Free Trade Absent "Free Trade Agreements"?

[Knightskye]

Ron Paul is criticized for being against trade deals, like the recent ones with South Korea, Columbia, and Panama; Paul says he's against "managed trade."

How do we begin and expand trade with other nations absent "free trade agreements"?

[low preference guy]

Ron Paul is criticized for being against trade deals, like the recent ones with South Korea, Columbia, and Panama; Paul says he's against "managed trade."

How do we begin and expand trade with other nations absent "free trade agreements"?

eliminating trade barriers unilaterally. there is no need to even talk to them. that would benefit the U.S. regardless of what they do.

[suoulfrepus]

Yeah, you just repeal tariffs and quotas. We shouldn't worry about what other countries do. Other countries just hurt their own people when they put tariffs on our exports.

[Brett85]

Yeah, you just repeal tariffs and quotas. We shouldn't worry about what other countries do. Other countries just hurt their own people when they put tariffs on our exports.

You're not going to get another country to repeal their tariffs without entering into an agreement with them. The Constitution is very clear that Congress has the power to enter into treaties with other countries. I agree with Rand Paul and Justin Amash on this issue. The trade deals are a net positive. (At least the bilateral trade deals.)

[Brett85]

This is Justin Amash on the trade deals.

"Here's the roll call for H R 3080, United States-Korea Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act. On average, Korea imposes tariffs twice as large on American goods and services as the United States imposes on Korean imports. This bill reduces that imbalance. Korea is a large and growing market, particularly for Michigan manufacturing. I voted yes. It passed 278-151."


"Here's the roll call for H R 3079, United States-Panama Trade Promotion Agreement Implementation Act. Industrial goods from the United States face an average 7% tariff when sold in Panama, while almost all similar goods from Panama are sold in the United States duty-free. Opening up foreign markets to U.S. goods and services can help our businesses expand and create jobs. I voted yes. It passed 300-129."


"Here's the roll call for H R 3078, United States-Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement Implementation Act. The bill approves the text of the trade agreement and makes corresponding changes to U.S. customs law. Like the other trade agreements in this vote series, the Colombia agreement reduces government interference in trade. The agreement does not move as quickly as I'd prefer, but it's a good first step. It will ensure that our producers have a level playing field when selling in Colombia while also giving Americans access to a greater variety of products and services. I voted yes. It passed 262-167."

[low preference guy]

Traditional Conservative's position is the protectionist's position. It hurts the country. You would benefit the country more if you immediately and unilaterally eliminate all trade barriers rather than waiting an eternity for other countries to agree to a 1000 page "free trade" (lol) agreement.

Mises, Peter Schiff, free marketeers, and classic liberals agree that eliminating trade barriers unilaterally benefits the country who does it regardless of what other countries do.

[Brett85]

Traditional Conservative's position is the protectionist's position.

Yeah. Rand Paul, Justin Amash, and Mike Lee are all protectionists as well. Lol.

[Anti Federalist]

"Here's the roll call for H R 3080, United States-Korea Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act. On average, Korea imposes tariffs twice as large on American goods and services as the United States imposes on Korean imports. This bill reduces that imbalance. Korea is a large and growing market, particularly for Michigan manufacturing. I voted yes. It passed 278-151."

That's what they said about NAFTA.

That's what they said about CAFTA.

That's what they said about various Asian "free trade agreements".

And after thirty years, here we are, bankrupt, the American middle class decimated, cities that once used to be the manufacturing and innovation engines of the entire world are now ghost towns, wages stagnant or declining in real numbers and unemployment, as measured just before all these "fantastic agreements" went into effect, hovering around 18 percent. For young men, especially young black men, that number climbs as high as 50 percent.

Yeah, that worked out real fucking well for us.

[pcosmar]

How do we begin and expand trade with other nations absent "free trade agreements"?

Buy an old Shrimp boat. or freighter.
It would be nice, absent regulations and restrictions.

[pcosmar]

"Here's the roll call for H R 3080, United States-Korea Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act. On average, Korea imposes tariffs twice as large on American goods and services as the United States imposes on Korean imports. This bill reduces that imbalance. Korea is a large and growing market, particularly for Michigan manufacturing. I voted yes. It passed 278-151."
Yeah, that worked out real fucking well for us.
Hyundai sales seem to be doing quite well here.

[Southron]

These "free trade" agreements turn out to be quite costly. It's time we start putting America first again.

[Brett85]

That's what they said about NAFTA.

That's what they said about CAFTA.

Those are different. Those are multi lateral trade deals rather than bilateral trade deals. I don't know about Justin Amash, but Rand Paul has at least said that he supports bilateral trade deals but not multi lateral trade deals.

[pcosmar]

Those are different. Those are multi lateral trade deals rather than bilateral trade deals. I don't know about Justin Amash, but Rand Paul has at least said that he supports bilateral trade deals but not multi lateral trade deals.

Those are private deals that need to be worked out between the Importer, Exporter and Transporter with little or no interference from Washington DC.

[Brett85]

Those are private deals that need to be worked out between the Importer, Exporter and Transporter with little or no interference from Washington DC.

The trade deals create less interference from Washington in trade than what we had before the deals.

[pcosmar]

The trade deals create less interference from Washington in trade than what we had before the deals.

Bullshit.
Nothing the government does results in less interference.

[Brett85]

Bullshit.
Nothing the government does results in less interference.

So the government shouldn't cut taxes, because that wouldn't result in less interference?

[pcosmar]

So the government shouldn't cut taxes, because that wouldn't result in less interference?

Do you even bother to think before you type stupid shit?

Taxes are government interference.
NO TAX would be an absence of that interference.

[Brett85]

Do you even bother to think before you type stupid shit?

Taxes are government interference.
NO TAX would be an absence of that interference.

If you're against taxes, then you should support these agreements since they do away with tariffs. Tariffs are a form of taxation.

[pcosmar]

I would prefer a little tax on imports rather that taxes on income.

I would rather that government run on what could be collected in tip jars. and do a little as that allowed.

[Anti Federalist]

50% of All Workers Made Less than $26,000 in 2010

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/10/50-of-all-workers-made-less-than-26-000-in-2010/247059/

[Southron]

50% of All Workers Made Less than $26,000 in 2010

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/10/50-of-all-workers-made-less-than-26-000-in-2010/247059/

Come on, man. You know it's worth it for all those high quality Chinese products we have received in return. :rolleyes:

[Sentient Void]

You're not going to get another country to repeal their tariffs without entering into an agreement with them. The Constitution is very clear that Congress has the power to enter into treaties with other countries. I agree with Rand Paul and Justin Amash on this issue. The trade deals are a net positive. (At least the bilateral trade deals.)

This is economically unsound. It doesn't matter *what* the other country's trade policies are. Even if they had 100% tariffs against us. It is much better economically to allow free trade on our end *absolutely regardless*.

Any tariff on imports is ultimately a sales tax paid by the us consumer. Always. Any country who enacts quotas, tariffs, regulations, etc against the imports of another country are shooting themselves in the foot.

But we've gone into this discussion numerous times here on the forum and it's always with the same people. There are tons of threads on this issue where both sides flesh out their arguments and the restrictionist side is debunked time and time again. The best they can come up with is loose positivistic statistical correlations which prove nothing and serve only an intellectually dishonest interest. You restrictionists are wrong. Wrong. Wrong. All the way. 100%. Wrong.

All trade barriers, to any and every country, should be lifted. Free trade should be maximized regardless of the trade policy of other nations.

If you really want to put the American people 'first' then you should be a free trader. If you want to put Washington DC or some industry or company interests *above* the American people - then you'll support whatever flavor of trade Restrictionism. And it's absolutely hypocritical to say you want to minimize taxation on the American people while inthe same breath call for tariffs.

Mercantilism was debunked centuries ago. Please stop calling for it's horrible revival.

And if Rand Paul and Justin Amash support trade barriers or 'fair' trade - then yes, they are restrictionists/protectionists. Ron Paul supports maximizing free trade, BTW - if you wantto play some kind of appeal to authority game, which is wholly irrelevant, regardless.

[Anti Federalist]

All trade barriers, to any and every country, should be lifted. Free trade should be maximized regardless of the trade policy of other nations.

To do such thing with a prison economy on the other side of the table will assure a global "race to the bottom", complete with mud hut and three servings of cold rice a day.

[Anti Federalist]

Come on, man. You know it's worth it for all those high quality Chinese products we have received in return. :rolleyes:

/facepalm/

What was I thinking?

$26k will buy a whole shitload of Wal Marx junk.

[low preference guy]

To do such thing with a prison economy on the other side of the table will assure a global "race to the bottom", complete with mud hut and three servings of cold rice a day.

more economic ignorance. the reason why costs are low doesn't matter. it benefits those who buy the products nevertheless. eliminating tariffs lowers those costs.

if there is an economic problem is not because tariffs are low, but because there are too many internal regulations.

also, if you want to criticize "prison economies" you should criticize the United States more than China.

[Sentient Void]

To do such thing with a prison economy on the other side of the table will assure a global "race to the bottom", complete with mud hut and three servings of cold rice a day.

Wrong.

Even trading with a *total* so-called 'prison economy' on the other side of the table (remember, this 'prison economy' is working for us at much lower prices than if we paid for people here to do these jobs), if anything, would result in significantly higher prosperity for us, and still higher prosperity for them as opposed to an alternative where we didn't trade at all or highly taxed their imports. Their lack of prosperity is because of the prison policies of their state - but we wouldn't be doing ourselves any favors by erecting further barriers to trade with them.

It would of course be in everyone's best interests moreso if everyone was free trade. Of course we can't expect that, but any trade barriers, anywhere - ultimately harm the ones in the country who put up the trade barriers.

[Anti Federalist]

more economic ignorance. the reason why costs are low doesn't matter. it benefits those who buy the products nevertheless. eliminating tariffs lowers those costs.

if there is an economic problem is not because tariffs are low, but because there are too many internal regulations.

also, if you want to criticize "prison economies" you should criticize the United States more than China.

I do, consistently.

Now, present to me a business model that can compete with prison labor at 23 cents a day, like they pay US prisoners to make missile parts.

[low preference guy]

I do, consistently.

Now, present to me a business model that can compete with prison labor at 23 cents a day, like they pay US prisoners to make missile parts.

free market capitalism

[specsaregood]

That's what they said about NAFTA.
That's what they said about CAFTA.
That's what they said about various Asian "free trade agreements".
And after thirty years, here we are, bankrupt, the American middle class decimated, cities that once used to be the manufacturing and innovation engines of the entire world are now ghost towns, wages stagnant or declining in real numbers and unemployment, as measured just before all these "fantastic agreements" went into effect, hovering around 18 percent. For young men, especially young black men, that number climbs as high as 50 percent.

Yeah, that worked out real fucking well for us.

If I ever get a chance to question Dr. Paul, I want to ask him:
You have said that open-borders doesn't work when you have a welfare state.
I want to know your thoughts on whether free/managed trade doesn't work when you have the unlimited debt fiat currency of the world.

[Anti Federalist]

Wrong.

Even trading with a *total* so-called 'prison economy' on the other side of the table (remember, this 'prison economy' is working for us at much lower prices than if we paid for people here to do these jobs), if anything, would result in significantly higher prosperity for us, and still higher prosperity for them as opposed to an alternative where we didn't trade at all or highly taxed their imports. Their lack of prosperity is because of the prison policies of their state - but we wouldn't be doing ourselves any favors by erecting further barriers to trade with them.

It would of course be in everyone's best interests moreso if everyone was free trade. Of course we can't expect that, but any trade barriers, anywhere - ultimately harm the ones in the country who put up the trade barriers.

We've had thirty years now of "free trade".

Government is bankrupt, unemployment is at Depression era levels, middle class incomes are stagnant or falling, and it takes two people working full time just to keep a family's head above water.

If that's not harmful, well, hit me with a bat, please.

[ClayTrainor]

Ron Paul is criticized for being against trade deals, like the recent ones with South Korea, Columbia, and Panama; Paul says he's against "managed trade."

How do we begin and expand trade with other nations absent "free trade agreements"?

By simply getting the government out of the way, and letting people trade at their own discretion. If I want to buy some socks on Ebay from a guy in South Korea, why do I need government to manage, tax or regulate that?

[low preference guy]

We've had thirty years now of "free trade".

AF lost the argument right here.

[ClayTrainor]

Those arguing against free trade, are really arguing for government managed trade, which is exactly what NAFTA, CAFTA, WTO, etc are an effect of. They are not free trade agreements, they are managed trade agreements.

To argue for government managed trade requires the same logical inconsistencies that all forms of socialism and government regulation rely on. They ignore the rights of the individual and justify their position using the great mythical "we".

"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

[Sentient Void]

Okay, look. It'as really this simple.

Think of *ALL* of the stuff that you buy, whatever it is (televisions, paperclips, staplers, tables, clothes, electronics, furniture, etc) that is 'MADE IN CHINA'. Understand that this stuff is *very* low in price compared to what we would be paying if it were made here.

Now, think of the price you pay for these things. Now, tack an additional tariff on top of it. You want a 20% tariff on these things (some want higher)? Now virtually everything you could buy costs 20% more. That 20% more you're paying for everything is money not otherwise saved that you could spend on *other* stuff. Other goods and services, many of which made here - but ultimately all things that raise your standard of living. The 'opportunity costs' would be significant. China's so-called 'prison economy', as you call it, is their comparative advantage - and we benefit. Putting a tariff or some other restriction on Chinese goods would make our standards of living *drop* - not go up.

Our dragged out unemployment problem has *nothing* to do with trade. Unemployment is cancelled out over the long run and leads to the creation of new industries created by freed up opportunity costs because of increased savings and value. By your logic, the ultimate competitor we should raise tariffs or taxes against is any industry that's becoming automated. Ultimately, logically, you should want to resist automation, or really *any technological advancement*. Your logic would support heavily taxing the rise of the tractor or backhoe industry because it 'destroys jobs' of ditch-diggers. And you should then be for taxing the shovel industry because of the threat it would pose to the hand-digging industry.

You should have also supported fighting against and taxing the rise of automotive cars and the refrigerator industry - because of how they make other jobs obsolete. But then you would of course be forgetting about *all* of the jobs these new industries create, and how they raise the standard of living for everyone.

It comes down to this - there is *always* more work to be done. There's is always more work to find to meet the literally infinite demands of individuals.

[pcosmar]

AF lost the argument right here.

That depends on who's definition of "Free Trade" you use. I think AF is using the government definition. (NAFTA, CAFTA etc)

All called Free Trade Agreements.

[ClayTrainor]

That depends on who's definition of "Free Trade" you use. I think AF is using the government definition. (NAFTA, CAFTA etc)

All called Free Trade Agreements.


I would imagine we're all opposed to those "agreements". However it is wrong to assert those are "free trade", in the same way it is wrong to assert that the patriot act is "patriotic".

"All to often in Washington, free trade is used when one really means “subsidized trade,” or, tax dollars being funneled to foreign governments to buy American products. Similarly, the phrase can mean to use tax dollars to bail-out American firms for risky overseas ventures, or managed trade by the World Trade Organization to serve powerful special interests." - Ron Paul

[low preference guy]

I have a simple mental experiment for AF.

You complain about goods from "prison economies" being very cheap. Now imagine if goods are really cheap, so cheap that you don't even need to pay for them, i.e., they're free. This is equivalent as if the goods just fall from the sky. Imagine if furniture, perfumes, books just fell from the sky. Do you think that will be harmful? Of course it wouldn't be harmful overall. The country will just shift production to those goods that don't fall from the sky. In the short run the producers of those respective goods will go bankrupt, just like many candle makers went bankrupt when other forms of energy appeared, but every other sector in society is better off and in the long run every sector benefits.

Having these goods falling from the sky is beneficial largely because they're free or cheap. If they were cheap for any other reason they would still be beneficial. It doesn't matter if the reason is technological advances or "prison economies".

[low preference guy]

That depends on who's definition of "Free Trade" you use. I think AF is using the government definition. (NAFTA, CAFTA etc)

All called Free Trade Agreements.

Then he is arguing against a straw man because Sentient Void isn't arguing in favor of managed trade.

[Sentient Void]

That depends on who's definition of "Free Trade" you use. I think AF is using the government definition. (NAFTA, CAFTA etc)

All called Free Trade Agreements.

No, he's not. He is really against 'free trade' unless in a perfect situation where everyone is engaging in total free trade.

He's ultimately against free trade, and for government managed trade - because if he was for free trade - he would support it regardless of what the other country institutes. Free Trade is the morally superior position, and the economically sound one. And it's logically consistent with free markets.

[pcosmar]

I would imagine we're all opposed to those "agreements". However it is wrong to assert those are "free trade", in the same way it is wrong to assert that the patriot act is "patriotic".

"All to often in Washington, free trade is used when one really means “subsidized trade,” or, tax dollars being funneled to foreign governments to buy American products. Similarly, the phrase can mean to use tax dollars to bail-out American firms for risky overseas ventures, or managed trade by the World Trade Organization to serve powerful special interests." - Ron Paul

This is true,, but when mentioning 'Free Trade" it depends on the definition.

To me,,Free trade was what I did as a smuggler.
and I would have been arrested had I been caught.

[Sentient Void]

I have a simple mental experiment for AF.

You complain about goods from "prison economies" being very cheap. Now imagine if goods are really cheap, so cheap that you don't even need to pay for them, i.e., they're free. This is equivalent as if the goods just fall from the sky. Imagine if furniture, perfumes, books just fell from the sky. Do you think that will be harmful? Of course it wouldn't be harmful overall. The country will just shift production to those goods that don't fall from the sky. In the short run the producers of those respective goods will go bankrupt, just like many candle makers went bankrupt when other forms of energy appeared, but every other sector in society is better off and in the long run every sector benefits.

Having these goods falling from the sky is beneficial largely because they're free or cheap. If they were cheap for any other reason they would still be beneficial. It doesn't matter if the reason is technological advances or "prison economies".

But, but... LPG... HOW COULD WE COMPETE WITH FREE EVERYTHING FALLING FROM THE SKY?!?! THIS IS UNACCEPTABLE!!! WE MUST TAX IT AND REGULATE IT!! NOW! IT'S THE ONLY WAY TO PROSPERITY! WE MUST MAKE THESE GOODS MORE EXPENSIVE!

[Brett85]

This is economically unsound. It doesn't matter *what* the other country's trade policies are. Even if they had 100% tariffs against us. It is much better economically to allow free trade on our end *absolutely regardless*.

Any tariff on imports is ultimately a sales tax paid by the us consumer. Always. Any country who enacts quotas, tariffs, regulations, etc against the imports of another country are shooting themselves in the foot.

But we've gone into this discussion numerous times here on the forum and it's always with the same people. There are tons of threads on this issue where both sides flesh out their arguments and the restrictionist side is debunked time and time again. The best they can come up with is loose positivistic statistical correlations which prove nothing and serve only an intellectually dishonest interest. You restrictionists are wrong. Wrong. Wrong. All the way. 100%. Wrong.

All trade barriers, to any and every country, should be lifted. Free trade should be maximized regardless of the trade policy of other nations.

If you really want to put the American people 'first' then you should be a free trader. If you want to put Washington DC or some industry or company interests *above* the American people - then you'll support whatever flavor of trade Restrictionism. And it's absolutely hypocritical to say you want to minimize taxation on the American people while inthe same breath call for tariffs.

Mercantilism was debunked centuries ago. Please stop calling for it's horrible revival.

And if Rand Paul and Justin Amash support trade barriers or 'fair' trade - then yes, they are restrictionists/protectionists. Ron Paul supports maximizing free trade, BTW - if you wantto play some kind of appeal to authority game, which is wholly irrelevant, regardless.

So I'm a "restrictionist" because I support free trade deals that lower or abolish tariffs? And the people who oppose free trade deals are somehow the free traders? I can't argue with that logic.

[low preference guy]

So I'm a "restrictionist" because I support free trade deals that lower or abolish tariffs? And the people who oppose free trade deals are somehow the free traders? I can't argue with that logic.

you're a protectionist because you oppose eliminating as many trade barriers as possible immediately and unilaterally.

[Sentient Void]

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.

yup.

[Brett85]

you're a protectionist because you oppose eliminating as many trade barriers as possible immediately and unilaterally.

I'm a realist, and it's not politically realistic for us to abolish all tariffs on our side. You wouldn't get that through Congress in a hundred years. The only way that we can get lower tariffs or eliminate tariffs is through these trade deals. Are these deals perfect? No. Are they regulated too heavily? Yes. But they're still better than the status quo, and it's the best that we can do. I don't live in a theoretical world.

[specsaregood]

I have a simple mental experiment for AF.

You complain about goods from "prison economies" being very cheap. Now imagine if goods are really cheap, so cheap that you don't even need to pay for them, i.e., they're free. This is equivalent as if the goods just fall from the sky. Imagine if furniture, perfumes, books just fell from the sky. Do you think that will be harmful? Of course it wouldn't be harmful overall. The country will just shift production to those goods that don't fall from the sky. In the short run the producers of those respective goods will go bankrupt, just like many candle makers went bankrupt when other forms of energy appeared, but every other sector in society is better off and in the long run every sector benefits.

Having these goods falling from the sky is beneficial largely because they're free or cheap. If they were cheap for any other reason they would still be beneficial. It doesn't matter if the reason is technological advances or "prison economies".

Farmers give their animals all kinds of free food, free medicine and free shelter. It does a good job of protecting and fattening them up. Then they eat slaughter and eat them.

[low preference guy]

I'm a realist, and it's not politically realistic for us to abolish all tariffs on our side. You wouldn't get that through Congress in a hundred years. The only way that we can get lower tariffs or eliminate tariffs is through these trade deals. Are these deals perfect? No. Are they regulated too heavily? Yes. But they're still better than the status quo, and it's the best that we can do. I don't live in a theoretical world.

this quote shows you're BSing:


You're not going to get another country to repeal their tariffs without entering into an agreement with them.

[Sentient Void]

So I'm a "restrictionist" because I support free trade deals that lower or abolish tariffs? And the people who oppose free trade deals are somehow the free traders? I can't argue with that logic.

You're a restrictionist because you don't favor eliminating all barriers that the US erects to trade, regardless of the country or their policies. You don't need any 'agreement's. It doesn't matter what the other nation does. Just pull down the trade barriers on this side. 'Free Trade Agreements' are government managed trade.

You should be sued to enough Orwellian doublespeak from our government by now to know that just because it's called a 'free trade agreement' doesn't make it 'free trade'.

[low preference guy]

Farmers give their animals all kinds of free food, free medicine and free shelter. It does a good job of protecting and fattening them up. Then they eat slaughter and eat them.

when a country sells us cheaper goods, the money that is saved from not buying the more expensive goods is used to either buy other things and thus increase the standard of living or invest money to produce the things in which the U.S. has a comparative advantage. it can in no way "kill us".

[Sentient Void]

I'm a realist, and it's not politically realistic for us to abolish all tariffs on our side. You wouldn't get that through Congress in a hundred years. The only way that we can get lower tariffs or eliminate tariffs is through these trade deals. Are these deals perfect? No. Are they regulated too heavily? Yes. But they're still better than the status quo, and it's the best that we can do. I don't live in a theoretical world.

So you're against a policy not because you differ on the economics, nor because you disagree with morality of the policy.... because it's 'politically difficult' or not 'politically realistic'?

You *ARE* a Ron Paul supporter, right? Since when have we been Ron Paul supporters because it's been politically easy or 'politically realistic'.

We're here because we're principled, we're right, we understand sound economics, and because we respect and value strong moral principles - and because we are doing our best to push our system in a direction to support Ron Paul and those like him (and it's our determination that is starting to turn the winds more and more in our favor) *despite* the odds.

So you seem to be the one being entirely illogical and inconsistent, if you ask me.

[specsaregood]

when a country sells us cheaper goods, the money that is saved from not buying the more expensive goods is used to either buy other things and thus increase the standard of living or invest money to produce the things in which the U.S. has a comparative advantage. it can in no way "kill us".

No, but when the aliens finally come to harvest, it will be the americans that are served in their high priced steak houses; what with all that marbling on the meat due to long stays in our pens (cubicles) and diet heavy in grains such as corn. The chinese will be the last to be harvested and be served in the alien equivalent of mcdonalds.

[low preference guy]

No, but when the aliens finally come to harvest, it will be the americans that are served in their high priced steak houses; what with all that marbling on the meat due to long stays in our pens (cubicles) and diet heavy in grains such as corn. The chinese will be the last to be harvested and be served in the alien equivalent of mcdonalds.

this is way too advanced for my brain

[Sentient Void]

No, but when the aliens finally come to harvest, it will be the americans that are served in their high priced steak houses; what with all that marbling on the meat due to long stays in our pens (cubicles) and diet heavy in grains such as corn. The chinese will be the last to be harvested and be served in the alien equivalent of mcdonalds.

heheheh

Well, there you have it. Free trade debunked.

You've officially converted me :-(

[specsaregood]

this is way too advanced for my brain
yes, well, in other words: mooo, moo moo mooo, moo, moo, moo mooooo. get it now? :)

[Brett85]

So you're against a policy not because you differ on the economics, nor because you disagree with morality of the policy.... because it's 'politically difficult' or not 'politically realistic'?

You *ARE* a Ron Paul supporter, right? Since when have we been Ron Paul supporters because it's been politically easy or 'politically realistic'.

We're here because we're principled, we're right, we understand sound economics, and because we respect and value strong moral principles - and because we are doing our best to push our system in a direction to support Ron Paul and those like him (and it's our determination that is starting to turn the winds more and more in our favor) *despite* the odds.

So you seem to be the one being entirely illogical and inconsistent, if you ask me.

So you expect me to be exactly like Ron? I'm not. I support him for President and have donated money to him, but I'm still more in line with Rand on the issues. The result of voting against trade deals with other countries is that we get higher tarrifs. Period. Regardless of the "principled" reason for voting against these deals, "no" votes on these trade deals end up promoting higher tariffs and protectionism. If Ron proposed a bill to eliminate all tariffs on imports into our country, he might get two votes for that in the entire house. Like I said, I live in a world of reality, not theory.

[low preference guy]

yes, well, in other words: mooo, moo moo mooo, moo, moo, moo mooooo. get it now? :)

got it

[low preference guy]

So you expect me to be exactly like Ron? I'm not. I support him for President and have donated money to him, but I'm still more in line with Rand on the issues. The result of voting against trade deals with other countries is that we get higher tarrifs. Period. Regardless of the "principled" reason for voting against these deals, "no" votes on these trade deals end up promoting higher tariffs and protectionism. If Ron proposed a bill to eliminate all tariffs on imports into our country, he might get two votes for that in the entire house. Like I said, I live in a world of reality, not theory.

yeah, so the solution is the encourage a system in which the government manages trade, and call it free trade, to ensure that even in the long run the discussion is only between Protectionist A and Protectionist B.

the protectionists probably should stop advocating their policies when our own "supporters of free trade" do their work for them.

[Anti Federalist]

So you're against a policy not because you differ on the economics, nor because you disagree with morality of the policy.... because it's 'politically difficult' or not 'politically realistic'?

I am in opposition to this because it is exactly what the global Malthusians want.

They have made it very clear, we in the west, especially in the US, live way too well, we must be reduced to third world squalor for the sake of the planet.

[donnay]

I would imagine we're all opposed to those "agreements". However it is wrong to assert those are "free trade", in the same way it is wrong to assert that the patriot act is "patriotic".

"All to often in Washington, free trade is used when one really means “subsidized trade,” or, tax dollars being funneled to foreign governments to buy American products. Similarly, the phrase can mean to use tax dollars to bail-out American firms for risky overseas ventures, or managed trade by the World Trade Organization to serve powerful special interests." - Ron Paul

Good points. Of course the one real thing that people do not get is we have to have a truly free market to allow truly free trade.

[Sentient Void]

So you expect me to be exactly like Ron? I'm not. I support him for President and have donated money to him, but I'm still more in line with Rand on the issues. The result of voting against trade deals with other countries is that we get higher tarrifs. Period. Regardless of the "principled" reason for voting against these deals, "no" votes on these trade deals end up promoting higher tariffs and protectionism. If Ron proposed a bill to eliminate all tariffs on imports into our country, he might get two votes for that in the entire house. Like I said, I live in a world of reality, not theory.

You've missed my point. The point is, that supporting those like Ron Paul for president and folks like him for a long time have been 'politically unrealistic', much like how you call the goal to maximize free trade over time to be 'politically unrealistic' - and on that reason you are against it, and thus for significant levels of compromise.

However, we've pushed it to the point that electing those politically closer to Ron Paul and perhaps even Ron Paul himself is *much more* realistic, and it has a decent chance of happening this time around. But it's still an uphill battle. Many still call it 'politically unrealistic', actually.

Should that be a reason to not support it? That is what I am saying.

[Sentient Void]

They have made it very clear, we in the west, especially in the US, live way too well, we must be reduced to third world squalor for the sake of the planet.

And the interventions you support in regards to resisting free trade will be steps to accomplish exactly that. Have you not paid any attention at all? Did you rattle our examples/analogies around in your brain at all or are you just constantly knee-jerk- reacting to it all without considering the consequences of what you advocate?

[Sentient Void]

Good points. Of course the one real thing that people do not get is we have to have a truly free market to allow truly free trade.

No, you don't. You just need to minimize barriers to trade and association as much as possible at home. Not try to fight barriers by erecting more barriers. That's insane.

[Brett85]

yeah, so the solution is the encourage a system in which the government manages trade, and call it free trade, to ensure that even in the long run the discussion is only between Protectionist A and Protectionist B.

the protectionists probably should stop advocating their policies when our own "supporters of free trade" do their work for them.

Going by your logic, we should oppose state laws that legalize marijuana on the basis that marijuana shouldn't be "regulated." We have to support a completely free market, so we have to oppose all legalization attemps that include the regulation of marijuana.

Never mind the fact that we would still have more freedom than we had before. Everything has to be perfect, so we can't legalize marijuana unless we're absolutely sure that it won't be regulated. Sound about right?

[donnay]

No, you don't. You just need to minimize barriers to trade and association as much as possible at home. Not try to fight barriers by erecting more barriers. That's insane.

We need to get government out of business affairs--first, then commence in free trade.

[specsaregood]

..

[low preference guy]

Going by your logic, we should oppose state laws that legalize marijuana on the basis that marijuana shouldn't be "regulated." We have to support a completely free market, so we have to oppose all legalization attemps that include the regulation of marijuana.

Never mind the fact that we would still have more freedom than we had before. Everything has to be perfect, so we can't legalize marijuana unless we're absolutely sure that it won't be regulated. Sound about right?

sometimes you have to change the parameters of acceptable debate. if stalin and lenin ran for President, you would be saying that Lenin is slightly better and there would be more freedom. similarly, you do nothing now when the two options are protectionism form A and protectionism form B.

regarding marijuana, opposing federal laws is a no-brainer because centralization is bad for freedom in the long run. i don't even think you believe your idiotic argument on this issue and just brought it up as a distraction.

[low preference guy]

We need to get government out of business affairs--first, then commence in free trade.

lol.

translation: first, let's make goods more expensive for no good reason... then let's work on free trade.

[Sentient Void]

Going by your logic, we should oppose state laws that legalize marijuana on the basis that marijuana shouldn't be "regulated." We have to support a completely free market, so we have to oppose all legalization attemps that include the regulation of marijuana.

Never mind the fact that we would still have more freedom than we had before. Everything has to be perfect, so we can't legalize marijuana unless we're absolutely sure that it won't be regulated. Sound about right?


Not at all.

In regards to policy - we're not saying 'all or nothing'. We would want to see absolute free trade with all nations as the best possible system. We want to push towards that as much as possible and take what we can at every and any opportunity. Of course, if it was offerred up to reduce all trade barriers from let's say a 10% tax to a 5% or a 1% or an 8%, we would support any of those proposals. Much like how while we would support a truly free market in marijuana, we would absolutely support a step in the right direction - that being a legalized but regulated or even taxed market. Though it's not 'pure', it's a step in the right direction. But will always support further market liberalization.

[Sentient Void]

We need to get government out of business affairs--first, then commence in free trade.

I don't care which is first - it really doesn't matter economically. Either is a step in the right direction, and either should be supported at any time they are offered up. On both moral and economic grounds. The key is to stop advocating for policies that are against free trade - or supporting policies for so-called 'fair trade', protectionism, etc.

[Brett85]

sometimes you have to change the parameters of acceptable debate. if stalin and lenin ran for President, you would be saying that Lenin is slightly better and there would be more freedom. similarly, you do nothing now when the two options are protectionism form A and protectionism form B.

regarding marijuana, opposing federal laws is a no-brainer because centralization is bad for freedom in the long run. i don't even think you believe your idiotic argument on this issue and just brought it up as a distraction.

I said nothing about the federal government and "centralization." I specifically said "state" marijuana laws. I bring that up because many libertarians did indeed vote against California's law to legalize marijuana on the basis that it shouldn't be regulated. That's probably why that proposition lost. It's just an example of allowing the perfect to be the enemy of the good, which is the same thing that's going on with these trade deals with other countries that lower or eliminate tariffs.

[Brett85]

Not at all.

In regards to policy - we're not saying 'all or nothing'. We would want to see absolute free trade with all nations as the best possible system. We want to push towards that as much as possible and take what we can at every and any opportunity. Of course, if it was offerred up to reduce all trade barriers from let's say a 10% tax to a 5% or a 1% or an 8%, we would support any of those proposals. Much like how while we would support a truly free market in marijuana, we would absolutely support a step in the right direction - that being a legalized but regulated or even taxed market. Though it's not 'pure', it's a step in the right direction. But will always support further market liberalization.

Yes, but opposing trade deals with other countries because the trade is "regulated" seems like an "all or nothing approach." I would rather have regulated trade with low or no tariffs than have regulated trade with high tariffs. Those are the two choices that members of Congress have when voting on these trade deals.

[Anti Federalist]

And the interventions you support in regards to resisting free trade will be steps to accomplish exactly that. Have you not paid any attention at all? Did you rattle our examples/analogies around in your brain at all or are you just constantly knee-jerk- reacting to it all without considering the consequences of what you advocate?

I live with the consequences every day of the policies of my opposition.

I've been working for a living for thirty years.

I've been run out of business twice by government regulation and the bottom being yanked out from under me on wholesale prices, due to "free trade" practices.

I see first hand, all around me, multi million dollar equipment made in socialist nations that are subsidized by their governments, in many cases directly because they receive subsidized defense from me. And I'm supposed to come up with a busniess model that can compete with that?

I've been around the world, twice, and not to nice, well guarded tourist traps, but where the real people live and work and die, and I see what they have to put up with and what our globalist masters want for us.

I've owned three businesses and currently manage a 25 million dollar piece of equipment for a multi billion dollar company, (that is in the process of bailing out of this country as well).

Please do not continue to insinuate that I am some kind of sheltered jackass that has no idea why he says what he does.

I have taken your arguments to heart and carefully considered them, but find them lacking.

[Sentient Void]

I said nothing about the federal government and "centralization." I specifically said "state" marijuana laws. I bring that up because many libertarians did indeed vote against California's law to legalize marijuana on the basis that it shouldn't be regulated. That's probably why that proposition lost. It's just an example of allowing the perfect to be the enemy of the good, which is the same thing that's going on with these trade deals with other countries that lower or eliminate tariffs.

I'm a radical market-anarchist libertarian and IMO any libertarian who votes against such a proposal is, simply put, an idiot. We don't all think like that (and I agree, there are a lot who do, and I feel it's counterproductive).

I would have voted for it.

But anyways, back to the subject - point is, you should want to call for maximize free trade regardless of the situation - and regardless of the other country's trade policy.

[low preference guy]

I have taken your arguments to heart and carefully considered them, but find them lacking.

what part? you start the discussion, people refute your points, and then you shut up. it looks like you have no arguments or just refuse to accept the obvious.

[donnay]

lol.

translation: first, let's make goods more expensive for no good reason... then let's work on free trade.

Are you one of those people who need translations of the Constitution too?

I will try to t-y-p-e r-e-a-l-l-y s-l-o-w s-o y-o-u w-i-l-l u-n-d-e-r-s-t-a-n-d. By government interfering in business affairs that by definition does not conclude we have a free market. It is an illusion, that we have a free market--what we have is a controlled market.



A free-market economy is one within which all markets are unregulated by any parties other than market participants. In its purest form, the government plays a neutral role in its administration and legislation of economic activity, neither limiting it (by regulating industries or protecting them from internal/external market pressures) nor actively promoting it (by owning economic interests or offering subsidies to businesses or R&D).

[Brett85]

But anyways, back to the subject - point is, you should want to call for maximize free trade regardless of the situation - and regardless of the other country's trade policy.

If I was in Congress, I would vote in favor of every single bill that cut taxes, and that would include tariffs. I wouldn't ever vote against a bill that cut the tariff rate on imports. That said, I don't see any problem with entering into an agreement with another country that substantially reduces taxes on imports and exports. It's just another way to reduce tariffs, and I wouldn't ever vote against lowering tariffs. These trade deals with other countries lower tariffs, and I couldn't bring myself to vote against that. That's all I'm saying.

[Sentient Void]

I live with the consequences every day of the policies of my opposition.

I've been working for a living for thirty years.

I've been run out of business twice by government regulation and the bottom being yanked out from under me on wholesale prices, due to "free trade" practices.

Sorry to hear that - but to be *objective*, the horse and buggy industry, the ice delivery man industry and milkman industry all had 'the bottom yanked out from under them' because of more competitive industries as well. Should we have asked for *more* government in these areas, the same government regulation that assisted in running you out of business, in order to 'protect and industry'? Do you see how much this is all the antithesis of liberty and increasing standards of living? There are countless examples of this that the market deemed necessary to raise standards of living and for it to advance productively and technologically.


I see first hand, all around me, multi million dollar equipment made in socialist nations that are subsidized by their governments, in many cases directly because they receive subsidized defense from me. And I'm supposed to come up with a busniess model that can compete with that?

No, you're supposed to acknowledge their comparative advantage, stick to supporting minimizing government interference and getting it out of the way (and not asking for it to *get in the way* and restrict trade and freedom), acknowledge that you simply *can't* compete with their comparative advantage, and change your business. Adapt and evolve to change with the market. That's how businesses survive and prosper. Those that refuse to change or can't change, disappear.

How would anyone be able to compete with free falling goods from the sky? *Should* they try to compete with it, or figure out something else to do? Should candlestick maker's try to find ways to compete with the sun during the day? Is it right and prosperous for them o lobby the government to mandate people shut all doors and blacken their windows throughout the day to prop up the industry?


Please do not continue to insinuate that I am some kind of sheltered jackass that has no idea why he says what he does.

I have taken your arguments to heart and carefully considered them, but find them lacking.

Which shows how your approach on this issue is purely emotional, not logical nor objective.

[Anti Federalist]

what part? you start the discussion, people refute your points, and then you shut up. it looks like you have no arguments or just refuse to accept the obvious.

What more is there to say?

I've watched as our market was opened to every third world, prison, failed or narco state on planet earth.

30 years later, we're broke, unemployed, with a middle class struggling to survive, as we bleed out money and treasure funding a military empire that the banksters who started the whole fucking mess need to protect their interests around the globe, especially oil, since without cheap oil the whole globalist model falls to shit in three days.

[Sentient Void]

If I was in Congress, I would vote in favor of every single bill that cut taxes, and that would include tariffs. I wouldn't ever vote against a bill that cut the tariff rate on imports. That said, I don't see any problem with entering into an agreement with another country that substantially reduces taxes on imports and exports. It's just another way to reduce tariffs, and I wouldn't ever vote against lowering tariffs. These trade deals with other countries lower tariffs, and I couldn't bring myself to vote against that. That's all I'm saying.

Oh, well sure. I can agree with that. As long as we both agree that it's 'government managed trade' still and nothing near free trade - and that actual free trade is much, much more preferable and should be the goal.

[Anti Federalist]

Which shows how your approach on this issue is purely emotional, not logical or objective.

Of course it isn't.

Logic will tell us that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the individual.

We all know where that road leads.

[low preference guy]

Logic will tell us that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the individual.

my freaking gosh how clueless can someone be

[Sentient Void]

I've watched as our market was opened to every third world, prison, failed or narco state on planet earth.

Which really means people and businesses were increasingly allowed the freedom to commercially associate voluntarily with those that they wanted and preferred. And you want to refuse their right to do this? Are you sure you support freedom and liberty?


30 years later, we're broke, unemployed, with a middle class struggling to survive, as we bleed out money and treasure funding a military empire that the banksters who started the whole fucking mess need to protect their interests around the globe, especially oil, since without cheap oil the whole globalist model falls to shit in three days.

This is exactly what we're talking about. None of this has anything to do with free trade and allowing markets to compete freely. if it were, the fact that we were 80-90% an agrarian society in the 1700s to then becoming an industrialized nation with a massive influx of immigrants, whereas now agriculture is under 5% of our economy should have made everyone unemployed. Or at least 3/4 of our population unemployed.

Clearly that hasn't happened.

Clearly, people have been 'losing jobs' to increased automation, machines, and more free trade over the decades. But we've consistently been in the 3-4% range.

Recently, we're much higher in unemployment and a struggling middle class - but it has *nothing* - absolutely nothing, to do with increased free trade with anyone. It's because of our own shitty domestic policies which restrict freedom of association in trade, and regulations. And your answer to this is to institute MORE restriction and taxes on us? This is insane.

Your 'arguments' are post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacies and completely irrelevant.

[low preference guy]

What more is there to say?

I've watched as our market was opened to every third world, prison, failed or narco state on planet earth.

30 years later, we're broke, unemployed, with a middle class struggling to survive, as we bleed out money and treasure funding a military empire that the banksters who started the whole fucking mess need to protect their interests around the globe, especially oil, since without cheap oil the whole globalist model falls to shit in three days.

There is more to say because that argument doesn't end the discussion. Why? Because correlation doesn't imply causation. It's like saying that people watch more porn today than 30 years ago. Therefore we should ban porn. That will increase employment.

[Sentient Void]

my freaking gosh how clueless can someone be

He's really reaching at straws now.

I guess what he really means is 'the needs of the few (namely him and other industries he wants to 'protect') should be forced on everyone else'.

[donnay]

He's really reaching at straws now.

I guess what he really means is 'the needs of the few (namely him and other industries he wants to 'protect') should be forced on everyone else'.

Yes, he wants to protect them from a global governance. Aren't you guys paying attention!! *SIGH*

One world governance, is not going to allow "free" anything! Just remember that, it is all about command and control!

[Anti Federalist]

my freaking gosh how clueless can someone be

Why is it I can never get out of one of these discussions with you without neg rep?

OK - Thirty men are in a lifeboat. 31 will sink it.

One man, near death comes struggling along and tries to climb onboard.

What's the logical thing to do?

[Sentient Void]

Yes, he wants to protect them from a global governance. Aren't you guys paying attention!! *SIGH*

One world governance, is not going to allow "free" anything! Just remember that, it is all about command and control!

How does 'free trade' translate to 'global governance'? It means more interconnected and interdependent networks - but does not imply an oppressive or super-governmental institution anymore than an actual free market in one nation implies a powerful government over that nation.

So let me get this straight... advocating for as least government possible ultimately means or must imply.... MORE government?

Wow. You guys are a lot more confused than I thought.

[Anti Federalist]

There is more to say because that argument doesn't end the discussion. Why? Because correlation doesn't imply causation. It's like saying that people watch more porn today than 30 years ago. Therefore we should ban porn. That will increase employment.

Nonsense.

Everything has a cause and effect, your Fire11 porn ramblings notwithstanding.

That's just a catchphrase thrown out to confuse the issue.

I don't need a triple blind, peer reviewed, MIT study, written by a bunch of eggheads with more degrees than a thermometer, to know shit when I see it.

[pcosmar]

Wow. You guys are a lot more confused than I thought.

NO not really.
It is more like people arguing tree v rock when it comes to free trade.

It means different things to different people.

Some are looking at it from the reality of what is,, and others are looking at a utopian ideal of what could be, and still others are going by political doublespeak that calls managed and highly regulated trade "free trade".

Much like a Free Market,, free trade is a dream that has never been seen.
What is seen and called free trade,,sucks very much bad.

[donnay]

How does 'free trade' translate to 'global governance'? It means more interconnected and interdependent networks - but does not imply an oppressive or super-governmental institution anymore than an actual free market in one nation implies a powerful government over that nation.

So let me get this straight... advocating for as least government possible ultimately means or must imply.... MORE government?

Wow. You guys are a lot more confused than I thought.

I am not confused. You just have a lack of knowledge of the agenda-- "Annuit Coeptis Novus Ordo Seclorum"


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XdxI0zClV_Y

[Anti Federalist]

AF, you do realize those same 30 years of "free trade" overlaps the time that we had no real limit on monetary expansion, right?

Yes, well aware of that fact.

That is one of the reasons that the doors had to be flung open wide to the flood of cheap imports, to mask the underlying inflation (or more correctly, currency devaluation) that the expansion caused.

A 1963 ad for the top of line Norge washing machine, which would probably last a lifetime.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=RzoaAAAAIBAJ&sjid=0iYEAAAAIBAJ&pg=4738,26521&dq=police+shoot+dog&hl=en

$198

A similar model in quality (perhaps not in features) will cost you a $1000 or more today.

[Danke]

If I was in Congress, I would vote in favor of every single bill that cut taxes, and that would include tariffs. I wouldn't ever vote against a bill that cut the tariff rate on imports. That said, I don't see any problem with entering into an agreement with another country that substantially reduces taxes on imports and exports. It's just another way to reduce tariffs, and I wouldn't ever vote against lowering tariffs. These trade deals with other countries lower tariffs, and I couldn't bring myself to vote against that. That's all I'm saying.

Yep. And if we must fund a federal govenment, it seems like the best way.

[Danke]

Why is it I can never get out of one of these discussions with you without neg rep?


I'd give you a neg rep once and a while, but I'm afraid of Donnay.

[Cutlerzzz]

I think it's time to build a negative railroad. That will create prosperity.

[Anti Federalist]

I'd give you a neg rep once and a while, but I'm afraid of Donnay.

And well you should be.

Reported.

[ClayTrainor]

"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

"Free trade and free markets are, without a doubt, the best guarantor of peace. But this requires something all too few on in this thread seem to want: less government intervention." - Me

:(

[Danke]

And well you should be.

Reported.

Reported?!?! Reported? To whom? I gotz people, sailor boy.

[low preference guy]

Nonsense.

Everything has a cause and effect, your Fire11 porn ramblings notwithstanding.

That's just a catchphrase thrown out to confuse the issue.

I don't need a triple blind, peer reviewed, MIT study, written by a bunch of eggheads with more degrees than a thermometer, to know shit when I see it.

our arguments are not complex, yet you can't respond to even those. what happens is that you want big government when it benefits you. freedom can go out of the window when it attacks your pet issue or your personal interest. because everyone has a pet issue is that we have big government. it's because of people like you that want to make an exception when it benefits them. but you shouldn't make idiotic excuses like "logic requires communism" or "prison economies" because it makes you look not only dishonest but also just desperate.

[Danke]

our arguments are not complex, yet you can't respond to even those. what happens is that you want big government when it benefits you. freedom can go out of the window when it attacks your pet issue or your personal interest. because everyone has a pet issue is that we have big government. it's because of people like you that want to make an exception when it benefits them. but you shouldn't make idiotic excuses like "logic requires communism" or "prison economies" because it makes you look not only dishonest but also just desperate.


>>> http://www.dailypaul.com/

[Funkbat]

"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

"Free trade and free markets are, without a doubt, the best guarantor of peace. But this requires something all too few on in this thread seem to want: less government intervention." - Me

:(

2 great quotes!
:D:D

[Anti Federalist]

our arguments are not complex, yet you can't respond to even those. what happens is that you want big government when it benefits you. freedom can go out of the window when it attacks your pet issue or your personal interest. because everyone has a pet issue is that we have big government. it's because of people like you that want to make an exception when it benefits them. but you shouldn't make idiotic excuses like "logic requires communism" or "prison economies" because it makes you look not only dishonest but also just desperate.

I never said "logic requires communism" and you never answered my question. What I said was to refute the idea that somehow, emotion and passion and wants and needs should never enter into anybody's thinking, that logic and only logic should guide one's thoughts.

So, in the lifeboat example, what is the logical thing to do?

And I'll manage the risk of what my argument makes me look like.

And if freedom can go out the window, for my own pet peeves, why am I here supporting Ron Paul?

I happen to disagree on this issue, but in the whole, in the aggregate, I'm willing to take that hit for the larger benefit of more freedom for everybody.

Thus: No One But Paul.

[Anti Federalist]

Sorry to hear that - but to be *objective*, the horse and buggy industry, the ice delivery man industry and milkman industry all had 'the bottom yanked out from under them' because of more competitive industries as well. Should we have asked for *more* government in these areas, the same government regulation that assisted in running you out of business, in order to 'protect and industry'? Do you see how much this is all the antithesis of liberty and increasing standards of living? There are countless examples of this that the market deemed necessary to raise standards of living and for it to advance productively and technologically.

This analogy does not fit because the products you listed, horse and buggies, candle makers, or ice making all were supplanted by superior technology.

That was not the case in my business, people still eat the exact same types of seafood as they did before, and pay roughly the same price, the margin increased, from domestic producers to cheaper imports, that was all.

There was little, if any, benefit to the end customer in lower prices.

But there was certainly negative impacts as I and my crew lost our income and the support industry lost revenue as well.

[Sentient Void]

It's about productivity and comparative advantage. Better Technology is just another form of a comparative advantage. As is a more accommodating economic environment, or more efficient and superior procedures, as well as an industry that meets the demands of the customer better than another one.

The analogy stands.

[Knightskye]

I should've guessed the thread would explode.

We need some sort of fee or tax to fund the government. Should we have one low import tariff for every country or just no tariffs?

[low preference guy]

Ron Paul, yesterday:


I support the lowest tariffs of anybody in the Congress, I want the freest trade possible, I never vote for sanctions, I want to trade with Cuba, but I don't like international arrangements, the WTO...

Go to 2:45 to hear it from the man.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k7ASV53gczs&feature=youtu.be

Later on...


I just want low tariffs, as quickly as possible, as low as possible.

So going back to the actual question of the OP, I think unilaterally lowering tariffs as much as possible is the strategy most consistent with Dr. Paul's policies.

[Knightskye]

So going back to the actual question of the OP, I think unilaterally lowering tariffs as much as possible is the strategy most consistent with Dr. Paul's policies.

Alright. I didn't think of the agreements as government-subsidized trade. That's a good market-oriented point.