buy from them, the industry leaders. That silly South Carolina nullifying the protectionist tariffs.

You have history ass-backwards, not to mention the reason for protectionism ass-backwards.

[Stary Hickory]

Yeah, those protectionists in the early American History were so enamored with the publics well-being, so much so that the crazy Southerners were totally for free-trade for selfish reasons. It wasn't those Northern mercantilists who wanted to shield themselves from competition, punish the South, or do any other crazy thing. They were good folk, trying to help you by tripling the cost of everything you have to buy from them, the industry leaders. That silly South Carolina nullifying the protectionist tariffs.

You have history ass-backwards, not to mention the reason for protectionism ass-backwards.

Yeap, the only legitimate reason for tariffs is for revenue generation. You could also argue for tariffs to protect industry vital to national defense, so that they remained in tact within the borders of your country. But then again countries who are economically dependent upon each other are unlikely to go to war.

However economically tariffs can only hurt us. They are just a form of taxation.

[Anti Federalist]

But then again countries who are economically dependent upon each other are unlikely to go to war.

We are at war with, and have troops in, a whole slew of countries that we are economically dependent upon.

We've been going to war with and invading our Central and South American trade partners for over a 100 years now.

We're just as guilty of perpetrating the "free trade" fraud.

"Hey, you, trade with us, sell us your cheap shit so we can keep the illusion that our currency is worth fuck all, or we'll invade you and take it."

[nobody's_hero]

We are at war with, and have troops in, a whole slew of countries that we are economically dependent upon.

We've been going to war with and invading our Central and South American trade partners for over a 100 years now.

We're just as guilty of perpetrating the "free trade" fraud.

"Hey, you, trade with us, sell us your cheap shit so we can keep the illusion that our currency is worth fuck all, or we'll invade you and take it."

Good point. Trade or no trade, war will be made 'simple' until we dump the federal reserve.

I believe it was all planned, though. They created the Federal Reserve and the (permanent) income tax (effectively cannibalizing the U.S. production industry), then jacked up the tariffs with Smoot-Hawley so that the progressives had a scapegoat to blame (tariffs, or so-called "protectionism"), instead of the new system they had recently created—which has been the most subtle (and therefore, successful) attempt at wealth redistribution in perhaps the entire history of mankind.

[johnwk]

Yeah, those protectionists in the early American History were so enamored with the publics well-being, so much so that the crazy Southerners were totally for free-trade for selfish reasons. It wasn't those Northern mercantilists who wanted to shield themselves from competition, punish the South, or do any other crazy thing. They were good folk, trying to help you by tripling the cost of everything you have to buy from them, the industry leaders. That silly South Carolina nullifying the protectionist tariffs.

You have history ass-backwards, not to mention the reason for protectionism ass-backwards.

Seems to me I provided documentation and links in the first post in the thread establishing the facts of history with regard to our founding fathers tax and trade policy. But your mission here does not seem to be interested in meaningful historical documentation when presented.

In any event, the irrefutable fact is, our founding fathers trade policies, which I previously documented included tariffs at our water’s edge, and were designed to encourage America’s domestic manufactures, did in fact pave the way for America to becoming the economic marvel of the world.

By the year 1835 America was manufacturing everything from steam powered ships, to clothing spun and woven by powered machinery and the national debt [which included part of the revolutionary war debt] was completely extinguished and Congress enjoyed a surplus in the federal treasury from tariffs, duties, and customs. And so, by an Act of Congress in June of 1836 (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=005/llsl005.db&recNum=92) all surplus revenue in excess of $ 5,000,000 was decided to be distributed among the states, and eventually a total of $28,000,000 was distributed among the states by the rule of apportionment in the nature of interest free loans to the states to be recalled if and when Congress decided to make such a recall.


JWK


Health care by consent of the governed (Article 5) our amendment process --- tyranny by a PROGRESSIVE (http://cpc.grijalva.house.gov/index.cfm?ContentID=166&ParentID=0&SectionID=4&SectionTree=4&lnk=b&ItemID=164) majority vote in Congress!

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

I laugh when I see protectionists make a constitutional argument considering it is often the same folks throwing around the word illegal immigrant despite the power to regulate immigration is not delegated in the constitution. If people are going to throw the constitution into the argument they need to accept the whole document.

Carry on the hypocrisy.

[johnwk]

I laugh when I see protectionists make a constitutional argument considering it is often the same folks throwing around the word illegal immigrant despite the power to regulate immigration is not delegated in the constitution. If people are going to throw the constitution into the argument they need to accept the whole document.

Carry on the hypocrisy.



Are you talking about anyone in particular? And, would you consider our founding fathers tax and trade policies to be “protectionist”, whatever that may mean?


JWK

[low preference guy]

Are you talking about anyone in particular? And, would you consider our founding fathers tax and trade policies to be “protectionist”, whatever that may mean?


JWK

hahaha!

so you don't know what protectionist means? woooooooowwwwwwww.

[jtstellar]

funny you call yourself an anti federalist when tariff is such a complicated issue and when they are overly high, lots of business interests begin to get involved in the legislating process. if you have seen no examples of legislative success especially in complicated matters, i'm not sure why you think legislating trade would somehow be any different. perhaps you just aren't very smart to begin with.

i see no better breeding ground for big government and big business fascism with government having hands in determining what the exact balance of "fairness" and "prosperity" is on matters where hundreds of billions of dollars are at stake. it's a hilarious joke just on its premise.

[low preference guy]

funny you call yourself an anti federalist when tariff is such a complicated issue and when they are overly high, lots of business interests begin to get involved in the legislating process. if you have seen no examples of legislative success especially in complicated matters, i'm not sure why you think legislating trade would somehow be any different. perhaps you just aren't very smart to begin with.

i see no better breeding ground for big government and big business fascism with government having hands in determining what the exact balance of "fairness" and "prosperity" is on matters where hundreds of billions of dollars at a stake. it's a hilarious joke just on its premise.

spot on, except for the "perhaps you just aren't very smart to begin with" part. that might not be true. maybe he is just lazy or refuses to think carefully about the topic. he sees the immediate short term consequences. i don't think he sees the long term consequences. of doesn't care because it's in his personal interest to have protectionist policies.

[Anti Federalist]

perhaps you just aren't very smart to begin with.

Yah, that's me, just a dumbass.

[awake]

When you have to resort to personal attacks and insults you have conceded the debate.

[johnwk]

Originally Posted by johnwk
Are you talking about anyone in particular? And, would you consider our founding fathers tax and trade policies to be “protectionist”, whatever that may mean?


JWKhahaha!

so you don't know what protectionist means? woooooooowwwwwwww.


The question was would you consider our founding fathers tax and trade policies to be “protectionist”, whatever that may mean?


I gather you are not up to answering the question.


JWK


“The proportion of taxes are fixed by the number of inhabitants, and not regulated by the extent of the territory, or fertility of soil” 3 Elliot’s, 243 (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=lled&fileName=003/lled003.db&recNum=254&itemLink), “Each state will know, from its population, its proportion of any general tax” 3 Elliot’s, 244 (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=lled&fileName=003/lled003.db&recNum=255&itemLink) ___ Mr. George Nicholas, during the ratification debates of our Constitution.

[johnwk]

funny you call yourself an anti federalist when tariff is such a complicated issue and when they are overly high, lots of business interests begin to get involved in the legislating process. if you have seen no examples of legislative success especially in complicated matters, i'm not sure why you think legislating trade would somehow be any different. perhaps you just aren't very smart to begin with.

i see no better breeding ground for big government and big business fascism with government having hands in determining what the exact balance of "fairness" and "prosperity" is on matters where hundreds of billions of dollars at a stake. it's a hilarious joke just on its premise.


I strongly believe that if our Constitution’s original tax plan were put back into operation, and enforced as our founding fathers intended it to operate, Congress would once again be the servants of the people rather than the masters they have become.



As a first means of raising a federal revenue, our founders intended the laying of imposts and duties at our water’s edge ___ an example would be a nondiscriminatory tonnage tax on imported articles which eventually filters down to those who purchase the imports. In addition, our founding fathers also provided the power to lay inland excise taxes on specifically selected articles of consumption. Finally, if imposts, duties and miscellaneous excise taxes were found insufficient to finance the constitutionally authorized functions of our federal government and a shortfall was experienced, then a direct tax was to be laid among the States equal to the shortfall and each State’s share was to be apportioned, just as each state’s number of representatives are now apportioned. Our founding father’s fair share formula for this tax, considering subsequent amendments to our Constitution, may be expressed as follows:


States’ population

---------------------------- X SUM TO BE RAISED = STATE’S SHARE

Total U.S. Population




After computing each States apportioned share of the tax, each state’s Congressional Delegation was to return home with a bill in hand and place this burden in the hands of their Governor and Legislature, leaving them with this unwanted financial responsibility. Upon receiving their bill the Governor and State’s Legislature are to then transfer the state’s apportioned share from their state treasury into the treasury of the United States or raise additional taxes within the state and then transfer that money into the treasury of the united states to meet the state’s obligation. In the event a state does not meet its obligation in a time period set by Congress, the federal government is to then enter the state and lay and collect sufficient taxes to cover the amount due.

The unavoidable truth is, our founder’s tax plan provides sufficient taxing power to raise existing levels of revenue, but does so by creating a very real moment of accountability if members of Congress should have to bring home a bill because of their profligate spending habits, and this would encourage members of Congress to drastically cut spending in order to live within the means provided from imposts, duties and miscellaneous excise taxes on articles of consumption to avoid the apportioned tax. Keep in mind that taxes imposed on specifically selected articles of consumption allows the market place to determine the limit of tax on each article selected! Tax any article too high and it reduced sales and thus reduces the flow of revenue into Congress’ greedy hands.

In addition, the required apportioned tax if Congress engages in deficit spending encourages every state Legislature and Governor to keep a jealous eye on the spending habits of its Congressional Delegation to avoid having to deplete the State’s treasury.

I might add that it would only take 32 words to return to our Constitution’s original tax plan as our founding fathers intended it to operate:

The Sixteenth Amendment is hereby repealed and Congress is henceforth forbidden to lay ``any`` tax or burden calculated from profits, gains, interest, salaries, wages, tips, inheritances or any other lawfully realized money

I believe the Constitution Party promotes a return to our Constitution's original tax plan.

Check out this brief summary of our founding father‘s ORIGINAL TAX PLAN (http://townshipnews.org/?p=1360)

Regards
JWK

[jtstellar]

When you have to resort to personal attacks and insults you have conceded the debate.

it's my belief that unless you take certain things personal while having the capacity for intellectual dissonance, chances are you aren't really challenging your own beliefs seriously, and that you aren't going to do anything different even after winning or losing a debate because to you it's just that--only a debate.

since we are very much at the forefront of this movement, a split on an issue that can't get anymore major than this--i see this way more than casual weekend arm-chairing. frankly if what i say to get people seriously engage in a debate (namely actually think about potential holes in their argument rather than engaging in sensationalism) will deem me without the elegance you all so desire, i am fine with that.

[jtstellar]

Yah, that's me, just a dumbass.

i have not seen a person try to come up with an anti free trade argument and not look totally stupid in the end, and i have watched lots of debates. don't suspect the outcome here will be any different.

edit: i can't summarize hours and hours of debates i watched to a few lines on an internet forum. it will do you good to watch some peter schiff videos. he occasionally talks about free trade and ya he's for it--not a surprise. listen to what people who actually thought about this and understood economics said about this before you start making stuff up on your own.

[Pericles]

i have not seen a person try to come up with an anti free trade argument and not look totally stupid in the end, and i have watched lots of debates. don't suspect the outcome here will be any different.

edit: i can't summarize hours and hours of debates i watched to a few lines on an internet forum. it will do you good to watch some peter schiff videos. he occasionally talks about free trade and ya he's for it--not a surprise. listen to what people who actually thought about this and understood economics said about this before you start making stuff up on your own.

Have you actually read any of the free trade agreements out there? It does not take 1000 pages to say if you can do business in one country on this list, you can do business in any of the list of countries.

If you want to debate the theory of free trade, we will almost all agree it is desirable. If you want to discuss the reality of the world trade situation - it is a different story - so, which is it - theory or reality?

[LibertyEagle]

frankly if what i say to get people seriously engage in a debate (namely actually think about potential holes in their argument rather than engaging in sensationalism) will deem me without the elegance you all so desire, i am fine with that.

Frankly, it doesn't matter that you are fine with insulting Anti-Fed. You are a newbie and you are insulting a long-time member of this forum. It is very much against the forum guidelines. Perhaps you should check them out.

[jtstellar]

Frankly, it doesn't matter that you are fine with insulting Anti-Fed. You are a newbie and you are insulting a long-time member of this forum. It is very much against the forum guidelines. Perhaps you should check them out.

then i know i will have a hard time here, if calling someone "perhaps not very smart" is a grave insult. i was not aware that seniority will be an issue on any liberty forum. it seemed to me that in concern of liberty, no seniority will be mentioned no matter where you go. guess i was wrong to assume.




The problem with some protectionist arguments seems to be that they think about the immediate impact of a zero tariff only, as in how other countries will instantly gain an unfair advantage in being able to penalize their citizens for purchasing

imported goods. However, putting on a tariff will only cause your own country to spend more money on products it is not specialized in producing (and keep in mind specialization is strength and therefore generalization will lead to a decline in

overall living standard), and the additional burden in cost will hurt your own country's growth over the long run by the diminishment of unconsumed resources available for future economic growth--resources that can otherwise be used to invest

in business capital (goods that produce more goods, such as machines and equipments at a factory or some place that manufactures). In other words, given your country's demand at a particular point in time, if you stifle imported goods that cost less in

resource relative to what it takes to produce your own, you have fewer resources left over to invest and expand the economy. you have less savings.


If increasing spending worked, perhaps "anti-fed" was not such a good idea after all. The lowering of productive efficiency and the stagnation of future growth (global growth stagnation, for a global trade war) is just one of the many unintended

consequences of a protectionist policy, just as it has always been with any government "agreement". If our focus here is to examine the immediate effect only, perhaps we should all switch sides.






Have you actually read any of the free trade agreements out there? It does not take 1000 pages to say if you can do business in one country on this list, you can do business in any of the list of countries.

If you want to debate the theory of free trade, we will almost all agree it is desirable. If you want to discuss the reality of the world trade situation - it is a different story - so, which is it - theory or reality?

Not sure what your point is, but i am talking about free trade, not free trade agreements. any "agreement" signed by the government in favor of certain industries, is not free trade. ron paul's stance is "low tariff", but i've never heard him say

"no tariff", and i don't recall myself saying so. i don't think people will be arguing as hard if their stance turns out to be for just a negligible tariff? or am i wrong to assume again. Because if the argument is between free traders and bona fide

protectionists, it is quite unsettling to see such a debate on a liberty forum. but to get to the point in arguing against a protectionist policy, you just have to point out the merits of free trade, not the merits of immediately planning zero tariff

which of course has real world political complications.


And yes, the merits of free trade can be a thousand pages long or more, but i will just recommend 50 hours of peter schiff videos in substitute. not for a history lesson on low tariffs, but to instill some economic logic and common sense because

quite frankly this is an easy subject that should be readily self-explainable, if you understand economics.

[nobody's_hero]

I strongly believe that if our Constitution’s original tax plan were put back into operation, and enforced as our founding fathers intended it to operate, Congress would once again be the servants of the people rather than the masters they have become.



As a first means of raising a federal revenue, our founders intended the laying of imposts and duties at our water’s edge ___ an example would be a nondiscriminatory tonnage tax on imported articles which eventually filters down to those who purchase the imports. In addition, our founding fathers also provided the power to lay inland excise taxes on specifically selected articles of consumption. Finally, if imposts, duties and miscellaneous excise taxes were found insufficient to finance the constitutionally authorized functions of our federal government and a shortfall was experienced, then a direct tax was to be laid among the States equal to the shortfall and each State’s share was to be apportioned, just as each state’s number of representatives are now apportioned. Our founding father’s fair share formula for this tax, considering subsequent amendments to our Constitution, may be expressed as follows:


States’ population

---------------------------- X SUM TO BE RAISED = STATE’S SHARE

Total U.S. Population




After computing each States apportioned share of the tax, each state’s Congressional Delegation was to return home with a bill in hand and place this burden in the hands of their Governor and Legislature, leaving them with this unwanted financial responsibility. Upon receiving their bill the Governor and State’s Legislature are to then transfer the state’s apportioned share from their state treasury into the treasury of the United States or raise additional taxes within the state and then transfer that money into the treasury of the united states to meet the state’s obligation. In the event a state does not meet its obligation in a time period set by Congress, the federal government is to then enter the state and lay and collect sufficient taxes to cover the amount due.

The unavoidable truth is, our founder’s tax plan provides sufficient taxing power to raise existing levels of revenue, but does so by creating a very real moment of accountability if members of Congress should have to bring home a bill because of their profligate spending habits, and this would encourage members of Congress to drastically cut spending in order to live within the means provided from imposts, duties and miscellaneous excise taxes on articles of consumption to avoid the apportioned tax. Keep in mind that taxes imposed on specifically selected articles of consumption allows the market place to determine the limit of tax on each article selected! Tax any article too high and it reduced sales and thus reduces the flow of revenue into Congress’ greedy hands.

In addition, the required apportioned tax if Congress engages in deficit spending encourages every state Legislature and Governor to keep a jealous eye on the spending habits of its Congressional Delegation to avoid having to deplete the State’s treasury.

I might add that it would only take 32 words to return to our Constitution’s original tax plan as our founding fathers intended it to operate:

The Sixteenth Amendment is hereby repealed and Congress is henceforth forbidden to lay ``any`` tax or burden calculated from profits, gains, interest, salaries, wages, tips, inheritances or any other lawfully realized money

I believe the Constitution Party promotes a return to our Constitution's original tax plan.

Check out this brief summary of our founding father‘s ORIGINAL TAX PLAN (http://townshipnews.org/?p=1360)

Regards
JWK

For what it's worth, thank you for taking the time to do the research. Not everyone has overlooked your post in favor of 'free-trade' theories based in a system with fiat currency.

If we want to be truly prosperous again, we should look at how things actually worked BEFORE the Federal Reserve system redefined reality.

We still have to get rid of the Federal Reserve though, or neither side of this debate is going to win in a managed-economy. I suppose everyone here could agree on that.

[low preference guy]

Frankly, it doesn't matter that you are fine with insulting Anti-Fed. You are a newbie and you are insulting a long-time member of this forum. It is very much against the forum guidelines. Perhaps you should check them out.

i don't think anyone would be really offended by a "perhaps you aren't very smart with". jstellar isn't even sure about it. perhaps...

plus, it's better to have an advocate of free trade that throws at worst really soft insults, than many of the anti-trade statists that one would expect to find at the leftist forums

jstellar, for what it's worth.... LibertyEagle is the member i take the least seriously in the forum.

[Sentient Void]

The anti-free traders are resorting to positivistic dogma (which has a tendency to result in at least post hoc ergo proctor hoc fallacies, among others) in attempting to defend protectionism - and ignoring all apriori economic logic.

In Austrian economics (the only true school of economics and the only one which can truly he associated and compatible with liberty), this is a big no-no.

Hell, I don't even think monetarists or EVEN keynesians believe in protectionism. Question, protectionists... Which school of economics do you follow? I'm very curious....

[johnwk]

I strongly believe that if our Constitution’s original tax plan were put back into operation, and enforced as our founding fathers intended it to operate, Congress would once again be the servants of the people rather than the masters they have become.

As a first means of raising a federal revenue, our founders intended the laying of imposts and duties at our water’s edge ___ an example would be a nondiscriminatory tonnage tax on imported articles which eventually filters down to those who purchase the imports. In addition, our founding fathers also provided the power to lay inland excise taxes on specifically selected articles of consumption. Finally, if imposts, duties and miscellaneous excise taxes were found insufficient to finance the constitutionally authorized functions of our federal government and a shortfall was experienced, then a direct tax was to be laid among the States equal to the shortfall and each State’s share was to be apportioned, just as each state’s number of representatives are now apportioned. Our founding father’s fair share formula for this tax, considering subsequent amendments to our Constitution, may be expressed as follows:


States’ population

---------------------------- X SUM TO BE RAISED = STATE’S SHARE

Total U.S. Population



After computing each States apportioned share of the tax, each state’s Congressional Delegation was to return home with a bill in hand and place this burden in the hands of their Governor and Legislature, leaving them with this unwanted financial responsibility. Upon receiving their bill the Governor and State’s Legislature are to then transfer the state’s apportioned share from their state treasury into the treasury of the United States or raise additional taxes within the state and then transfer that money into the treasury of the united states to meet the state’s obligation. In the event a state does not meet its obligation in a time period set by Congress, the federal government is to then enter the state and lay and collect sufficient taxes to cover the amount due.

The unavoidable truth is, our founder’s tax plan provides sufficient taxing power to raise existing levels of revenue, but does so by creating a very real moment of accountability if members of Congress should have to bring home a bill because of their profligate spending habits, and this would encourage members of Congress to drastically cut spending in order to live within the means provided from imposts, duties and miscellaneous excise taxes on articles of consumption to avoid the apportioned tax. Keep in mind that taxes imposed on specifically selected articles of consumption allows the market place to determine the limit of tax on each article selected! Tax any article too high and it reduced sales and thus reduces the flow of revenue into Congress’ greedy hands.

In addition, the required apportioned tax if Congress engages in deficit spending encourages every state Legislature and Governor to keep a jealous eye on the spending habits of its Congressional Delegation to avoid having to deplete the State’s treasury.

I might add that it would only take 32 words to return to our Constitution’s original tax plan as our founding fathers intended it to operate:

The Sixteenth Amendment is hereby repealed and Congress is henceforth forbidden to lay ``any`` tax or burden calculated from profits, gains, interest, salaries, wages, tips, inheritances or any other lawfully realized money

I believe the Constitution Party promotes a return to our Constitution's original tax plan.

Check out this brief summary of our founding father‘s ORIGINAL TAX PLAN (http://townshipnews.org/?p=1360)

Regards
JWK


For what it's worth, thank you for taking the time to do the research. Not everyone has overlooked your post in favor of 'free-trade' theories based in a system with fiat currency.

If we want to be truly prosperous again, we should look at how things actually worked BEFORE the Federal Reserve system redefined reality.

We still have to get rid of the Federal Reserve though, or neither side of this debate is going to win in a managed-economy. I suppose everyone here could agree on that.

Thank you for your response. In agreement with what you wrote, let me point out our founding father’s original tax plan was intended to operate in a system which cut off the pretext for making federal reserve notes a legal tender. CLICK HERE (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/debates_816.asp)for the documentation: The Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787, reported by James Madison, August 16



”*23. This vote in the affirmative by Virga. was occasioned by the acquiescence of Mr. Madison who became satisfied that striking out the words would not disable the Govt. from the use of public notes as far as they could be safe & proper; & would only cut off the pretext for a paper currency, and particularly for making the bills a tender either for public or private debts. “

I might add that on the 3 rd page of “Prosperity Restored by the State Rate Tax Plan“ [no longer in print], you will find “Honest money and honest taxation, the keys to America’s future prosperity“.

Finally, for supplemental historical documentation concerning the rule of apportionment as related to taxation CLICK HERE (http://files.meetup.com/574256/IB%2309%20State%20Rate%20Tax.pdf).

Regards,

JWK

[Sentient Void]

The anti-free traders are resorting to positivistic dogma (which has a tendency to result in at least post hoc ergo proctor hoc fallacies, among others) in attempting to defend protectionism - and ignoring all apriori economic logic.

In Austrian economics (the only true school of economics and the only one which can truly be associated and compatible with liberty), this is a big no-no.

Hell, I don't even think monetarists nor EVEN keynesians believe in protectionism. Question, protectionists... Which school of economics do you follow? I'm very curious....

Awaiting a response on this one...

[ClayTrainor]

Awaiting a response on this one...

YouTube - Cricket Sound (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8E_zMLCRNg)

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

I think JohnWK needs to read some Di'Lorenzo. I am tired tonight, but I will outline the absolutely wrong premise and history that he presents. Look at who he admires -- Henry Clay!

[jtstellar]

i don't think anyone would be really offended by a "perhaps you aren't very smart with". jstellar isn't even sure about it. perhaps...

plus, it's better to have an advocate of free trade that throws at worst really soft insults, than many of the anti-trade statists that one would expect to find at the leftist forums

jstellar, for what it's worth.... LibertyEagle is the member i take the least seriously in the forum.


love that jack conway quote

[awake]

Although this argument can be settled on economic grounds, the only way the case can be effectively made is on a moral base , at least to the masses. If the income tax is a moral outrage due to the concept that it is an out right theft of peoples incomes and the fruits of ones labor, should it not follow that if economic liberty is a part of liberty itself - indivisible - why is a tariff any better than an income tax when compared on its merits? The income tax is a theft of the income of the peoples within a monopolists territory. A tariff does the same.

Whether it is in an income tax or tariff structure, what is being forgotten is that you concede the principle that stealing in some circumstances is moral and acceptable if only the right term to define it is used.

If the income tax is bad, then so are tariffs on the same principle, less taxes under either can be accepted if verify-ably measured to indicate the net reduction as a stepped process toward liberty.

Because something is in the Constitution does not automatically make it right, this document in all of its glory has many short comings and imperfections, so noted on occasion by Ron Paul himself. If the Constitution says to scrap the income tax in favor of a tariff, and if that tariff is on net equal to the income tax, their is no benefit to economic liberty. The other aspect of this is that be it tax or tariff, both are equally operable by the state to accomplish the same oppressive thing - theft of the peoples money in greater and greater shares. How could the people stop the raising of the tariff the same as the income tax?

If the average total tax load including every government sucking tentacle is 65% of ones income. Going to a tariff only structure, and say reducing it to 30% ( total tax load), then this is a move toward economic liberty, but not economic liberty itself. One could still take it and advocate for no government taxation. It would simply mean that full economic liberty would be on an installment plan in reverse with each subsequent reduction..

[johnwk]

Although this argument can be settled on economic grounds, the only way the case can be effectively made is on a moral base , at least to the masses. If the income tax is a moral outrage due to the concept that it is an out right theft of peoples incomes and the fruits of ones labor, should it not follow that if economic liberty is a part of liberty itself - indivisible - why is a tariff any better than an income tax when compared on its merits? The income tax is a theft of the income of the peoples within a monopolists territory. A tariff does the same.

The case can be made that a net reduction in total tax load, whether it is in an income tax or tariff structure, is a good thing, but what is being forgotten is that you concede the principle that stealing in some circumstances is moral and acceptable if only the right term to define it is used.

If the income tax is bad, then so are tariffs on the same principle, less taxes under either can be accepted if verify-ably measured to indicate the net reduction as a stepped process toward liberty.

Because something is in the Constitution does not automatically make it right, this document in all of its glory has many short comings and imperfections, so noted on occasion by Ron Paul himself. If the Constitution says to scrap the income tax in favor of a tariff, and if that tariff is on net equal to the income tax, their is no benefit. The other aspect of this is that be it tax or tariff, both are equally operable by the state to accomplish the same oppressive thing - theft of the peoples money in greater and greater shares.

If the average total tax load including every government sucking tentacle is 65% of ones income. Going to a tariff only structure, and say reducing it to 30% ( total tax load), then this is a move toward economic liberty, but not economic liberty. One could still take it and advocate for no government taxation. It would simply mean that full economic liberty would be on an installment plan in reverse.

Now, how does all that fit into raising a revenue under our existing Constitution? How are the functions of Congress to be funded within the four corners of our Constitution? Eh?

JWK

[Pericles]

Awaiting a response on this one...

I was unaware that a self congratulatory rant of the style featured on DailyKos required a response.

[awake]

With out opening the can of worms on what the constitution actually did as opposed to what it was intended to do, raising revenue in the eyes of a constitutional government will always at best be a forced and violent transaction of an armed monopolist. If the government needs money , let them offer a good or service on the market against all other service providers, let them compete for it as any other must necessarily do. And for gods sake don't issue them a right to your money.

One can not complain about the size and abusive nature of government and effectively deal with its boundless destruction with out addressing the monopoly with which its citizens have issued to it.

[johnwk]

Originally Posted by Sentient Void
Awaiting a response on this one...I was unaware that a self congratulatory rant of the style featured on DailyKos required a response.

A freaken men! Great answer.


JWK

[johnwk]

With out opening the can of worms on what the constitution actually did as opposed to what it was intended to do, raising revenue in the eyes of a constitutional government will always at best be a forced and violent transaction of an armed monopolist. If the government needs money , let them offer a good or service on the market against all other service providers, let them compete for it as any other must necessarily do. And for gods sake don't issue them a right to your money.

One can not complain about the size and abusive nature of government and effectively deal with its boundless destruction with out addressing the monopoly with which its citizens have issued to it.

Translation: Your mission here is to voice your views on the way you believe the world should be, even if it does not fit into the four walls of our federal Constitution.


JWK

[awake]

Translation: Your mission here is to voice your views on the way you believe the world should be, even if it does not fit into the four walls of our federal Constitution.


JWK

Nope, I want any one to prove to me that they can get back to the Constitution. And at what point do people say that its not working; we have to try another way.

[low preference guy]

Translation: Your mission here is to voice your views on the way you believe the world should be, even if it does not fit into the four walls of our federal Constitution.


JWK

It actually fits with the Constitution. The Constitution doesn't require tariffs, it just allows for them. Hell, the Constitution doesn't even require taxes. If states wanted to find different ways to fund the Federal government (which should provide national defense and close to nothing else) that would not be unconstitutional.

[johnwk]

Nope, I want any one to prove to me that they can get back to the Constitution. And at what point do people say that its not working; we have to try another way.



Gee, I really thought you were about to lay out in detail how the functions of our federal government would be funded under your system. I guess it's easier to switch the subject, especially when your imaginary world will never exist considering the nature of mankind.


JWK

[johnwk]

It actually fits with the Constitution. The Constitution doesn't require tariffs, it just allows for them. Hell, the Constitution doesn't even require taxes. If states wanted to find different ways to fund the Federal government (which should provide national defense and close to nothing else) that would not be unconstitutional.

Now that’s remarkable because the last time I checked our Constitution delegates a number of taxing powers to Congress and goes on to require that such powers be used to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;

I’ll go back and check, but I think the requirement is there.


JWK

[Anti Federalist]

I was unaware that a self congratulatory rant of the style featured on DailyKos required a response.

LoL - ZZZZzzzing.

Seriously, SV, I don't know what "school" it would be called.

Obama is certainly a Keynesian, and he's certainly a "free trader" he's off pawning off more industry to India as we speak.

The "Common Sense" school of economics, perhaps?

The Austrian school is the ideal within the confines of the United States.

No school, no law, no comparative advantage can overcome a prison state economy.

[low preference guy]

Obama is certainly a Keynesian, and he's certainly a "free trader"

wow. how can you write such bullshit. if he was calling for the repeal of NAFTA, CAFTA, the WTO, you might have a point. but he hasn't even given a hint he'll be in favor of any of that.

[Anti Federalist]

wow. how can you write such bullshit. if he was calling for the repeal of NAFTA, CAFTA, the WTO, you might have a point. but he hasn't even given a hint he'll be in favor of any of that.

:confused:

I can write it because it's true.

He's off in India right now, peddling a "free trade" agreement.

Barack Obama in India, 6 November 2010

"Together we can resist the protectionism that stifles growth and innovation. The United States remains—and will continue to remain—one of the most open economies in the world. By opening markets and reducing barriers to foreign investment, India can realize its full economic potential as well."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703514904575602103901437396.html

[low preference guy]

:confused:

I can write it because it's true.

He's off in India right now, peddling a "free trade" agreement.

how many pages does it have? if it has more than say, 30 pages, it's not a free trade agreement, but a highly regulated trade agreement.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

:confused:

I can write it because it's true.

He's off in India right now, peddling a "free trade" agreement.

You do know no free-trader supports our current trade policies, correct? That our current trade policies are decidely not free-trade. Our current policies are however, better than a regression to higher tariffs and protectionist wars, and moreover, are more liberty oriented than any protectionist raising of the tariffs. It seems we are at an impasse in linguistics. We have two different definitions and we believe each other to be on the same field. We aren't. It's the same discussion I get into all the time with Anti-Capitalists who think what we have now is Capitalism, and when they hear me argue for Capitalism think I am arguing for status-quo or some such non-sense. You are doing the same thing. We do not have free-trade right now, and Obama is certainly not a free-trader.

If you want to see what a free-trader is like and what actions were produced look at the Anti-Corn League. They didn't seek to create agreements with any other countries that created massive regulatory schemes, or other such non-sense. It was a League specifically designed to repeal protectionist drivel. There need be no reciprocal effect in trade policy to be a net gain for the free-trader. If the Chinese want to subsidize our purchasing at the cost of Chinese workers that is a gain for the American, not the Chinese. If American's tomorrow had to pay triple the cost of everything, or even a partial sum of their wants and needs that means a drastic reduction in jobs and production, not to mention exports. I think everyone forgets America is still the third largest exporter in goods. In any event, a free-trader today is someone like Walter Block -- favoring the repeal of NAFTA, WTO, CAFTA, and reducing tariffs to 0%. Let individuals make their own choices -- stop using the violence of the State to try and off-set some perceived injustice. Irrevocably if we start to actually enact what you want Industry Leaders will be targetting their competition, just like they did in early American history which lead to the War of Rebellion / Northern Aggression. Protectionism is always bad.

[Anti Federalist]

If you want to see what a free-trader is like and what actions were produced look at the Anti-Corn League. .

That Marx was in favor of, yes, I know about the Anti Corn League.

The Corn laws were repealed in 1846, and one of the arguments made, the same argument being made now, was that, with increased trade between nations, there would be no war.

And from 1846 to 1946 the British Empire expanded outward to circle the globe, subjugate nations all around the world, until the empire was destroyed by two world wars that killed tens of millions of people and left the debris of a colonial empire that we are still dealing with the repercussions of.

[jtstellar]

:confused:

I can write it because it's true.

He's off in India right now, peddling a "free trade" agreement.

Barack Obama in India, 6 November 2010

"Together we can resist the protectionism that stifles growth and innovation. The United States remains—and will continue to remain—one of the most open economies in the world. By opening markets and reducing barriers to foreign investment, India can realize its full economic potential as well."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703514904575602103901437396.html

this is sort of like the old debate they've been having for a while.. we've had pseudo-socialism (or pseudo free market, whichever way you like) for decades, and now we're in this mess. so do we blame free market? or do we blame socialism.

current trade imbalances are caused by our monetary policy that increased the monetary base during low interest rate periods. while the production capacity here in the united states remained fixed, of course that overflowing money simply went overseas to pursue imported goods.

in essence, our predicament is caused by pseudo-socialism, pseudo trade-protectionism and pseudo economy-authoritarianism with overburdening regulations that drive up costs of compliance along with surging taxes that make running business and investing overseas more appealing.

but i suppose you can blame *bona-fide free trade (not free trade agreements, same way the patriot act doesn't make the signers anymore "patriotic") and free market capitalism even though that doesn't make sense. it never existed in recent memory.

[Anti Federalist]

Look, as a stupid man, all I can do is observe.

I observe, through a careful study of history that, for roughly 150 years, the United States had a relatively sound currency, had little or no income taxation, and had import tariffs, sometimes pretty stiff.

For 150 years that same nation became an economic powerhouse, with a rising middle class and rising standard of living the likes of which the world had never seen before.

For roughly the past 50 years, all of that has been abandoned. The currency is unsound and pegged or based on nothing of intrinsic value, income, both business and personal, is taxed heavily at both the local, state and federal level and a policy of what has been called "free trade" has been followed, with reduction in tariffs to almost all imported goods.

And the result is a nation, both personally at a government level, drowning in debt, a shrinking middle class, crumbling, failing infrastructure, declining wages and a real unemployment rate of about 20 percent.

That's epic Fail.


this is sort of like the old debate they've been having for a while.. we've had pseudo-socialism (or pseudo free market, whichever way you like) for decades, and now we're in this mess. so do we blame free market? or do we blame socialism.

current trade imbalances are caused by our monetary policy that increased the monetary based during low interest rate periods. while the production capacity here in the united states remained fixed, of course that overflowing money simply went overseas to pursue imported goods.

in essence, our predicament is caused by pseudo-socialism, pseudo trade-protectionism and pseudo economy-authoritarianism with overburdening regulations that drive up costs of compliance along with surging taxes that make running business and investing overseas more appealing.

but i suppose you can blame capitalism and free trade, although that doesn't make sense. it never existed in recent memory.

[awake]

Gee, I really thought you were about to lay out in detail how the functions of our federal government would be funded under your system. I guess it's easier to switch the subject, especially when your imaginary world will never exist considering the nature of mankind.


JWK

I wouldn't be so interested in finding the best method of feeding a tumor - I would be more interested in its reduction and removal. You still think it protects you, that with out it all hell would break loose. In reality, all hell is what it's bringing, not what its preventing.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

That Marx was in favor of, yes, I know about the Anti Corn League.

The Corn laws were repealed in 1846, and one of the arguments made, the same argument being made now, was that, with increased trade between nations, there would be no war.

And from 1846 to 1946 the British Empire expanded outward to circle the globe, subjugate nations all around the world, until the empire was destroyed by two world wars that killed tens of millions of people and left the debris of a colonial empire that we are still dealing with the repercussions of.


The Corn laws were repealed in 1846, and one of the arguments made, the same argument being made now, was that, with increased trade between nations, there would be no war.

Yes, that is true, but that is a hyperbolic statement in the first place which hardly anyone takes seriously. However, one can most readily say that there will be less wars when nations trade, than when they do not. It hardly stands to reason that nations which are trading with another and partially 'dependent' through Division of Labor would seek to attack and destroy its trading partner. If you think that trading gives further incentive to war, and that non-trading gives less incentive I would love to see your argumentation for that. If I do not buy goods from tommy, and have no relations with tommy, and actively keep out tommies goods from my side of the playground it seems far-fetched to argue that wars-conflict will be less common.

Anyways, you failed to even mention anything else in my post. Would you care to address the rest? Or do I have to deal yet again with linguistic non-sense. What would you define what 'free-traders' like Walter Block, Ron Paul, and every other Austrian stand for, and what would you define our current trade policy as?

You also blithely dismiss what the repeal of the Corn Laws accomplished. It was a massive success for the standard of living for the citizens of England. There was no pre-tense in the Anti-Corn League of what we envision today as free-trade (That is massive regulatory trade policies which enact barriers for special industry and corporations). Free-traders do not try to force other countries to adapt the same policies. That is anti-thesis of what free-trade is. I will remind again -- repeal of the protectionist corn laws helped, not hurt the country of England and the citizens therein.

[Brian4Liberty]

Look, as a stupid man, all I can do is observe.


Obviously, your problem is that you have observed for too long. If you were only younger, it would all be so much clearer. ;)

(Damn, I used to hate it when older folks said you're "young and idealistic".) :o

[jtstellar]

Look, as a stupid man, all I can do is observe.

I observe, through a careful study of history that, for roughly 150 years, the United States had a relatively sound currency, had little or no income taxation, and had import tariffs, sometimes pretty stiff.

For 150 years that same nation became an economic powerhouse, with a rising middle class and rising standard of living the likes of which the world had never seen before.

For roughly the past 50 years, all of that has been abandoned. The currency is unsound and pegged or based on nothing of intrinsic value, income, both business and personal, is taxed heavily at both the local, state and federal level and a policy of what has been called "free trade" has been followed, with reduction in tariffs to almost all imported goods.

And the result is a nation, both personally at a government level, drowning in debt, a shrinking middle class, crumbling, failing infrastructure, declining wages and a real unemployment rate of about 20 percent.

That's epic Fail.

you realize the scale of specialization and globalization has expanded by god knows how many exponential degrees since we had to travel the seas in wooden ships and no titanium/steel planes.

every country now is specialized in producing a particular type of product. the tariffs back then presumably amounted to a negligible fraction of the transportation costs. do you have any idea how much a trade war in modern terms would stifle every country's economic growth in the world, not just united states.

we have to vacate positions and make resources for jobs that previously produced such low productive efficiency, that we deemed it is simply not worth it to begin business operations of that nature here, so to speak. now we shed potentially medical/engineering jobs for those low skill products we otherwise could simply import.

it's not that we can't do anything different from the founders as the time DOES change. we just have to move towards more freedom as technology progression allows, not less. technology has allowed for more freedom in economic activities. any step back is a regression on freedom, and a damage to our living standard.

[Anti Federalist]

However, one can most readily say that there will be less wars when nations trade, than when they do not.

I dispute that.

The history of military interventionism has almost always been to pave the way for some internationalist money making scheme.

It seems to me, and history indicates, that goods are forced across, (or resources absconded with) at the barrel of a soldier's gun, not the other way around.

We have a long and sordid history of attacking, invading and occupying our "trade partners". We have combat troops stationed right now in some of largest trade partner's nations, Germany, Japan, Korea, just to name a few.

"Free trade" is the engine of Empire, not of a non interventionist free republic.



I believe in adequate defense at the coastline and nothing else. If a nation comes over here to fight, then we'll fight. The trouble with America is that when the dollar only earns 6 percent over here, then it gets restless and goes overseas to get 100 percent. Then the flag follows the dollar and the soldiers follow the flag.

I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912 (where have I heard that name before?). I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.

Major General Smedley Darlington Butler - USMC Ret. 1933



Anyways, you failed to even mention anything else in my post. Would you care to address the rest? Or do I have to deal yet again with linguistic non-sense. What would you define what 'free-traders' like Walter Block, Ron Paul, and every other Austrian stand for, and what would you define our current trade policy as?


I've already made it clear that I think Ron Paul, as I understand him, is wrong on this issue, although we are all in agreement that globalist "managed trade" is bad.

[low preference guy]

"Free trade" is the engine of Empire, not of a non interventionist free republic.

Free trade is an environment in which I can sell or buy anything I want to anyone I want without restrictions but our mutual consent. Yes, that is the engine of the Empire! God forbid I find a mutually beneficial deal with somebody else, let alone someone who lives far away!

[Anti Federalist]

it's not that we can't do anything different from the founders as the time DOES change. we just have to move towards more freedom as technology progression allows, not less. technology has allowed for more freedom in economic activities. any step back is a regression on freedom, and a damage to our living standard.

I'm well aware of the fact that I'm a backward looking Luddite on this.

All hail the Brave New Modal Transport New World Order.

But if this is not a "step back" then why is freedom being lost and the living standard decreasing.

Do not be too proud of this technological terror you've created.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

I dispute that.

The history of military interventionism has almost always been to pave the way for some internationalist money making scheme.

It seems to me, and history indicates, that goods are forced across, (or resources absconded with) at the barrel of a soldier's gun, not the other way around.

We have a long and sordid history of attacking, invading and occupying our "trade partners". We have combat troops stationed right now in some of largest trade partner's nations, Germany, Japan, Korea, just to name a few.

"Free trade" is the engine of Empire, not of a non interventionist free republic.






I've already made it clear that I think Ron Paul, as I understand him, is wrong on this issue, although we are all in agreement that globalist "managed trade" is bad.




We have a long and sordid history of attacking, invading and occupying our "trade partners". We have combat troops stationed right now in some of largest trade partner's nations, Germany, Japan, Korea, just to name a few.

We are stationed in Germany because we refused to allow German goods, or let citizens buy German products and vice versa. We are stationed in Japan for the same reason. As for Korea, I would have to look that up, but Korea was about combating the 'Communist threat', not opening up trading partners. Anyways, that isn't the doctrine of free-trade. As I have said, free-trade is a domestic policy. You seem to be confused. It is about repeal of State-protectionism laws, not about 'agreements' through force or fraud, or bribery, or any other conniving.

You still haven't answered the question or acknowledged the fact that free-trade brings higher standards of living while protectionism brings lower standards of living. Now, I know you will bring it up, and I will say it again. Me buying a good made in Germany, Korea, or Australia has not one cent to do with our National Debt, or any Governmental level of debt. Our Government debt stems directly from their purse strings through which they spend. It has nothing to do with the individual citizen/slave.

[jtstellar]

I dispute that.

The history of military interventionism has almost always been to pave the way for some internationalist money making scheme.

It seems to me, and history indicates, that goods are forced across, (or resources absconded with) at the barrel of a soldier's gun, not the other way around.

We have a long and sordid history of attacking, invading and occupying our "trade partners". We have combat troops stationed right now in some of largest trade partner's nations, Germany, Japan, Korea, just to name a few.

"Free trade" is the engine of Empire, not of a non interventionist free republic.



well, you certainly dispute with ron paul then. it seems you have a fundamental disagreement with ron paul in economics. just wondering if this is a conscious and deliberate disagreement after extensive studies that outstrip even ron paul's studious reading on economics? or did this simply came from you not having as much interest as some of us who have watched almost every single ron paul video in the past two years.

i just find it interesting how your ideology seems to be closer to that of a neo-liberal rather than libertarian.

[low preference guy]

i just find it interesting how your ideology seems to be closer to that of a neo-liberal rather than libertarian.

i often wondered if AF was here just to scream 9/11 is an inside job, as the idea of stopping two individuals from freely making a mutually beneficial deal is so thrilling to him. that's not at all what the RP movement is about.

[jtstellar]

I'm well aware of the fact that I'm a backward looking Luddite on this.

All hail the Brave New Modal Transport New World Order.

But if this is not a "step back" then why is freedom being lost and the living standard decreasing.

Do not be too proud of this technological terror you've created.

ah, another one of those people that go "oh, you spelled the word 'global'", you must be one of those z-nist nwo illuminati bla bla bla

then cut away from all economic discussions/political campaigning and go
911!
911!
911!
911!

i'm done

btw i've never heard of any pro-economic liberty rhetoric from jesse ventura and he voiced support for public option health care on larry king once (yes the public option that even some moderate liberals don't want). let me guess.. you are his fan. i've always wondered why people with closer ideological affinity with liberalism bothered to join libertarians and actually make us even more of a political outcast.. the liberals don't make room for truthers and conspiracists, is that what you say?

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

I'm well aware of the fact that I'm a backward looking Luddite on this.

All hail the Brave New Modal Transport New World Order.

But if this is not a "step back" then why is freedom being lost and the living standard decreasing.

Do not be too proud of this technological terror you've created.

You seem to have confused correlation with causation. I am still amazed you think our declining standard of living has anything whatsoever to do with us having low tariffs, or the manipulated agreements we have signed. I actually think you have little in common with Austrian economics and more in common with the average mainschool orthodoxy. Your methodology is most upsetting :(

[Anti Federalist]

i often wondered if AF was here just to scream 9/11 is an inside job, as the idea of stopping two individuals from freely making a mutually beneficial deal is so thrilling to him. that's not at all what the RP movement is about.

LoL, damn yapping yorkies around here...