Tab Content
  • Occam's Banana's Avatar
    Today, 07:24 PM
    https://twitter.com/ConceptualJames/status/1449898215176871937 1449898215176871937
    144 replies | 14986 view(s)
  • luctor-et-emergo's Avatar
    Today, 10:08 AM
    Around 6-8% a year sounds more reasonable indeed.
    6 replies | 139 view(s)
  • donnay's Avatar
    Today, 08:31 AM
    I agree that Trump was lied to by the many people who claimed they knew the science. If you recall, in many speeches he had made early on, he brings up the 1918 pandemic of which allegedly killed 50 million people. Many of the people around him told him that Covid-19 would more than likely turn out to be worse than that. Trump is not dumb, he needs to pay attention to the many of his constituents screaming about these kill shots. I am angry that he allowed his ego to get in the way from the truth. He should have realized Fauci was the very man that threw him under the bus from the get-go of this plannedemic. His HHS appointment, Azar had too many conflicts of interest as well.
    5 replies | 288 view(s)
  • donnay's Avatar
    Today, 08:17 AM
    1 John 4:12 No man hath seen God at any time. If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us.
    1887 replies | 177807 view(s)
  • CCTelander's Avatar
    97 replies | 1518 view(s)
  • CCTelander's Avatar
    Today, 03:10 AM
    This statement flies in the face of all reason and logic. SMGDH
    97 replies | 1518 view(s)
  • CCTelander's Avatar
    Today, 03:08 AM
    Well, at least you're consistent. Consistently wrong, but consistent nonetheless.
    97 replies | 1518 view(s)
  • donnay's Avatar
    Yesterday, 09:42 PM
    I got shingles five days after my boss got a shingles vaccine--the people who are superspreaders are the ones that get the jabs! :mad:
    107 replies | 20399 view(s)
  • CCTelander's Avatar
    Yesterday, 08:01 PM
    Tariffs are not necessary to ameliorate this problem either. https://mises.org/wire/3-modern-arguments-tariffs-debunked In fact, tariffs actually REDUCE the nation's ability to prepare for and cope with crises and the outbreak of war, to wit:
    97 replies | 1518 view(s)
  • Dr.3D's Avatar
    Yesterday, 06:34 PM
    They can't get past the first step.
    17 replies | 499 view(s)
  • Dr.3D's Avatar
    Yesterday, 06:05 PM
    There should be a 12 step program for racism. :D
    17 replies | 499 view(s)
  • Occam's Banana's Avatar
    Yesterday, 01:21 PM
    That same presidential candidate also fully recognized and acknowledged that the low and general (not high and targeted) general tariff he advocated would nevertheless still have all the deleterious effects that I and others have identified in this thread. Which is precisely why ha advocated to keep it as low and general as possible, in order to minimize and more evenly distribute the damage it would inevitably cause. This is tautological, as depending "too much" on anything is problematic - that's what "too much" means, after all. For example, one could just as reasonably say "Depending too much on domestic manufacturing and products can leave you in a bind." How much is "too much" is the very question at issue. The answer changes over time and with circumstances and is best decided by the free market. Unfortunately, we don't have one of those. And no tariff as such is ever going to bring us closer to one.
    97 replies | 1518 view(s)
  • Occam's Banana's Avatar
    Yesterday, 01:15 PM
    Acquiring a thing from "over there" (wherever that is) may be cheaper than making it "right here" (wherever that is). Or it may not. And that might change tomorrow for any of myriad reasons. Or it might not. But mere "geographic scope" (be it "global" or "national" or "local" or whatever) has nothing to do with it, one way or the other. The laws of economics have no more respect for arbitrary geopolitical boundaries than illegal immigrants do. And unlike the latter, the laws of men can do nothing about the former. quod erat demonstrandum
    97 replies | 1518 view(s)
  • Occam's Banana's Avatar
    Yesterday, 11:45 AM
    I'm not entirely sure what "comfortable" or "meaningful" are supposed to denote here. But whatever lack of "comfort" I might have with my guns & ammo coming only from China, should I be any less "uncomfortable" with them coming only from Canada? Or even only from Texas? For example, why should I be more "comfortable" with a tariff of X% imposed on imported armaments than with, say, a tax of X% imposed by Democrats on domestic armaments (which would presumably also apply to imports as well)? Which is all the more reason to oppose tariffs on those items. And in the case of microchips, it's not just a matter of comparative advantage and division of labor. China, Indonesia, et al. have better access to more abundant sources of the necessary natural resources. As I noted in a previous post, there are very good reasons why households no longer make their own clothing. Artificially inducing them to do so again is not going to make them more prosperous in the short or long term. Nor will autarkic tariffs make America (or this or that state/locality) more prosperous or independent - and for exactly the same reasons. It will only serve to induce wasteful misallocations of capital for the sake of enriching some Americans (or state/local factions) at the expense of other Americans (or state/local factions), while making the former more dependent on a brittle tariff regime and the politicians & bureaucrats who implement it.
    97 replies | 1518 view(s)
  • Occam's Banana's Avatar
    Yesterday, 10:35 AM
    I disagree that local production is the primary point of tariffs. But it doesn't actually matter: I previously addressed this:
    97 replies | 1518 view(s)
  • Occam's Banana's Avatar
    Yesterday, 09:44 AM
    But when it comes to hammer tariffs, it is "just Stanley" (and their fellow hammer-makers). All those other employers/employees/consumers/etc. who have to pay the price for Stanley's "tariff privilege" would like to "live a comfortable life and raise a family, and be part of and supportive of our nation and western civilization", too. Do they get to just kick rocks? How does forcibly taking money out of the pockets of American hammer-users and putting it into the pockets of American hammer-makers serve any of the good causes you mentioned? I posted this earlier, but it bears repeating:
    97 replies | 1518 view(s)
  • Occam's Banana's Avatar
    Yesterday, 09:28 AM
    You single out China and California, but my point is that your logic applies just as much to Connecticut as it does to those two popular punching bags - or to any other arbitrary geopolitical divisions. (And the reasons for any given tariff - "protective" or "punitive" or whatever - simply don't matter. They are completely irrelevant to its consequences. A tariff of T% imposed for reason X will have exactly the same effects as a tariff of T% imposed for any other reason Y.) How does it benefit New Hampshire to impose tariffs on goods (including Stanley hammers) from Connecticut, and vice versa? And if it does, should it not also benefit Hillsborough county to impose tariffs on goods from Merrimack county, and vice versa? And if it does, should it not also benefit Manchester to impose tariffs on goods from Nashua, and vice versa? And if it does ...
    97 replies | 1518 view(s)
  • Occam's Banana's Avatar
    Yesterday, 08:58 AM
    Okay. As awful as all that sounds, it doesn't matter. All those things have already been accounted for and subsumed in the stipulated cost of the hammer ($10) and will have no additional relevance to or effect on anything beyond that. But it doesn't reverse that incentive. In fact, since Stanley no longer have to worry about their Chinese competitors underpricing them, it would, if anything, incentivize them to actively reduce the quality of the hammers they already make so that they can make an even healthier profit on each hammer sold
    97 replies | 1518 view(s)
  • DamianTV's Avatar
    Yesterday, 08:24 AM
    Never ever let Tyrants pick your heroes for you. --- When we let them do so, we end up with the likes of Steve Urkel and Gilligan vs any of our REAL Founding Fathers, or fictionally Rambo or John Wayne characters. California Gender Neutral Mandates ARE Modern Day Lynching In a way, this is not that different from Lynching.
    12 replies | 534 view(s)
  • Occam's Banana's Avatar
    Yesterday, 07:53 AM
    But tariffs on steel imports will do just the opposite - they will result in higher pricing for American-made steel. After all, the whole point of steel tariffs is to prevent steel imports from being cheaper than domestic steel, and thus to allow domestic producers to charge more than they otherwise could have charged. And it's not at all difficult to tell what steel consumers would do under such circumstances. It's simple economics. They will do what buyers always do, ceteris paribus, when prices go up. They will buy less of something. They will buy less steel, or they will buy less labor, or they will curtail expansion, or they will pass the cost on to the consumers of their products (who will in turn buy less of those products, thereby inducing a cascading "ripple" effect ...), or any combination of these or other things. Pre-existing allocations of capital and economies of scale might very well make it cheaper for Oklahoma to "freight raw materials halfway around the world and back" - even without tariffs and duties and all that other bullshit. There are only so many steel mills that are actually needed to meet demands at any given time, and it would make no sense for Oklahoma to expend resources to build new steel mills if they could more cheaply and easily ship raw material to already-existing plants elsewhere and then ship back the refined product. This would allow them to expend those resources on other things rather than on mills that might well end up sitting idle some of the time because there isn't enough for them to do (and that were built just for the sake of "having their own" or "doing it themselves" and not because it made any economic sense). It's basically the same reason that most households don't make their own clothing anymore. Why bother? It's more trouble than it's worth. Comparative advantage and the division of labor are good things. It doesn't make sense to thwart them merely for the sake of localism (which I am all for politically - localism, I mean).
    97 replies | 1518 view(s)
  • Occam's Banana's Avatar
    Yesterday, 07:18 AM
    If imposing production-spurring tariffs on imports from other countries is good for Americans, then it must also be the case that imposing production-spurring tariffs on imports from other states is good for Montanans. And Floridians. And Missourians. And Pennsylvanians. And Californians. And all the way down the line for all 50 states. But if that would be good for all 50 states (which is, after all, just a different way of saying "America"), then why don't the advocates of higher tariffs on goods from other countries also advocate for a Constitutional amendment to allow each state to impose tariffs on goods imported from other states?
    97 replies | 1518 view(s)
  • Occam's Banana's Avatar
    Yesterday, 06:42 AM
    26 replies | 1187 view(s)
  • Occam's Banana's Avatar
    48 replies | 2125 view(s)
  • Occam's Banana's Avatar
    Yesterday, 06:30 AM
    None of that would "eliminat the 'special-interest cronyism'" - it would merely change who the cronies are. It also doesn't answer or address any of the questions I asked. For example, how would the elimination of steel imports "spur production" among American steel consumers? If anything, it would retard steel consumption even more severely than tariffs would. Banning imports would effectively be the same as imposing infinitely high tariffs, with all the same deleterious effects (only greatly magnified and amplified). Absent market-warping regulations, importers are doing nothing objectionable. They are merely selling goods that are being demanded by willing buyers. Also, if importation is bad for America (and "America" here is one hell of a big mouse in the pocket), then American exports must likewise be bad for the countries that import them. IOW: Voluntary exchange must be a "lose-lose" proposition, and that is contrary to all the laws of economics (which, like the laws of physics, do not change just because some arbitrary geopolitical boundary has been crossed). Then by all means, abolish those government regulations. But replacing them with tariffs (or, even worse, slathering tariffs on top of them) isn't going to solve that problem. It will only change who is being expropriated on behalf of someone else.
    97 replies | 1518 view(s)
  • Occam's Banana's Avatar
    Yesterday, 05:44 AM
    https://twitter.com/Mediaite/status/1449127945386160128 1449127945386160128
    171 replies | 21072 view(s)
  • CCTelander's Avatar
    Yesterday, 04:54 AM
    Just cops doing the job they were actually hired to do, i.e. keep the rabble (that's us) in line. Nothing to see here. Move along now.
    146 replies | 5037 view(s)
  • CCTelander's Avatar
    Yesterday, 04:30 AM
    Everyone who considers themselves an activist for liberty should read it. It's just THAT good.
    97 replies | 1518 view(s)
  • Occam's Banana's Avatar
    Yesterday, 04:21 AM
    As noted at the source, that's from Chapter 11 of Economics in One Lesson.
    97 replies | 1518 view(s)
  • CCTelander's Avatar
    Yesterday, 04:14 AM
    Because tariffs always, ALWAYS cause more economic harm than good. Always. https://mises.org/wire/whos-protected-tariffs See also: https://mises.org/wire/against-trumps-tariffs-0
    97 replies | 1518 view(s)
  • Occam's Banana's Avatar
    Yesterday, 04:03 AM
    How does making the product of one American industry more expensive to other American industries "spur production" in those other American industries? For example, how does it "spur production" in American steel-consuming industries by making steel more expensive for them - by implementing steel tariffs meant to "spur production" in American steel-producing industries? Outside of special-interest cronyism, why should American steel producers be favored over American steel consumers?
    97 replies | 1518 view(s)
More Activity

83 Visitor Messages

  1. View Conversation
    I might have, but I don't remember what I said.
  2. View Conversation
    I don't know what he's doing.
  3. View Conversation
    LMAO. Don't tariff me, bro!

    Remy is the Weird Al Yankovic of libertarianism.

    (Or is Weird Al Yankovic the Remy of pop music ... ?)
  4. View Conversation
    1. Everyone should have at least one banana costume.
    2. Obviously, your youngest son has superb judgement and excellent taste in berries and/or berry-related matters.
    3. Pro Tip: When wearing (one of) your banana costume(s), always keep an eye out for deadly black tarantulas (especially when on a boat during sunrise hours).
  5. View Conversation
    It's sorta a mental reaction where if people talk shit about me I use up my cursing vocabulary and try to unnerve the guy as much as possible. Learned it in Middle School.
  6. View Conversation
    They accused me of being a puppet after going out of their way to necropost on my old thread even though that thread was 5 months old and I sorta got into a pissing match.
  7. View Conversation
    This isn't one of my better days. I'm sorry.....<.<
  8. View Conversation
    Thank you!!
  9. View Conversation
    That was the best pic yet - but the flag patch needs to be replaced ...

Showing Visitor Messages 1 to 10 of 83
Page 1 of 9 123 ... LastLast
Page 1 of 9 123 ... LastLast
About Suzanimal

Basic Information

Date of Birth
September 29
About Suzanimal
Interests:
Drinking wine
Profile Sidebar Configuration

Profile Sidebar Configuration

Political / Activist Bio:
I'm an enthusiastic sign waver.:)

I refuse to upgrade my minivan because of my Ron Paul stickers. <---That's worth 5 stars, I drive a 1998 Plymouth Grand Voyager.:(

I try to live by example. Homeschooling, avoiding paying taxes whenever possible, planning for the collapse...

I've donated money to Ron Paul, RPI (Christmas donations in the names of my Democrat in-laws:)), Mises Institute.

Attended Ron Paul rallies and Mises conferences. I met Lew Rockwell at Mises, we're BFF's now.:cool:

Most importantly, I talk to people about liberty.:)
Activist Reputation (Self-Rated):
5
Select if you support the site's Mission.:
I support the site Mission. (This will change your user title to "Supporting Member".)
Display site reputation bars.:
Display site reputation bars.
Select if you do not support Trump or Hillary.:
No Trump. No Hillary. (This will add a "None of the Above" badge by your name in all posts.)
Political Campaign Skills
Campaign Workers:
Fashion Expert

Signature


Quote Originally Posted by Ron Paul View Post
The intellectual battle for liberty can appear to be a lonely one at times. However, the numbers are not as important as the principles that we hold. Leonard Read always taught that "it's not a numbers game, but an ideological game." That's why it's important to continue to provide a principled philosophy as to what the role of government ought to be, despite the numbers that stare us in the face.
Quote Originally Posted by Origanalist View Post
This intellectually stimulating conversation is the reason I keep coming here.

Statistics


Total Posts
Total Posts
33,253
Posts Per Day
9.34
Visitor Messages
Total Messages
83
Most Recent Message
09-16-2019 01:51 PM
General Information
Last Activity
08-01-2021 03:43 AM
Join Date
01-17-2012
Referrals
0

36 Friends

  1. angelatc angelatc is offline

    Banned

    angelatc
  2. AZJoe AZJoe is offline

    Member

    AZJoe
  3. Cap Cap is offline

    Member

    Cap
  4. CCTelander CCTelander is offline

    Member

    CCTelander
  5. DamianTV DamianTV is offline

    Member

    DamianTV
  6. Danke Danke is offline

    Top Rated Influencer

    • Send a message via Skype™ to Danke
    Danke
  7. DevilsAdvocate DevilsAdvocate is offline

    Member

    DevilsAdvocate
  8. donnay donnay is offline

    Member

    donnay
  9. Dr.3D Dr.3D is online now

    Member

    Dr.3D
  10. Ender Ender is offline

    Member

    Ender
Showing Friends 1 to 10 of 36
Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Page 1 of 10 123 ... LastLast

10-26-2020


10-14-2020


10-10-2020


04-24-2020


02-04-2020

  • 10:44 AM - Hidden

11-24-2019

  • 12:51 PM - Hidden

10-20-2019


10-04-2019

  • 04:29 PM - Hidden

09-27-2019


09-19-2019


09-15-2019

  • 10:59 AM - Deleted Posts

09-11-2019


09-09-2019


08-28-2019

  • 04:33 PM - Hidden

08-22-2019


08-21-2019


08-20-2019


08-15-2019


08-13-2019

  • 06:03 PM - Hidden

05-06-2017



Page 1 of 10 123 ... LastLast
Page 1 of 491 1231151101 ... LastLast

08-26-2021


07-25-2021


07-22-2021

  • 08:32 PM - Hidden

02-03-2021


01-24-2021


01-13-2021


01-07-2021


01-06-2021


12-27-2020


12-20-2020


12-17-2020


12-16-2020


12-15-2020


12-02-2020


11-18-2020



Page 1 of 491 1231151101 ... LastLast