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

[Anti Federalist]

Actually everything is a flat 6.5% import tariff in Switzerland and Cadillac and Jeep are two of the top five cars sold in the country.

That being said, nowhere in the DoI or Constitution is promoting free trade listed as a duty of government - it is to provide for the common defense, domestic tranquility, and promote the general welfare, protecting individual, not corporate rights.

Otherwise, add me as a +1 for Anti-Federalist.

Thanks, Pericles.

Listen, I know you lived there for a while, it's my recollection that foodstuffs had a pretty high import duty on them, is this correct?

I wasn't sure about cars, it would seem to make sense though, since they, as far as I know, never manufactured cars.

I know you have a better chance of seeing god than immigrating there permanently.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

True enough, there are differences, but all the states have to abide by the same federal corporate taxation rates and regulations and labor regulations.

Now, I'm assuming that you don't see the NH advantage as an unfair market distortion do you?

(I was having that discussion with somebody a week or so ago)

Now, I'm assuming that you don't see the NH advantage as an unfair market distortion do you?

Of course it is a distortion. All taxation is a distortion. Now as to unfair, no I do not. Inequal, yes. Unfair? No.

[Anti Federalist]

But consider the current situation:

Consumers don't really care right now how much taxation is placed upon domestic industries. It's the oldest trick in the progressive playbook: Tax the wealthiest and keep the lowest income people able to buy whatever junk they want to keep them entertained and satiated. Since there are typically less wealthy people than poorer people, how many people are going to just go out of their way to support lower domestic taxes? This is why I believe AF is correct in that there is a plan to suppress domestic industry, through so-called 'free trade'. You have to keep the number of dependents (crouchers and hand-lickers) higher than the number of self-sufficient people, if you intend to stay in power by means of wealth redistribution.

Exactly.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Exactly.

Utilitarianism is dangerous to liberty as evidenced...I am sorry, but the means must match the ends or else you won't ever reach your ends. You can't achieve peace through violence.

[Pericles]

Thanks, Pericles.

Listen, I know you lived there for a while, it's my recollection that foodstuffs had a pretty high import duty on them, is this correct?

I wasn't sure about cars, it would seem to make sense though, since they, as far as I know, never manufactured cars.

I know you have a better chance of seeing god than immigrating there permanently.

I have a Swiss green card, but the fight is here. But, if the planes are flying, I have an escape.

Tarriffs on food is still 6.5%, but you need an import permit - which you can't get for a business, so there is a individual limit on what subsidized by the EU edibles you can bring in to the Swiss confederation. (Unless you are not competing with a Swiss product - so Oreos, Orange juice, and such are in abundant supply)

Switzerland has no Auto industry, so all the importers play by the same rules.

I have my company based in Switzerland, as the different Kantons (states) make deals on taxes and rates. No capital gains tax BTW.

OTOH, you see practically 0 US cars in the EU - guess why and the 18% VAT is just a starter.

[Anti Federalist]

I have a Swiss green card, but the fight is here. But, if the planes are flying, I have an escape.

Tarriffs on food is still 6.5%, but you need an import permit - which you can't get for a business, so there is a individual limit on what subsidized by the EU edibles you can bring in to the Swiss confederation. (Unless you are not competing with a Swiss product - so Oreos, Orange juice, and such are in abundant supply)

Switzerland has no Auto industry, so all the importers play by the same rules.

I have my company based in Switzerland, as the different Kantons (states) make deals on taxes and rates. No capital gains tax BTW.

OTOH, you see practically 0 US cars in the EU - guess why and the 18% VAT is just a starter.

That is worth it's weight in gold.

I spent a summer there when I was young teenager.

No US cars in the EU? What a suprise...

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Actually the vaunted commerce clause is the promotion of free-trade (It's sort of funny -- free trade is good for us, not for you suckers). Many of the Founders especially Jefferson who had a bust of Anne Roberte Jacques Turgot the great French liberal economist and free-trader was the head of American free-trade. You know that famous speech of his where he proclaims:

"Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations; entangling alliances with none."

"The exercise of a free trade with all parts of the world [is] possessed by [a people] as of natural right"

I thought most of us on RPF were Jeffersonian and not Hamiltonian/Lincoln (who advocated for high tariffs). Apparently, I was wrong

Bump

[Pericles]

That is worth it's weight in gold.

I spent a summer there when I was young teenager.

No US cars in the EU? What a suprise...

Moving money from the US to CH has become a major PITA in the last two years, and no prizes for guessing why.

[Anti Federalist]

Utilitarianism is dangerous to liberty as evidenced...I am sorry, but the means must match the ends or else you won't ever reach your ends. You can't achieve peace through violence.

Being prepared for violence thwarts violence.

Thus the logic of concealed carry.

But the statement I was agreeing to had a great deal to do with the self sufficiency aspect of all this, as a nation.

[Anti Federalist]

Who's "us"? People who happen to lie within some arbitrary scribbles on a map? I'm sure I have more in common with some Japanese than with some Americans

There's the nub of it.

I happen to agree, which is why I think the whole thing should come apart.

There are no more shared values or shared experience or shared family or religion or anything.

Such a highly "Balkanized" and fragmented "country" cannot be held together, except by authoritarian force.

[Anti Federalist]

Reposted from another thread:

Originally Posted by ClayTrainor

“When goods do not cross borders, soldiers will.” - Bastiat

Anti Federalist's reply:

I dispute this quote, vigorously.

The history of military interventionism has almost always been to pave the way for some internationalist money making scheme.

It seems to me, and history indicates, that goods are forced across, (or resources absconded with) at the barrel of a soldier's gun, not the other way around.

I believe in adequate defense at the coastline and nothing else. If a nation comes over here to fight, then we'll fight. The trouble with America is that when the dollar only earns 6 percent over here, then it gets restless and goes overseas to get 100 percent. Then the flag follows the dollar and the soldiers follow the flag.

I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912 (where have I heard that name before?). I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.

Major General Smedley Darlington Butler - USMC Ret. 1933

[phill4paul]

Such a highly "Balkanized" and fragmented "country" cannot be held together, except by authoritarian force.

Succinct.

[Anti Federalist]

Human solidarity and good will toward men?

I'd say that ending the wars would go a much longer way towards that goal than exporting Bic Macs and porn or importing a bunch of cheap Chinese $#@!.

[nobody's_hero]

Utilitarianism is dangerous to liberty as evidenced...I am sorry, but the means must match the ends or else you won't ever reach your ends. You can't achieve peace through violence.

True enough, and for the most part, even our government has abided by that. Let me explain that statement, because it is relative:

Freedom's modern tyrannical foe (the government) does not just go out and execute thousands of people in the street to keep others in-line and afraid. Tyrants have tried to rule like that in the past (and some still try), and our modern-day tyrants would seek to avoid making such errors which inevitably lead to their downfall. The modern day tyrant seeks to exploit the poorest and most-numerous (I keep using the word 'poor', but understand that I consider myself rather poor and I don't mean it in a derogatory sense), by offering them something to the effect of a 'falsely compassionate gesture.' In other words, if you want someone to lick your hand, you have to feed them (how kind). You aren't going to get them to lick your hand by slapping them (though you might, or at worst, they might find somewhere else to get their food, which means they no longer have need of you—which means you no longer have power over them).

If government screws up and slaps them so hard that get up off their knees and punch the government in the balls, then I might suggest encouraging the government to do just that. We might actually get somewhere.

Also, the 'violence' we're talking about is an increase in tariffs. I'm not literally advocating any slapping (or shooting, jailing, or even stealing newspapers from your neighbor's driveway before he gets up in the morning).

Take another example, and I know this is off-topic but it is an analogy:

2008 election.

If John McCain had won, the American people would not be angered over 'big government.' They wouldn't even realize that 'big government' was happening to them. The apathetic independent American would calmly have twiddled his thumbs until the neocons' plan for slow-socialization would have been implemented some decades from now, without anyone realizing what had happened.

Thank God, Barack Obama won (I hope I didn't just say that—oh wait, I did ). Swift socialization shocked people out of their apathy. The frog jumped out of his boiling water. Not everyone is awake now (we still have a ways to go), but there are more awake now than before, or ever would have been under McCain's gradual approach.

The moral of the story?:

'Slow and imperceptible wins the race.'.

So raise tariffs. Jump into the water. Or at least, if you don't want the personal guilt of raising tariffs, hope someone does, so we can finally get to see the fireworks start.

[silverhandorder]

LOL article is dead wrong. The traitors are those that would harm our citizens at the for the benefit of their business aka the protectionists.

[lynnf]

LOL article is dead wrong. The traitors are those that would harm our citizens at the for the benefit of their business aka the protectionists.

lol - actually you are dead wrong. would you defend your house from an intruder by shooting them dead? that's protectionism, and we should protect our jobs from marauders also. those that suggest otherwise are of the same ilk as those that say we shouldn't allow guns for home protection. in both cases it's protection and the protection is needed, and needed badly.

"free trade" is a siren song (don't know what that is? look it up). it's part of the UN Agenda 21's "social justice" mandate. Agenda 21 is a plan to institute UN control over the whole world. don't believe that? read the Agenda 21 document for yourself.

lynn

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

lol - actually you are dead wrong. would you defend your house from an intruder by shooting them dead? that's protectionism, and we should protect our jobs from marauders also. those that suggest otherwise are of the same ilk as those that say we shouldn't allow guns for home protection. in both cases it's protection and the protection is needed, and needed badly.

lynn

Someone needs a protectionist history lesson. You think Lincoln and Hamilton were 'protecting our jobs'? Don't think so. Hamilton and Lincoln were protecting business interests at the expense of everyone else. That was the whole platform of the Republican party in the 1850s and 1860s onwards. Protectionism has never been about 'protecting your job'. It has always been about protecting the interests of business elites from outside competition. Plain and simple.

Also, your analogy is horrible.

[Anti Federalist]

Someone needs a protectionist history lesson. You think Lincoln and Hamilton were 'protecting our jobs'? Don't think so. Hamilton and Lincoln were protecting business interests at the expense of everyone else. That was the whole platform of the Republican party in the 1850s and 1860s onwards. Protectionism has never been about 'protecting your job'. It has always been about protecting the interests of business elites from outside competition. Plain and simple.

Also, your analogy is horrible.

Then why are the modern day "business elites" the ones pushing "free trade"?

[silverhandorder]

Then why are the modern day "business elites" the ones pushing "free trade"?

Because that is what lets them provide cheaper products to us. They do not want to be stuck with punishing US regulations.

edit: I also understand many free trade laws in US are not free trade at all and are used to create favors from the lesser trading partners. Like only Americans companies can have advantage A, B and C.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

I support high tariff's immediately. Tax the $#@! out of all imports starting with oil.

Let's get familiar with top U.S. Imports and Exports and hammer out this scenario:
http://www.worldsrichestcountries.co...s_imports.html
http://www.worldsrichestcountries.co...s_exports.html

Thank goodness for U.S. aircraft. At least we can still export something.


1. Price of everything goes up since we import 2.5 trillion in goods.
2. Decrease in retail and service sectors.
3. Unemployment increases.
4. Surge of new welfare recipients.
5. Other countries respond in kind with tariffs.
6. Decrease in exports.
7. Unemployment increases.
8. Surge of new welfare recipients.
9. More companies leave the U.S. because locating in any country other than the U.S. and trading with the rest of the world is better than being located in the U.S.
10. Unemployment increases.
11. Surge of new welfare recipients.

I am liking this cycle. Many people will experience benevolent government. When do we fire up the high tariff campaign? I'm on board!

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Then why are the modern day "business elites" the ones pushing "free trade"?

Because even they realized they make more money with international-trade, than being able to solely produce in one territory. That and it is much easier to run a multi-national in todays technological era, than it was in say 1750 or 1870. Protectionism no longer serves them as the best avenue to maximize guaranteed profits (Also, WTO etc. set up favorable conditions for multi-nationals). I however, am still glad I can purchase from individuals in other countries. Wouldn't it suck if you couldn't purchase any goods from other countries without paying tribute of 100%+ to the Federal Government. Yeah, real lovely. Say goodbye to the internet-market. (You will bet your ass that international mailers will get heavily clamped down upon and customs will be massively increased -- oh yeah, it costs money to do all that)

[Pericles]

Then why are the modern day "business elites" the ones pushing "free trade"?

Sir James Goldsmith had it right - it is the ability to use the political system to lower cost of production, raise barriers to competition, keeping the price of products artificially high and cloaking it all under the propaganda of "free trade".

The only real benefit I can see id=s lower cost of computer equipment and some consumer electronics - but those have also been the most competitive in real terms.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Sir James Goldsmith had it right - it is the ability to use the political system to lower cost of production, raise barriers to competition, keeping the price of products artificially high and cloaking it all under the propaganda of "free trade".

The only real benefit I can see id=s lower cost of computer equipment and some consumer electronics - but those have also been the most competitive in real terms.

That's exactly what Protectionism does...

If you want to see how bad protectionism fails (for us common folk), look no further than the Corn League and the history surrounding it.

[nobody's_hero]

Being prepared for violence thwarts violence.

Thus the logic of concealed carry.

Wouldn't that be 'open carry'?
(unless it is illegal in your state?)

Strap that .44 magnum on your hip and see who wants to press their luck.

[Pericles]

That's exactly what Protectionism does...

If you want to see how bad protectionism fails (for us common folk), look no further than the Corn League and the history surrounding it.

It is protectionism, but of the corporation, not of the country. The current term is "crony capitalism". The current political system protects the corporation from competition, at the expense of the citizenry.

[nobody's_hero]

I support high tariff's immediately. Tax the $#@! out of all imports starting with oil.

Let's get familiar with top U.S. Imports and Exports and hammer out this scenario:
http://www.worldsrichestcountries.co...s_imports.html
http://www.worldsrichestcountries.co...s_exports.html

Thank goodness for U.S. aircraft. At least we can still export something.


1. Price of everything goes up since we import 2.5 trillion in goods.
2. Decrease in retail and service sectors.
3. Unemployment increases.
4. Surge of new welfare recipients.
5. Other countries respond in kind with tariffs.
6. Decrease in exports.
7. Unemployment increases.
8. Surge of new welfare recipients.
9. More companies leave the U.S. because locating in any country other than the U.S. and trading with the rest of the world is better than being located in the U.S.
10. Unemployment increases.
11. Surge of new welfare recipients.

I am liking this cycle. Many people will experience benevolent government. When do we fire up the high tariff campaign? I'm on board!

You forgot the last parts:
12. The system collapses more quickly because its unsustainable.
13. It has to be rebuilt on a more honest monetary system in order to avoid repeating the same failure.
14. We get an opportunity to establish a TRUE free-market and we can engage in TRUE free-trade with other nations using REAL medium of exchange.

------------------

Or we can keep pretending, as many on this board seem to pretend, that we actually have anything left even remotely resembling a 'free-trade' system, and for the love of all that is holy, "don't institute tariffs to ruin this great thing we've got going for us!!!"


It's all moot, though. The international banking cartel will never allow across-the-board tariffs. They'll never allow domestic taxes to be decreased. Their lawyers have written our 'free-trade' agreements and they've got the system set up just the way they want it, so they'll win the bets they've placed against us.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

You forgot the last parts:
12. The system collapses more quickly because its unsustainable.
13. It has to be rebuilt on a more honest monetary system in order to avoid repeating the same failure.
14. We get an opportunity to establish a TRUE free-market and we can engage in TRUE free-trade with other nations using REAL medium of exchange.

------------------

Or we can keep pretending, as many on this board seem to pretend, that we actually have anything left even remotely resembling a 'free-trade' system, and for the love of all that is holy, "don't institute tariffs to ruin this great thing we've got going for us!!!"

It's all moot, though. The international banking cartel will never allow across-the-board tariffs. They'll never allow domestic taxes to be decreased. Their lawyers have written our 'free-trade' agreements and they've got the system set up just the way they want it, so they'll win the bets they've placed against us.

That isn't our view at all. Our view is that since tariffs are ~1% or lower, that is a net positive for liberty (like if taxes were ~1% instead of 60%). Less of my property is being expropriated from me for conducting voluntary transactions with whom I wish. Similarly, we recognize that what we have now isn't great (we aren't after-all living in an An-Cap society), but that it is better than what we would have under protectionism. Stop using the Nirvana Fallacy. I am getting sick and tired of it

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy

The Nirvana fallacy is the logical error of comparing actual things with unrealistic, idealized alternatives. It can also refer to the tendency to assume that there is a perfect solution to a particular problem.

Example: "If we go on the Highway 95 at four in the morning we will get to our destination exactly on time because there will be NO traffic whatsoever."

By creating a false dichotomy that presents one option which is obviously advantageous—while at the same time being completely implausible—a person using the nirvana fallacy can attack any opposing idea because it is imperfect. The choice is not between real world solutions and utopia; it is, rather, a choice between one realistic possibility and another which is merely better.

[Fox McCloud]

Not this complete bullcrap again. I'm getting really sick of this. More perplexing is that there are a few fairly strong friends of liberty who refuse to budge on this matter; it makes no sense--they agree free markets are good, but then dis free trade every single chance they get.

How many times do I have to explain that trade deficits don't matter and are, as a matter of fact, beneficial to the United States? http://mises.org/daily/1955

How many times do I have to explain that China's manipulation of their own currency just harms the real wages of their own workers, thus allowing us to have cheaper than regular products,which, again, is beneficial and should be enjoyed, while it lasts, as it will end. http://mises.org/daily/4256

How many times do I have to explain that complete free trade enables both nations to benefit with cheaper goods and allows specialization and division of labor to reach its maximum efficiency? How many times do I have to explain trade partners don't go to war with each other? Or that trade wars precede real wars? (http://mises.org/media/1077) How often do I have to explain that violence as an aggressive action is always wrong and should never be advocated?

How may times do I also have to explain that no true libertarian supports NAFA, CAFTA, GATT, or the WTO, as they are protectionistic policies that create trade blocks that are designed to war with other trade blocks and protect entrenched Corporations? When can I stop explaining this? When will you at least read or listen to a few of the materials, articles, and videos I've provided here, and many times in the past?

Protectionism and tariffs are nothing more than the old mercantilist and imperialist tradition of many years ago; they're designed, by nature, to protect entrenched corporations at the expense of consumers; it's a coercive and violent means that benefits a few at the expense of the many.

YouTube - The Case for Free Trade, Not Imperialism [Walter Block]
YouTube - Free Trade [Walter Block]
YouTube - Free Trade | by Walter Block (Lecture 1 of 10)

[NYgs23]

Only works in countries with mutual agreements.

If a country sets up protectionist barriers around itself, that will tend to hurt the protectionist country more than foreign countries engaged in free trade with it. If Japan, for example, sets up high tariffs, that hurts the whole economy of Japan. Japanese consumers will have to pay more; they're standard of living will go down. And Japanese have to invest their labor and resources producing goods and services they could have more cheaply and efficiently obtained through international trade. Meaning that the Japanese will hurt their own export market, since they'll have fewer resources they'll be able to invest in producing exports. Whereas a free trade country, by purchasing a large quantity of imports from overseas, frees up its own labor, resources, and capital to produce other goods and services domestically.

The only reason people fear foreign protectionism is because they think protectionism, on some level works. But it doesn't work. It damages the country that engages in it more than any other. Like I said, just imagine if a state, county, town, household, or individual decided to "protect" itself by not trading with others. Who will be hurt the most?

Maybe your neighbors that just lost their house? WTF? We're not trying to save the WORLD on RPFs.

When the US government engages in violence (and protectionism inherently involves violence) that will unjustly hurt innocent Japanese, I do feel compassion for those people, just as much as I feel compassion for innocent Americans who are unjustly hurt by state-based violence. Sorry.

Interstate commerce is one of the FEW things afforded by the federal government.

Free trade is preferable if its multilateral but it does not have to be. If China or Japan want to shoot themselves in the foot through protectionism, that's no reason for the United States to do the same.

[NYgs23]

How can we achieve your pro-liberty solution? I suggest this:

So long as relatively few have to endure the pain of market intervention, nothing will be done about it. Before you misconstrue me as a sadist after making that comment, let me entertain you with this thought:

Suppose this happens:

We institute a tariff AND our industries pay high domestic taxes. Something eventually has to give. Eventually, people will arrive at the conclusion that too much taxation across the board is draining the economy. The next step is a revolution.

But consider the current situation:

Consumers don't really care right now how much taxation is placed upon domestic industries. It's the oldest trick in the progressive playbook: Tax the wealthiest and keep the lowest income people able to buy whatever junk they want to keep them entertained and satiated. Since there are typically less wealthy people than poorer people, how many people are going to just go out of their way to support lower domestic taxes? This is why I believe AF is correct in that there is a plan to suppress domestic industry, through so-called 'free trade'. You have to keep the number of dependents (crouchers and hand-lickers) higher than the number of self-sufficient people, if you intend to stay in power by means of wealth redistribution.

Raise tariffs, let everyone (producers and consumers alike) know what taxation feels like, and the system will be reformed.

(our current government would never allow this to happen, so my suggestion is probably moot)

So your saying we should advocate more statism in the hope that people will get so fed up they'll demand freedom. Sorry, that's a no-sale from me. If anything, I think freedom tends to beget for freedom. The more freedom people have, the more they want and feel entitled to. When you're enslaved, you acquire the psyche of a slave. When you're free, you acquire the psyche of a freeman.