Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 70

Thread: Pat Buchanan: How Free Trade Destroys America and Promotes Globalism

  1. #1

    Pat Buchanan: How Free Trade Destroys America and Promotes Globalism

    Dismantling America

    Nations rise on economic nationalism; they descend on free trade
    ____________

    Though Bush 41 and Bush 43 often disagreed, one issue did unite them both with Bill Clinton: protectionism.

    Globalists all, they rejected any federal measure to protect America’s industrial base, economic independence or the wages of U.S. workers.

    Together they rammed through NAFTA, brought America under the World Trade Organization, abolished tariffs and granted Chinese-made goods unrestricted access to the immense U.S. market.

    Charles McMillion of MBG Information Services has compiled, in 44 pages of charts and graphs, the results of two decades of this Bush-Clinton experiment in globalization. His compilation might be titled, “Indices of the Industrial Decline and Fall of the United States.”

    From 2000 to 2009, industrial production declined here for the first time since the 1930s. Gross domestic product also fell, and we actually lost jobs.

    In traded goods alone, we ran up $6.2 trillion in deficits — $3.8 trillion of that in manufactured goods.

    Things that we once made in America—indeed, we made everything—we now buy from abroad with money that we borrow from abroad.

    Over this Lost Decade, 5.8 million manufacturing jobs, one of every three we had in Y2K, disappeared. That unprecedented job loss was partly made up by adding 1.9 million government workers.

    The last decade was the first in history where government employed more workers than manufacturing, a stunning development to those of us who remember an America where nearly one-third of the U.S. labor force was producing almost all of our goods and much of the world’s, as well.

    Not to worry, we hear, the foreign products we buy are toys and low-tech goods. We keep the high-tech jobs here in the U.S.A.

    Sorry. U.S. trade surpluses in advanced technology products ended in Bush’s first term. The last three years we have run annual trade deficits in ATP of nearly $70 billion with China alone.

    About our dependency on Mideast oil we hear endless wailing.

    Yet most of our imported oil comes from Canada, Mexico, Venezuela, Nigeria and Angola. And for every dollar we send abroad for oil or gas, we send $4.20 abroad for manufactured goods. Why is a dependency on the Persian Gulf for a fraction of the oil we consume more of a danger than a huge growing dependency on China for the necessities of our national life?

    How great is that dependency?

    Continue

    http://buchanan.org/blog/dismantling-america-3714



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2

    Ron paul agrees and wants to repeal nafta

    Finally – A Bill To Get The US Out Of NAFTA

    By Devvy Kidd

    WebNote: Ron Paul has already signed on to this bill.

    “Free” trade has all but destroyed our most important and productive jobs sectors: manufacturing, agriculture and industrial. Not to mention stomping on our sovereignty.

    On February 15, 2010, I wrote a column titled, Congress refuses to bring home millions of jobs.[1] For all the talk about unemployment and no jobs, why won’t Congress get us out of the major, unconstitutional trade treaties that have killed MILLIONS of good paying jobs and bring them home?

    Back in 2007, Rep. Marcy Kaptur introduced a Band Aid bill titled the NAFTA Accountability Act, H.R. 4329[2]

    Former Congressman Virgil Goode (R-VA) also introduced a bill back in January 2007: H. Con. Res. 22.[3] However, it went no where because the Republicans still controlled Congress with Bush in the White House.

    HOWEVER, we now have a new bill and if Americans don’t fight like warriors to get it passed, we will never take the first step in bringing home jobs. If we can get this passed and sent to the usurper, he will veto it, no question. Congress can over ride Comrade Obama, but it will not happen without massive and consistent pressure on Congress.

    I know, we’re all worn out trying to stop the unconstitutional take over of the health care system. The usurper is hell bent on passing another unconstitutional and phony “climate change” bill aka cap and trade. [4]

    http://buchanan.org/blog/finally-a-b...-of-nafta-3722

  4. #3

    no help in sight

    great article, thanks for posting. will Americans wake up in time to do something about this? only time will tell. in the meantime, many just twist in the wind.....

    edit: since I first posted this another post appeared about the bill to get us out of NAFTA -- ha, fat chance!

    lynn
    Last edited by lynnf; 03-12-2010 at 05:25 AM.
    proof of explosives in WTC on 9/11 .....
    peer-reviewed paper in scientific journal - unreacted flakes of Thermite found in WTC dust!
    http://www.bentham.org/open/tocpj/ar...002/7TOCPJ.pdf
    videos:
    Entire Steven E Jones presentation at PNAC event in UT, Austin, Texas
    video:
    PNAC Rebuilding America's Senses Steven Jones Lecture


    architects and engineers for 9/11 truth
    http://www.ae911truth.org/

  5. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by bobbyw24 View Post
    Dismantling America

    Nations rise on economic nationalism; they descend on free trade
    ____________

    Though Bush 41 and Bush 43 often disagreed, one issue did unite them both with Bill Clinton: protectionism.

    Globalists all, they rejected any federal measure to protect America’s industrial base, economic independence or the wages of U.S. workers.

    Together they rammed through NAFTA, brought America under the World Trade Organization, abolished tariffs and granted Chinese-made goods unrestricted access to the immense U.S. market.

    Charles McMillion of MBG Information Services has compiled, in 44 pages of charts and graphs, the results of two decades of this Bush-Clinton experiment in globalization. His compilation might be titled, “Indices of the Industrial Decline and Fall of the United States.”

    From 2000 to 2009, industrial production declined here for the first time since the 1930s. Gross domestic product also fell, and we actually lost jobs.

    In traded goods alone, we ran up $6.2 trillion in deficits — $3.8 trillion of that in manufactured goods.

    Things that we once made in America—indeed, we made everything—we now buy from abroad with money that we borrow from abroad.

    Over this Lost Decade, 5.8 million manufacturing jobs, one of every three we had in Y2K, disappeared. That unprecedented job loss was partly made up by adding 1.9 million government workers.

    The last decade was the first in history where government employed more workers than manufacturing, a stunning development to those of us who remember an America where nearly one-third of the U.S. labor force was producing almost all of our goods and much of the world’s, as well.

    Not to worry, we hear, the foreign products we buy are toys and low-tech goods. We keep the high-tech jobs here in the U.S.A.

    Sorry. U.S. trade surpluses in advanced technology products ended in Bush’s first term. The last three years we have run annual trade deficits in ATP of nearly $70 billion with China alone.

    About our dependency on Mideast oil we hear endless wailing.

    Yet most of our imported oil comes from Canada, Mexico, Venezuela, Nigeria and Angola. And for every dollar we send abroad for oil or gas, we send $4.20 abroad for manufactured goods. Why is a dependency on the Persian Gulf for a fraction of the oil we consume more of a danger than a huge growing dependency on China for the necessities of our national life?

    How great is that dependency?

    Continue

    http://buchanan.org/blog/dismantling-america-3714
    The primary U.S. product for export these days are federal reserve notes backed by little or no goods at all. Debasing a currency to artificially boost trade and prices simply priced the market in U.S. Manufacturing and labor out of country . These are self imposed effects of Inflationionisim. It has destroyed your countries production ability to producing real goods in exchange for others and exporting those goods.This combined with the fact that the government classes have consumed or destroyed all of the capital in real savings; placing a strong reliance on credit has made it very difficult to return to producing real in demand goods .

    Get rid of NAFTA, but the replacement will not be and open border policy. It will more than likely be a closing the borders by force policy and will only starve your country at this point. It is a politically popular choice; a seemingly easy button that isn't one. And to Blame China for getting the U.S. in this mess is a demagogic tactic to pave the way for partial default on the owing credit.

  6. #5
    Switching from internal taxes to a flat tariff by constitutional amendment will put us back on a prosperous path. Internal taxes subsidize foreign production. The only way to ensure free trade is to eliminate internal taxes and enact a flat tariff.
    Member of Ron Paul Forums Double Flat Tariff Only Society - Working towards eliminating all the foreign producer/outsource subsidizing internal federal taxes in favor of an across the board flat tariff applied equally to every country and every product.

  7. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by sratiug View Post
    Switching from internal taxes to a flat tariff by constitutional amendment will put us back on a prosperous path. Internal taxes subsidize foreign production. The only way to ensure free trade is to eliminate internal taxes and enact a flat tariff.
    I think free trade is a good think (and NAFTA is not free trade at all, anyone should opose it) but I agree with this. A flat tariff would be a proper way for the goverment to get some revenue. It is important that it is completely flat, because otherwise there would be problem of interests and corruption.

  8. #7

  9. #8
    Yup, thanks for the links . . .
    http://buchanan.org/blog/finally-a-b...-of-nafta-3722

    H. R. 4759

    To provide for the withdrawal of the United States from the North American Free Trade Agreement.

    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

    March 4, 2010

    Mr. TAYLOR (for himself, Mr. JONES, Mr. DEFAZIO, Mr. STUPAK, Mr. ARCURI, Mr. BACA, Mr. BARTLETT,
    Mr. BRALEY of Iowa, Mr. CAPUANO, Mr. COSTELLO, Mr. FILNER, Mr. GRIJALVA, Mr. HARE, Mr. HINCHEY,
    Mr. KAGEN, Ms. KAPTUR, Mr. KILDEE, Mr. KISSELL, Mr. KUCINICH, Mr. MASSA, Mr. MCINTYRE, Mr. MICHAUD,
    Mr. PAUL, Mr. SCHAUER, Mr. VISCLOSKY, Mr. WILSON of Ohio, Ms. WOOLSEY, and Mr. STARK)
    introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

    SECTION 1. WITHDRAWAL OF THE UNITED STATES FROM THE NAFTA.



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    Ron Paul is the most thoroughgoing proponent of free trade in Congress. He's against NAFTA and such because they are, in fact, managed trade arrangements.

  12. #10
    Yes, calling NAFTA a "free trade" agreement is a terrible and incongruous, self-contradictory oxymoron . . .
    Ron Paul, some other Congressmen, and Pat Buchanan are among those that recognize the contradiction.


  13. #11

    Totally Agree With Pat Buchanan

    Quote Originally Posted by Pacis View Post
    Ron Paul is the most thoroughgoing proponent of free trade in Congress. He's against NAFTA and such because they are, in fact, managed trade arrangements.
    I totally agree with Pat Buchanan, but this is the one issue Ron Paul has me worried on. The reason: it's not just NAFTA and WTO we need to get rid of to level the playing field.

    China pegs their currency to the U.S. dollar, which has completely destroyed our manufacturing base and caused our huge trade imbalance. This, in a sense, is a tariff on our goods.

    Also, although I believe in limited government, I don't believe in anarchy and believe government can play an important role. Keeping the air clean and the water clean is, imo, a very important role. This costs our manufacturers: so, to level the playing field, I agree with tariffs.

    As mentioned: Ron Paul worries me on this, and i wish that he would be more of a protectionist and believe in tariffs. Other countries protect their industries; the chinese government flat out funds alot of their industry. There's a fine line that needs to be kept in this country to ensure the protectionism doesn't coddle unproductive, low-quality U.S. manufacturers; however, the way the situation is now, the playing field is so uneven that U.S. manufacturers don't even have a shot at succeeding.

    Pat Buchanan is spot on: I wish Ron Paul would follow suit.

  14. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by charrob View Post
    China pegs their currency to the U.S. dollar, which has completely destroyed our manufacturing base and caused our huge trade imbalance. This, in a sense, is a tariff on our goods.
    China's peg to the U.S. dollar is the only thing keeping the U.S. dollar afloat. The destruction of the manufacturing base has been caused by primarily artificially low interest rates and secondarily huge amounts of regulations, which has converted us to a service based economy. We borrow money to consume, and have jobs facilitating this consumption.

    Quote Originally Posted by charrob View Post
    Also, although I believe in limited government, I don't believe in anarchy and believe government can play an important role. Keeping the air clean and the water clean is, imo, a very important role.
    Pollution is a violation of your neighbor's property rights. All that's necessary is courts of arbitration to settle these disputes, and award fair restitution.

    Quote Originally Posted by charrob View Post
    This costs our manufacturers: so, to level the playing field, I agree with tariffs.
    Tarrifs do not "level the playing field", they only impoverish us. If we did not have abusive monetary policies, and growing debt, a trade deficit would be impossible. The only way to have a trade deficit is rising debt or printing money. Otherwise, goods must be traded for goods.

    Quote Originally Posted by charrob View Post
    As mentioned: Ron Paul worries me on this, and i wish that he would be more of a protectionist and believe in tariffs. Other countries protect their industries; the chinese government flat out funds alot of their industry. There's a fine line that needs to be kept in this country to ensure the protectionism doesn't coddle unproductive, low-quality U.S. manufacturers; however, the way the situation is now, the playing field is so uneven that U.S. manufacturers don't even have a shot at succeeding.
    You seem to imagine that tarrifs produce success for domestic manufacturers. That's not even close to the case, since the cost of acquiring supplies goes way up, as does the cost of living. Again, the cause of the trade deficit is increasing indebtedness and printing money.

    Quote Originally Posted by charrob View Post
    Pat Buchanan is spot on: I wish Ron Paul would follow suit.
    I like Pat, but I think he's dead wrong on this. I support localism, but it should be accomplished by strong communities and consumer choice, not tariffs, subsidies, and force. People have a right to trade goods without me threatening them or demanding a cut.
    “If you're on the wrong road, progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road; in that case, the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive.” -CS Lewis

    The use of force to impose morality is itself immoral, and generosity with others' money is still theft.

    If our society were a forum, congress would be the illiterate troll that somehow got a hold of the only ban hammer.

  15. #13
    I don't think NAFTA has anything to do with our trade with China since, last I checked, China is in Asia and not North America.

    Free trade isn't crippling our industry, the government is.
    "Anarchists oppose the State because it has its very being in such aggression, namely, the expropriation of private property through taxation, the coercive exclusion of other providers of defense service from its territory, and all of the other depredations and coercions that are built upon these twin foci of invasions of individual rights." -Murray Rothbard

  16. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by tremendoustie View Post
    Again, the cause of the trade deficit is increasing indebtedness and printing money.
    I'll be honest, I don't understand what you are saying. If we print more money then the value of the dollar decreases which would make foreign purchases more expensive which would mean our industry can compete.

    China's peg to the U.S. dollar is the only thing keeping the U.S. dollar afloat.
    how so?

    Pollution is a violation of your neighbor's property rights. All that's necessary is courts of arbitration to settle these disputes, and award fair restitution.
    this is a matter of opinion. Although I respect yours, I don't agree with it. Although I believe government should be limited, I see conservation as a necessary role. Bogging down the courts with personal lawsuits seems unproductive.
    Last edited by charrob; 03-12-2010 at 12:25 PM.

  17. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by noxagol View Post
    I don't think NAFTA has anything to do with our trade with China
    -not sure you are referring to my post since I never stated that it was...

  18. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by charrob View Post
    -not sure you are referring to my post since I never stated that it was...
    No, just the general focus on NAFTA and some people bringing China into the mix.
    "Anarchists oppose the State because it has its very being in such aggression, namely, the expropriation of private property through taxation, the coercive exclusion of other providers of defense service from its territory, and all of the other depredations and coercions that are built upon these twin foci of invasions of individual rights." -Murray Rothbard



  19. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  20. #17
    interesting point that we go on and on about independence from foreign oil but are free trade otherwise.

    agree with others that buchanan is attacking the puppet rather than the puppeteer here. the problem is our financial state in general not the piece of the ever slimming piece of the pie being divied up wiht the unions getting the proper amount. I'm not going to pay higher prices for $#@! AND pay 33% of my paycheck to the govt.
    Last edited by lester1/2jr; 03-12-2010 at 04:28 PM.

  21. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by charrob View Post

    As mentioned: Ron Paul worries me on this, and i wish that he would be more of a protectionist and believe in tariffs.
    Actually Ron Paul does believe in Tariffs: He says, "All free trade really needs is two words: Low tariffs. " http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2007/tst090907.htm

    Our Founding fathers used Tariffs because we had become too dependent on England for goods. The Tariffs were imposed on all imported goods to encourage the development of manufactured goods in the U.S. It worked.
    Last edited by therepublic; 03-12-2010 at 05:29 PM.

  22. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by charrob View Post
    I'll be honest, I don't understand what you are saying. If we print more money then the value of the dollar decreases which would make foreign purchases more expensive which would mean our industry can compete.
    If you print and spend money, then you don't need to produce to consume. Imagine that every person had a money printing machine in their basement, and foreign suppliers were honoring this money. Who would work? Indebtedness has the same effect -- if you're borrowing thousands of dollars a month, you don't need to work. Our economy is based on governments and people borrowing to consume, and everyone else gets jobs to facilitate that consumption. The move from a manufacturing to a service economy directly corresponds to this increase in indebtedness and increase in the money supply.

    If there is neither of these, then it's impossible for the nation to consume more than it produces. THAT's the way to solve trade imbalances.

    Quote Originally Posted by charrob View Post
    how so?
    We would be one step closer to out of control inflation without the China peg, and without purchases of government debt. Currently, the currency is being propped up by foreign governments. In the absence of this intervention, the federal government would be forced to choose between default and hyperinflation.

    Quote Originally Posted by charrob View Post
    this is a matter of opinion. Although I respect yours, I don't agree with it. Although I believe government should be limited, I see conservation as a necessary role. Bogging down the courts with personal lawsuits seems unproductive.
    It's better than bogging down every business with reams of paperwork. Small business in this country is literally being buried in red tape. It's not about practical measures to conserve the environment, it's about generating money and power for bureaucrats. And the big players, with teams of lawyers, as well as the federal government itself, skirts the law anyway. There are piles of horror stories stemming from interactions with the EPA, the army corps of engineers, etc.

    When you give power to a few individuals, count on those individuals to abuse that power.

    What's more, those who do not settle out of court, but are determined to have harmed their neighbor's property, can cover court costs. With more free choice and competition in justice, even more just and efficient approaches can be found.
    Last edited by tremendoustie; 03-12-2010 at 05:36 PM.
    “If you're on the wrong road, progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road; in that case, the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive.” -CS Lewis

    The use of force to impose morality is itself immoral, and generosity with others' money is still theft.

    If our society were a forum, congress would be the illiterate troll that somehow got a hold of the only ban hammer.

  23. #20
    Ron Paul writes:
    Another NAFTA nail is about to be hammered into the coffin Washington is building for the US economy. Within the next few days our borders will be opened to the Mexican trucking industry in an unprecedented way. A "pilot" program is starting which will allow trucks from Mexico to haul goods beyond the 25 mile buffer zone to any point in the United States . Officials claim this is being done with utmost oversight, but Americans still have their legitimate concerns. Rather than securing our borders, we seem to be providing more pores for illegal aliens, drug dealers, and terrorists to permeate.



    Not only that, but the anti-competitive and burdensome yoke of over-regulation of our industry at home is about to send a lot more Americans to the unemployment lines. The American Trucking industry has been heavily regulated since 1935. The express purpose of The Motor Carrier Act was to eliminate competition through permitting, regulating tariff rates, even approving routes. American trucking companies have been fighting ever since for some relief from the substantial regulatory burdens placed on them. Regulatory compliance is the single most daunting barrier to entry, and eats up huge amounts of profit. Now, to add insult to injury, Mexican trucking companies, not subject to the same onerous standards, will be allowed to roll right in and squeeze American industry further. This will severely undermine the ability of American trucking companies to remain solvent.



    The fact that this is being done in the name of free trade is disturbing. Free trade is not complicated, yet NAFTA and CAFTA are comprised of thousands of pages of complicated legal jargon. All free trade really needs is two words: Low tariffs. Free trade does not require coordination with another government to benefit citizens here. Just like domestic businesses don't pay taxes, foreign businesses do not pay tariffs – consumers do, in the form of higher prices. If foreign governments want to hurt their own citizens with protectionist tariffs, let them. But let us set a good example here, and show the world an honest example of true free trade. And let us stop hurting American workers with mountains of red tape in the name of safety. Safety standards should be set privately, by the industry and by the insurance companies who have the correct motivating factors to do so.
    http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2007/tst090907.htm

  24. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by therepublic View Post
    Actually Ron Paul does believe in Tariffs: He says, "All free trade really needs is two words: Low tariffs. " http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2007/tst090907.htm

    Our Founding fathers used Tariffs because we had become too dependent on England for goods. The Tariffs were imposed on all imported goods to encourage the development of manufactured goods in the U.S. It worked.
    thanks for the link... i did not realize he believed in tariffs!

    your description of our Founders using tariffs makes perfect sense, as it will help our manufacturing base in our country become strong again.

  25. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by tremendoustie View Post
    If you print and spend money, then you don't need to produce to consume.
    For me it seems to make the discussion of the international trade deficit a bit complicated to discuss other variables (like debt and the printing of money). To be clear, I don't at all believe in printing money like we have been and debasing our currency: it's destroying the dollar. But we wouldn't be in this kind of debt if we still had good jobs here.

    I'm not sure how your statement relates to international trade, but if this week I pay $100 for my groceries, then all of a sudden the FED creates zillions of dollars out of thin air, then each dollar is worth less so the next week I would pay, say, $115 for the same groceries. So I would have to produce more in order to pay for my groceries the second week.

    We would be one step closer to out of control inflation without the China peg, and without purchases of government debt. Currently, the currency is being propped up by foreign governments. In the absence of this intervention, the federal government would be forced to choose between default and hyperinflation.
    i don't like any of this stuff, particularly their pegging their currency to the dollar because that means we are forever slaves to being in debt to them-- we cannot compete against them if they don't allow their currency to float. it would be better to be free, feel our pain, and slowly try to rebuild our manufacturing base. Because of this entangling alliance we are suffocating. so disallow the peg.

    at the same time I like Ron Paul's idea of starting with a new, competing, currency in different states (and if it works in those states to slowly start using it throughout the country to replace the dollar). It will be painful, but we have to do it and the sooner we untangle ourselves from China, the better.

    It's better than bogging down every business with reams of paperwork. Small business in this country is literally being buried in red tape. It's not about practical measures to conserve the environment, it's about generating money and power for bureaucrats. And the big players, with teams of lawyers, as well as the federal government itself, skirts the law anyway. There are piles of horror stories stemming from interactions with the EPA, the army corps of engineers, etc.
    what a mess. I know my dad was telling me an industry close to where he lives just put in scrubbers in their smokestacks. It was an investment and it costed them, but he said the results are supposedly remarkable. Rather than people from all over the area where he lives be sick in the future from air pollution and have to file lawsuits, it makes it a whole lot easier for that manufacturer to simply have put in scrubbers.

    i don't know what the answer is except that the government causing all the piles of horror stories is just simply bad government. I don't think that necessarily means we should get rid of the government and let it all go to private lawsuits and people getting sick. Instead I think we should make sure the government has clear, focused, but limited powers. And I think we should replace bad government with good government when it comes to conservation. i don't want to see my country become a cesspool like China just to be able to compete with it.
    Last edited by charrob; 03-12-2010 at 08:06 PM.

  26. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by charrob View Post
    thanks for the link... i did not realize he believed in tariffs!

    your description of our Founders using tariffs makes perfect sense, as it will help our manufacturing base in our country become strong again.
    http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...tiug+amendment
    Member of Ron Paul Forums Double Flat Tariff Only Society - Working towards eliminating all the foreign producer/outsource subsidizing internal federal taxes in favor of an across the board flat tariff applied equally to every country and every product.

  27. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by therepublic View Post
    actually ron paul does believe in tariffs: He says, "all free trade really needs is two words: Low tariffs. " http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2007/tst090907.htm

    our founding fathers used tariffs because we had become too dependent on england for goods. The tariffs were imposed on all imported goods to encourage the development of manufactured goods in the u.s. It worked.
    +1776
    Another mark of a tyrant is that he likes foreigners better than citizens, and lives with them and invites them to his table; for the one are enemies, but the Others enter into no rivalry with him. - Aristotle's Politics Book 5 Part 11



  28. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  29. #25
    One major problem that stems from this is that some people benefit from government money creation and some don't. Who gets to spend it first, when it's most valued, and who gets stuck holding the Old Maid card when it vanishes? It's usually the little guy – the middle-class guy – who gets hurt when this happens. And in the U.S., the middle class is contracting. The financial gyrations we're going through are destroying the middle class, which naïvely believes that traditional American values still hold sway and that their government is honest. The lower class has long since lost any values, and the upper class is way too cynical and self-interested to really care. Most middle-class people will end up joining one or the other of these two classes, and that'll be a moral disaster for the country.

    Doug Casey
    Another mark of a tyrant is that he likes foreigners better than citizens, and lives with them and invites them to his table; for the one are enemies, but the Others enter into no rivalry with him. - Aristotle's Politics Book 5 Part 11

  30. #26
    It's discouraging to see Hamilton and Lincoln-style mercantilism being promoted in RPF of all places. I think I'm gonna quit reading these forums.

  31. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by Pacis View Post
    It's discouraging to see Hamilton and Lincoln-style mercantilism being promoted in RPF of all places. I think I'm gonna quit reading these forums.
    After 10 posts? What? Can't stand to read that with which you don't agree?

  32. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by sratiug View Post
    http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...tiug+amendment

    Please join me and others that have expressed their support for the following or a similar constitutional amendment.

    Double Flat Tariff Only Amendment

    1. All internal federal taxes and fees shall be replaced within a period of 11 years of ratification of this amendment by a flat across the board tariff applied equally to all goods and to all product sources. The tariff shall be set at the beginning of each year at a percentage sufficient to raise an amount of money equal to all projected federal government expenditures forecasted by the Congressional Budget Office for that year.

    2. One year from ratification of this amendment a 10 year phaze in process will be enacted whereby each year the percentage of projected federal government expenditures raised by the tariff shall be 1 divided by the number of years remaining of the ten. For each of these same ten years all internal taxes and fees shall be reduced across the board by a percentage that will eliminate an equal amount of federal revenue.


    All internal taxes inhibit free trade and subsidize foreign corporations, workers, and production because foreignors do not pay them. The double flat tariff simply eliminates subsidation of foreign workers, products and corporations, thus insuring free trade. So free traders should all support this amendment or something very similar.
    -interesting idea... thanks for passing along...

  33. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by charrob View Post
    For me it seems to make the discussion of the international trade deficit a bit complicated to discuss other variables (like debt and the printing of money). To be clear, I don't at all believe in printing money like we have been and debasing our currency: it's destroying the dollar. But we wouldn't be in this kind of debt if we still had good jobs here.
    It's just the reverse. We don't have the good jobs because of debt and distortions of the credit markets.

    Quote Originally Posted by charrob View Post
    I'm not sure how your statement relates to international trade, but if this week I pay $100 for my groceries, then all of a sudden the FED creates zillions of dollars out of thin air, then each dollar is worth less so the next week I would pay, say, $115 for the same groceries. So I would have to produce more in order to pay for my groceries the second week.
    If the Fed creates zillions of dollars, who spends it? The government? The banks? How do they spend it? That's right, they hire people. People that are no longer working in manufacturing.

    Imagine that we all worked in manufacturing, with no trade deficit. We import as much as we export. $100 buys an average worker's day's labor, and $300 buys a day of labor from a plant manager. Now imagine the government prints up a ton of money. It suddenly is able to offer contractors and employees $120 a day to process paperwork, manufacture war supplies, build mars rovers, etc. Imagine the banks, through the federal reserve, also get a great deal of this money. They are now able to offer the best and brightest $400 a day to sit in an office and dream up investment schemes.

    Do you think manufacturing would drop off?

    Now imagine that average people start borrowing more and more. Suddenly, Matilda, down the street, who had lived in a small apartment, gets a loan to buy a house. Imagine there are millions of Matildas. Suddenly, workers can be hired at $150 a day to build homes. More quit their jobs at plants. And more plants, unable to offer the higher wages and still be able to compete, close.

    Imagine millions of Matildas begin to finance a great deal of consumption on their credit cards. Now, there are more high paying jobs at department stores, hair salons, and golf courses.

    Suddenly, we have a service based economy. It seems prosperous, because of all the money that keeps pouring in from individual borrowers, from municipal and state borrowers, from the Federal Reserve's printing of money, and from Federal borrowing. What happens when people stop borrowing, or government stops printing? A crash. The bottom falls out of the false economy, and we all have to get real jobs.

    The new money is coming from borrowers, governments, and banks, not from real, sustainable sources -- other producers, both here and overseas. That's the problem.

    Quote Originally Posted by charrob View Post
    i don't like any of this stuff, particularly their pegging their currency to the dollar because that means we are forever slaves to being in debt to them-- we cannot compete against them if they don't allow their currency to float. it would be better to be free, feel our pain, and slowly try to rebuild our manufacturing base. Because of this entangling alliance we are suffocating. so disallow the peg.
    I agree, I'd rather they pull the plug, so we can get the pain over with, and get back to a real economy.

    Quote Originally Posted by charrob View Post
    at the same time I like Ron Paul's idea of starting with a new, competing, currency in different states (and if it works in those states to slowly start using it throughout the country to replace the dollar). It will be painful, but we have to do it and the sooner we untangle ourselves from China, the better.
    I think alternative currencies are key, especially metals. If, to any extent, we can develop a real economy based on production, and trade in a stable currency like silver, we'll be able to avoid the worst of an eventual collapse.


    Quote Originally Posted by charrob View Post
    what a mess. I know my dad was telling me an industry close to where he lives just put in scrubbers in their smokestacks. It was an investment and it costed them, but he said the results are supposedly remarkable. Rather than people from all over the area where he lives be sick in the future from air pollution, it makes it a whole lot easier for that manufacturer to simply have put in scrubbers.
    Good for them! I would say that if they pollute the area, they should have to compensate the people who live there. That would motivate them even more to use pollution control measures.

    Quote Originally Posted by charrob View Post
    i don't know what the answer is except that the government causing all the piles of horror stories is just simply bad government. I don't think that necessarily means we should get rid of the government and let it all go to private lawsuits and people getting sick.
    People get sick now! And if the companies get good lawyers, they can go on polluting. Don't you agree that if your land, water, or air gets polluted, you should be compensated? This is the best way to hold companies accountable.

    I'm just saying, replace regulation with compensation for victims. This means that the money will go where it should -- to the victims -- and that instead of companies working to fulfill some bureaucrat's wishes, they'll be working to ensure they don't harm others. They'll also be able to figure out new and innovative ways to reduce pollution, rather than just checking the box on some form.

    Isn't that what we want?

    Quote Originally Posted by charrob View Post
    Instead I think we should make sure the government has clear, focused, but limited powers. And I think we should replace bad government with good government when it comes to conservation.
    And I want nonstop rainbows and gumdrops. When power is placed in the hands of a few, they'll abuse it. It's always been the case -- the bureaucrats are just as self interested as the industrialists. They want money and power.

    Quote Originally Posted by charrob View Post
    i don't want to see my country become a cesspool like China just to be able to compete with it.
    Where did I support no accountability for polluters?

    Actual liability for harm is the last thing polluters want. They can easily hire teams of lawyers, skirt the law, and grease the hands of key government officials. Reversing the decision the government made during the industrial revolution, to refuse to allow victims of pollution to seek compensation, would be far more effective.
    Last edited by tremendoustie; 03-12-2010 at 08:52 PM.
    “If you're on the wrong road, progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road; in that case, the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive.” -CS Lewis

    The use of force to impose morality is itself immoral, and generosity with others' money is still theft.

    If our society were a forum, congress would be the illiterate troll that somehow got a hold of the only ban hammer.

  34. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by tremendoustie View Post
    It's just the reverse. We don't have the good jobs because of debt and distortions of the credit markets.
    thank you very much for all of your responses; i will have to think about all of this.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. How Globalism Killed American Labor by Pat Buchanan
    By bobbyw24 in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 09-06-2011, 09:01 PM
  2. Latin America Needs Free Trade & Drug Legalization
    By JCLibertarian in forum World News & Affairs
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-03-2011, 10:37 AM
  3. Free Trade/Pat Buchanan contDiscussion
    By charrob in forum Economy & Markets
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 04-16-2010, 07:54 PM
  4. Globalism vs. Americanism by Patrick J. Buchanan
    By bobbyw24 in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 09-15-2009, 08:16 PM
  5. Trade, globalism, sovereignty
    By SeanEdwards in forum Ron Paul: On the Issues
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 09-27-2007, 12:12 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •