Tariffs & socialism, corporatism & civil war

[Paul Or Nothing II]

If one looks at the general theme of socialism, it says that government can treat (or mistreat) all its citizens differently, using progressive taxation to rob some people & giving it to others is what socialism ideologically stands for. So should a free country that is founded on the principle that all its citizens are EQUALS & they all have equal right to their life, liberty & property, treat (or mistreat) its citizens differently? I hope not, I think a free country & its government should treat all its citizens equally.

But still, some of the people here seem to wrongly believe that a free country & its government should use tariffs & force some citizens to pay for others, this is nothing but a socialist policy. Because the country won't be importing every single thing & certainly not to the same extent, & because not every citizen will buy imported goods & certainly not to the same extent, tariffs have the effect of some citizens paying disproportionately higher tax than others; calls for putting tariffs on cheaper manufacturing imports to foster manufacturing jobs locally or because some people have a fetish for local manufacturing goods are even more blatently socialist.

Yes, tariffs DEFINITELY are a tax on the American people because the importers will add it to the final price at which the imported goods are sold to the Americans & as I've said, not every American will need to buy imported goods & not every American is going to buy them to the same extent, tariff-tax has the effect of some people paying INEQUITABLY more taxes than others which is NOT a sign of a free society but a socialist one. In a free society, the tax, if there's any, to fund the government MUST be EQUITABLE or it should be funded through voluntary contributions by the citizens & if the people want the government with a free country then they shouldn't mind paying for it through either of those two options.

Some of the "tariffers" wrongly believe that all of our economic problems today stem from not having tariffs when in fact, all of the economic & unemployment problems stem from Fed, an unsound currency, over-regulation of the markets & over-taxation, & if only, if we adopt a sound currency, free markets & repeal most of the taxes then that'd automatically make America prosperous again, with a burgeoning economy full of jobs & goods/services & tariffs wouldn't even be necessary.

Further, it has to be noticed that tariffs will always lead to corporatism as politicians use tariffs to protect the businesses that bribe them while the people are inequitably forced to pay higher prices on goods & it's happened quite a bit throughout American history, & in fact, tariffs played a significant role in the Civil War, which changed America forever, it killed the States Rights, centralized the power in the federal government & we had our first income tax & first completely unbacked currency, both precursors to what was to happen in 1913 & put America on the path of socialism & destruction. All of this due to corporatist politicians misusing tariffs for the benefit of some people at the expense of others.

If we go past the REVISED history that's told to the American people today (where slavery is underlined as the prime cause of Civil war), & look closely at the American history then one realizes that tariffs had always been a bone of contention for a long long time between the industrial North & the agrarian South, & that the Northern corporatist politicians had for a long time liked putting tariffs on the Southern manufacturing imports to make costlier Northern goods more competitive locally as well as to subsidize the corporatist industrial works with the tariff-money.

And this shouldn't be surprising at all because this is what politicians do, they grant favors to those who fund & bribe them & that's why having tariffs, which then will be manipulated by the politicians to squeeze money out of some people to benefit other people, are a bad thing & that's why there should be no room for tariffs in a free country where equality is to be cherished.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig2/miller1.html

From the time Lincoln entered politics as a candidate for state legislature in 1832, he championed a political agenda known as the "American System." First advocated by his idol and mentor, Henry Clay, it was a three-part program of protective tariffs, internal improvements, and centralized banking. This program "tied economic development to strong centralized national authority," as Robert Johannsen puts it in Lincoln, the South, And Slavery. Lincoln believed that import tariffs were necessary, at the expense of consumers. He believed that American industries needed to be shielded from foreign competition and cheap imported goods. The "internal improvements" he advocated were simply subsidies for industry, i.e., corporate welfare. Abraham Lincoln was the first president to give us centralized banking, with paper money not backed by gold.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/civilwar.html

But why would the South want to secede? If the original American ideal of federalism and constitutionalism had survived to 1860, the South would not have needed to. But one issue loomed larger than any other in that year as in the previous three decades: the Northern tariff. It was imposed to benefit Northern industrial interests by subsidizing their production through public works. But it had the effect of forcing the South to pay more for manufactured goods and disproportionately taxing it to support the central government. It also injured the South's trading relations with other parts of the world.

[-C-]

No where in any of this do you mention the per capita production of the individual citizen having to do with anything. The end all be all of economics is not monetary policy, granted the fed is destructive. Money is only a representation of an underlying physical economic principle/process.

Monetarism for the loss.

[Acala]

The only tax that would "equitable" as you have defined it is a head tax. But head taxes are terrible! There is no way to avoid them. A head tax is essentially a tax for living.

Ideally, government should be paid for by those who are using the services - in other words, by fees. You want to use the courts? You pay the fee. You want the FDA's opinion on a drug, you pay the fee. This way people only pay for what they use. And if you don't want anything government is selling, you don't pay anything. By your definition, this would be unequitable and socialism. I think not.

And a uniform tariff is arguably rather close to being a simple fee.

[showpan]

There is ton of information about the events that led to the civil war. It wasn't so much the tariffs that were the problem since they were lowered to appease the southern states before the war started. Calhoun even admits that it wasn't about the Tariffs, it was about nullification and states rights to strike down any federal laws that the states felt exceeded their powers. A lot of other events were all happening in the decades leading to succession and the rift between southern states were rooted much deeper than the issue over tariffs.
The real issue was that the funds collected from tariffs were being used for internal improvements benefiting Northern shipping interests and Western land speculators and not the South. For example, lighthouses had always been state-owned and run. The Northern shipping magnates wanted more lighthouses in the South and when state governments said no, they simply nationalized existing lighthouses and began increasing the number with the tariffs. Tariffs are generally considered to be a "Lost Cause" of the Civil War, but the cited example is directly out of the Georgia Causes of Secession document that can be found here along with the others.

If you are going to use tariffs as a reason for the war, then use them in their right perspective. It wasn't actually the tariffs, it was more about where the money went and how Northern corporations used their political power to shape policy....same as now....history repeats itself.

[Paul Or Nothing II]

No where in any of this do you mention the per capita production of the individual citizen having to do with anything.

My post is about tariffs & may be the "by-product issue" is taxation, neither has anything to do with per capita production directly so you're way off the mark.

The end all be all of economics is not monetary policy, granted the fed is destructive. Money is only a representation of an underlying physical economic principle/process.

Where did I say monetary policy is the end all & be all of economics? Did you even read what I've wrote? I don't think I've written what you're suggesting I have. I've merely said that Fed, unsound currency, over-regulation & over-taxation & socialism are behind America's destruction so these issues need to be dealt with & that's as true as it can get.

And again, the topic is tariffs & may be the by-product is taxation.

The only tax that would "equitable" as you have defined it is a head tax. But head taxes are terrible! There is no way to avoid them. A head tax is essentially a tax for living.

Well, I don't see anything wrong with a head tax, if it's voluntary, if you pay it, you get the protection from the government for your life, liberty & property otherwise you're on your own, not extremely different from what you're suggesting ie user fees.

On the other hand, if we'd a system where we'd poll-tax where people needed to pay tax to vote BUT those who can't/won't, their right to life, liberty & property will ALSO be protected. This'd be like "mild" socialism to prevent extreme forms of socialism that takes place when everyone is allowed to vote & then it becomes politically palatable for politicians to rob the productive people & promise "free" stuff to the poor; this is precisely why, originally, Founders had allowed only the propertied people to vote BUT everyone's rights were to be protected nonetheless.

Ideally, government should be paid for by those who are using the services - in other words, by fees. You want to use the courts? You pay the fee. You want the FDA's opinion on a drug, you pay the fee. This way people only pay for what they use. And if you don't want anything government is selling, you don't pay anything. By your definition, this would be unequitable and socialism. I think not.

It'd be socialism or not, depending on how the money coming in will be used by the government.

For example, if government is going to take court fees & use it EXCLUSIVELY to maintain courts, take the FDA fees & use it EXCLUSIVELY to maintain FDA, & so on then it's almost like anarcho-capitalism, & in that case, it'd be better to go all the way & have private companies do that, at least they'll provide better services than the monopoly-government due to market forces. This ALSO means that only those who've money will be able to pay the service & poor people won't get justice because they can't pay the court fees, just how anarcho-capitalism works.

On the other hand, if the government is taking in court fees, FDA fees, etc etc & then ARBITRARILY uses it fund military, courts, FDA, etc etc & gaurantees protection of EVERYONE's rights then YES, that'd be socialism because only some people are paying (& NOT for very good service if I may add) while everyone is enjoying the benefits. Is it your fault if someone defrauded or robbed you, that you're being asked to pay the user fees? I guess not. But if government is taking that court fees & has vowed to protect others' rights as well, then they benefit from NOT getting robbed/defrauded but they don't pay anything for it.

So again, if the purpose of minarchy is people coming together for the goal of securing their respective right to life, liberty & property as opposed to resorting to anarcho-capitalism, would be lessening the expenses one would've to incur if one were to pay for protection of one's own rights, be it having good security or paying court expenses in case of dispute, so since we don't all know in advance as to whose rights might be attacked, so the only purpose minarchy over anarcho-capitalism would be to find a way of everyone contributing a little bit in order to dilute the expenses in case anyone's rights are infringed. Having direct user fees completely sidesteps that purpose so it's really best suited for anarcho-capitalists, not the best model for minarchists where some are paying for the benefit of others without getting anything out of it.

And a uniform tariff is arguably rather close to being a simple fee.

As I've already said, it doesn't matter whether the tariff is uniform or not, we mayn't import everything & certainly NOT to the same extent, further, NOT every American may buy imported goods & certainly NOT every American would buy them to the same extent so you'd still have a situation where some are paying inequitably higher taxes than others & government protecting everyone EQUALLY but NOT everyone is paying is equally or at equitably at the least.

Not to mention, as I've said before, allowing politicians the power to tariff is like giving them the power to confer benefits to businesses that bribe & fund them & they'll be protecting such businesses while forcing the American people to unnecessarily pay higher prices on goods.

There is ton of information about the events that led to the civil war. It wasn't so much the tariffs that were the problem since they were lowered to appease the southern states before the war started. Calhoun even admits that it wasn't about the Tariffs, it was about nullification and states rights to strike down any federal laws that the states felt exceeded their powers. A lot of other events were all happening in the decades leading to succession and the rift between southern states were rooted much deeper than the issue over tariffs.

Of course, tariffs were lower when Southerners were in power while they were higher when Northerners were in power to protect their Northern businesses & to subsidize them. And as for States Rights & nullification, they were right & 10th Amendment is there to secure that, federal government was never meant to be a dictator that it is today. Where have I said tariffs were the ONLY cause? I have not. Of course, there were other reasons too but people react the most when you hurt their purse & that's what tariffs did. Northerners were taking taking over the House & Senate & Lincoln was going to become president so they knew that higher tariffs were going to be passed so it just gave them more reason to leave the Union which they had every right to.

If you are going to use tariffs as a reason for the war, then use them in their right perspective. It wasn't actually the tariffs, it was more about where the money went and how Northern corporations used their political power to shape policy....same as now....history repeats itself.

The point of bringing the political tariff-wars into discussion was to point out that :

And this shouldn't be surprising at all because this is what politicians do, they grant favors to those who fund & bribe them & that's why having tariffs, which then will be manipulated by the politicians to squeeze money out of some people to benefit other people, are a bad thing & that's why there should be no room for tariffs in a free country where equality is to be cherished.

And to point out that :

But still, some of the people here seem to wrongly believe that a free country & its government should use tariffs & force some citizens to pay for others, this is nothing but a socialist policy. Because the country won't be importing every single thing & certainly not to the same extent, & because not every citizen will buy imported goods & certainly not to the same extent, tariffs have the effect of some citizens paying disproportionately higher tax than others; calls for putting tariffs on cheaper manufacturing imports to foster manufacturing jobs locally or because some people have a fetish for local manufacturing goods are even more blatently socialist.

Another point I wanted to make is that often the "tariffers" on this forum tend to say that just because Wilson (& others corrupt people of his ilk) passed Fed & income-tax into & he SUPPOSEDLY got rid of tariffs (truth - tariffs were only REDUCED them somewhat but did NOT end them) & SUPPOSEDLY was for "free trade" (truth - he was for regulated managed corporatized trade which is what we've right now, NOT free trade) & therefore, it's insinuated by "tariffers" here that anyone who's for free trade must also be for corporatism, income-tax, Fed, etc etc & anti-United States just because Wilson was for all that AND "free trade" too; SO I just wanted to point out that one of the biggest lifelong "tariffer" (Lincoln) & the tariffer-corporatist parties of United States back then (Whig & then Republican) were for NOT ONLY for tariffs, but also for centralized money & cartelized banking, corporate-subsidy-welfare, income tax & corporatism so does this mean that all the "tariffers" on this forum are corporatist tariffers too like Lincoln, Whigs & Republicans?

[Jace]

..

[nobody's_hero]

They got you to reject the policies of the liberty-loving Founding Fathers even though you may actually believe, with all your heart, in liberty. Congratulations. You have been successfully brainwashed.

The thing is, you have some people who think liberty and independence go hand-in-hand. Others don't, as far as I can tell.

The founders, probably doing a wise thing, sought to establish both independence for the nation and the idea of liberty. So, if the rest of the world went to hell in a handbasket, America was supposed to isolated from the storm.

Things have become so out-of-whack, that we're actually causing storms, and poor ole' Lady Liberty seems to be the last thing on anyone's mind.

[romacox]

Of course Southern SLAVEOWNERS opposed the tariff. They wanted to continue borrowing from LONDON BANKERS to purchase HUMAN BEINGS that they used as FORCED LABOR to pick cotton for export to BRITISH CORPORATIONS that sold manufactured textiles to the conquered country of INDIA where British soldiers CUT OFF THE HANDS of Indians who dared to make their own clothing. The British called this free trade. The free trade principles we follow today were developed by British economists who wrote during the ascendancy of the globe-encompassing BRITISH EMPIRE.

America is becoming the new India ruled by a Raj whose source of power is the FEDERAL RESERVE. This Raj is progressively making it more and more difficult for regular Americans to engage in economically productive activity here at home.

The Founding Fathers were for tariffs and they were not socialists. Tariffs have nothing at all to do with socialism. America became the richest country in the world with the world's highest standard of living when we had high tariffs. America had a THRIVING, PRODUCTIVE, INNOVATIVE, FREE ENTERPRISE ECONOMY WHEN TARIFFS WERE HIGH. The tariff was used as a bargaining tool to open trade to closed foreign markets, allowing American commerce to increase, while suppporting a Constitutional limited government without income taxes, and protecting efficient American industries from being destroyed by the mercantilist policies of foreign goverments who were predatory economic interventionists.

The COMMUNIST MANIFESTO explicitly states that the goals of International Communism are to put in place a PROGRESSIVE INCOME TAX and a CENTRAL BANK, and that NATIONAL BORDERS should wither away. It's right there in black and white in the book. ONE WORLD WITHOUT BORDERS.

The Communist Manifesto does not support tariffs.

The FEDERAL RESERVE, the PROGRESSIVE INCOME TAX, and the attacks on American tariffs that continue to this day first came to our country courtesy of the WOODROW WILSON administration, which also gave us a WORLD WAR.

The COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS has been leading the attack against tariffs since it was formed by international bankers in 1921 to counter the intense American backlash against Woodrow Wilson's internationalism. The 1920s were boom years when Republican governments enacted policies that today are called RESTRICTIONIST, ISOLATIONIST and PROTECTIONIST. The Council on Foreign Relations countered these policies by spending great sums of money to infiltrate trained leadership into American media, business, academia and all political and economic movements in our country. They have successfully made free trade and open borders mainstream across the political and economic spectrum.

The Republican dominance of the 1920s ended with a FED-INDUCED CRASH of the economy. This economic catastrophe propelled FDR to power. FDR re-started what Woodrow Wilson began.

Free trade and open borders in America have now become the policy of the left, the right and the center. We have no alternative no matter who we vote for or what economic philosophy we subscribe to. The purpose of the COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS is to attack and discredit protectionists, isolationists and restrictionists, whether they are from the left, like Huey Long, or the right, like Charles Lindbergh. The CFR attacks the principles of the Founding Fathers who put their lives on the line for POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC INDEPENDENCE.

The COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS is PRO-FED, PRO-WAR and PRO-FREE TRADE.

Do you think they support tariffs at the Democratic Underground? The cradle-to-grave Big Government, union loving, libertarian hating, tax-the-rich crowd over there attack the tariff with the same ferocity as the small-government/no-government crowd does right here. This is by design.

They got you to reject the policies of the liberty-loving Founding Fathers even though you may actually believe, with all your heart, in liberty. Congratulations. You have been successfully brainwashed.

As a tutor it is so heartbreaking to see the misinformation being fed to our children over many generations. As a result many patriots who think they are fighting for freedom and the Constitution are playing right into the hands of the globalists one world governing power who are actually destroying those things. Thank you Jace, Shopan, nobody's_hero, and others. Please continue to speak up, the truth needs to be told.

[Paul Or Nothing II]

Of course Southern SLAVEOWNERS opposed the tariff. They wanted to continue borrowing from LONDON BANKERS to purchase HUMAN BEINGS that they used as FORCED LABOR to pick cotton for export to BRITISH CORPORATIONS that sold manufactured textiles to the conquered country of INDIA

This is the kind of distortion of truth & BLATENT LYING that we're used to from the MSM, sad to see such LIES being perpetuated by SUPPOSEDLY "lovers of liberty" here to advance their CORPORATIST agenda of tariffs.

The sensationalism you're using by trying to evoke "slavery" is futile & what's funny is that this is exactly the kind of tactic that was used by Lincoln & today, by the Mainstreamers to KILL states rights & liberty in America. Please stop LYING & study real history & realize that tariffs were put on manufacturing goods by the corporatist Northern politicians to squeeze money from the South to subsidize Northern businesses as well as to force Southerners to buy Northern goods as opposed to better & cheaper foreign goods; it was a blatent form of corporatism & your support for it shows exactly where you stand on the issues of liberty & corporatism

The free trade principles we follow today were developed by British economists who wrote during the ascendancy of the globe-encompassing BRITISH EMPIRE.

Funny when you say such stuff when in fact, following mostly these "evil" British economists & their theories of deregulation, free market & sound money, & allowing FREEDOM to work that turned America into a superpower

The Founding Fathers were for tariffs and they were not socialists.

It's possibly because of the lack of spread of knowledge of economics at the time or because they felt protectionism was necessary, BUT saying that we must support tariffs because Founders did is DOGMATIC behavior, it is NOT based on reason & logic & sound economics; & guess what, they also left slavery in tact, & women, blacks & free white men NOT owning property weren't allowed to vote so may be we should re-institute that stuff too, JUST BECAUSE FOUNDERS DID IT

Tariffs have nothing at all to do with socialism.

OF COURSE, it has to do with socialism because socialism is used by socialist governments to benefit some citizens at the expense of others which is exactly what tariffs do. As has been explained, tariffs are a TAX ON AMERICAN PEOPLE, & because not every American will buy imported goods, & because not every American will buy them to the same extent, tariffs cause some citizens to pay much higher tariff-tax than others, which means it is an INEQUITABLE form of taxation, & violates the principle that in a truly free society, government MUST treat ALL its citizens EQUALLY.

Not to mention, as American history has shown, politicians will use tariffs to benefit the businesses that bribe & fund them by putting tariffs on their foreign competitors & thereby forcing American people to pay higher prices on goods & have a lower living standard while corporatist buddies of politicians rake in supernormal profits.

America became the richest country in the world with the world's highest standard of living when we had high tariffs. America had a THRIVING, PRODUCTIVE, INNOVATIVE, FREE ENTERPRISE ECONOMY WHEN TARIFFS WERE HIGH.

America thrived IN SPITE of politicians & corporatists LOOTING the American people through high tariffs, NOT because of tariffs. America thrived because it'd free deregulated markets, low taxation & America would've thrived EVEN MORE if its people weren't sucked on by the politicians & corporatists through tariff-tax.

and protecting efficient American industries from being destroyed by the mercantilist policies of foreign goverments who were predatory economic interventionists.

REALLY FUNNY this lol "Efficient" industries don't need "government protection", INEFFICIENT CORPORATIST businesses need it & they get it by buying out politians & then using tariffs or "regulations" to kill the more efficient competitors while forcing the consumers to pay higher prices.

As has been explained many a times, even if a country blocks some of our products, then in an unregulated, untaxed free market, the labor & capital will merely be re-allocated to other areas of the economy & jobs & products will be created in those areas. It is NOT government's job to "protect industries".

The FEDERAL RESERVE, the PROGRESSIVE INCOME TAX, and the attacks on American tariffs that continue to this day first came to our country courtesy of the WOODROW WILSON administration, which also gave us a WORLD WAR.

The insinuation that in the absence of tariffs, the only way to fund the government would be income tax is an extremely intellectually dishonest & fallacious & disingenuous form of fearmongerism.

Do you think they support tariffs at the Democratic Underground? The cradle-to-grave Big Government, union loving, libertarian hating, tax-the-rich crowd over there attack the tariff with the same ferocity as the small-government/no-government crowd does right here. This is by design.

It has been mentioned UMPTEEN TIMES that "internationalists" DON'T support the REAL free trade, they support regulated managed corporatized trade, NOT free trade, why are you guys being so intellectually dishonest to not accept that?

"They" don't support tariffs for DIFFERENT REASONS & I (& other free traders on this forum) don't support tariffs for DIFFERENT REASONS. "They" don't support tariffs because they want regulated managed corporatized "free trade" which is NOT real free trade & tariffs would hurt their profits while the REAL free traders on this forum, don't support tariffs because it FORCES Americans to pay HIGHER PRICES for goods & have a LOWER living standard & it leads to politicians using tariffs to benefit their favored businesses at the expense of ordinary people.

The thing is that if we'd completely deregulated free markets & small government then "they" will DEFINITELY support tariffs because in that environment, that's the only way for them to profiteer BUT as things stand RIGHT NOW, when they've the power to make REGULATED "free trade agreements" (AGAIN, ITS NOT REAL FREE TRADE) then it is mostly "their people" that get to do business under these agreements so in that environment, tariffs become an unnecessary hindrance to profits.

They got you to reject the policies of the liberty-loving Founding Fathers even though you may actually believe, with all your heart, in liberty. Congratulations. You have been successfully brainwashed.

No, here's the thing, I'm not DOGMATIC like you to say that we should support tariffs just because Founders did, that's DOGMATIC thinking. I & many others on this forum, base their views on reason, logic & sound economics, NOT because somebody said or believed something.

You're just saying, these "evil internationalists" don't support tariffs so there must be some esoteric reason that tariffs hurt them so we must support tariffs just to take the opposite stance. Guess what, these same people say they support capitalism too, so what next, we should oppose capitalism as well because "they" support it? "They" say they don't support communism either so should we just assume that there's some secret reason that communism will hurt them so we should support communism too? This is ridiculous. Again, the argument should be based on reason & logic & NOT on symbolism & dogma like you guys are basing yours on.

The thing is, you have some people who think liberty and independence go hand-in-hand. Others don't, as far as I can tell.

The founders, probably doing a wise thing, sought to establish both independence for the nation and the idea of liberty. So, if the rest of the world went to hell in a handbasket, America was supposed to isolated from the storm.

Things have become so out-of-whack, that we're actually causing storms, and poor ole' Lady Liberty seems to be the last thing on anyone's mind.

Oh yeah, & supporting CORPORATISM & forcing some people to pay higher prices on goods & subjecting them to a lower living standard for the benefit of politicians & their business-buddies is right in line with liberty I guess

As a tutor it is so heartbreaking to see the misinformation being fed to our children over many generations. As a result many patriots who think they are fighting for freedom and the Constitution are playing right into the hands of the globalists one world governing power who are actually destroying those things. Thank you Jace, Shopan, nobody's_hero, and others. Please continue to speak up, the truth needs to be told.

Yeah, & I'd also like to thank all of these people for keeping reason, logic & sound economics out of the discussion while supporting corporatism

Again, some of the people here are no different than socialists that judge policies by their SUPPOSEDLY fair intentions while ignoring the UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES. It's inevitable that in an unregulated free market that a small government would facilitate that tariffs become the biggest tool of corporatism by corporatist businesses buying out politicians & then using tariffs to neutralize competition while forcing the ordinary people to pay higher prices & subject them to lower living standards while the corporatist businesses make supernormal profits.

[sratiug]

If I buy all imported goods wouldn't I be getting special treatment of your socialist persuasion?

[Jace]

..

[showpan]

The biggest free trade advocates happen to be investors. They do not work nor do they produce anything, they merely bet on how much money others will make for them.

If there were real free markets, then betting on stocks would be against the whole concept. Wall street is basically socialism.

Eliminate stocks, unions and the whole concept of employee wages and start co-ops where all individuals involved have ownership and a stake in profits made based upon performance.

Just sayin' since we are still talking about fantasies.

[Paul Or Nothing II]

If I buy all imported goods wouldn't I be getting special treatment of your socialist persuasion?

How so? Please care to clarify.

If there are no tariffs then nobody is being forced to pay for someone else so far as tariff-related socialism that some people here are advocating.

Today America is more corporatist than it has ever been in our history. Please tell me what corporatists today are pushing for tariffs. All I hear today from corporatists, like the Walton family or Jeffrey Immelt, is more free trade. Watch MSNBC. It is corporatist, socialist, leftist, pro-Obama and pro-free trade. American corporatists hate tariffs.

I've ALREADY explained that RIGHT NOW, "they" don't support tariffs because they can buy out the government & set up "regulations" as they please with trade agreements where mostly "their people" are making profits so there's no need for them to push for tariffs BUT in a free market facilitated by a small government WITHOUT any "regulations", tariffs would be their best bet to gain an unfair advantage because they won't be able to use "regulations" to benefit themselves.

And may be I haven't stressed this enough so far () but THEY ARE NOT FOR FREE TRADE, THEY'RE FOR REGULATED, MANAGED, CORPORATIZED TRADE.

IT'S NOT FREE TRADE
IT'S NOT FREE TRADE
IT'S NOT FREE TRADE

The fact is, in the days before the Civil War, the slaveowners were the ones who vigorously opposed the tariff. The slaveowners hated tariffs. The liberty-loving Founding Fathers supported tariffs. There is no changing that.

The fact is that slavery had nothing to do with the issue of tariffs. The South was pissed because Northern politicians were putting tariffs on cheaper Southern imports & FORCING South to pay higher prices in order to make Northern goods more competitive & to subsidize the Northern businesses so to that extent, they were DEFINITELY being treated unfairly & as per the principles of freedom & in accordance with States Rights, they'd the right to leave the Union.

Another fact is that "liberty-loving Founders" owned slaves & white men NOT owning property as well as women & blacks weren't allowed to vote so may be we should be owning slaves as well just because Founders did

You see, this supporting the tarifffs "because Founders supported tariffs" is total DOGMA, it's not based on reason, logic or sound economics.

You may understand the theory of free trade, but the reality of free trade sharply diverges from the theory.

There's ONLY ONE "theory of free trade" & that involves people being able to trade with each other WITHOUT GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION so what you're calling "free trade" ie the so called "free trade agreements", is NOT free trade, it's REGULATED MANAGED CORPORATIZED TRADE.

Today, America is more open to imports than just about any nation. We are the world's leading free trade nation.

America has REGULATED MANAGED CORPORATIZED trade, NOT free trade; in fact, you calling it "free trade" is akin to a socialist blaming capitalism even though we don't even have capitalism, we've corporatism. Your whole argument is a straw man argument just like those socialists that blame capitalism for the evils of corporatism.

To all the free thinkers out there, think about it.

You're NOT appealing to "free thinkers", you're appealing to those having DOGMATIC though-process that they must support tariffs because Founders did; you're NOT using things like reason, logic & SOUND ECONOMICS, you're using DOGMA & symbolism.

Think about your country and what would be best for your family. If someone is selling you a theory that they say will improve your life, try to find some real world examples where the theory was actually implemented and how things actually turned out. Think about who benefits from free trade and who loses.

Yeah, think about it, government putting ADDITIONAL COSTS on cheaper imports, will that make the goods cheaper or more costlier? Will spending MORE of your earnings on buying LESS goods improve your living standard or will it lower your living standard? Think about who benefits from tariffs, the government certainly does, as it gets to suck more money out of people, it certainly helps local inefficient businesses who get to sell their goods for higher prices. Think about it.

The biggest free trade advocates happen to be investors. They do not work nor do they produce anything, they merely bet on how much money others will make for them.

This is essentially a communist thought-process, "oh, they earn without 'working', evil bastards!"

Investors play a vital role in a prosperous economy as good investors finance healthy businesses & thereby help in creating jobs, & more & cheaper goods/services while bad investors lose their money anyway.

In the absence of central authorities like Fed creating excess credit & manipulating markets & government sponsoring regulations like Community Reinvestment Act, FDIC & pledging taxpayers' money to bail out unhealthy businesses, investors in stocks lend stability to the markets & prices, they lend confidence to producers who're in the processs of producing things that their goods will be bought & the free market prices allow producers to ascertain demand & make their cost-benefit analysis in order to ascertain the levels of production they should be engaging in.

These are basics of free markets & a free society but obviously, anyone who supports socialist-corporatist tariffs wouldn't know this much about REAL economics anyway so not very surprising at all.

If there were real free markets, then betting on stocks would be against the whole concept. Wall street is basically socialism.

Eliminate stocks, unions and the whole concept of employee wages

None of this goes against the concept of a free society, people should be free to invest their money as they see fit, they should free to choose to work for others & they should be allowed to collectively bargain for wages so long as they don't go around disrupting others or using violence or get special privileges & "regulations" in their favor from the government in any way.

and start co-ops where all individuals involved have ownership and a stake in profits made based upon performance.

More communist thinking, not surprising at all

[ClayTrainor]

Shameless appeal to authority:

"Conflicting and inconsistent views on trade policy result largely from a lack of understanding of basic economic principles. Free trade is not a zero-sum game where some countries benefit and others inevitably suffer. On the contrary, true free trade by definition benefits both parties." - Ron Paul, Feb 12, 2001

"Free trade with all and entangling alliances with none has always been the best policy in dealing with other countries on the world stage. This is the policy of friendship, freedom and non-interventionism and yet people wrongly attack this philosophy as isolationist. Nothing could be further from the truth. Isolationism is putting up protectionist trade barriers, starting trade wars imposing provocative sanctions and one day finding out we have no one left to buy our products." - Ron Paul

"The economic argument for free trade should be no more complex than the moral argument. Tariffs are taxes that penalize those who buy foreign goods.If taxes are low on imported goods, consumers benefit by being able to buy at the best price, thus saving money to buy additional goods and raise their standard of living. The competition stimulates domestic efforts and hopefully serves as an incentive to get onerous taxes and regulations reduced." - Ron Paul, March 2000

"There is another way. Free trade and free markets are, without a doubt, the best guarantor of peace. But this requires something all too few in Washington want: less government intervention." - Ron Paul, June 7, 1999


"Free trade is the process of free people engaging in market activity without government interference such as tariffs or managed-trade agreements. In a true free market, individuals and companies do business voluntarily, which means they believe they will be better off as a result of a transaction. Tariffs, taxes, and duties upset the balance, because governments add costs to the calculation which make doing business less attractive. Similarly, so-called managed trade agreements like WTO favor certain business interests and trading nations over others, which reduces the mutual benefit inherent in true free trade." - Ron Paul

[showpan]

This is essentially a communist thought-process, "oh, they earn without 'working', evil bastards!"

Investors play a vital role in a prosperous economy as good investors finance healthy businesses & thereby help in creating jobs, & more & cheaper goods/services while bad investors lose their money anyway.(

A communist thought process....lol....can't you make an argument without insults?
Lets look at this group of folks and then tell me how investors are so awesome. How many companies did they kill?
Carl Icahn, Victor Posner, Nelson Peltz, Robert M. Bass, T. Boone Pickens, Harold Clark Simmons, Kirk Kerkorian, Sir James Goldsmith, Saul Steinberg and Asher Edelman.

Today, they use private equity firms and hedge funds to rape and pillage companies.

Hedge Funds attacked 1,000 Companies and Destroyed 1,200,000 Jobs

[Paul Or Nothing II]

A communist thought process....lol....can't you make an argument without insults?

That's not an insult, it's a FACT. Communists/socialists always make arguments for violating people's freedoms & liberites by saying that only physical labor counts & intellectual labor isn't worth anything, they always attack the capitalists, investors & such thinking that these people are getting paid for "doing nothing" They always make arguments for "co-ops & collective ownership of business", etc etc

Lets look at this group of folks and then tell me how investors are so awesome. How many companies did they kill?

Carl Icahn, Victor Posner, Nelson Peltz, Robert M. Bass, T. Boone Pickens, Harold Clark Simmons, Kirk Kerkorian, Sir James Goldsmith, Saul Steinberg and Asher Edelman.

Today, they use private equity firms and hedge funds to rape and pillage companies.

Hedge Funds attacked 1,000 Companies and Destroyed 1,200,000 Jobs

Your argument is no more valid than anti-gun-rights people who call for banning gun-rights just because a few maniacs go on a killing-spree every now & then but they forget the fact that many many more people's property & lives are saved because of gun-rights. In the same way, YOU forget that so many companies & businesses that are raised by investors, the jobs they've created, the goods/services they produce & contribute to raising poeple's living standards & so on.

The WORST part of your argument is that it is anti-property-rights & anti-liberty when you say that govt should bar people from investing & using THEIR OWN property as they see fit because a few communist-minded people think it's ok to breach people's liberties. Again, anti-liberty arguments aren't surprising at all from people who make communist/socialist arguments.

[robert68]

...
The Democratic Party today is strongly opposed to tariffs and is pro-free trade, just as it has been since the days of Woodrow Wilson.
...

Labor unions have been very influential backers of the Democratic Party for some time, and they have never been "pro-free trade".

[Jace]

..