Donald Trump correct on trade - free trade crowd are traitors for profit!

[low preference guy]

..

[awake]

A bit presumptuous there aren't you? I don't recall suggesting, or remotely suggesting, that the Constitution is without fault. But then again it‘s far easier for you to post a baseless innuendo rather than posting your suggestion as to how we ought to provide for the common defense and general welfare of the nation.


JWK

You use the same system that puts food on your table that magically protects you from starving to death. The market can provide security and defense services through insurance services, no monopoly required. The question of how we fund these services is self evident.

A nation as heavily armed (2nd amendment) as the United States is, can never be invaded and occupied. And being a peaceful trading nation requires much less defense than you might think. If the 2nd amendment was wholly respected, hell, if I was wealthy enough, I could own a tank myself.

[johnwk]

Originally Posted by johnwk
A bit presumptuous there aren't you? I don't recall suggesting, or remotely suggesting, that the Constitution is without fault. But then again it‘s far easier for you to post a baseless innuendo rather than posting your suggestion as to how we ought to provide for the common defense and general welfare of the nation.


JWK

You use the same system that puts food on your table that magically protects you from starving to death. The market can provide security and defense services through insurance services, no monopoly required. The question of how we fund these services is self evident.

.

Well then, lay it out if it is self evident, cause it is not that self evident to me.

JWK

[awake]

Well then, lay it out if it is self evident, cause it is not that self evident to me.

JWK

How do you currently fund the protection and replacement of your home or car in case of accident, fire or theft? .... same way ... only the insurance company ( not the government mangled ones we have now) would actually have an incentive to do a much better job than a state fed monopolist who couldn't care less about your property other than preserving it so he himself can better loot it.

The free market would both liquidate poor protection and defense insurers and raise up the best in the industry by profit rewarding. And they would have to follow all the laws that the people have to, or be subject to both the laws of the market as well as the law itself - no government guarantee or bailout of evil..

The people would have self checking control over their protection services.

I am only skimming over the idea that Hans Hoppe has defined in a much more robust way. The market works, we had best put it to full use.


Early fire departments in North America were formed as a result of insurance companies competitively trying to lower their premiums. Much of the early technology was funded in development by insurance companies.

[Sentient Void]

I look at facts, history, and adjust what I promote to conform to the Constitution, unless I am prepared to offer a constitutional amendment promoting something I believe in…

POSITIVIST ALERT!

Also, the constitution advocated and recognized the legality of slavery. Should we make slavery legal again?

You don't advocate any higher justice, morality, nor even sound economic reasoning. You don't advocate for maximizing liberty - You purely hold up the written law of specially interested men and positivistic dogma. You consistently resort to logical fallacies because you have no truly logical argument to stand on.

[johnwk]

In other words the both of you have nothing more to offer but an ideology or a whimsical fantasy to be more accurate, and you would like it to be accepted and practiced by the people of the united States, but neither of you are able to express a way to implement it. I too have a whimsical fantasy and Rodney King stated it very well…why can’t we all just get along. When the two of you dream up a way to implement your fantasy to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the united States, please feel free to post it. Seems, however, the two of you are all wind and no sail.

[CCTelander]

In other words the both of you have nothing more to offer but and ideology or a whimsical fantasy to be more accurate, and you would like it to be accepted and practiced by the people of the united States, but neither of you are able to express a way to implement it. I too have a whimsical fantasy and Rodney King stated it very well…why can’t we all just get along. When the two of you dream up a way to implement your fantasy to pay the debts and provide the common defense and general welfare of the united States, please feel free to post it. Seems, however, the two of you are all wind and no sail.

I'm reminded of the first rule of holes...

When you're in one, stop digging.

Something to think about...

[johnwk]

I'm reminded of the first rule of holes...

When you're in one, stop digging.

Something to think about...

Then be my guest and think!

JWK

[Fox McCloud]

There you go again with you speculative opinion on how and across the board tonnage tax would be destructive to America when the historical facts tell a different tale which you ignore:

You're the one who's ignoring the arguments I've made in favor of free trade while you plug your ears and shout at the tops of your lungs that tariffs are "Constitutional" and therefore the way to go and that they work; I already demonstrated that Smoot-Hawley cut our imports and exports by over 50% and yet you continue to accuse me of holding a"speculative opinion"; in this case you're tossing out accusation to fit your agenda and refusing to acknowledge all other arguments being made against you. Worse than this, you accuse a number of us of holding "fantasy" ideals, when, in fact, they're established economic laws.

[b][I]The irrefutable fact is, our founding fathers trade policies, which included tariffs at our water’s edge, were designed to encourage America’s domestic manufactures and did in fact pave the way for America to becoming the economic marvel of the world.

Correlation does not equal casuation, ad hoc ergo propter hoc, need I go on? I already addressed this---the US would have been wealthier without tariffs as it would allow the division of labor and efficient allocation of capital to go through its phases to properly allocate resources in the most efficient way. Advocating for tariffs is to advocate hindering the division of labor and efficient allocation of capital, which means a lower living standard.

Another stupid debating trick___ ignore what is written and make a silly accusation. I support representation with proportional obligation, which progressives hate with a passion. If the people of my state contribute the lion’s share into the federal treasury, at the very least I want representation in Congress proportionately equal to my contribution. No appeal to authority here my friend, rather it is sound reasoning based upon principle.

It's not an accusation, it's the truth; you're citing the US Constitution as a means of holding up your argument; I was not--I was talking purely in the context of what would be a good way of funding government, nothing more, nothing less.

to argue that this is a "bad" thing on the grounds of the US Constitution is to make a giant appeal to authority fallacy.

Well, isn’t that special? Simply make stuff up to suit your cause.

the empirical facts are on my side; Smoot-Hawley cut both imports and exports by 50%...any tariff will do the same, but by a different margin...heck, tariffs can even lead to wars (see Abraham Lincoln's tariff policy).

Another stupid and adolescent debating trick___ exaggerate your opponents position and then argue against the argument you created. The fact is, the market place determines the limit of taxes on articles of consumption, just as Hamilton pointed out.

what you're referring to is a strawman, and that's not what I engaged in; I engaged in reductio ad absurdum reducing your argument to the point of absurdity.

You're proposing protectionists policies are beneficial to the United States in that they protect "infant industries" and "encourage manufacturing" here in the States; therefore, I merely took your logic to its full conclusion---if erecting a tariff to encourage production in the US is "healthy" or"good", then by your line of thinking an out and out embargo on everything would be even better, as it would force all manufacturing to be done in the United States, along with everything else. It would, true, but it's as the expense of our standard of living, meaning our standard of living would decline horrendously.

You stated, One needs only look at the Smoot-Hawley tariff, which transformed the Great Depression from a crisis to an absolute disaster Your comment becomes another great exaggeration when one looks at the facts and statistical evidence. What you offered contains no statistical evidence just blather. Now, here is the Smoot-Hawley myth exposed Be sure to check out the statistical evidence and dates which are very important in exposing your myth.

The Smoot-Hawley Tariff only slightly worsened the depression, which was already gaining considerable momentum.

What did you do, go out and type "debunking smoot-hawley" and pick the first semi-lengthy and technical article you found? The website is entirely from a demand-sider and Keynesian perspective, so instantly, it should be called into question. The article in question attempts to quantify based purely on the percentage of imports and GNP, but fails to take into account the amount of economic damage it caused by forcing "in-house" production of a number of products...in those cases, the product will be more expensive, which is a tax on the consumer...those numbers aren't taken into consideration (nor would they be easy to calculate). It also fails to mention the impact it had on the stock market (it plunged after it was passed), which, again, is a tax on individuals(in thiscase).

If you want a good book on the Great Depression, I recommend America's Great Depression, by Murray Rothbard: http://mises.org/Rothbard/AGD.pdf

[johnwk]

There you go again with you speculative opinion on how and across the board tonnage tax would be destructive to America when the historical facts tell a different tale which you ignore:

You're the one who's ignoring the arguments I've made in favor of free trade while you plug your ears and shout at the tops of your lungs that tariffs

I haven’t ignored anything my friend. Did it ever dawn on you that I am very much in favor of free trade, but also have no objection to raising a federal revenue at our water’s edge, and, there are times when it is in America’s best interests to use taxes at our water’s edge to encourage manufacturing on America soil, just as was done with tonnage taxes to favor shipbuilding on American soil which proved to be a great success.

The irrefutable fact is, our founding fathers trade policies, which included tariffs at our water’s edge, were designed to encourage America’s domestic manufactures and did in fact pave the way for America to becoming the economic marvel of the world.

Correlation does not equal casuation, ad hoc ergo propter hoc, need I go on?

Silly response without following it up establishing our shipbuilding industry did not flourish because of the hometown advantage established in favor of American owned, American built vessels.

Another stupid debating trick___ ignore what is written and make a silly accusation. I support representation with proportional obligation, which progressives hate with a passion. If the people of my state contribute the lion’s share into the federal treasury, at the very least I want representation in Congress proportionately equal to my contribution. No appeal to authority here my friend, rather it is sound reasoning based upon principle.

It's not an accusation, it's the truth; you're citing the US Constitution as a means of holding up your argument;

There you go again, making crap up. I support a principle representation with proportional obligation When you find those words in the Constitution, please feel free to post them. Apparently you have no objection to slackers voting on how to spend revenue from the federal treasury. Of course, our progressive crowd, along with socialists, likewise defend the right to vote without the requirement to fill the national treasury. You comments are ludicrous to say the least in addition to being disingenuous and are obviously intended to avoid a stated principle.

Well, isn’t that special? Simply make stuff up to suit your cause.

the empirical facts are on my side;

Wrong! You asserted the Smoot-Hawley tariff, “transformed the Great Depression from a crisis to an absolute disaster”

I researched this many years ago myself while doing a research paper at the University of Maryland and although the tariff had a negative influence, your comment exaggerates beyond reason the effects of the tariff. You really ought not exaggerate, it weakens your credibility.

Another stupid and adolescent debating trick___ exaggerate your opponents position and then argue against the argument you created. The fact is, the market place determines the limit of taxes on articles of consumption, just as Hamilton pointed out

what you're referring to is a strawman, and that's not what I engaged in; I engaged in reductio ad absurdum reducing your argument to the point of absurdity.

No. You exaggerated. The fallacy in your exaggeration is as follows. Taking two aspirins for a headache is beneficial ___ taking a bottle of aspirins for a headache will more than likely result in internal hemorrhaging along with death.

You are really beginning to bore me with your self-centered attitude and sophomoric analogies.

You stated, One needs only look at the Smoot-Hawley tariff, which transformed the Great Depression from a crisis to an absolute disaster Your comment becomes another great exaggeration when one looks at the facts and statistical evidence. What you offered contains no statistical evidence just blather. Now, here is the Smoot-Hawley myth exposed Be sure to check out the statistical evidence and dates which are very important in exposing your myth.

The Smoot-Hawley Tariff only slightly worsened the depression, which was already gaining considerable momentum.

What did you do, go out and type "debunking smoot-hawley" and pick the first semi-lengthy and technical article you found? The website is entirely from a demand-sider and Keynesian perspective,

Well, I see you have now resorted to the old and tired stupid debating trick, attack the messenger. How sweet of you to be so thoughtful.

No. I did not type “debunking smoot-Hawley”. I always do my own research before making the kind of broad brush assertions you make. I studied the congressional debates on this issue, I check the World Almanac for statistical evidence, and I carefully noted time-date timelines. The end result was, The Smoot-Hawley Tariff only slightly worsened the depression, which was already gaining considerable momentum


The truth cannot be changed to what it is not.


JWK

[merkelstan]

I disagree with the premise of the OP.

The chinese are not to blame.

The problem is the petrodollar empire producing a fountain of overvalued dollars, whereby americans can go shopping elsewhere in the world for cheaper prices than products produced at home.

Most of the migration of production is due to this.

A secondary effect is the corrupted public education system and post-secondary education financing. A machine turning-out blue-haired civilization hating propaganda parrots isn't one that creates workers skilled to produce real goods.

[enhanced_deficit]

You have to admit the guy's got vision despite naysayers painting him as a puppet of globalists and his followers as gullibles.



Urge your representatives to Get US Out! of NAFTA & USMCA

USMCA surrender agreement, signed. Officially a third world craphole now.

Mexico's President gives Jared Kushner their nation’s greatest award for saving NAFTA (renamed USMCA)



The Order of the Aztec Eagle, issued by Mexico to foreigners who make a significant contribution to the country
November 30, 2018
Kushner was inducted into the Order of the Aztec Eagle. It’s an honour reserved for foreigners who make a significant contribution to Mexico’s wellbeing. In this case, it was for a trade agreement.


July 8, 2020
Trump touts USMCA with Mexican president at White House
USMCA took effect last week
By Paul Best
FOXBusiness

Trump: USMCA is the 'largest trade deal ever made'

President Trump discusses building a ‘powerful economic and security partnership’ with Mexico and how the U.S. is handling the coronavirus outbreak.

President Donald Trump welcomed Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador to the White House Wednesday to celebrate the new United States-Mexico-Canada trade agreement, which was signed in January and took effect earlier this month.
“It’s the largest, fairest and most advanced trade deal ever reached by any country, and it will bring enormous prosperity to both American and Mexican workers,” Trump said in the Rose Garden.
Trump and López Obrador held a meeting in the White House before signing a joint declaration that commits the two countries to “shared future prosperity.” They will have a working dinner with U.S. and Mexican business leaders Wednesday night.
https://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/...he-white-house



Also, 'getting played' feelings among some purists and conservatives seem misplaced, outcomes like following could have been just a failure depite deeply sincerest intentions to do the opposite:


U.S. Trade Deficit Hits Highest Level in History at $891.3B
fortune
Mar 6, 2019 - The Commerce Department reported the record-breaking trade deficit Wednesday, which grew despite Trump's efforts to the contrary.

U.S. trade gap with China reaches all-time high under Trump
politico
Mar 6, 2019 - The U.S. trade deficit in goods with China set a new record during President Donald Trump's second year in office, despite his efforts to rein in ...

Since he frequently contradicts himself his statements can't be trusted at all, you have to watch his actions to even guess about his positions or plans.

okey dokey.

[Ender]

You're the one who's ignoring the arguments I've made in favor of free trade while you plug your ears and shout at the tops of your lungs that tariffs are "Constitutional" and therefore the way to go and that they work; I already demonstrated that Smoot-Hawley cut our imports and exports by over 50% and yet you continue to accuse me of holding a"speculative opinion"; in this case you're tossing out accusation to fit your agenda and refusing to acknowledge all other arguments being made against you. Worse than this, you accuse a number of us of holding "fantasy" ideals, when, in fact, they're established economic laws.



Correlation does not equal casuation, ad hoc ergo propter hoc, need I go on? I already addressed this---the US would have been wealthier without tariffs as it would allow the division of labor and efficient allocation of capital to go through its phases to properly allocate resources in the most efficient way. Advocating for tariffs is to advocate hindering the division of labor and efficient allocation of capital, which means a lower living standard.




It's not an accusation, it's the truth; you're citing the US Constitution as a means of holding up your argument; I was not--I was talking purely in the context of what would be a good way of funding government, nothing more, nothing less.

to argue that this is a "bad" thing on the grounds of the US Constitution is to make a giant appeal to authority fallacy.





the empirical facts are on my side; Smoot-Hawley cut both imports and exports by 50%...any tariff will do the same, but by a different margin...heck, tariffs can even lead to wars (see Abraham Lincoln's tariff policy).






what you're referring to is a strawman, and that's not what I engaged in; I engaged in reductio ad absurdum reducing your argument to the point of absurdity.

You're proposing protectionists policies are beneficial to the United States in that they protect "infant industries" and "encourage manufacturing" here in the States; therefore, I merely took your logic to its full conclusion---if erecting a tariff to encourage production in the US is "healthy" or"good", then by your line of thinking an out and out embargo on everything would be even better, as it would force all manufacturing to be done in the United States, along with everything else. It would, true, but it's as the expense of our standard of living, meaning our standard of living would decline horrendously.




What did you do, go out and type "debunking smoot-hawley" and pick the first semi-lengthy and technical article you found? The website is entirely from a demand-sider and Keynesian perspective, so instantly, it should be called into question. The article in question attempts to quantify based purely on the percentage of imports and GNP, but fails to take into account the amount of economic damage it caused by forcing "in-house" production of a number of products...in those cases, the product will be more expensive, which is a tax on the consumer...those numbers aren't taken into consideration (nor would they be easy to calculate). It also fails to mention the impact it had on the stock market (it plunged after it was passed), which, again, is a tax on individuals(in thiscase).

If you want a good book on the Great Depression, I recommend America's Great Depression, by Murray Rothbard: http://mises.org/Rothbard/AGD.pdf

1000%

ON. THE. NOSE!

[johnwk]

You have to admit the guy's got vision despite naysayers painting him as a puppet of globalists and his followers as gullibles.

Aside from some of the stupid comments he has made, my wife and I are pleasantly surprised with his actual actions and accomplishments.

JWK

Let us never forget the Obama/Biden big lie about shovel-ready jobs . . . "Shovel-ready was not as ... uh .. shovel-ready as we expected."___ Obama, June, 2011