The record is clear: nations rise on economic nationalism, they descend on free trade.

[Anti Federalist]

So says Pat Buchanan on page 17 of his new book: Suicide of a Superpower.

And of course, I'm inclined to agree.

But how do you quantify whether there has been success or failure of a policy decision?

Well, the big three metrics, that free traders all say will be inevitable result of free trade policies: peace, (when goods fail to cross borders, soldiers will) prosperity, and freedom have all declined in the thirty years since the country has embarked on a wholesale sellout of the economic engine of the country.

Any objective observer will conclude that we are less at peace, less prosperous and certainly less free than at the start of the this nightmare roughly 30 years ago.

The central government is bankrupt, we at war around the globe, middle class and family incomes have stagnated for decades, we have more people in prison than any other nation in the world, and we are awash in a flood of migrants escaping the economic meltdowns that these free trade agreements have wrought in their countries.

I can agree with our ana-cap brothers in this regard: the point of having a nation or a government is pretty much moot at this juncture.

The whole purpose of government is to promote an environment where Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness (or Life, Liberty and Property, either way works for me) is possible for every citizen.

Clearly, this is no longer the case, government is at a low level war footing against us, the very people that give government it's legitimacy.

Obviously, it no longer even attempts to pursue policies that promote the real welfare of the people any longer.

"Free trade" is one of those policies and it has shown itself to be a massive disaster.

[One Last Battle!]

Nonsense. The British Empire's power was limited in the 17th and 18th centuries when it engaged in protectionism, it became the world's most powerful nation in the 19th century when it began to engage in free trade with the rest of the world (this is especially evident when you compare protectionist Napoleonic France with Britain in 1810), and it declined when it started putting in various protectionist controls in the 20th century.

[Anti Federalist]

Nonsense. The British Empire's power was limited in the 17th and 18th centuries when it engaged in protectionism, it became the world's most powerful nation in the 19th century when it began to engage in free trade with the rest of the world (this is especially evident when you compare protectionist Napoleonic France with Britain in 1810), and it declined when it started putting in various protectionist controls in the 20th century.

Check you dates and history again.

England began it's decline in the latter half of the 19th century.

After it embarked on a free trade policy.

[One Last Battle!]

Check you dates and history again.

England began it's decline in the latter half of the 19th century.

After it embarked on a free trade policy.

England was easily the most powerful nation in the world up until the very end of the 19th century which, coincidentally, happened to be when the United States was controlled by free-trade supporting Democrats. It embarked on a free trade policy a little while after the American revolution, which led to it showing superiority against the protectionist French, Russian, Prussian and Qing empires.

[Raudsarw]

Who are you to tell me who I can trade with?

[Brian4Liberty]

Clearly, this is no longer the case, government is at a low level war footing against us, the very people that give government it's legitimacy.

Obviously, it no longer even attempts to pursue policies that promote the real welfare of the people any longer.

"Free trade" is one of those policies and it has shown itself to be a massive disaster.

Foolish mundane. Your global masters care not for you, your Constitution, or your silly nation. You are but chattel, to be used when necessary, discarded when unnecessary. You are of less value than cord-wood, as you can not be easily stacked and stored.

[Anti Federalist]

England was easily the most powerful nation in the world up until the very end of the 19th century which, coincidentally, happened to be when the United States was controlled by free-trade supporting Democrats. It embarked on a free trade policy a little while after the American revolution, which led to it showing superiority against the protectionist French, Russian, Prussian and Qing empires.

And what did they gain, by free trading and becoming an empire, at the end of it all?

Two whole generations wiped out in World Wars, almost wiped off the face of the earth by the Luftwaffe, followed by a half a century of decline and mediocrity.

They only now just getting back on their feet, by avoiding the free trade SNAFU of the EU mostly.

They are still a surveillance state, worse than ours, however.

[Anti Federalist]

Who are you to tell me who I can trade with?

Who are you to destroy my country for a cheap buck?

[kahless]

It is not all that hard to fix. Eliminate the income and corporate taxes, while increasing taxes on foreign imports to make up for the lost revenue. This would create a manufacturing boom here at home, create jobs and attract investment.

The problem is the establishment (the media and one party system) is against this since they see themselves as globalists and fear the effects it would have overseas. They cringe when they hear the phrase "American first".

[Anti Federalist]

It is not all that hard to fix. Eliminate the income and corporate taxes, while increasing taxes on foreign imports to make up for the lost revenue. This would create a manufacturing boom here at home, create jobs and attract investment.

The problem is the establishment (the media and one party system) is against this since they see themselves as globalists and fear the effects it would have overseas. They cringe when they hear the phrase "American first".

This.

Elimination of corporate taxation, personal income taxation, serious regulatory and tort reform/elimination, coupled with import tariffs, and sound money would set off a economic boom that would be unmatched in history.

[specsaregood]

This.

Elimination of corporate taxation, personal income taxation, serious regulatory and tort reform/elimination, coupled with import tariffs, and sound money would set off a economic boom that would be unmatched in history.

And as Dr. Paul points out, at least tariffs would be constitutional.

[Xenophage]

So says Pat Buchanan on page 17 of his new book: Suicide of a Superpower.

And of course, I'm inclined to agree.

But how do you quantify whether there has been success or failure of a policy decision?

Well, the big three metrics, that free traders all say will be inevitable result of free trade policies: peace, (when goods fail to cross borders, soldiers will) prosperity, and freedom have all declined in the thirty years since the country has embarked on a wholesale sellout of the economic engine of the country.

Any objective observer will conclude that we are less at peace, less prosperous and certainly less free than at the start of the this nightmare roughly 30 years ago.

The central government is bankrupt, we at war around the globe, middle class and family incomes have stagnated for decades, we have more people in prison than any other nation in the world, and we are awash in a flood of migrants escaping the economic meltdowns that these free trade agreements have wrought in their countries.

I can agree with our ana-cap brothers in this regard: the point of having a nation or a government is pretty much moot at this juncture.

The whole purpose of government is to promote an environment where Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness (or Life, Liberty and Property, either way works for me) is possible for every citizen.

Clearly, this is no longer the case, government is at a low level war footing against us, the very people that give government it's legitimacy.

Obviously, it no longer even attempts to pursue policies that promote the real welfare of the people any longer.

"Free trade" is one of those policies and it has shown itself to be a massive disaster.

An objective observer will conclude that we are less at peace, less prosperous and certainly less free than we were thirty years ago, but in what world does this implicate free trade? The last thirty years have seen an expansion of the warfare/welfare state, which is the actual culprit in undermining our liberties and prosperity. At the very least, would you not concede that a welfare state ends up necessarily becoming a police state? What evidence do you have that free trade has undermined liberty and prosperity more than welfarism has? What evidence do you have that free trade undermines liberty and prosperity at all?

Remember that a welfare state has an exceptionally difficult job competing in the world marketplace. If we engage other nations in free trade agreements, they almost always have the upper hand. Our industry has left us, not because of free trade, but because of the high taxes and over-regulation. However, that still doesn't mean free trade is a net negative for us. Every consumer in this country still benefits from cheap imported goods, and no class of citizens benefits more greatly than the poor. You might say, "the poor don't have those manufacturing jobs, and they are poor because of it," but that's not the fault of free trade. That's the fault of the welfare state.

Free trade tends to promote peace, but it isn't even remotely a guarantee of peace. Anyone who claims as much is being disingenuous. There is always more at stake attacking a trade partner, so it's more of a disincentive to war than a true plan for peace. Now, economic protectionism is quite different. Protectionist societies are always looking outside their borders for more resources. Think of Japan in WWII. Think of England in the 18th and 19th centuries. Empires are built on protectionist trade policies, because growth has to come at the cost of conquering rather than trading.

Think about what you're really advocating, and blame the real culprit, welfarism, for the ills you'd like to see remedied.

[Raudsarw]

Who are you to destroy my country for a cheap buck?

Have I done that? Since you know, value is subjective and trade only happens when both sides feel they'll be better off after, the trade I've done with Americans, As an Estonian, has only served to increase the wealth of your nation. And mine. I can't believe I have to say this on a libertarian forum.

[Peace&Freedom]

I do not see economic nationalism and free trade as mutually exclusive, in fact free trade should be conducted as the best means of economic nationalism. The "free trade" policies of the last 30 years are exactly that, policies of the managerial elite that have interfered with free trade and the economic health of the country. The real culprit that has caused American decline is the mercantilist, pro-big business managed trade bills that have imposed third party government rules on what should have been free and undistorted market decisions, made by traders directly with each other. This increase in coercion (more trade laws interfering with the market) is what has led to the economy destroying distortions.

The regulations and tax system have advantaged the transnational corporations over smaller companies. How is a small company supposed to compete with Big Inc., who can afford (subsidies, tax breaks) to outsource abroad to get cheaper labor and goods, and sell the goods for even less at home because of tax abatements they may get to compete with Little guy LLC? No wonder the small company pays more for native labor, goods, and in taxes while the Big guy next door gets the tax breaks for selling the same thing, and employs fewer workers at home. Of course this leads to more companies closing shop, and unemployment by both big and small companies. I say we don't blame free trade for this mess, but crony capitalism and corporate welfare.

[Diurdi]

Who are you to destroy my country for a cheap buck?

You don't grasp the concept of freedom it seems. And neither do you grasp basic economics if you really think protectionism is good for the domestic economy.

Protectionism is a very powerful tool for corporations that deal together with the government to make profits of the backs of Americans.

Hong Kong and Singapore are probably the most obvious examples of success of free trade (the real kind).

[silverhandorder]

This is false. Empires rise on economic freedom. Free trade adds to economic freedom.

Ofcourse free trade brought down the British Empire, they were not competitive compared to the rest of the world and it meant them losing their wealth to maintain their vast power. I wouldn't want it any other way. You do realize if we allowed free trade here, not managed trade, our own police state would collapse?

[Becker]

Nonsense. The British Empire's power was limited in the 17th and 18th centuries when it engaged in protectionism, it became the world's most powerful nation in the 19th century when it began to engage in free trade with the rest of the world (this is especially evident when you compare protectionist Napoleonic France with Britain in 1810), and it declined when it started putting in various protectionist controls in the 20th century.

I think it's not that simple.

No country is against trade when they are the upper hand, meaning, they are more than happy to sell their resources as labor, as long as they are the supplier end. In contrast, countries which are lower on supply, and will do more buying than selling, are less willing to buy, or owe in some cases. Free trade does not benefit all traders equally, some are at a naturally disadvantaged position.

Now, perhaps you can argue, even the worst trading countries are better off trading than hoarding, but that argument falls apart when you get into debt, IOU, and money manipulation, which exists in every industrialized country. In any case, if you want to argue free trade is better than protectionism, you have to accept that unemployment , outsourcing and immigration is a good thing. You cannot say you want free trade but want to keep your jobs and block out foreigners.

[Becker]

This is false. Empires rise on economic freedom. Free trade adds to economic freedom.


Economic freedom doesn't necessarily mean free trade.

Free trade doesn't benefit all nations equally, and naturally will not benefit all people in a given nation equally.

Some people prefer quality of life over "freedom". Look at all the Americans complaining about "jobs" when they know that's the price of freedom, nobody wants to work, they only do because they are not allowed to collect free welfare.



Ofcourse free trade brought down the British Empire, they were not competitive compared to the rest of the world and it meant them losing their wealth to maintain their vast power. I wouldn't want it any other way. You do realize if we allowed free trade here, not managed trade, our own police state would collapse?

and you assume everybody wants our police state to collapse? thanks for admitting that free trade can hurt uncompetitive nations, and you actually want that to be.

[Becker]

Who are you to destroy my country for a cheap buck?'

your country huh?

First you complain that "this country" is taking away your freedoms and all you want is to be left alone, now you're saying "your country" has to be left alone too?

[silverhandorder]

I think it's not that simple.

No country is against trade when they are the upper hand, meaning, they are more than happy to sell their resources as labor, as long as they are the supplier end. In contrast, countries which are lower on supply, and will do more buying than selling, are less willing to buy, or owe in some cases. Free trade does not benefit all traders equally, some are at a naturally disadvantaged position.

Now, perhaps you can argue, even the worst trading countries are better off trading than hoarding, but that argument falls apart when you get into debt, IOU, and money manipulation, which exists in every industrialized country. In any case, if you want to argue free trade is better than protectionism, you have to accept that unemployment , outsourcing and immigration is a good thing. You cannot say you want free trade but want to keep your jobs and block out foreigners.

You are clueless. A country that has nothing to trade would not get credit to have IOUs.

Trade be definition benefits both people. Maybe not equally but the person would not trade if he did not believe it benefited him.

[Becker]

And as Dr. Paul points out, at least tariffs would be constitutional.

at least our constitution allows some protectionism and non-free trade.

[Anti Federalist]

Hong Kong and Singapore are probably the most obvious examples of success of free trade (the real kind).

And both are tightly controlled surveillance/police states.

If that's the "free trade" future, I don't want it.

[Becker]

You are clueless. A country that has nothing to trade would not get credit to have IOUs.


Did I say otherwise?



Trade be definition benefits both people. Maybe not equally but the person would not trade if he did not believe it benefited him.

which means they could be misled to trade in ways that'll hurt them in the long run, even if the intentions were perfectly honest at first.

[Becker]

And both are tightly controlled surveillance/police states.

If that's the "free trade" future, I don't want it.

HK & Singapore are not free trade? then I don't know what is.

so you'd agree with me this list is bullshit?
http://www.heritage.org/index/

[silverhandorder]

Economic freedom doesn't necessarily mean free trade.

Free trade doesn't benefit all nations equally, and naturally will not benefit all people in a given nation equally.

Some people prefer quality of life over "freedom". Look at all the Americans complaining about "jobs" when they know that's the price of freedom, nobody wants to work, they only do because they are not allowed to collect free welfare.
Free trade is economic freedom. More free trade means more economic freedom. Free trade does not benefit those who are less competitive. It benefits the consumer by giving them better products.



and you assume everybody wants our police state to collapse? thanks for admitting that free trade can hurt uncompetitive nations, and you actually want that to be.

I said my view yes. Sure thieves might want to continue stealing the same way that some might want the police state to remain. The only question is are you a thief or you want the state reined in.

[silverhandorder]

Did I say otherwise?
You said a country would not want to take on IOUs. They wouldn't have a power to decide in the first place. Just bad terminology.



which means they could be misled to trade in ways that'll hurt them in the long run, even if the intentions were perfectly honest at first.

People can make mistakes anywhere and at any time and of any ideology you like. So saying that someone might make a mistake trading is not indicative of a fault in free trade. A president might make a mistake and declare war and congress might make a mistake supporting his decision. Should we abolish government now? Let's not use faulty logic.

[low preference guy]

OP, why don't you go post at the Democratic Underground? You'll find many brainwashed sympathetic souls over there.

[silverhandorder]

And both are tightly controlled surveillance/police states.

If that's the "free trade" future, I don't want it.

All states are tightly controlled surveillance/police states.

[Becker]

Free trade is economic freedom. More free trade means more economic freedom.


Free trade means more competition, sometimes more outsourcing, and sometimes more immigrants. If having to compete more to live means freedom, then I think I am not alone in preferring protectionism.



Free trade does not benefit those who are less competitive. It benefits the consumer by giving them better products.


No, not always better, though often cheaper. And sometimes not even cheaper, because the employers and distributors pocket the profits.



I said my view yes. Sure thieves might want to continue stealing the same way that some might want the police state to remain. The only question is are you a thief or you want the state reined in.

theif or state, I'll take whatever is easiest for me. And yes, if free trade hurt other people but benefited me, I'd be for it too.

[Becker]

You said a country would not want to take on IOUs.


No, I didn't say that. I might've said they took IOUs and then realized they're worthless.



They wouldn't have a power to decide in the first place. Just bad terminology.


I apologize if i caused confusion, does it make sense now?





People can make mistakes anywhere and at any time and of any ideology you like.


Not if you dont allow them to make mistakes



So saying that someone might make a mistake trading is not indicative of a fault in free trade. A president might make a mistake and declare war and congress might make a mistake supporting his decision. Should we abolish government now? Let's not use faulty logic.

no, we should have a controlled government which either avoids mistakes as much as possible or is punished for making mistakes

[silverhandorder]

Free trade means more competition, sometimes more outsourcing, and sometimes more immigrants. If having to compete more to live means freedom, then I think I am not alone in preferring protectionism.
So what outsourcing and immigration are not a bad thing. Resources are better utilized. This means I can buy my computer and my car not at 10x the price it would be if we did not have outsourcing and immigration.



No, not always better, though often cheaper. And sometimes not even cheaper, because the employers and distributors pocket the profits.

Ok let me spell it out for you. If the same product is cheaper it is better because it is cheaper. Whether that product is a luxury good or a mass produced item. Use some critical reading you were thought in government indoctrination center.


theif or state, I'll take whatever is easiest for me. And yes, if free trade hurt other people but benefited me, I'd be for it too.

So you are a thief? You side with thieves. Protectionism is theft by some from the rest of the country.

[silverhandorder]

No, I didn't say that. I might've said they took IOUs and then realized they're worthless.

So the giver of the IOUs is the foreign creditor or not? You made it sound as if a country could declare I am borrowing said amount and some one would be there to give it to them.


Not if you dont allow them to make mistakes



no, we should have a controlled government which either avoids mistakes as much as possible or is punished for making mistakes

From a utilitarian point of view how can you prove that government bureaucrats can make less mistakes then the consumers? Government bureaucrats are paying for golden seats in the military budget.

From a moral point of view who should the economy serve the consumer or the bureaucrat? Obviously I want the consumer to be serviced.

[Anti Federalist]

An objective observer will conclude that we are less at peace, less prosperous and certainly less free than we were thirty years ago, but in what world does this implicate free trade? The last thirty years have seen an expansion of the warfare/welfare state, which is the actual culprit in undermining our liberties and prosperity. At the very least, would you not concede that a welfare state ends up necessarily becoming a police state? What evidence do you have that free trade has undermined liberty and prosperity more than welfarism has? What evidence do you have that free trade undermines liberty and prosperity at all?

Yes, I will happily concede that the welfare state, being one half the warfare state, has certainly contributed to the continuing crisis. There is no one single culprit, but rather a conglomeration of policies, all enacted at the same time, roughly, and all designed to do the same things, gut the economy, debase the currency, stagnate and kill off the middle class, perpetuate continuous global war, erode freedom and bankrupt, by mountains of debt, both the government and the people.

"Free Trade" as enacted through multilateral government trade deals (as opposed to purely free trade, two individuals trading together) is a potent ingredient in this toxic stew.


Remember that a welfare state has an exceptionally difficult job competing in the world marketplace. If we engage other nations in free trade agreements, they almost always have the upper hand. Our industry has left us, not because of free trade, but because of the high taxes and over-regulation. However, that still doesn't mean free trade is a net negative for us. Every consumer in this country still benefits from cheap imported goods, and no class of citizens benefits more greatly than the poor. You might say, "the poor don't have those manufacturing jobs, and they are poor because of it," but that's not the fault of free trade. That's the fault of the welfare state.

All that the flood of cheap imports has done is to mask the true level of currency debasement by covering up the real rate of inflation in the price of goods.


Free trade tends to promote peace, but it isn't even remotely a guarantee of peace. Anyone who claims as much is being disingenuous.

Many people have quoted Bastiat to me as the final comment on that idea.

Even the most cursory glance at history will reveal him to be incorrect on that issue.

Nations march off to war to find and secure new sources of revenue, goods or raw materials all the time.

I suppose you can call what follows some sort of "free trade", but certainly not in the same way that Bastiat or the people who quote him, meant.


Think about what you're really advocating, and blame the real culprit, welfarism, for the ills you'd like to see remedied

Again, it's not one single thing that needs to be changed, but many, this being one.

The fact of the matter is this: if there is going to be a government, then it must exist only to do these things: promote the individual freedom and prosperity of each individual, to the best of that individual's ability.

And we do not have that, not even close.

Government is at war, with us primarily, and is doing everything it can to destroy us, physically, legally and economically.

"Free trade" is one of the weapons they are using.

[specsaregood]

March 13, 2001
The Beginning of the End of Fiat Money
by Ron Paul

The golden new Era of the 1990s has been welcomed and praised by many observers. But I'm afraid a different type of new era is arriving-a dangerous one- heralding the end of 30 years of fiat money. If so, it's a serious matter that deserves close attention by Congress.

There's nothing to fear from globalism, free trade and a single worldwide currency. But a globalism where free trade is competitively subsidized by each nation, a continuous trade war is dictated by the WTO, and the single currency is pure fiat, fear is justified. That type of globalism is destined to collapse into economic despair, inflationism and protectionism, and managed by resurgent militant nationalism.
Efforts to achieve peaceful globalist goals are quickly abandoned when the standard of living drops, unemployment rises, stock markets crash and artificially high wages are challenged by market forces. When tight budgets threaten spending cuts, cries for expanding the welfare state drown out any expression of concern for rising deficits.

The effort in recent decades to unify government surveillance over all world trade and international financial transactions through the UN, IMF, World Bank, WTO, ICC, the OECD, and the Bank of International Settlements can never substitute for a peaceful world based on true free trade, freedom of movement, a single but sound market currency, and voluntary contracts with private property rights.

Great emphasis in the last six years has been placed on so-called productivity increases that gave us the new-era economy. Its defenders proclaimed that a new paradigm had arrived. Though productivity increases have surely helped our economy, many astute observers have challenged the extent to which improvements in productivity have actually given us a distinctly unique new era. A case can be made that the great surge in new technology of the 1920's far surpassed the current age of fast computers, and we all know what happened in after 1929.

A truly new era may well be upon us-but one quite different than what is generally accepted today.

The biggest error in interpreting today's events is totally ignoring how monetary policy in a fiat system affects the entire economy.

Politicians and economists are very familiar with business cycles with most assuming that slumps erupt as: 1.) A natural consequence of capitalism, 2.) An act of God, 3.) Or as a result of Fed driven high interest rates. That is to say, the Fed did not engage in enough monetary debasement, becomes the most common complaint by Wall Street pundits and politicians.

But today's economy is unlike anything the world has ever known. The world economy is more integrated than ever before. Indeed, the effort by international agencies to expand world trade has had results- some good. Labor costs have been held in check, industrial producers have moved to less regulated, low cost, and low tax countries while world mobility has aided these trends with all being helped with advances in computer technology.

But the artificial nature of today's world trade and finance being systematically managed by the IMF, the World Bank and WTO, and driven by a worldwide fiat monetary system, has produced imbalances that have already prompted many sudden adjustments. There have been eight major crisis in the past six years requiring a worldwide effort, led by the Fed, to keep the system afloat, all being done with more monetary inflation and bailouts.

The lynch pin to the outstanding growth of the 1990s has been the US dollar. Although it too is totally fiat, its special status has permitted a bigger bonus to the United States while it has been used to prop up other world economies. The gift bequeathed to us by owning the world reserve currency, allows us to create dollars at will- and Alan Greenspan has not hesitated to accommodate everyone despite his reputation as an inflation fighter. This has dramatically raised our standard of living, and significantly contributed to the new era psychology that has been welcomed by so many naive enough to believe that perpetual prosperity had arrived and the bills would never have to be paid.

One day it will become known that technological advances and improvements in productivity also have a downside. This technology hid the ill effects of the monetary mischief the Fed had enthusiastically engaged in over the past decade. Technological improvements, while keeping the CPI and the PPI prices in check, led many, including Greenspan, to victoriously declare that no inflation existed and that a new era had indeed arrived. Finally, it's declared that the day has arrived that printing money is equivalent to producing wealth and without a downside. Counterfeiting works!

But the excess credit created by the Fed found its way into the stock market- especially the NASDAQ, and was ignored. This set the stage for the stock market collapse, now ongoing. Likewise ignored has been the excess capacity, mal-investment, and debt that permeates the world economy.

Could we indeed be facing a truly New Era, but one unanticipated by all the authorities and one much more dangerous?

The collapse of the Soviet system and the emergence of United States military and economic preeminence, throughout the world, have permitted the dollar-driven financial bubble to last longer than anticipated. But instead of a glorious New Era, as promised, we ended up with a huge financial bubble and an artificially integrated world economy dominated by an unstable dollar. But instead of a single commodity currency driving a healthy world economy, we have an economy that has numerous imbalances generated by the US dollar, unsustainable trade agreements and total instability in the currency markets.

Sure we have enjoyed cheap imports and they have raised our standard of living and our foreign debt. We have on the short run benefited from our trade and current account deficits since the world has been only too eager to gobble up our inflated dollars and loan them back to us. But soon the countries of the world will decide that enough is enough and they will recognize the bad deal it is for them to continue to accept our dollars. The mal-investment, already becoming apparent, will prompt even more radical adjustments in all markets.

There are many countries only too anxious to get back at the United States for our military and economic aggressiveness, and some unknown economic or military event will one day knock us off our pedestal and a dangerous New Era will be upon us, instead of the golden one dreamed about.

For thirty years the world has operated on a pure fiat monetary system and all the ill effects of such a system are now becoming apparent. Current adjustments will be different than all other previous currency adjustments, which were local or regional. This one is worldwide and may well be the biggest economic event in modern history.

It's reasonable to assume a worldwide slump will ensue as a result of the worldwide monetary mischief our authorities have engaged in the past 30 years. Never before has the world gone so long without money having some tangible value attached to it. Trust in politicians and Central Bankers may have been a benefit in the inflationary part of the cycle but this trust will quickly dissipate in the corrected phase. Monetary heroes can quickly become villains as the price is paid for previous excesses and extravagance.

However, hope springs eternal, so no effort will soon be made to restore sound money. A giant worldwide slump will merely prompt massive monetary inflation and deficit financing. The Congress and the American people should anticipate this will happen even though it should not.

Conditions today could easily lead to rampant price inflation as the dollar depreciates. Trade chaos, already apparent, considering the number of complaints pending before the WTO, will surely worsen, leading to a greater cry for protectionism and militant nationalism which will then jeopardize international trade even more.

The ultimate solution will only come with the rejection of fiat money worldwide, and a restoration of commodity money. Commodity money if voluntarily and universally accepted could give us a single world currency requiring no money managers, no manipulators orchestrating a man-made business cycle with rampant price inflation. Real free trade without barriers or tariffs and a single sound currency is the best way to achieve international peace and prosperity.

When that day comes we will have a true New Era, unlike the fictitious New Era of Greenspan's dreams and certainly opposite of the dangerous New Era that stares us in the face as the world fiat monetary system falters

[Becker]

So what outsourcing and immigration are not a bad thing. Resources are better utilized.


anarchists and communists would agree, if you're not using resources, it's not yours!



This means I can buy my computer and my car not at 10x the price it would be if we did not have outsourcing and immigration.


it also means you have less choices. choices are the product of wasteful overproduction.



Ok let me spell it out for you. If the same product is cheaper it is better because it is cheaper.


fair enough



Whether that product is a luxury good or a mass produced item. Use some critical reading you were thought in government indoctrination center.


ok. at least that's good for something :)



So you are a thief? You side with thieves. Protectionism is theft by some from the rest of the country.
wrong, protectionism can benefit the greater number sometimes too.

by the way, if the market demanded protectionism, would you honor it? or would you force free trade on a market which doesn't welcome it because it knows they're at a disadvantage if they were to open trade barriers?

[Brian4Liberty]

It is not all that hard to fix. Eliminate the income and corporate taxes, while increasing taxes on foreign imports to make up for the lost revenue. This would create a manufacturing boom here at home, create jobs and attract investment.

The problem is the establishment (the media and one party system) is against this since they see themselves as globalists and fear the effects it would have overseas. They cringe when they hear the phrase "American first".

+Rep

[Anti Federalist]

OP, why don't you go post at the Democratic Underground? You'll find many brainwashed sympathetic souls over there.

Stop being silly.

Just give me a neg rep and leave, if all you're going to do is make idiotic remarks.

LoL - The writings of Patrick Buchanan would get sympathy at DU. :rolleyes:

What a dick...

[low preference guy]

Stop being silly.

Just give me a neg rep and leave, if all you're going to do is make idiotic remarks.

lol. which part is idiotic? if you want to see idiotic look at the title of this thread.

[Becker]

So the giver of the IOUs is the foreign creditor or not?


it's a foreign debtor.

Say for example : Nigeria has oil. US needs oil, Nigeria is short on everything else, and especially US dollars.
Ideally, US gives them either US dollars, or US goods, but instead, due to efficiency, we give them debt notes.
Nigeria can choose to sit on their oil and eat it up sip and bite slowly, and wait for other countries that'll give them a better deal, or just take US IOU, and move on.
US then maintains its purchasing power by physically hurting or cheating other nations, this is none of Nigeria's business, and if the US didn't bully or rob other countries, Nigeria would have IOUs worth nothing. So now Nigeria, being the creditors of US, wants US to bully and rob other countries in order to be paid back for their oil.



You made it sound as if a country could declare I am borrowing said amount and some one would be there to give it to them.


No, I didn't they'd need collateral/



From a utilitarian point of view how can you prove that government bureaucrats can make less mistakes then the consumers?


I can't, they're just as human. Except we can choose who better to make decisions, and not count all votes as equal.



Government bureaucrats are paying for golden seats in the military budget.

and why shouldn't they? they're human with greed, are you above that?



From a moral point of view who should the economy serve the consumer or the bureaucrat? Obviously I want the consumer to be serviced.

that's like a communist saying he wants the peasants, not the businessmen to be served.

[Anti Federalist]

lol. which part is idiotic? if you want to see idiotic look at the title of this thread.

Already addressed.

[Becker]

+Rep

in other words, freedom for citizens, tax on foreigners? I'm in!

[low preference guy]

LoL - The writings of Patrick Buchanan would get sympathy at DU. :rolleyes:

What a dick...

what a moron.

the writings of Hayek will get praise at the DU if you quote his support for universal healthcare.

it's obvious that i'm referring to protectionism, but you pretend to not notice and continue with your intellectually dishonest "debate" tactics.

[specsaregood]

what a moron.
the writings of Hayek will get praise at the DU if you quote his support for universal healthcare.
it's obvious that i'm referring to protectionism, but you pretend to not notice and continue with your intellectually dishonest "debate" tactics.

And yet it was clinton that signed nafta into law....

[BattleFlag1776]

"Free trade" is one of the weapons they are using.

I think you are getting to the heart of the matter here. Who are "they?"

[low preference guy]

Who are you to tell me who I can trade with?

Obviously, you should only be able to buy the goods Anti Federalist approves from the sellers he approves. Didn't you know that freedom consists of deciding what other people can to do with their money?

[specsaregood]

Obviously, you should only be able to buy the goods Anti Federalist approves from the sellers he approves. Didn't you know that freedom consists in telling other people what to do with their money?

Its a shitty world. which is a bigger invasion of your rights, high tariffs or a high income tax?

[Sola_Fide]

Mises says economic nationalism is the cause of war:

https://mises.org/daily/3908/Omnipotent-Government

Durable peace, Mises concludes, is only possible under perfect capitalism and laissez-faire government, a world of unhampered markets, free mobility of capital and labor, and equal treatment of everyone under one law. Government interference with business necessarily aims at autarky. But protectionism and autarky mean discrimination against foreign labor and capital and thus create international conflict. The very ideas that breed bitter domestic conflict between classes and races also generate international conflict and war.


Mises says:

"Progressives at home and abroad aim at equality of income. But their own policies result in a perpetuation of the inequalities between classes and nations. In Professor Mises's own words: The same considerations which push the masses within a country toward a policy of income equality drive the peoples of the comparatively overpopulated countries into an aggressive policy toward the comparatively under populated countries. They are not prepared to bear their relative poverty for all time to come simply because their ancestors were not keen enough to appropriate areas better endowed by nature. What the "progressives" assert with regard to domestic affairs — that traditional ideas of liberty are only a fraud as far as the poor are concerned, and that true liberty means equality of income, the spokesmen of the "have not" nations declare with regard to international relations."

At home and abroad they style themselves revolutionaries fighting for equal shares and proclaiming the right to take them by force if necessary. This is why our age is marked by perpetual conflict.


Hard to disagree with that...

[low preference guy]

Its a shitty world. which is a bigger invasion of your rights, high tariffs or a high income tax?

i'm disappointed that you're pretending this is the topic of the thread. economic nationalism is not about figuring out which form of tax is least damaging, and you know that.

[specsaregood]

i'm disappointed that you're pretending this is the topic of the thread. economic nationalism is not about figuring out which form of tax is least damaging, and you know that.

I'm disappointed you are pretending that this topic or thread matters at all. But free trade + global fiat debt currency certainly seems to be a prescription for pain and suffering.

[BattleFlag1776]

England was easily the most powerful nation in the world up until the very end of the 19th century which, coincidentally, happened to be when the United States was controlled by free-trade supporting Democrats. It embarked on a free trade policy a little while after the American revolution, which led to it showing superiority against the protectionist French, Russian, Prussian and Qing empires.

History says otherwise. This is the way it was:

1) The US jacked up customs duties at the start of the Civil War to fund its military.
2) Upon the surrender of the Confederates, it made those same custom duties permanent.
3) In 1890, Congress passed the ultra-protectionist “McKinley Tariff.”
4) In 1897, the Dingley Act further hiked customs duties.

All of this lead to the following: By the end of the 19th century, the US was the leading in industrial power in the world. In just 30 years after the Civil War, we produced as much coal as Britain, twice as much steel and had nine times as many railroads. There is a reason that Britain's industrialists had to turn to US industrialists during WW1.

[Anti Federalist]

what a moron.

the writings of Hayek will get praise at the DU if you quote his support for universal healthcare.

it's obvious that i'm referring to protectionism, but you pretend to not notice and continue with your intellectually dishonest "debate" tactics.

Meh.

It's not a "debate" for me.

I'm not trying to troll anybody or trick anybody.

This is what I honestly believe, based on three decades of watching it happen right before my eyes.

[Anti Federalist]

Obviously, you should only be able to buy the goods Anti Federalist approves from the sellers he approves. Didn't you know that freedom consists of deciding what other people can to do with their money?

You can buy whatever you want.

Where did I ever say you couldn't?

[Anti Federalist]

I think you are getting to the heart of the matter here. Who are "they?"

One Worlders.

No Borders folks.

Globalists.

"They" go by many names.

[silverhandorder]

anarchists and communists would agree, if you're not using resources, it's not yours

If I said that then you would have a point. You need to separate when I am talking from a utilitarian point of view or from a moral point of view. I will start to point that out either way. I view capitalism as both a more moral system and more efficient.


it also means you have less choices. choices are the product of wasteful overproduction.

No I have more choices I can choose to over pay or I can choose to get a better product.



wrong, protectionism can benefit the greater number sometimes too.

No it can't, it is a less efficient system. It hurts everyone by reducing the amount of product being made. By definition it takes from many to benefit the few.


by the way, if the market demanded protectionism, would you honor it? or would you force free trade on a market which doesn't welcome it because it knows they're at a disadvantage if they were to open trade barriers?[/QUOTE]
It's impossible because protectionism needs to be forced on someone to be protectionism.




Say for example : Nigeria has oil. US needs oil, Nigeria is short on everything else, and especially US dollars.
Ideally, US gives them either US dollars, or US goods, but instead, due to efficiency, we give them debt notes.
Nigeria can choose to sit on their oil and eat it up sip and bite slowly, and wait for other countries that'll give them a better deal, or just take US IOU, and move on.
US then maintains its purchasing power by physically hurting or cheating other nations, this is none of Nigeria's business, and if the US didn't bully or rob other countries, Nigeria would have IOUs worth nothing. So now Nigeria, being the creditors of US, wants US to bully and rob other countries in order to be paid back for their oil.
The value of Us currency is tied to it's ability to exchange goods for the currency. It trading with Nigeria has nothing to do with protectionism.




I can't, they're just as human. Except we can choose who better to make decisions, and not count all votes as equal.

Since you can't then why you continue to argue?


and why shouldn't they? they're human with greed, are you above that?

I'm not but that proves that your charge that someone might make a mistake trading as not relevant to the discussion. A trader can make a mistake and so can a bureaucrat. Since you can't prove that bureaucrat will make less mistakes you don't have a utilitarian argument to make for regulators.


that's like a communist saying he wants the peasants, not the businessmen to be served.

Yes it is exactly like that minus that what communists wants to do is immoral. I want both business men and peasants to make the decision. The communist wants to make the decision for the business man and the peasant.

[Brian4Liberty]

in other words, freedom for citizens, tax on foreigners? I'm in!

Lol! Well, the tax is still on us. But you are correct about new freedom from the jackboot of the IRS hanging over every single person's head!

If the import duty is low and flat, imported products that are cheaper today would most likely still be cheaper after the tax, so it probably wouldn't change buying habits.

[Becker]

One Worlders.

No Borders folks.

Globalists.

"They" go by many names.

:D
egalitarians, communists, anarchists. Not the same people, just share lots of views.

[Becker]

If I said that then you would have a point. You need to separate when I am talking from a utilitarian point of view or from a moral point of view. I will start to point that out either way. I view capitalism as both a more moral system and more efficient.


I am sorry, I don't think I can have an honest discussion with a person who thinks utilitarian and morality can be separated.

[Becker]

The value of Us currency is tied to it's ability to exchange goods for the currency. It trading with Nigeria has nothing to do with protectionism.

'

you are correct, trading with Nigeria has nothing to do with protectionism to the US, but it has everything to do with immorally hurting other countries for the profit owed to Nigeria in the first place.

[Sola_Fide]

Did nobody read my Mises quote in page 5???

[silverhandorder]

I am sorry, I don't think I can have an honest discussion with a person who thinks utilitarian and morality can be separated.
Yeah you would have to take the position of the liar tho.

'

you are correct, trading with Nigeria has nothing to do with protectionism to the US, but it has everything to do with immorally hurting other countries for the profit owed to Nigeria in the first place.
So why are you bringing it up? It has nothing to with our discussion.

[low preference guy]

Did nobody read my Mises quote in page 5???

Mises is right.

[idiom]

New Zealand has real free trade with everybody. The U.S. has sanctions against us because we don't have nuclear weapons or power stations.

The United States wouldn't know Free Trade if it snuck across the border.

[Anti Federalist]

Did nobody read my Mises quote in page 5???

Yes, I did, and to my mind addressed that in post 32.

In that, we have pursued "free trade" policies in the US for thirty years now.

And are at war in at least 8 countries.

[specsaregood]

Did nobody read my Mises quote in page 5???

Mises is right.

Which is why we have nothing but war; because we don't have any of those great ideas. We have a global fiat debt currency that is destroying everything.

[specsaregood]

Yes, I did, and to my mind addressed that in post 32.
In that, we have pursued "free trade" policies in the US for thirty years now.
And are at war in at least 8 countries.

Actually, we are stock full of nationalism and protectionism in a way.

We force the rest of the world to pay our "tariff" in the form of the petrodollar.

[Becker]

All that the flood of cheap imports has done is to mask the true level of currency debasement by covering up the real rate of inflation in the price of goods.



why so negative, why can't it be an actual undoing of inflation?

[specsaregood]

why so negative, why can't it be an actual undoing of inflation?

From post #34


The lynch pin to the outstanding growth of the 1990s has been the US dollar. Although it too is totally fiat, its special status has permitted a bigger bonus to the United States while it has been used to prop up other world economies. The gift bequeathed to us by owning the world reserve currency, allows us to create dollars at will- and Alan Greenspan has not hesitated to accommodate everyone despite his reputation as an inflation fighter. This has dramatically raised our standard of living, and significantly contributed to the new era psychology that has been welcomed by so many naive enough to believe that perpetual prosperity had arrived and the bills would never have to be paid.

One day it will become known that technological advances and improvements in productivity also have a downside. This technology hid the ill effects of the monetary mischief the Fed had enthusiastically engaged in over the past decade. Technological improvements, while keeping the CPI and the PPI prices in check, led many, including Greenspan, to victoriously declare that no inflation existed and that a new era had indeed arrived. Finally, it's declared that the day has arrived that printing money is equivalent to producing wealth and without a downside. Counterfeiting works!

But the excess credit created by the Fed found its way into the stock market- especially the NASDAQ, and was ignored. This set the stage for the stock market collapse, now ongoing. Likewise ignored has been the excess capacity, mal-investment, and debt that permeates the world economy.

Could we indeed be facing a truly New Era, but one unanticipated by all the authorities and one much more dangerous?

The collapse of the Soviet system and the emergence of United States military and economic preeminence, throughout the world, have permitted the dollar-driven financial bubble to last longer than anticipated. But instead of a glorious New Era, as promised, we ended up with a huge financial bubble and an artificially integrated world economy dominated by an unstable dollar. But instead of a single commodity currency driving a healthy world economy, we have an economy that has numerous imbalances generated by the US dollar, unsustainable trade agreements and total instability in the currency markets.

Sure we have enjoyed cheap imports and they have raised our standard of living and our foreign debt. We have on the short run benefited from our trade and current account deficits since the world has been only too eager to gobble up our inflated dollars and loan them back to us. But soon the countries of the world will decide that enough is enough and they will recognize the bad deal it is for them to continue to accept our dollars. The mal-investment, already becoming apparent, will prompt even more radical adjustments in all markets.

[Becker]

Yeah you would have to take the position of the liar tho.

So why are you bringing it up? It has nothing to with our discussion.

well, it has some. I was talking about how free trade can hurt countries such as Nigeria, or force them to support US aggression.
Perhaps I should've said, trading with Nigeria has to do with Nigeria's own protectionism, not the US's protectionism.

[silverhandorder]

well, it has some. I was talking about how free trade can hurt countries such as Nigeria, or force them to support US aggression.
Perhaps I should've said, trading with Nigeria has to do with Nigeria's own protectionism, not the US's protectionism.

How are they hurting them selves by selling to the highest bidder which is US in your example?

[Becker]

How are they hurting them selves by selling to the highest bidder which is US in your example?

they didnt intend to hurt themselves, but by accepted IOU on US credit, based on the fact US has the greatest military and prevalence of currency worldwide, they run the risk of losing via default.

[Diurdi]

And both are tightly controlled surveillance/police states.

If that's the "free trade" future, I don't want it.
You're a walking paradox. You want a competely free nation, yet you want isolationism. You can't have both.

You do understand that Ron Paul is for free trade as well?


Oh, and on singapore/hong kong - without free trade those nations would be bathing in absolute poverty. Sure they're not socially very free, but almost all their prosperty is from free trade and a business friendly environment.

[Becker]

You're a walking paradox. You want a competely free nation, yet you want isolationism. You can't have both.


I want a country that's domestically free, and protecting against foreigners.



You do understand that Ron Paul is for free trade as well?


Is Ron Paul for open borders? Ok, let me rephrase, does Ron Paul believe, at this moment, the best solution to the US economy is more outsourcing and more immigrants? Or not? I don't care what he IDEALLY believes in his perfect world 20 years from now. I want to know in 2 years, what he'll do.



Oh, and on singapore/hong kong - without free trade those nations would be bathing in absolute poverty. Sure they're not socially very free, but almost all their prosperty is from free trade and a business friendly environment.

and some people would love to trade their social freedoms for that precious economic freedom, right?

[silverhandorder]

they didnt intend to hurt themselves, but by accepted IOU on US credit, based on the fact US has the greatest military and prevalence of currency worldwide, they run the risk of losing via default.
So? You again using the argument that making a mistake in a system means that the system does not work. Everyone makes mistakes. Unless you can argue from utilitarian view you don't have an argument. And you admitted as much in previous posts.

and some people would love to trade their social freedoms for that precious economic freedom, right?

They are not exclusive... I don't know how slow one must be not to see it.

[Imaginos]

The number one reason that free trade position is not so hot in America is we have almost nothing to compete with anybody.
When a nation has majority of populaton that is spoiled beyond description (i.e. hate working but love to demand rights) it's doomed.
When a county accepts non-productive, good for nothing low lives as socially norm/standard, it's doomed.
Can you imagine anywhere on this planet that a fat person can sue fast-food restaurant to make him fat?
Can you imagine anywhere on this planet that business owners have to fear whenever they hire employees due to so mucy regulations and risk of law suits of all sorts?
(The big government needs voting numbers so they utilize UNIONs to get power. The little problem is, that agenda destroys free market and empowers low lives)
The bottom line is, we need to work from within with its majority of population.
Unless we destroy every single welfare program, and the SENSE OF ENTITLEMENT of lazy, non-productive low lives, there's no future for this country.
Nobody is entitled to anything.
You either work OR DO NOT EAT!
PS: And if you are not willing to research and study the presidential candidates, DO NOT VOTE!

[Becker]

So? You again using the argument that making a mistake in a system means that the system does not work. Everyone makes mistakes. Unless you can argue from utilitarian view you don't have an argument. And you admitted as much in previous posts.


yes, I can and do argue from utilitarian.

and no, I wasn't saying that a flaw or mistake makes the system worthless. Sorry if it sounded that way.



They are not exclusive... I don't know how slow one must be not to see it.
Oh, they're not exclusive, you just happen to be unable to show me a country that has both, and is still preferable to live in.

[Becker]

The number one reason that free trade position is not so hot in America is we have almost nothing to compete with anybody.
When a nation has majority of populaton that is spoiled beyond description (i.e. hate working but love to demand rights) it's doomed.
When a county accepts non-productive, good for nothing low lives as socially norm/standard, it's doomed.
Can you imagine anywhere on this planet that a fat person can sue fast-food restaurant to make him fat?
Can you imagine anywhere on this planet that business owners have to fear whenever they hire employees due to so mucy regulations and risk of law suits of all sorts?
(The big government needs voting numbers so they utilize UNIONs to get power. The little problem is, that agenda destroys free market and empowers low lives)
The bottom line is, we need to work from within with its majority of population.
Unless we destroy every single welfare program, and the SENSE OF ENTITLEMENT of lazy, non-productive low lives, there's no future for this country.
Nobody is entitled to anything.
You either work OR DO NOT EAT!
PS: And if you are not willing to research and study the presidential candidates, DO NOT VOTE!

nice to know somebody on his board uses his head and looks at details which others conveniently ignore, important context

[Diurdi]

I want a country that's domestically free, and protecting against foreigners. Are you going to protect americans from themselves by making it hard to purchase goods from abroad?



Is Ron Paul for open borders? Ok, let me rephrase, does Ron Paul believe, at this moment, the best solution to the US economy is more outsourcing and more immigrants? Or not? I don't care what he IDEALLY believes in his perfect world 20 years from now. I want to know in 2 years, what he'll do. Sigh. Yes, he's for free trade right now. Free trade together with a business friendly environment in the US would be much better than just a business friendly environment - RIGHT NOW.

If you've ever read any Austrian economics, you'll understand that tariffs and protectionism is harmful for the economy. Heck, if you've ever read any economics you'll understand that.



and some people would love to trade their social freedoms for that precious economic freedom, right? What? Your comment makes no sense. I was simply describing the current situation in said nations.

[idiom]

In a true free market Americans have to compete with countries that have no minimum wage and not environmental or other regulations.

[specsaregood]

Actually, we are stock full of nationalism and protectionism in a way.
We force the rest of the world to pay our "tariff" in the form of the petrodollar.

I was thinking about that ^ while I was busy brewing a tariff free, sin-tax free domestic homebrew.
I guess the truth is we have the opposite of protectionism here. We dont have a free market; or protectionism we have a give-away market in place.

[Anti Federalist]

I was thinking about that ^ while I was busy brewing a tariff free, sin-tax free domestic homebrew.
I guess the truth is we have the opposite of protectionism here. We dont have a free market; or protectionism we have a give-away market in place.

A give-away market, that's good.

The same thing as a "come, take it all" market.

[Southron]

In a true free market Americans have to compete with countries that have no minimum wage and not environmental or other regulations.

And our standard of living will drop until we are equal with those same countries.

Even the most ardent Free-Trading globalists should argue in favor of freeing up regulations at home before we open up and compete against slave workers.

[Anti Federalist]

You're a walking paradox. You want a competely free nation, yet you want isolationism. You can't have both.

I'm in favor of maximum individual freedom, both economic, social and political.

If you're broke, living in a mud hut and subsisting on 500 calories of cold rice and rat meat a day, you're not very free.

And, at the same time, if you are economically prosperous, but living in a police state, you're not very free either.


You do understand that Ron Paul is for free trade as well?

Ron Paul is in favor the Constitution, which lists tariffs as only of three forms of taxation permitted to the federal government.

Ron Paul also is opposed to multi-lateral "free trade" agreements.

Thus, he is OK in my book.


Oh, and on singapore/hong kong - without free trade those nations would be bathing in absolute poverty. Sure they're not socially very free, but almost all their prosperty is from free trade and a business friendly environment.

That would seem to run counter to Ron Paul's philosophy then, that economic prosperity is a by product of liberty.

But this is true. The NAZI regime had great deal of support here in the US during the 1930s because Hitler got the economy up and running again, and "made the trains run on time".

A prisoner in gilded cage is still a prisoner.

I would sacrifice superficial economic prosperity for freedom any time.

[ClayTrainor]

Who are you to tell me who I can trade with?

Someone who actually believes that an organized gang of thugs will fix society for us.

An anti-free trade position can only be defended on the same grounds that every socialist/statist policy is ultimately defended on. 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".

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.

"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

[ClayTrainor]

I'm in favor of maximum individual freedom, both economic, social and political.

Remind me, how much of a tax do you want the government to put on americans who trade with china? How much do you want an organized gang of thugs to take from them under the threat of violence?

[low preference guy]

Remind me, how much of a tax do you want to put on americans who trade with china? How much do you want an organized gang of thugs to take from them under the threat of violence?

Just enough to make the Chinese product more expensive than his or those he wants to 'protect'?

[specsaregood]

Remind me, how much of a tax do you want the government to put on americans who trade with china?
1% less than the amount we want your government to put on canadians that trade with china.

[Becker]

Are you going to protect americans from themselves by making it hard to purchase goods from abroad?


If they promise not to complain about unemployment and immigrants, then I won't. Otherwise that's exactly what they don't want.



Sigh. Yes, he's for free trade right now. Free trade together with a business friendly environment in the US would be much better than just a business friendly environment - RIGHT NOW.


in other words, he believes the solution to US is more unemployment.



If you've ever read any Austrian economics, you'll understand that tariffs and protectionism is harmful for the economy. Heck, if you've ever read any economics you'll understand that.


Harmful for the worldwide big picture, yes, just like broken window fallacy creates trade. Tariffs and protectionism prevent unemployment (and I am NOT saying unemployment is bad, I just hear everybody in the country say that it is)



What? Your comment makes no sense. I was simply describing the current situation in said nations.

yes, and I was simply saying some people prefer economic freedom only, some people prefer social freedom only. I dont know a country that has both, and still maintains a quality living standard.

[AGRP]

I prefer free trade (may change my views), but what is to stop a nation or group of people to produce a large amount of goods, lets say steal, and dump it thus destroy the related industry? I think this is the reason why people get so protective to begin with.

[Becker]

I'm in favor of maximum individual freedom, both economic, social and political.


you believe protectionism is freedom?



I would sacrifice superficial economic prosperity for freedom any time.
are you saying HK and Singapore are superficial prosperity?

[low preference guy]

I prefer free trade (may change my views), but what is to stop a nation or group of people to produce a large amount of goods, lets say steal, and dump it thus destroy the related industry? I think this is the reason why people get so protective to begin with.

What stops a local industry in the country from doing the same thing? If someone does, should they be penalized?

[Becker]

I prefer free trade (may change my views), but what is to stop a nation or group of people to produce a large amount of goods, lets say steal, and dump it thus destroy the related industry? I think this is the reason why people get so protective to begin with.

currently there is none, but that assumes it'll benefit them. people get protective for all sorts of stupid reasons, always because of greed though.

[ClayTrainor]

Just enough to make the Chinese product more expensive than his or those he wants to 'protect'?

My business sure would be booming if I could get an organized mafia to extort money from businesses who compete with me.

[Becker]

What stops a local industry in the country from doing the same thing? If someone does, should they be penalized?

I'd love to see somebody say yes! LOL

[Becker]

My business sure would be booming if I could get an organized mafia to extort money from businesses who compete with me.

you would seriously turn that down if you had no consequences to suffer?

[low preference guy]

My business sure would be booming if I could get an organized mafia to extort money from businesses who compete with me.

That's freedom. If you didn't do that you'd starve, and starving is not freedom. Therefore, protectionism, unemployment benefits, and the welfare state are the essence of freedom. Let me summarize it for you: freedom is theft.

[specsaregood]

My business sure would be booming if I could get an organized mafia to extort money from businesses who compete with me.

How would your business be doing if you had a monetary system that discouraged production as there was artificial demand for you debt?

[ClayTrainor]

How would your business be doing if you had a monetary system that discouraged production as there was artificial demand for you debt?

I do most of my business in the US, and I'm doing alright. It would be doing better with sound money, less taxes and less regulation on trade. No particular order.

[Diurdi]

I'm in favor of maximum individual freedom, both economic, social and political. Protectionism is economic oppression.


Ron Paul is in favor the Constitution, which lists tariffs as only of three forms of taxation permitted to the federal government.
Ron Paul also is opposed to multi-lateral "free trade" agreements. You can't just pick and choose what you mean with "free trade". We're not talking about NAFTA or similar trade agreements. We're talking about protectionism vs. actual free trade.

And he supports free trade without a doubt.



That would seem to run counter to Ron Paul's philosophy then, that economic prosperity is a by product of liberty. Singapore and Hong Kong are in the top 5 of the worlds more economically free nations. I'm not sure what you're rambling.


I think you're one of those who makes all his decisions based on "Correlation = Causation", instead of actually trying to learn why something happens. Bet you've never even read Henry Hazlitt's chapter on protectionism.

[ClayTrainor]

Regardless of how well my business is doing, I do'nt think getting an armed gang of thugs to extort from my competitors is a rational solution, especially when its the same armed gang that created the problems in the first place.

[specsaregood]

I do most of my business in the US, and I'm doing alright.

Right, but you still do your living outside the US, where there is artificial demand for USD. Your cost of living is not always undercut by the fact the rest of the world NEEDS your "money"/debt.



It would be doing better with sound money, less taxes and less regulation on trade. No particular order.
Well, I think most all of us can agree on that. AF himself that he recognizes that trade regulation/deregulation is not the root cause of the problem.
What I still haven't seen is a serious discussion by austrian economists that take into account one party having a global fiat currency with an artificial demand when discussing the benefits of free trade.

[Diurdi]

What I still haven't seen is a serious discussion by austrian economists that take into account one party having a global fiat currency with an artificial demand when discussing the benefits of free trade. I don't see how that changes anything?

[ClayTrainor]

Right, but you still do your living outside the US, where there is artificial demand for USD. Your cost of living is not always undercut by the fact the rest of the world NEEDS your "money"/debt.

Either way, it's not like the thugs in the US Government hold the key to solving the problem. They are the problem.


Well, I think most all of us can agree on that. AF himself that he recognizes that trade regulation/deregulation is not the root cause of the problem.

I'm not so sure. AF seems anti-free trade to the core, even if all local regulations and taxes are lifted. Perhaps he'll correct me.


What I still haven't seen is a serious discussion by austrian economists that take into account one party having a global fiat currency with an artificial demand when discussing the benefits of free trade.

Go make a thread on the mises forum. You'll get all the answers you desire.

[Anti Federalist]

Remind me, how much of a tax do you want the government to put on americans who trade with china? How much do you want an organized gang of thugs to take from them under the threat of violence?

25 to 30 percent should do it.

[ClayTrainor]

25 to 30 percent should do it.

And if someone chooses to not to give your preferred organized crime syndicate 25-30% of their trade deal?

http://ondemand.erosentertainment.com/img/product/bigger/adz_clips_2l.jpg

[Anti Federalist]

I'm not so sure. AF seems anti-free trade to the core, even if all local regulations and taxes are lifted. Perhaps he'll correct me.

You know that's not the case, and I've made that point a million times already.

IF there was no government retribution or prison states, IF people were just freely trading with one another, with no subsidization or incentives or prison slavery from government, then yes, I would have no problem with it all and you know that's been my position all along, for years now.

That is not the case right now, we have world wide network of ruling class elites that would like nothing more than reduce the US to grinding poverty.

[low preference guy]

IF there was no government retribution or prison states, IF people were just freely trading with one another, with no subsidization or incentives or prison slavery from government, then yes, I would have no problem with it all and you know that's been my position all along, for years now.

Why? Doesn't economic nationalism generate prosperity? If it's good now, why wouldn't it be good when the U.S. eliminates internal regulations and taxes?

[Anti Federalist]

And if someone chooses to not to give your preferred organized crime syndicate 25-30% of their trade deal?

http://ondemand.erosentertainment.com/img/product/bigger/adz_clips_2l.jpg

Analogy fail.

You can walk away.

Nobody is holding a gun to your head to force you to trade with the US.

[low preference guy]

Analogy fail.

You can walk away.

Nobody is holding a gun to your head to force you to trade with the US.

So if an American buys from a foreigner without paying tariffs nothing should happen to him?

[Anti Federalist]

Why? Doesn't economic nationalism generate prosperity? If it's good now, why wouldn't it be good when the U.S. eliminates internal regulations and taxes?

Because that still does not address the slave labor issue, the currency issue or the fact that complete elimination of all regulation isn't going to happen.

[low preference guy]

Because that still does not address the slave labor issue, the currency issue or the fact that complete elimination of all regulation isn't going to happen.

lol. this is called not answering the question. that's what you do when your position makes no sense.

[Anti Federalist]

So if an American buys from a foreigner without paying tariffs nothing should happen to him?

The burden should be on the foreign producer to pay.

If he does not want to, he is free to take his business elsewhere.

[Anti Federalist]

lol. this is called not answering the question. that's what you do when your position makes no sense.

Not quite.

It's called "you not caring for the answer I gave".

Next...

[silverhandorder]

The burden should be on the foreign producer to pay.

If he does not want to, he is free to take his business elsewhere.

That is not how it works. Americans who trade with foreigners are the ones who pay the tariff. You are taxing Americans who want to buy foreign goods.

[low preference guy]

Not quite.

It's called "you not caring for the answer I gave".

Next...

yeah, you definitely explained why in the current situation economic nationalism generates prosperity while it doesn't generate it once the country is freer. it's absolutely clear. :rolleyes:

[ClayTrainor]

Analogy fail.

It wasn't an analagy, it was a direct statement about what you're advocating. The US government is an organized crime syndicate, and you want them to extort money, under the threat of violence and force, from anyone who voluntarily chooses to engage in trade with someone outside of the jurisdiction of your preferred organized crime syndicate.


You can walk away.

Nobody is holding a gun to your head to force you to trade with the US.

What if they don't walk away? What if an american chooses to trade with the chinese, and ignores your mafia's extortion fee?

http://ondemand.erosentertainment.com/img/product/bigger/adz_clips_2l.jpg

[Anti Federalist]

I think you're one of those who makes all his decisions based on "Correlation = Causation", instead of actually trying to learn why something happens. Bet you've never even read Henry Hazlitt's chapter on protectionism.

I knew it would only be a matter of time before that popped up.

That is the most ridiculous straw men I have yet to encounter, and usually thrown up as white flag as the conversation devolves into meaningless drivel.

Everything has a cause and effect.

Government does things, that in turn produce effects.

In in 1990 government instituted a "luxury tax" on, among other things, large yachts and custom sport fishing boats.

The effect was that people stopped buying luxury boats.

The result was that people were thrown out of work when boat makers failed or laid people off.

Robert Riech, under Clinton, tried to use the same blarg, blarg, blarg, about "causation not equaling correlation" when the loss of those jobs was placed on the Clinton administration's shoulders, even though the policy started under Bush I and his broken "read my lips pledge".

Government policy causes things to happen and when they do, they directly affect people.

[Becker]

That's freedom. If you didn't do that you'd starve, and starving is not freedom. Therefore, protectionism, unemployment benefits, and the welfare state are the essence of freedom. Let me summarize it for you: freedom is theft.

what good is freedom and choice if you're not going to live?

[silverhandorder]

what good is freedom and choice if you're not going to live?

Who do you think is going to die ?

[Xenophage]

Yes, I will happily concede that the welfare state, being one half the warfare state, has certainly contributed to the continuing crisis. There is no one single culprit, but rather a conglomeration of policies, all enacted at the same time, roughly, and all designed to do the same things, gut the economy, debase the currency, stagnate and kill off the middle class, perpetuate continuous global war, erode freedom and bankrupt, by mountains of debt, both the government and the people.

"Free Trade" as enacted through multilateral government trade deals (as opposed to purely free trade, two individuals trading together) is a potent ingredient in this toxic stew.



All that the flood of cheap imports has done is to mask the true level of currency debasement by covering up the real rate of inflation in the price of goods.



Many people have quoted Bastiat to me as the final comment on that idea.

Even the most cursory glance at history will reveal him to be incorrect on that issue.

Nations march off to war to find and secure new sources of revenue, goods or raw materials all the time.

I suppose you can call what follows some sort of "free trade", but certainly not in the same way that Bastiat or the people who quote him, meant.



Again, it's not one single thing that needs to be changed, but many, this being one.

The fact of the matter is this: if there is going to be a government, then it must exist only to do these things: promote the individual freedom and prosperity of each individual, to the best of that individual's ability.

And we do not have that, not even close.

Government is at war, with us primarily, and is doing everything it can to destroy us, physically, legally and economically.

"Free trade" is one of the weapons they are using.

I agree with everything you wrote here, except that I think I must not be understanding what you mean by free trade. When I talk about free trade, I talk about unregulated, untaxed trade. As a welfare state expands and destroys its industry, it has less to export. Welfare states are at a significant disadvantage in completely unregulated, untaxed trade with other countries.

But isn't it still welfarism that's the root problem, not the free trade? And doesn't that free trade still at least allow people living in the welfare state to benefit from the excess output of more industrialized nations around the world?

What I don't get is: if tariffs drive up demand for some kind of domestic good, thereby incentivizing more domestic production of that good, and generating more jobs to make the workers and producers of that good wealthier, but in turn drives up the cost of that domestic good at the store counter, how do the people as a whole actually benefit? Isn't it at best a zero-sum for the workers in that industry, and at worst a losing proposition for people outside of that industry?

You mention several times that free trade is one tool the government uses to strip us of our prosperity and liberty. I guess I'm not understanding it. How does it work like that?

[Pericles]

History says otherwise. This is the way it was:

1) The US jacked up customs duties at the start of the Civil War to fund its military.
2) Upon the surrender of the Confederates, it made those same custom duties permanent.
3) In 1890, Congress passed the ultra-protectionist “McKinley Tariff.”
4) In 1897, the Dingley Act further hiked customs duties.

All of this lead to the following: By the end of the 19th century, the US was the leading in industrial power in the world. In just 30 years after the Civil War, we produced as much coal as Britain, twice as much steel and had nine times as many railroads. There is a reason that Britain's industrialists had to turn to US industrialists during WW1.

Correct - and let's extend the argument.

Would we agree that the Peoples Republic of China and India have economies that are growing at above average rates and also have protectionist policies?

[Diurdi]

I knew it would only be a matter of time before that popped up.

That is the most ridiculous straw men I have yet to encounter, and usually thrown up as white flag as the conversation devolves into meaningless drivel.

What? You're making no sense.

I don't have to throw up a white flag, you're the one whose arguing for making it hard for Americans to trade with foreigners - based on some emotional issues instead of reason and logic.

An American and a foreigner come together to mutually trade goods, as they both perceive they will be better off as a result of it. Why do you think government should come in between and hinder this? Doesn't sound like freedom to me.



All of this lead to the following: By the end of the 19th century, the US was the leading in industrial power in the world. Again, massive correlation = Causation fail. In reality, we see that economic prosperity can be achieved without tariffs, and that tariffs are no guarantee for prosperity. As a result, we must search for an externality. Especially as almost all schools of economics agree that free movement of goods across borders is good for the economy.

[Occam's Banana]

Tariffs and protectionism prevent unemployment (and I am NOT saying unemployment is bad, I just hear everybody in the country say that it is)

Tariffs & protectionism may prevent (or even decrease) unemployment in the protected industry, but only at the expense of (among other things) creating unemployment in other industries. For example, when steel is "protected," domestic steel producers are able to charge higher prices than they would otherwise be able to do. As a consequence of this, domestic industries that require steel will face increased production costs. As a consequence of that, those industries will hire fewer people (or even reduce the size of their workforces). Justification of tariffs/protectionism on the basis of "it promotes employment in the protected sector" is a variant of the broken-window fallacy.

[Cdn_for_liberty]

Didn't the senate pass the China Currency Bill a couple of weeks ago? sounds like more regulation but also, more protection. something AF might like?

[Cutlerzzz]

I prefer free trade (may change my views), but what is to stop a nation or group of people to produce a large amount of goods, lets say steal, and dump it thus destroy the related industry? I think this is the reason why people get so protective to begin with.If quantillions of tons of steel were dropped from the sky into the middle of the United States (no property damage involved), would that be a bad thing if it meant destroying the steel industry?

[Cutlerzzz]

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

[Anti Federalist]

I agree with everything you wrote here, except that I think I must not be understanding what you mean by free trade. When I talk about free trade, I talk about unregulated, untaxed trade. As a welfare state expands and destroys its industry, it has less to export. Welfare states are at a significant disadvantage in completely unregulated, untaxed trade with other countries.

Except that there is something more going on here.

Take Germany for example, with whom we also run a significant trade gap, especially in precision manufacturing. There are millions of dollars of propulsion equipment in the vessel I run, that is all made in Germany, Finland, Norway and Sweden

All of these countries are, by any measure, socialist countries, with a heavy burden of welfarism and regulatory burdens.

If welfarism alone is to blame, how is it that these nations continue to move past us economically, and pay higher manufacturing wages than similar jobs in the US?

One key is manipulation of the currency.

Here's a great article dealing with just that:

http://seekingalpha.com/article/212461-what-the-u-s-can-learn-from-germany-about-managing-its-trade-deficit


But isn't it still welfarism that's the root problem, not the free trade? And doesn't that free trade still at least allow people living in the welfare state to benefit from the excess output of more industrialized nations around the world?

By many metrics, many nations are surpassing our standard of living, some of the ones I just mentioned come to mind.


What I don't get is: if tariffs drive up demand for some kind of domestic good, thereby incentivizing more domestic production of that good, and generating more jobs to make the workers and producers of that good wealthier, but in turn drives up the cost of that domestic good at the store counter, how do the people as a whole actually benefit? Isn't it at best a zero-sum for the workers in that industry, and at worst a losing proposition for people outside of that industry?

I honestly believe that the only reason it comes out to a wash, is because of the loss of purchasing power of the national currency.

With sound money, the aggregate benefit to all people of value added manufacturing far outweigh the nominal increased costs.

Not that I think a flood of cheap imports necessarily reduce final consumer costs.

In a personal example I cited the other day, I saw with my own eyes a flood of products come in from foreign sources, (seafood in this case) that were priced at levels I could not even burn the fuel to catch, yet, retail consumer prices barely budged downward. In the particular products I watched closely, the discount was negligible, 10 percent, roughly.

No appreciable net benefit to consumers was realized, a few middlemen made a higher markup, and thousands were thrown out of work.


You mention several times that free trade is one tool the government uses to strip us of our prosperity and liberty. I guess I'm not understanding it. How does it work like that?

I'm of the mindset that a nation, nor an individual, can remain free and independent, if they can do nothing for themselves, if they are dependent on sources, many of whom are hostile, to provide the very basic necessities of life.

[The Gold Standard]

Our price level and, as a result, nominal wages, have risen constantly for the last 100 years. Of course we can't be competitive globally. In a true free market with sound money prices would have fallen constantly over the last 100 years, and while real wages would have risen dramatically, nominal wages probably would have fallen some too. Our standard of living would be higher, our domestic prices would be so low that it would be awfully difficult for another country to beat them, and our labor would still priced nominally where we would be in no danger of losing manufacturing jobs overseas.

Protectionist trade policies distort prices in the free market and decrease our standard of living. The real problem is our inflationary paper money and our government's destruction of the market.

[Cutlerzzz]

And our standard of living will drop until we are equal with those same countries.

Even the most ardent Free-Trading globalists should argue in favor of freeing up regulations at home before we open up and compete against slave workers.Does North Carolina's standard of living drop from trading with other states?

[Anti Federalist]

Protectionist trade policies distort prices in the free market and decrease our standard of living.

Yes, they may possibly do that, since there is a need to rebuild an entire economy, basically from the ground up in the US.

How is it that nation after nation is exceeding the US standard of living, yet have heavy "protectionist" trade measures in place?


The real problem is our inflationary paper money and our government's destruction of the market.

I have no issue with this, as it's spot on.

IF there was not a concerted effort to undermine the US economy, deliberately, and debase the currency, tariff protection would be nominal, negligible or not needed at all.

[Anti Federalist]

Does North Carolina's standard of living drop from trading with other states?

If South Carolina put a bunch of people in prison and put them to work doing what North Carolinians were doing for living, hell yes they would.

Or if South Carolina entered into a agreement with another country that all of sudden ripped the economic structure out from under millions of their citizens and they all shifted north as refugees, yes, the standard of living in NC would fall as well.

[Cutlerzzz]

If South Carolina put a bunch of people in prison and put them to work doing what North Carolinians were doing for living, hell yes they would.

Why would that force North Carolians out of work? Because they have the comparative advantage.

[Anti Federalist]

Why would that force North Carolians out of work? Because they have the comparative advantage.

How can you make Ricardo's law work with a government prison?

[Cutlerzzz]

How can you make Ricardo's law work with a government prison?A "prison" has no effect on comparative advantage.

[Simple]

Hong Kong and Singapore aren't perfect or even close, but they are restrained. Free trade in these two counties puts them at the top of the list for electricity produced per capita which is an approximation for standard of living. They have very low unemployment, 3-5%. The prosperity brought in by free trade has allowed the governments there to provide housing subsidies for 80-90% of the population while keeping spending much lower than ours in comparison to GDP.

Its like Ron Paul says, its the spending that is the tax.

[Pericles]

Tariffs & protectionism may prevent (or even decrease) unemployment in the protected industry, but only at the expense of (among other things) creating unemployment in other industries. For example, when steel is "protected," domestic steel producers are able to charge higher prices than they would otherwise be able to do. As a consequence of this, domestic industries that require steel will face increased production costs. As a consequence of that, those industries will hire fewer people (or even reduce the size of their workforces). Justification of tariffs/protectionism on the basis of "it promotes employment in the protected sector" is a variant of the broken-window fallacy.

Let's use a widget example:

There is a market size of 10 widgets in the US, and the market price is $100. Case (A) has a cost of production of 1 widget at $105 for US Widgets, and a price of $95 for FOB Los Angeles for Peoples Republic Widgets. One assumes the market demand will be supplied by imports, and US Widgets goes out of business, and the suppliers to US Widgets are less profitable. The $950 widget market results in a trade surplus for China of $950. What happens to the $950? It goes into T-bonds or something that Peoples Republic Widgets can use to pay its suppliers.

Case (B) places a $15 import duty on widgets, now making the market price $105 for widgets, but decreasing demand from 10 widgets to 9. The dollar value of the widget market has now declined to $945, and that $945 now is paid to suppliers and workers of US Widgets, who then buy another $900 of goods and services in the local economy. Peoples Republic Widgets then have to sell their widgets elsewhere in the world or go out of business.

The real issue is called the velocity of money - or how often a unit of money is used as a medium of exchange creating economic activity. Certain industries lead to a higher velocity of money in an economy, and manufacturing tends to have the highest velocity, which is why one tends to find a collelation between manufacturing based economies, and prosperity.

[Becker]

Tariffs & protectionism may prevent (or even decrease) unemployment in the protected industry,


Unless you can assume that people freely switch industries and professions at will, as needed, this qualifier is unnecessary. Obviously we are protecting the given industry because we assume these people cannot be employed elsewhere.



but only at the expense of (among other things) creating unemployment in other industries.


And that, assumes the unprotected industries either need protection or suffer directly based on higher employment of the protected industry, simply not a causal effect (if true at all). I think we both can agree not all industries are equal.



For example, when steel is "protected," domestic steel producers are able to charge higher prices than they would otherwise be able to do.


This is a demonized way of saying, American steel workers make more money.



As a consequence of this, domestic industries that require steel will face increased production costs.


Another demonized way of saying, money stays inside the country, keeping people employed.



As a consequence of that, those industries will hire fewer people (or even reduce the size of their workforces). Justification of tariffs/protectionism on the basis of "it promotes employment in the protected sector" is a variant of the broken-window fallacy.

I agree that employment is ALWAYS a broken window fallacy, which is why I never sympathize with unemployed people and I never said unemployment is a bad thing.

However, in this case, yes, at first the steel using industries will downsize, but only if the market doesn't respond by buying more, if the market continues to demand steel products, they can simply pass the costs down to the consumer. YES, consumers will be the victim of paying more, at the "benefit" of keeping Americans employed (I personally think that's stupid, but like I said, I don't care about unemployment, I only care about poverty).

[Becker]

Who do you think is going to die ?

the weak , the stupid, the dependent?

[eproxy100]

To those of you talking about Hong Kong being a police/surveillance state, I bet you guys haven't been there.

Yeah, people don't get to vote their "president" or whatever, but they also don't get trampled over by politicians. When there are handouts, EVERYBODY gets the same amount. Not only the poor or the rich, and not only the banks. Each citizen gets the same amount. I can't think of a single democratic country that does that. Most of these democracies just give money to banks and special interests. Oh, and why are there handouts at times? The government decided their budget surplus was too large at that time. Can you imagine that? A government that thinks it's getting too much of people's money?

The chances of you getting harassed in Hong Kong by police or government officials is extremely low. The police tend to not intervene in anything unless there is clearly a situation. Funny thing is, even though people in Hong Kong don't have the right to bear arms the number of intentional homocides is extremely low (something like 10 people each year). Even getting assaulted is unlikely. You can feel totally safe walking around the streets there at 3am. It's a cultural thing I think.

The courts in Hong Kong are also quite decent. They also follow the "innocent until proven guilty" system. Judges in Hong Kong also tend to not be so anal about technicalities, so they're not gonna throw you in jail for some crazy old obscure law.

What IS crazy in Hong Kong though is the competitiveness. There are many cases of kids committing suicide because they got a B+ in a class. Almost all parents there expect at least an A-. Kids usually get a pretty good whipping by their parents if they don't get As. People there also work long hours because most stores are open for 12 hours (10am to 10pm) a day, 7 days a week.

So before you say that Hong Kong people gave up their social freedoms for economic freedoms you should reconsider what you really know and what you don't.

[1836]

So says Pat Buchanan on page 17 of his new book: Suicide of a Superpower.

And of course, I'm inclined to agree.

But how do you quantify whether there has been success or failure of a policy decision?

Well, the big three metrics, that free traders all say will be inevitable result of free trade policies: peace, (when goods fail to cross borders, soldiers will) prosperity, and freedom have all declined in the thirty years since the country has embarked on a wholesale sellout of the economic engine of the country.

Any objective observer will conclude that we are less at peace, less prosperous and certainly less free than at the start of the this nightmare roughly 30 years ago.

The central government is bankrupt, we at war around the globe, middle class and family incomes have stagnated for decades, we have more people in prison than any other nation in the world, and we are awash in a flood of migrants escaping the economic meltdowns that these free trade agreements have wrought in their countries.

I can agree with our ana-cap brothers in this regard: the point of having a nation or a government is pretty much moot at this juncture.

The whole purpose of government is to promote an environment where Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness (or Life, Liberty and Property, either way works for me) is possible for every citizen.

Clearly, this is no longer the case, government is at a low level war footing against us, the very people that give government it's legitimacy.

Obviously, it no longer even attempts to pursue policies that promote the real welfare of the people any longer.

"Free trade" is one of those policies and it has shown itself to be a massive disaster.


Please show the economics to back up the claim that free trade is a "massive disaster."

The record of history and the most basic principles of economics show that free trade is a marvelous thing and very important to economic growth. This is due to many things, principle among them comparative advantage between nations.

[Becker]

Please show the economics to back up the claim that free trade is a "massive disaster."


Outsourcing, immigration, had nothing to do with the disaster we're in now. Let's focus our scapegoating on bankers.

We're not unemployed because our jobs went to Indians, Chinese or Mexicans, it's all because bankers pumped too much or too little into our economy, because if they pumped the perfect amount. we'd be fine, we could either have the same outsourcing AND our own jobs, or have enough money to pay people to not work. Either way, it's always the banker's fault. Anybody who says otherwise is either racist, nationalist, or anti-capitalist.



The record of history and the most basic principles of economics show that free trade is a marvelous thing and very important to economic growth. This is due to many things, principle among them comparative advantage between nations.

Right, so according to that, outsourcing, immigration, Wal Mart, deflated bubbles are all good for the economic growth.
I take it unemployment is a sign of success as well.

[RonPaulMania]

This.

Elimination of corporate taxation, personal income taxation, serious regulatory and tort reform/elimination, coupled with import tariffs, and sound money would set off a economic boom that would be unmatched in history.

The falls of many countries were based on free trade. One of the falls of the Byzantine empire was free traders from Florence who promised them cheaper goods and extra savings. Short term this was true and they had extra cash, but once they exported all their jobs and production the empire suffered greatly and contributed greatly to their demise. Byzantium was the longest empire in the history of the world.

Byzantium's history ready like the U.S in its demise: free trade, usurping of too many cultures leading to interior instability, mercenary troops... It's almost as if they were reading the fall of the Byzantine empire and they said, "Hey, let's go do this!"

Free trade has ALWAYS been the Trojan Horse of prosperity used by the elite to undermine a nation. Your recipe for success anti-Federalist is spot on.

[Diurdi]

You guys are essentially arguing against international trade. Do you have any fucking idea how fucking stupid that sounds?

It's like arguing against the division of labour. "Hey lets just produce everything ourselves".

Maybe you should listen to folks like Peter Schiff or other Austrians that you can trust, if you think all other economists are out there to scam you.

[One Last Battle!]

The falls of many countries were based on free trade. One of the falls of the Byzantine empire was free traders from Florence who promised them cheaper goods and extra savings. Short term this was true and they had extra cash, but once they exported all their jobs and production the empire suffered greatly and contributed greatly to their demise. Byzantium was the longest empire in the history of the world.

Byzantium's history ready like the U.S in its demise: free trade, usurping of too many cultures leading to interior instability, mercenary troops... It's almost as if they were reading the fall of the Byzantine empire and they said, "Hey, let's go do this!"

Free trade has ALWAYS been the Trojan Horse of prosperity used by the elite to undermine a nation. Your recipe for success anti-Federalist is spot on.

Bad example. The Byzantine Empire became powerful through free trade and having a very reliable currency that was never devalued, and then fell as it began devaluing its money to fund wars.

[Raudsarw]

You protectionists don't go far enough. Why not call for protectionism for your home state? Or hell, since free trade leads to poverty, the ultimate conclusion is this: stop interacting with other people at all. End division of labor. Produce everything yourself, for yourself. Prosperity!

[Southron]

You guys are essentially arguing against international trade. Do you have any fucking idea how fucking stupid that sounds?

It's like arguing against the division of labour. "Hey lets just produce everything ourselves".

Maybe you should listen to folks like Peter Schiff or other Austrians that you can trust, if you think all other economists are out there to scam you.

Most of us are just arguing for tariffs as opposed to income and national sales taxes. I'm not against international trade.

[Southron]

You protectionists don't go far enough. Why not call for protectionism for your home state? Or hell, since free trade leads to poverty, the ultimate conclusion is this: stop interacting with other people at all. End division of labor. Produce everything yourself, for yourself. Prosperity!

There are already boundaries preventing completely free trade between the states. Look up CARB in California. Stupid emissions standards in California are preventing free interstate commerce, which the federal government is supposed to make regular. Let's worry about that first, then if we want, we can trade with slave masters.

[Seraphim]

This is too simplistic.

Most "Free Trade" agreements are not free trade at all, but to be more precise...the ones doing damage are these big MULTI-lateral trade agreements that are LACED with unfair advantages for some and do not include terms that keep all sides happy.

BI-lateral trade agreements have an OUTSTANDING record of helping nations grow more peacful and prosperous, TOGETHER.

Bi-lateral agreements are MUCH more accountable and both parties involved have a vested interest in ensuring the partner is also happy.


MONOPOLIZED DEBT BASED FUNNY MONEY IS THE REAL CULPRIT...DO NOT BE FOOLED INTO THINKING THAT TRADE AGREEMENTS ARE ACTUALLY NET NEGATIVE...THEY ARE HUGELY NET POSITIVE.

[Brian4Liberty]

Outsourcing, immigration, had nothing to do with the disaster we're in now. Let's focus our scapegoating on bankers.

We're not unemployed because our jobs went to Indians, Chinese or Mexicans, it's all because bankers pumped too much or too little into our economy, because if they pumped the perfect amount. we'd be fine, we could either have the same outsourcing AND our own jobs, or have enough money to pay people to not work. Either way, it's always the banker's fault. Anybody who says otherwise is either racist, nationalist, or anti-capitalist.

Right, so according to that, outsourcing, immigration, Wal Mart, deflated bubbles are all good for the economic growth.
I take it unemployment is a sign of success as well.

I would dare say that immigration was a bigger factor than free (regulated) trade in creating our current unemployment problems in the US.

That being said, it's a combination of all of the factors. Welfare/warfare state, corporatism, Wall St. crooks, too much government spending, Federal Reserve monetary inflation, regulated international trade, and massive immigration (which was intended to lower the value of labor).

[Becker]

The falls of many countries were based on free trade. One of the falls of the Byzantine empire was free traders from Florence who promised them cheaper goods and extra savings. Short term this was true and they had extra cash, but once they exported all their jobs and production the empire suffered greatly and contributed greatly to their demise. Byzantium was the longest empire in the history of the world.


Why did they suffer greatly? Were they too lazy to eat or are they workaholics?




Byzantium's history ready like the U.S in its demise: free trade, usurping of too many cultures leading to interior instability, mercenary troops... It's almost as if they were reading the fall of the Byzantine empire and they said, "Hey, let's go do this!"


You mean to tell me not all cultures are equal?




Free trade has ALWAYS been the Trojan Horse of prosperity used by the elite to undermine a nation. Your recipe for success anti-Federalist is spot on.
Undermine a nation? Are you a nationalist?

[Becker]

I would dare say that immigration was a bigger factor than free (regulated) trade in creating our current unemployment problems in the US.


And I assume you are saying unemployment is a problem, not an advantage, because there's something inherently wrong about not working. Children and elderly shouldn't be allowed to not work, it's a crime against the nation.



That being said, it's a combination of all of the factors. Welfare/warfare state, corporatism, Wall St. crooks, too much government spending, Federal Reserve monetary inflation, regulated international trade, and massive immigration (which was intended to lower the value of labor).

fair enough.

[Becker]

You protectionists don't go far enough. Why not call for protectionism for your home state?


We call protectionism for our homes, so why not? The grand hypocrisy of anti-border protection is that people have no problem bordering and shooting trespassers when it comes to their home, their land, but would not extend the same rights to a city, state or country.



Or hell, since free trade leads to poverty, the ultimate conclusion is this: stop interacting with other people at all. End division of labor. Produce everything yourself, for yourself. Prosperity!

that's actually not untrue. If you can manage to self sustain, then yes. If not, you might need some trade and exchange. Not all countries are equal, some are more self sufficient than others.

[Becker]

This is too simplistic.

Most "Free Trade" agreements are not free trade at all, but to be more precise...the ones doing damage are these big MULTI-lateral trade agreements that are LACED with unfair advantages for some and do not include terms that keep all sides happy.

BI-lateral trade agreements have an OUTSTANDING record of helping nations grow more peacful and prosperous, TOGETHER.

Bi-lateral agreements are MUCH more accountable and both parties involved have a vested interest in ensuring the partner is also happy.


MONOPOLIZED DEBT BASED FUNNY MONEY IS THE REAL CULPRIT...DO NOT BE FOOLED INTO THINKING THAT TRADE AGREEMENTS ARE ACTUALLY NET NEGATIVE...THEY ARE HUGELY NET POSITIVE.

what is a bilateral trade agreement? define and example please, thanks.

[Becker]

You guys are essentially arguing against international trade. Do you have any fucking idea how fucking stupid that sounds?


Wrong, I am against trade when it hurts me, and for trade when it benefits me. I am not for or against trade, I am not for or against immigrants, I am not for or against unemployment (though I prefer unemployment)



It's like arguing against the division of labour. "Hey lets just produce everything ourselves".


Why if you don't have to? Why not if you can?



Maybe you should listen to folks like Peter Schiff or other Austrians that you can trust, if you think all other economists are out there to scam you.
No, I don't think all economists are out to scam anybody. I know the difference between economists and businessmen. I trust businessmen who at least know how to benefit themselves.

[Becker]

There are already boundaries preventing completely free trade between the states. Look up CARB in California. Stupid emissions standards in California are preventing free interstate commerce, which the federal government is supposed to make regular. Let's worry about that first, then if we want, we can trade with slave masters.

it also decreases overcrowding in the already most crowded state in the west coast

[Raudsarw]

We call protectionism for our homes, so why not? The grand hypocrisy of anti-border protection is that people have no problem bordering and shooting trespassers when it comes to their home, their land, but would not extend the same rights to a city, state or country.


Because a city, state or country does not have any rights. Individuals have rights.


that's actually not untrue. If you can manage to self sustain, then yes. If not, you might need some trade and exchange. Not all countries are equal, some are more self sufficient than others.

Are you serious? Do you think you'd be on this website if you lived in complete isolation? Chances are you'd be dead.


Wrong, I am against trade when it hurts me, and for trade when it benefits me. I am not for or against trade, I am not for or against immigrants, I am not for or against unemployment (though I prefer unemployment)

Trade does not hurt you. By definition, people trade only when it benefits both of them. You would not trade if you felt you weren't getting a greater value.

[Brian4Liberty]

And I assume you are saying unemployment is a problem, not an advantage, because there's something inherently wrong about not working. Children and elderly shouldn't be allowed to not work, it's a crime against the nation.


You assume wrong, so you know what that means... ;)

Everyone should have money or assets so that they can purchase goods and drive the overall economy. That money should not come from the government. Full employment of all able adults (who have not achieved financial independence) is the best way to achieve that. In addition, there is a lot to be said about the benefits of earning an honest dollar for individuals and society as a whole.

[freshjiva]

I agree with Seraphim. Bi-lateral free trade agreements have a phenomenal track record.

Anti-Federalist - you know I see you as a brother, but this is the one and only area of disagreement we have.

Cutting income, corporate, cap gains and dividend taxes and "making up for it" by raising import tariffs would have disastrous consequences, because it would be reciprocated by other nations as well. Unless the United States was blessed by God with every natural resource or commodity demanded by the marketplace, it simply wouldn't work. Nations, much like individuals, are sometimes simply more efficient at producing things than others given certain competitive advantages. Not all "cheap labor" is unfair.

When Smoot-Hawley was passed in 1929, there were riots in Italy because American import tariffs of Italian olive oil shot through the roof. Italians simply reciprocated and banned the import of several American products.

Is this the future you ask for?

I think the best route is to simply have the President and Sec. of State sign bi-lateral free trade agreements. NAFTA and WTO are not bi-lateral and are a ruinous disgrace to the term "free trade". Work with other nations, as a process of diplomacy, and sign deals that say "We will do X, Y and Z if you do A, B and C." That is the pathway for peace and real free trade that benefits both nations.

[Becker]

You assume wrong, so you know what that means... ;)

Everyone should have money or assets so that they can purchase goods and drive the overall economy.


WTF? Everyone should have something? What kind of socialist are you?



That money should not come from the government.


it should come from magic? can it come from abundant resources which no private person owned?



Full employment of all able adults (who have not achieved financial independence) is the best way to achieve that.


why is unemployment with abundant resources and excess welfare income at no expense of fellow citizens unacceptable?



In addition, there is a lot to be said about the benefits of earning an honest dollar for individuals and society as a whole.

no there isn't. It's a cultural byproduct of the past society where technology forced people to work. Work ethic is the subculture that emerged due to an industrial society.

[Seraphim]

Bi= two.

Two way trade agreement. For example, Canada and the USA.

Multi lateral agreement; NAFTA, Mexico-Canada-USA.


what is a bilateral trade agreement? define and example please, thanks.

[Becker]

Because a city, state or country does not have any rights. Individuals have rights.


groups are but collections of individuals, why is it wrong or impossible for individuals to give up some rights and freedoms as an investment for overall reduction of risk, or common interest?



Are you serious? Do you think you'd be on this website if you lived in complete isolation? Chances are you'd be dead.


I probably can't, but some could, depending on their standard of living.



Trade does not hurt you. By definition, people trade only when it benefits both of them. You would not trade if you felt you weren't getting a greater value.

Wrong again. Trade hurts some, and benefits some. Obviously some people benefit from outsourcing and immigrants, but as the market is zero sum (until you print money), one person's benefit always comes from another's loss. Trade benefits some by adding jobs, only because others lose them.

[Becker]

Bi= two.

Two way trade agreement. For example, Canada and the USA.

Multi lateral agreement; NAFTA, Mexico-Canada-USA.

in other words, agreements made on a one-to-one basis, as needed, not a catch-all basis which allows exploitation across the table?

[Brian4Liberty]

WTF? Everyone should have something? What kind of socialist are you?


There's really no use responding to you, as you are just here to troll. You just take the opposite position of everybody, no more what the topic or the stance.

[Becker]

There's really no use responding to you, as you are just here to troll. You just take the opposite position of everybody, no more what the topic or the stance.

no. I agreed with a few people in this thread alone. I was just shocked one would say anybody "should" have anything.

[Cutlerzzz]

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 I just want to make sure that everyone read this.

[erowe1]

Why does Buchanan care about nations (which is just a euphemism for "governments")? It's what happens to people that matters.

[cucucachu0000]

That's completely wrong free trade only harms economies of nations with bad economic enviorments. Free trade forces countries to keep taxes low, enitlements low, and regulations low. Your going after the tentacles instead of the head/real root of the problem. Free trade doesn't work for socialist countries but works wonders for capitalist countries hense why we have been falling apart.

[Simple]

I agree with everything you wrote here, except that I think I must not be understanding what you mean by free trade. When I talk about free trade, I talk about unregulated, untaxed trade. As a welfare state expands and destroys its industry, it has less to export. Welfare states are at a significant disadvantage in completely unregulated, untaxed trade with other countries.

But isn't it still welfarism that's the root problem, not the free trade? And doesn't that free trade still at least allow people living in the welfare state to benefit from the excess output of more industrialized nations around the world?

Except that there is something more going on here.

Take Germany for example, with whom we also run a significant trade gap, especially in precision manufacturing. There are millions of dollars of propulsion equipment in the vessel I run, that is all made in Germany, Finland, Norway and Sweden

All of these countries are, by any measure, socialist countries, with a heavy burden of welfarism and regulatory burdens.

If welfarism alone is to blame, how is it that these nations continue to move past us economically, and pay higher manufacturing wages than similar jobs in the US?


There is something going on here and I'm glad the question has been raised. The more I think about this the more it seems that no matter how bad the governing is, if it at least sticks to some laissez faire instead of trying to micromanage everything, then the prosperity brought in by the productive segments of society are enough to raise the standard of living. The countries you mentioned along with some discussed elsewhere in this thread are governments with savings instead of excessive debt. All these counties are ranked highly for economic freedoms:

http://www.heritage.org/index/Ranking

[Melancton Smith]

This is my first post, and I would like to chime in here. I see a lot of disagreement when it comes to free trade with Paul supporters, and I don’t know why. It’s interesting because one thing most economists can agree on is free trade is something beneficial, not harmful. If I may, I would like to post some quotes which I think gets to the heart of the matter and refutes many fallacies that seem to abound the world, fallacies which have been refuted over and over again.

When it comes to free trade there are many books and articles that deal with the subject. One such book, which I highly recommend, is a book called Free Trade: America’s Opportunity (http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2038&Itemid=27), by Leland B. Yeager. It was produced in 1954, but the message is timeless. Anyways, here is a pertinent portion:


No Free Trader doubts that in many foreign countries the levels of wages and other incomes are, as translated through the exchange rates into dollars, wretchedly low by American standards. The Free Trader merely sees through the unspoken Protectionist theory about what facts are relevant. Actually, wage statistics no more make a case for tariffs than would, say, statistics on egg prices in Iceland or rainfall in Patagonia. Low wages in foreign countries reflect low productivity. (Low productivity of labor in turn typically results from a great abundance of labor in relation to comparatively scarce factors of production such as land, capital, and business ability.) Low wages enable the unfortunate foreigners, despite their low productivity, to charge low enough prices so that the goods they make least inefficiently can sell in the American market. Wages reflecting their low productivity enable the foreigners to export some goods and so earn the dollars with which to buy imports. If the foreigners could not do this, their poverty would be even worse.

That cheap-labor imports undersell some American products is far from a national calamity. On the contrary, the United States gains by trade even with poor countries. Nobody who understands the Principle of Comparative Advantage, which is fundamental, could miss this point. A rich country no more loses by trading with a poor one than a rich tycoon loses by dealing with a poor newsboy.

Of course some American industries—the relatively least efficient ones—have a hard time competing with imports while paying their workers at our high American wage levels. But see what these high wage levels mean: other industries, which can use labor still more productively, are setting the pace in wages by their competition in hiring labor. The very fact that the high cost of labor burdens a particular American industry shows that its workers have good alternative job opportunities.

Cheap labor could never let foreigners undersell us on all goods. Allowance made for loans, gifts, and the like, a country’s imports and exports of goods and services must be about equal. Except when wrecked by government interference, an “automatic” trade-balancing mechanism exists. Different wage levels among countries, as compared through the exchange rates, are an important part of this balancing mechanism. It is pleasant but unrealistic to think that foreigners would flood us with their goods and ask for little or none of ours in return.

If foreigners do sell us some things very cheap, we Americans positively gain. We can use the labor and resources that we thereby save to make other products in which we have a Comparative Advantage. Even from our own selfish viewpoint, it is fine that foreigners will work cheaply for us, trading us many of their goods for few of our own. Free Trade would raise, not lower, American standards of living.

Another tool of Free Traders is the use of the powerful reductio ad absurdum, and a good one comes from Murray Rothbard.


Suppose that Jones has a farm, “Jones’ Acres,” and Smith works for him. Having become steeped in protariff ideas, Jones exhorts Smith to “buy Jones’ Acres.” “Keep the money in Jones’ Acres,” “don’t be exploited by the flood of products from the cheap labor of foreigners outside Jones’ Acres,” and similar maxims become the watchword of the two men. To make sure that their aim is accomplished, Jones levies a 1,000-percent tariff on the imports of all goods and services from “abroad,” i.e., from outside the farm. As a result, Jones and Smith see their leisure, or “problems of unemployment,” disappear as they work from dawn to dusk trying to eke out the production of all the goods they desire. Many they cannot raise at all; others they can, given centuries of effort. It is true that they reap the promise of the protectionists: “self-sufficiency,” although the “sufficiency” is bare subsistence instead of a comfortable standard of living. Money is “kept at home,” and they can pay each other very high nominal wages and prices, but the men find that the real value of their wages, in terms of goods, plummets drastically.

Other resources which I think people who are weary of free trade should read or listen too I’ll list below.
"Trade is Made of Win," Part 1: Wealth Creation (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y0gGyeA-8C4)
"Trade is Made of Win," Part 2: Cooperation (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7yOHjRThM_o&feature=relmfu)
"Trade is Made of Win," Part 3: Conservation (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qdcQLWGaJoM&feature=relmfu)
Boudreaux on the Economics of "Buy Local" (http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2007/04/boudreaux_on_th.html)
Economic Sophisms by Frederic Bastiat (http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=276)
Don Boudreaux on Globalization and Trade Deficits (http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2008/01/don_boudreaux_o.html)
Don Boudreaux on China, Currency Manipulation, and Trade Deficits (http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2010/11/don_boudreaux_o_4.html)
The Case For Legalizing Capitalism by Kel Kelly (http://mises.org/books/capitalism_kelly.pdf) (In pdf form; part one, section 2, talks about trade.)
The Politically Incorrect Guide to Capitalism by Robert Murphy (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B001JJBOLA?ie=UTF8&tag=lewrockwell&linkCode=xm2&camp=1789&creativeASIN=B001JJBOLA) (He has a chapter on free trade.)
Protection or Free Trade, An Examination of the Tariff Question, with especial Regard to the Interests of Free Trade by Henry George (http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=1652&Itemid=27)
The Principles of Free Trade by Condy Raguet (http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2221&Itemid=27)
Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt (http://www.fee.org/pdf/books/Economics_in_one_lesson.pdf) (pdf format; he has a couple chapters on trade.)
And the website Café Hayek (http://cafehayek.com/), run by Russ Roberts and Don Boudreaux. Every day they smash trade fallacies.

Btw, I generally post over at DailyPaul, just hadn't gotten around to posting here. I'm Brutus56 over at DP. Oh, and since I'm new to this format, I hope I'm using the tools properly.

[Cutlerzzz]

This is my first post, and I would like to chime in here. I see a lot of disagreement when it comes to free trade with Paul supporters, and I don’t know why. It’s interesting because one thing most economists can agree on is free trade is something beneficial, not harmful. If I may, I would like to post some quotes which I think gets to the heart of the matter and refutes many fallacies that seem to abound the world, fallacies which have been refuted over and over again.

When it comes to free trade there are many books and articles that deal with the subject. One such book, which I highly recommend, is a book called Free Trade: America’s Opportunity (http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2038&Itemid=27), by Leland B. Yeager. It was produced in 1954, but the message is timeless. Anyways, here is a pertinent portion:



Another tool of Free Traders is the use of the powerful reductio ad absurdum, and a good one comes from Murray Rothbard.



Other resources which I think people who are weary of free trade should read or listen too I’ll list below.
"Trade is Made of Win," Part 1: Wealth Creation (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y0gGyeA-8C4)
"Trade is Made of Win," Part 2: Cooperation (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7yOHjRThM_o&feature=relmfu)
"Trade is Made of Win," Part 3: Conservation (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qdcQLWGaJoM&feature=relmfu)
Boudreaux on the Economics of "Buy Local" (http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2007/04/boudreaux_on_th.html)
Economic Sophisms by Frederic Bastiat (http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=276)
Don Boudreaux on Globalization and Trade Deficits (http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2008/01/don_boudreaux_o.html)
Don Boudreaux on China, Currency Manipulation, and Trade Deficits (http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2010/11/don_boudreaux_o_4.html)
The Case For Legalizing Capitalism by Kel Kelly (http://mises.org/books/capitalism_kelly.pdf) (In pdf form; part one, section 2, talks about trade.)
The Politically Incorrect Guide to Capitalism by Robert Murphy (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B001JJBOLA?ie=UTF8&tag=lewrockwell&linkCode=xm2&camp=1789&creativeASIN=B001JJBOLA) (He has a chapter on free trade.)
Protection or Free Trade, An Examination of the Tariff Question, with especial Regard to the Interests of Free Trade by Henry George (http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=1652&Itemid=27)
The Principles of Free Trade by Condy Raguet (http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2221&Itemid=27)
Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt (http://www.fee.org/pdf/books/Economics_in_one_lesson.pdf) (pdf format; he has a couple chapters on trade.)
And the website Café Hayek (http://cafehayek.com/), run by Russ Roberts and Don Boudreaux. Every day they smash trade fallacies.

Btw, I generally post over at DailyPaul, just hadn't gotten around to posting here. I'm Brutus56 over at DP. Oh, and since I'm new to this format, I hope I'm using the tools properly.Welcome to the board.

+1

[Melancton Smith]

Welcome to the board.

Thanks! Not sure why I haven't posted here, I suppose it was because I joined DP first.

Anyway, I wanted to add more to this discussion. One thing that is prodded out, which I used to believe, is that we don't manufacture stuff. Well, that's actually not correct. If you look here (http://cafehayek.com/2010/07/up-is-not-down.html)and here (http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2011/01/we-should-take-more-pride-in-our-global.html), you will see that we actually manufacture a lot of stuff. The stuff is just different. Instead of hats and shoes, we produce heavy equipment, machinery, pharmaceuticals, etc. I'm not sure why it's a shame, or rather, I don't see why it is we should be producing shoes and hats instead of aircraft carriers, say.

From the second link I provided, the author states this:


The decline, demise, and death of America’s manufacturing sector has been greatly exaggerated. America still makes a ton of stuff, and we make more of it now than ever before in history, but we’re able to do it with a fraction of the workers that would have been required in the past. We’re still the world’s leading manufacturing economy by far, thanks to the world-class productivity of American manufacturing workers, the most productive in the world. Instead of bashing China, Korea, and Mexico for competing against our manufacturing sector and exaggerating the decline of our manufacturing sector, Americans should take more pride and celebrate our status as the world’s leading manufacturer.

The bold portion is key: it shows that yes, we may not have a lot of jobs in these sectors, but this is not a calamity; in fact, this is a benefit, since we can use less resources to produce more stuff, which means that the resources not used are freed up to be used in other parts of the economy, thus expanding those sectors of the economy and enlarging the economic pie.

Another piece people should read is a great monograph by Murray Rothbard, called Protectionism and the Destruction of Prosperity (http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard125.html). Below is a choice quote regarding "dumping," or selling below costs to Americans.


Another contradictory line of protectionist assault on the free market asserts that the problem is not so much the low costs enjoyed by foreign firms, as the "unfairness" of selling their products "below costs" to American consumers, and thereby engaging in the pernicious and sinful practice of "dumping." By such dumping they are able to exert unfair advantage over American firms who presumably never engage in such practices and make sure that their prices are always high enough to cover costs. But if selling below costs is such a powerful weapon, why isn't it ever pursued by business firms within a country?

Our first response to this charge is, once again, to keep our eye on consumers in general and on American consumers in particular. Why should it be a matter of complaint when consumers so clearly benefit? Suppose, for example, that Sony is willing to injure American competitors by selling TV sets to Americans for a penny apiece. Shouldn't we rejoice at such an absurd policy of suffering severe losses by subsidizing us, the American consumers? And shouldn't our response be: "Come on, Sony, subsidize us some more!" As far as consumers are concerned, the more "dumping" that takes place, the better.

But what of the poor American TV firms, whose sales will suffer so long as Sony is willing to virtually give their sets away? Well, surely, the sensible policy for RCA, Zenith, etc. would be to hold back production and sales until Sony drives itself into bankruptcy. But suppose that the worst happens, and RCA, Zenith, etc. are themselves driven into bankruptcy by the Sony price war? Well, in that case, we the consumers will still be better off, since the plants of the bankrupt firms, which would still be in existence, would be picked up for a song at auction, and the American buyers at auction would be able to enter the TV business and outcompete Sony because they now enjoy far lower capital costs.

For decades, indeed, opponents of the free market have claimed that many businesses gained their powerful status on the market by what is called "predatory price-cutting," that is, by driving their smaller competitors into bankruptcy by selling their goods below cost, and then reaping the reward of their unfair methods by raising their prices and thereby charging "monopoly prices" to the consumers. The claim is that while consumers may gain in the short run by price wars, "dumping," and selling below costs, they lose in the long run from the alleged monopoly. But, as we have seen, economic theory shows that this would be a mug's game, losing money for the "dumping" firms, and never really achieving a monopoly price. And sure enough, historical investigation has not turned up a single case where predatory pricing, when tried, was successful, and there are actually very few cases where it has even been tried.

Another charge claims that Japanese or other foreign firms can afford to engage in dumping because their governments are willing to subsidize their losses. But again, we should still welcome such an absurd policy. If the Japanese government is really willing to waste scarce resources subsidizing American purchases of Sony's, so much the better! Their policy would be just as self-defeating as if the losses were private.

There is yet another problem with the charge of "dumping," even when it is made by economists or other alleged "experts" sitting on impartial tariff commissions and government bureaus. There is no way whatever that outside observers, be they economists, businessmen, or other experts, can decide what some other firm's "costs" may be. "Costs" are not objective entities that can be gauged or measured. Costs are subjective to the businessman himself, and they vary continually, depending on the businessman's time horizon or the stage of production or selling process he happens to be dealing with at any given time.

Suppose, for example, a fruit dealer has purchased a case of pears for $20, amounting to $1 a pound. He hopes and expects to sell those pears for $1.50 a pound. But something has happened to the pear market, and he finds it impossible to sell most of the pears at anything near that price. In fact, he finds that he must sell the pears at whatever price he can get before they become overripe. Suppose he finds that he can only sell his stock of pears at 70 cents a pound. The outside observer might say that the fruit dealer has, perhaps "unfairly," sold his pears "below costs," figuring that the dealer's costs were $1 a pound.

[Cutlerzzz]

in other words, agreements made on a one-to-one basis, as needed, not a catch-all basis which allows exploitation across the table?Who repped you? Back down to red you go.

[nbhadja]

Protectionism isn't completely bad. It helps 3rd world countries so much today since they can protect their resources from the imperialist countries from Western Europe and America........but if they have a leader who cares about his own people instead of a puppet leader who whores his people out to the imperialists than we bomb and murder him and replace him with a puppet leader.

I have a scenario.....tell me if it is a possible situation:

Imagine we have a completely free market country. China then starts making their people work even more slave labor like to the point where they are practically working for free (they kinda do now anyways).......so because of this our companies start going overseas to China and we start losing jobs. Our market sets the wages, but since Chinese workers are basically working for free the market in America would have to dip down to slave like wages for Americans just to compete with China and keep the manufacturing jobs in America.

Is that a possibility? It seems like it is. If a country will whore out its own people to American corporations as slave like workers (as we often see happen) then there is no way manufacturing companies would want to stay in America unless there are some tariffs or some other protectionist measure.

Let's be real, even if America becomes free market, the entire rest of the world will not. There will sadly always be countries out there that will whore their own people out to Western corporations and the Western companies will always be drawn to those countries.

Complete free trade would only not harm a country if the rest of the world was free market....but the moment there is a country that will make its people work like slaves for practically nothing then unrestricted free trade seems like a risk of job loss.

[JoshLowry]

I haven't read all the way through this yet.

I think if you would have used the quotation marks in your thread title like you did in your post, you would have less people trying to figure out what you were talking about.

Similar to using the word "capitalism" and not putting it into quotes when talking about crony capitalism or corporatism. You'd run into similar problems.

[Diurdi]

Wrong again. Trade hurts some, and benefits some. Obviously some people benefit from outsourcing and immigrants, but as the market is zero sum (until you print money), one person's benefit always comes from another's loss. Trade benefits some by adding jobs, only because others lose them. The Market is not Zero-sum.

If I have 2 pairs of pants and no shirt, and my friend has two shirts and no pants - if we trade so that we both have one of each we both win. That's POSITIVE SUM. Both of us crated value to eachother through the trade. This is what happens everywhere. This is why the division of labour was possible in the first place.

Even when speculating on the stock market, it's not zero-sum. Each "good" transaction always creates wealth to society. Yes, one guy may be taking lossess, but the overall product to society is far greater than his lossess. "Bad" investments and transactions have the possibility to be a net negative to society. But it's definiately not zero-sum.

[RonPaulMania]

Bad example. The Byzantine Empire became powerful through free trade and having a very reliable currency that was never devalued, and then fell as it began devaluing its money to fund wars.

The Byzantine Empire was already powerful. Free trade was one of its great downfalls, and if you read history its clear that the free trade agreements were to enrich the merchants of Florence who knew this was a Trojan horse.

When do you think the Byzantine Empire got powerful? They started to die at around the time of free trade.

You could literally read the fall of Byzantium and read what we are doing and wonder if they are literally copy and pasting the fall of a country.

[RonPaulMania]

Why did they suffer greatly? Were they too lazy to eat or are they workaholics?

Quite simply because their jobs became outsourced and exported their wealth.



You mean to tell me not all cultures are equal?

Completely irrelevant and yes they are equal, what they are not is compatible. Tell me historically one country which absorbed many cultures without falling into pieces.

[Anti Federalist]

Remind me, how much of a tax do you want the government to put on americans who trade with china? How much do you want an organized gang of thugs to take from them under the threat of violence?

You know, I got to thinking about this in greater depth...

I am told that a private corporation can do whatever it wants, as far as setting policies or EULAs for it's customers or it's employees.

What is properly functioning representative republic but the same thing as a corporate enterprise?

And what is a tariff but the same thing as a "user fee"?

Nobody is going to kick your door in if you don't pay, same thing applies if I don't want to shop at Wal Marx, you're free to take your business elsewhere.

It's as benign a tax as you could possibly have.

And if the only difference is a monopoly of violence, I'd suggest trying to barge into the CEO's office at, say Goldman Sachs or GE.

Private security forces will apply a great deal of violence to you.