Another divisive anti-free trade thread.

[Anti Federalist]

Turns out FrankRep has been banned.

So the question came up, in the thread referenced by the quoted post, "Who will post all the New American articles while he's gone?"


I nominate Anti Federalist. Maybe it'll keep him from posting divisive anti free-trade threads.

Let it not be said that I wasn't up to the task.

Especially since the The New American pretty much agrees with me on the topic of "free trade".

This article is tl:dr for many people, so I'll post the closing paragraph first:


While the theory of comparative advantage can be a useful tool for economic analysis, it is simply not logical to use it as proof that unlimited free trade all of the time with every country in the world is good for America.

That could only be true if all of the associated assumptions about comparative advantage were actually valid in the real world, but they are not.

In fact, the way the world works nowadays means that those assumptions move further away from reality with every passing day.



Free Trade in Theory and Practice

Written by Brian Farmer
Thursday, 08 September 2011 00:00

http://thenewamerican.com/economy/commentary-mainmenu-43/8880-free-trade-in-theory-and-practice

[ClayTrainor]

lol... from another divisive anti-free trade thread. :)


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. 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

[Anti Federalist]

lol... from another divisive anti-free trade thread. :)

Maybe we can get a merger 'eh? ;)

[BattleFlag1776]

I'll read it and get back to you. In the interim, I'll leave you with this: "A fool and his money...should be parted!"

[rp08orbust]

That could only be true if all of the associated assumptions about comparative advantage were actually valid in the real world, but they are not.

I don't really care if they're valid, because I don't use neoclassical macroeconomics to argue for my right to peacefully transact with anyone I want, regardless of what continent they live on. That right follows from my self-ownership.

[Vessol]

My only issue with Protectionism is that it can only be done by pointing a gun at someone.

[Anti Federalist]

My only issue with Protectionism is that it can only be done by pointing a gun at someone.

I don't see it that way.

Tariffs are the only form of taxation that does not require that.

It's not an aggressive tax, nobody is forcing you to do business here.

I look at it the same way I have to when a corporation does something I find reprehensible: take my business elsewhere.

[Vessol]

What if I open my own private port that does not charge a duty on those who use it? Or if I do charge a duty, it is considerably less than what the government does through tarriffs? Why should the government operate ports to begin with, why is it their business who I let in my port and what they have in their cargo?

[Anti Federalist]

What if I open my own private port that does not charge a duty on those who use it? Or if I do charge a duty, it is considerably less than what the government does through tarriffs? Why should the government operate ports to begin with, why is it their business who I let in my port and what they have in their cargo?

That's always the larger question.

Do you have a government at all?

Even in it's most limited, constitutional form, a central government has a responsibility to maintain and manage the ports and waterways.

[Vessol]

That's always the larger question.

Do you have a government at all?

Even in it's most limited, constitutional form, a central government has a responsibility to maintain and manage the ports and waterways

Lol, I was trying to have this debate without going into that. But, I guess that is ultimately my point.

Even a simple tariff is a hidden gun by the State. Because either it is through the application of force in extortion(taxes) or it is the application of force in insuring a monopoly on services, such as infrastructure(roads, ports, airports, etc) and not allowing private competition. The only way to not allow private competition, is to use a gun and threaten force.

This is what happened to Lysander Spooner when he tried to compete with the US Postal Office with his American Letter Company.

Edit: I really wouldn't consider it a "responsibility". If I owned my own port on my own private property, I wouldn't really think that some outside organization, without my permission, come in and looking over my cargo and property of my customers would be their responsibility. I'd say that they are violating my property.

[BattleFlag1776]

What if I open my own private port that does not charge a duty on those who use it? Or if I do charge a duty, it is considerably less than what the government does through tarriffs? Why should the government operate ports to begin with, why is it their business who I let in my port and what they have in their cargo?

The Confederates made that same argument. The answer, as they say, is history.

[Anti Federalist]

What if I open my own private port that does not charge a duty on those who use it? Or if I do charge a duty, it is considerably less than what the government does through tarriffs? Why should the government operate ports to begin with, why is it their business who I let in my port and what they have in their cargo?

Well, lets look at this a little more.

Lets assume you found investors or had enough capital to build a modern, deep water port, which will cost billions of dollars.

Lets also assume that you were able to get everybody to agree to sell their land for the project without having to resort to eminent domain takings. (Not very likely)

Now, you will have to charge some sort of fee, high enough to cover the costs of construction, maintenance, (dredging does not come cheap) and all the rest of the costs associated with port ops.

Now, lets say that a shipping agent decides that he just isn't going to pay your fees anymore. He doesn't shift his vessels to another port, he doesn't stop using your facility, he just isn't going to pay.

Somebody is going to have to apply some violence to stop him from violating your property rights.

[Pericles]

Free trade is a wonderful idea. The world should try it some day.

[Vessol]

Well, lets look at this a little more.

Lets assume you found investors or had enough capital to build a modern, deep water port, which will cost billions of dollars.

Lets also assume that you were able to get everybody to agree to sell their land for the project without having to resort to eminent domain takings. (Not very likely)

Now, you will have to charge some sort of fee, high enough to cover the costs of construction, maintenance, (dredging does not come cheap) and all the rest of the costs associated with port ops.

Now, lets say that a shipping agent decides that he just isn't going to pay your fees anymore. He doesn't shift his vessels to another port, he doesn't stop using your facility, he just isn't going to pay.

Somebody is going to have to apply some violence to stop him from violating your property rights.

But, that wouldn't be me initiating force. I would just be protecting my property rights and he would be trespassing.

I'm disappointed Anti-Federalist, and I know we get along with about everything else. You know that Voluntaryism is about being against the initiation of force. There is nothing immoral about me protecting my property from those trespassing on it.

You also really didn't really address my main issue at all, in fact you completely side stepped and ignored it.

Tariffs are the initiation of force by the government because they create a monopoly over the infrastructure and do not allow competition. You claim that there is no initiation of force, but there clearly is in the fact that the only way you can prevent competition is by threatening force. Lysander Spooner got threatened by the Feds to shut down his American Letter Company, that is the initiation of force.

I guess I'll ask this.

Do you support the government pointing a gun at me and telling me that I can't open my own port and allow someone to dock and not pay the government tax?

[NewRightLibertarian]

I understand the logic behind protectionist tariffs and think that would be WAY better than the current globalization that is in progress, but I hate taxes so much that I don't think I could support them if that makes any sense.

[Becker]

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?327687-The-New-American-Walker-Rules-Save-Wisconsin-School-Districts-Millions

that guy

[Vessol]

I understand the logic behind protectionist tariffs and think that would be WAY better than the current globalization that is in progress, but I hate taxes so much that I don't think I could support them if that makes any sense.

The current globalization is nothing more than the result of neocolonialism and economic interventionists who have no idea what kind of barriers the State puts up to the free market whenever it creates a new law.

My main issue with Protectionism is that so many here agree with what the government does is immoral, yet they seem to have no moral issue with the government initiating force when it must in order to ensure Protectionism. I really haven't seen much of a good free market case for protectionism, nor the logical claim that it does not involve the initiation of force.

It also mystifies me because Protectionism is one of the primary things that the very first classical liberals(libertarians) were against. And the main adherents of Protectionism has long been the Privileged Merchant class of the nobility and the Left-of-Center Unionists of the early 20th century.

[Cutlerzzz]

AF, would you benefit from tariffs getting raised?

[Anti Federalist]

AF, would you benefit from tariffs getting raised?

Can't type well, busted up my left hand.

No, not personally from tariffs, not right now.

20 years ago in the commercial fishing business, yes definitely.

Lifting of seafood tariffs drove prices down that put thousands of people out of work.

[Vessol]

Can't type well, busted up my left hand.

No, not personally from tariffs, not right now.

20 years ago in the commercial fishing business, yes definitely.

Lifting of seafood tariffs drove prices down that put thousands of people out of work.

Hope your hand heals mate, that sucks :(.

I don't really think that you can still justify the use of initiating force in order to protect the jobs of people, that's the same logic that the left uses.

I know the commercial fishing industry is all sorts of fucked up though. Though, my knowledge of it is very limited. Sometime when I move up to NH in about a year you can tell me all about it in person sometime.

[Diurdi]

Anti-Federalist - do you think there should simply be an even across the board tariff on everything or should only specific goods that need to be protected have tariffs?

You do realize that the US is not self-sufficient enough and will always heavily rely on international trade in many areas? And any significant tariffs would destroy this trade.

And if you go the route of only having tariffs on certain industries and no/low tariffs in others for the purpose of keeping alive the vital international trade in these industries - you'll have created a monstrous tool for the lobbyists to abuse. They're going to get their own industries protected through bribery so that they can be protected from competition and enjoy profits at the backs of the American people.

[John F Kennedy III]

Turns out FrankRep has been banned.

So the question came up, in the thread referenced by the quoted post, "Who will post all the New American articles while he's gone?"



Let it not be said that I wasn't up to the task.

Especially since the The New American pretty much agrees with me on the topic of "free trade".

This article is tl:dr for many people, so I'll post the closing paragraph first:





Free Trade in Theory and Practice

Written by Brian Farmer
Thursday, 08 September 2011 00:00

http://thenewamerican.com/economy/commentary-mainmenu-43/8880-free-trade-in-theory-and-practice

I don't think you have enough rep to withstand being so divisive :p

[Anti Federalist]

Anti-Federalist - do you think there should simply be an even across the board tariff on everything or should only specific goods that need to be protected have tariffs?

You do realize that the US is not self-sufficient enough and will always heavily rely on international trade in many areas? And any significant tariffs would destroy this trade.

And if you go the route of only having tariffs on certain industries and no/low tariffs in others for the purpose of keeping alive the vital international trade in these industries - you'll have created a monstrous tool for the lobbyists to abuse. They're going to get their own industries protected through bribery so that they can be protected from competition and enjoy profits at the backs of the American people.

Yes, this I agree with.

I'm not in favor of line item tariffs, which is a confusing mess.

I'm in favor of an across the board tariff, combined with real tax, regulation and tort elimination/reform.

[Anti Federalist]

Hope your hand heals mate, that sucks :(.

I don't really think that you can still justify the use of initiating force in order to protect the jobs of people, that's the same logic that the left uses.

I know the commercial fishing industry is all sorts of fucked up though. Though, my knowledge of it is very limited. Sometime when I move up to NH in about a year you can tell me all about it in person sometime.

I'd look forward to it.

I've got to meet with TT also.

[cucucachu0000]

i just dont see how forcing poor people to pay high prices to save union jobs and millionairs profits makes any sense. if we become the only free trade country in the world i think we would get billions invested in this country for this to be a businesses HUB to trade with the world.