Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 61 to 90 of 111

Thread: Rand Paul: Trump's tariffs will hurt Americans...

  1. #61
    Quote Originally Posted by TheTexan View Post
    9/11 was caused by trade restrictions on Iraq? That's a new one but I'll give you credit for a fresh idea. I'm up by like 1000 points but I'll put up a point on the board for you for that one. Well done.
    @jmdrake upon further review, unfortunately I have to revoke this point I gave you.

    The trade restrictions on Iraq were done by the UN as punitive sanctions.

    It's a strong argument against globalism, but that argument doesn't really apply to US tariffs, especially non-punitive ones.
    It's all about taking action and not being lazy. So you do the work, whether it's fitness or whatever. It's about getting up, motivating yourself and just doing it.
    - Kim Kardashian

    Donald Trump / Crenshaw 2024!!!!

    My pronouns are he/him/his



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #62
    Quote Originally Posted by Madison320 View Post
    Top ten least free:

    North Korea
    Sudan
    Bhutan
    Venezuela
    Barbados
    Central African Republic
    Chad
    Equatorial Guinea
    The Bahamas
    Burundi
    Bhutan is "the happiest place in the world"

    https://www.oneworldeducation.org/ou...piest-country/
    It's all about taking action and not being lazy. So you do the work, whether it's fitness or whatever. It's about getting up, motivating yourself and just doing it.
    - Kim Kardashian

    Donald Trump / Crenshaw 2024!!!!

    My pronouns are he/him/his

  4. #63
    Quote Originally Posted by Madison320 View Post
    In the real world there's a strong correlation between free trade and prosperity.
    One other thing I would point out, is that free trade is typically great for poor nations. Poor nations benefit hugely from free trade. China for example is where it is today because of free trade. India is where it is today because of free trade.

    So yea, if you're poor and you don't participate in free trade, you're gonna stay poor, at least relative to your peers.

    This is because free trade acts as a global equalizer of economic wealth. But that also means that it results in a wealth transfer from the rich countries to the poor. I have proven that this is a real phenomenon, in another thread (link).

    The United States started the 20th century with a massive economic advantage compared to other nations. Absolutely massive economic advantage. Over the past 124 years though, as free trade increased to unprecedented levels, that economic advantage has almost entirely eroded. China and India for example, have not only caught up, but in some ways they are beginning to surpass us economically. And while that's been happening, the US has been economically stagnating.

    That's cus of free trade.

    If it was merely a matter of a "rising tide raises all ships" that would be great, but that's not what's been happening.
    Last edited by TheTexan; 10-30-2024 at 04:01 PM.
    It's all about taking action and not being lazy. So you do the work, whether it's fitness or whatever. It's about getting up, motivating yourself and just doing it.
    - Kim Kardashian

    Donald Trump / Crenshaw 2024!!!!

    My pronouns are he/him/his

  5. #64
    Quote Originally Posted by TheTexan View Post
    That's kind of the whole point, that free trade has a strong tendency to create entangling alliances.
    Switzerland traded freely and managed to stay neutral in both WW I & II. So the opposite of what you're arguing is actually true. Trying to "contain" this country or that country is at the heart of every scenario that ChatGPT generated for you.

    So it's not exactly conflation, to point that out.

    Ok. But why was the US shipping weapons to Great Britain? (The answer is, its economic ties)
    No. That's your conclusion. The German market was bigger than the British market in 1914.

    I completely agree, without entangling alliances, the US would have not have needed to get involved. But the US did have entangling alliances, and the US had entangling alliances because of its economic ties.
    Wrong. See the example of Switzerland.

    That's like saying, well if Timmy wasn't so fat he wouldn't have had a heart attack. But how did he get so fat? Eating too much chocolate.

    We can all agree that if Timmy wasn't a fat $#@! he would be more healthy. And while chocolate is fine in moderation, it's hard to say that chocolate had nothing to do with Timmy being fat.
    Silly conclusory argument. Trump's trade war with China is actually more akin to the chocolate Timmy is eating. In each example you gave the war came from a restriction on a potential trading partner that was considered "bad." (Germany in WW 1 and 2 and Japan in WW 2 were not a democracies. Vietnam and North Korea were and are communist etc.) In each of those cases there were trade restrictions on the "bad" countries which is exactly what Trump is wanting to do with tarriffs.

    ChatGPT wrote that and I decided to keep that in to see if anyone was actually reading. (Good job!)

    I also left it in to maintain intellectual honesty, as it is a valid point - embargos can lead to war. But keep in mind, if there wasn't trade to begin with, the embargo wouldn't have been needed at all.
    So....is your argument zero trade period? Not the Trump postion of "tarrifs on the bad guys" but just don't trade with anybody? Basically become imperial China? Ummm....okay. I thought we were talking about the Trump tariffs.

    Well, that's kind of what happens when entangling alliances are a direct and predictable consequence of free trade.

    Timmy eats a lot of chocolate, Timmy gets fat.
    Except it isn't. The Trump tarriffs are the chocolate. But your argument seems to be "Don't let Timmy eat a damn thing!" Ummmm....okay. That's a guaranteeed way to get Timmy to lose weight.

    Cause, and effect.
    Yes. If Timmy goes on a starvation diet he will definitely lose weight. Eventually he'll starve to death, but before that he'll lose weight.


    If only little Timmy were healthy, he would still be with us. But it had nothing to do with the chocolate, I swear!
    Not if you starve him to death.

    Poor Timmy, but it's definitely not the chocolate's fault
    So...let Timmy starve to death. Got it.



    Oh look, it's poor Timmy again.
    Got it. No food whatsoever for Timmy.


    9/11 was caused by trade restrictions on Iraq? That's a new one but I'll give you credit for a fresh idea. I'm up by like 1000 points but I'll put up a point on the board for you for that one. Well done.
    It's not a fresh idea. Ron Paul talked about this as early as 2011 and likely even earlier.

    Here's Ron Paul talking about sanctions against Iraq being an act of war.

    https://www.eurasiareview.com/291120...oogle_vignette

    Many people have the misconception that sanctions are an effective means to encourage a change of behavior in another country without war. However, imposing sanctions and blockades are not only an act of war according to international law, they are most often the first step toward a real war starting with a bombing campaign. Sanctions were the first step in our wars against Iraq and Libya, and now more sanctions planned against Syria and Iran are leading down the same destructive path.

    And here's Ron Paul talking about our wars in the middle east leading to 9/11 and those wars started off with sanctions.

    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.



  6. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  7. #65
    Quote Originally Posted by TheTexan View Post
    One other thing I would point out, is that free trade is typically great for poor nations. Poor nations benefit hugely from free trade. China for example is where it is today because of free trade. India is where it is today because of free trade.

    So yea, if you're poor and you don't participate in free trade, you're gonna stay poor, at least relative to your peers.

    This is because free trade acts as a global equalizer of economic wealth. But that also means that it results in a wealth transfer from the rich countries to the poor. I have proven that this is a real phenomenon, in another thread (link).

    The United States started the 20th century with a massive economic advantage compared to other nations. Absolutely massive economic advantage. Over the past 124 years though, as free trade increased to unprecedented levels, that economic advantage has almost entirely eroded. China and India for example, have not only caught up, but in some ways they are beginning to surpass us economically.

    That's cus of free trade.
    So you don't think the fact that we changed from mostly capitalistic with small government to mostly socialistic with massive government had anything to do with us not being able to make anything?

  8. #66
    Quote Originally Posted by TheTexan View Post
    @jmdrake upon further review, unfortunately I have to revoke this point I gave you.

    The trade restrictions on Iraq were done by the UN as punitive sanctions.

    It's a strong argument against globalism, but that argument doesn't really apply to US tariffs, especially non-punitive ones.
    And who went to the U.N. to demand the sanctions? The U.S. of course! Anyway this is all irrelevant because apparently you don't want trade at all. Starve fat Timmy to death!
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  9. #67
    Quote Originally Posted by TheTexan View Post
    So, according to heritage economic freedom index, which has trade freedom as a significant part of its score, countries with free trade get high scores?

    Imagine that
    Those are the top 10 and bottom 10 in trade freedom only. Overall freedom index was not factored in. It's up to you to decide if there's a correlation between the top 10 and bottom 10 in trade freedom.

  10. #68
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    Switzerland traded freely and managed to stay neutral in both WW I & II. So the opposite of what you're arguing is actually true. Trying to "contain" this country or that country is at the heart of every scenario that ChatGPT generated for you.
    I said that free trade has a strong tendency to create entangling alliances.

    Sure, Switzerland may have skated by World War I and World II, but look at where are they now? Yep - entangling alliances.


    No. That's your conclusion. The German market was bigger than the British market in 1914.
    They were probably about the same size but it wasn't even a matter of which market was bigger. When the war broke out in Europe, trade with Germany was cut off, but the US continued to trade with Britain, because those trade routes were still open. This led to the US contributing supplies to Britain, to reinforce the trade routes, which of course led to Germany's submarines, closing those trade routes, which of course led to US involvement in the war.

    The US could have stopped trade at any point in that sequence and the US would not have needed to go to war. But it didn't stop. Because it's a fat $#@!ing Timmy and it loves that trade chocolate yum yum yum.

    So....is your argument zero trade period? Not the Trump postion of "tarrifs on the bad guys" but just don't trade with anybody? Basically become imperial China? Ummm....okay. I thought we were talking about the Trump tariffs.
    My position is pretty simple:

    Free trade has pro's and con's and these should be weighed accordingly.

    If we can't have an honest debate that acknowledges simple realities that free trade can lead to war, just as tariffs can lead to war, then how am I supposed to trust that the proponents of free trade are doing so in a manner that is considerate of these risks?


    Except it isn't. The Trump tarriffs are the chocolate. But your argument seems to be "Don't let Timmy eat a damn thing!" Ummmm....okay. That's a guaranteeed way to get Timmy to lose weight.
    Free trade and tariffs are both chocolate.

    Yes. If Timmy goes on a starvation diet he will definitely lose weight. Eventually he'll starve to death, but before that he'll lose weight.
    Fat people can go a surprisingly long time without eating and still not starve.


    Not if you starve him to death.

    So...let Timmy starve to death. Got it.
    How about a more moderate position: maybe a little less chocolate?
    It's all about taking action and not being lazy. So you do the work, whether it's fitness or whatever. It's about getting up, motivating yourself and just doing it.
    - Kim Kardashian

    Donald Trump / Crenshaw 2024!!!!

    My pronouns are he/him/his

  11. #69
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    And who went to the U.N. to demand the sanctions? The U.S. of course! Anyway this is all irrelevant because apparently you don't want trade at all. Starve fat Timmy to death!
    And why did they go to the UN to demand the sanctions? Because of entangling alliances. And why did they have entangling alliances? Because they grew reliant on foreign trade.

    I'm not even sure what is so controversial about the above statements. Is it just pure stubbornness to avoid admitting that trade with other nations can have negative consequences?
    It's all about taking action and not being lazy. So you do the work, whether it's fitness or whatever. It's about getting up, motivating yourself and just doing it.
    - Kim Kardashian

    Donald Trump / Crenshaw 2024!!!!

    My pronouns are he/him/his

  12. #70
    Quote Originally Posted by Madison320 View Post
    So you don't think the fact that we changed from mostly capitalistic with small government to mostly socialistic with massive government had anything to do with us not being able to make anything?
    I think free trade -- or "free trade", because none of it was free trade by Ron Paul standards -- contributed greatly towards building that socalistic, massive government.

    It was our trade agreements, that led to the world being on the fiat US dollar, which led to our ability to print massive money, which led us to where we are now.
    It's all about taking action and not being lazy. So you do the work, whether it's fitness or whatever. It's about getting up, motivating yourself and just doing it.
    - Kim Kardashian

    Donald Trump / Crenshaw 2024!!!!

    My pronouns are he/him/his

  13. #71
    It's all about taking action and not being lazy. So you do the work, whether it's fitness or whatever. It's about getting up, motivating yourself and just doing it.
    - Kim Kardashian

    Donald Trump / Crenshaw 2024!!!!

    My pronouns are he/him/his

  14. #72
    Quote Originally Posted by TheTexan View Post
    And why did they go to the UN to demand the sanctions? Because of entangling alliances. And why did they have entangling alliances? Because they grew reliant on foreign trade.

    I'm not even sure what is so controversial about the above statements. Is it just pure stubbornness to avoid admitting that trade with other nations can have negative consequences?
    Actually the reverse is true. The U.S. sought "entangling alliances" because the U.S. wanted the rest of the world to go along with their little scheme.
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.



  15. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  16. #73
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    Actually the reverse is true. The U.S. sought "entangling alliances" because the U.S. wanted the rest of the world to go along with their little scheme.
    And why did the US want the rest of the world to go along with their little scheme?
    It's all about taking action and not being lazy. So you do the work, whether it's fitness or whatever. It's about getting up, motivating yourself and just doing it.
    - Kim Kardashian

    Donald Trump / Crenshaw 2024!!!!

    My pronouns are he/him/his

  17. #74
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    The U.S. was shipping weapons to Great Britain. That's why Germany started sinking our ships.
    Now ask why we took a side.
    We had far more trade (and thus other entanglements) with the UK.
    A mere 5% of Germany's imports and but 7% of Germany's exports were with N. America (that would include Mexico and Canada as well)

    One of the outstanding features of this war is its amazing demonstration of the economic power of England. Once Sir Walter Raleigh said that the nation which controlled the shipping of the world controlled the trade of the world and so the world itself. Sir Walter Raleigh stated the principle; the proof was in the great European War.
    England at the outset of the war owned over half the merchant shipping in the world. This she withdrew from all service that might aid her enemies. She controlled the marine insurance business. The withdrawal of English companies from participation in the underwriting of risks on German-American trade was one of the obstacles to the recovery of that trade. The London discount market, through which most of international trade had been financed, was withdrawn from the service of England's enemies.
    All this was a legitimate use of British economic power. For a belligerent to forbid trading with the enemy is as old as Tar itself. But England went further than this. We see uses of her power that strike us as more novel. The British naval power was used so to threaten with starvation the neutral nations of Europe that they agreed not only not to allow goods to pass through their territories in transit to Germany, but they even agreed not to supply Germany with their own products. Neutral merchants submit their books to English accountants who satisfy themselves that none of the neutral imports are resold into Germany.
    Early in the war the British cut the German cable, leaving us largely dependent on British and French cables for communication with northern Europe. When Italy entered the war, our dependence was complete. No message to European neutrals is allowed to reach its destination if the British censor imagines that it refers to a transaction that may be benefiting Germany. Sweden has complained that this exercise of the censor's imagination has seriously impaired her legitimate trade with us. In August, 1915, the packers were in Washington complaining of the cable censorship. They complained that, after creating the Netherlands Oversea Trust and designating it as the sole consignee for our exports to Holland, Britain was refusing to let our cables reach even the Trust.
    These cases represent unprecedented interference with the course of neutral trade. And yet Americans do not excite themselves unduly because of what Britain is doing to Denmark or Holland, even though it is our exports which are there being subjected to British supervision.
    Another set of cases comes nearer. Some of them are detailed in this chapter. Rubber from the British empire was withheld from the American trade until Americans signed an agreement not to manufacture rubber goods---from any rubber whatever---for the enemies of England. So with wool. So with tin.
    Because of a blockade which we do not recognize, we are cut off from imports from Germany, and we face serious industrial disturbance through the failure of the potash and dyestuffs supply.
    We already have seen that the Admiralty forced our copper exporters to place in its hands the direction of our copper trade. The Liverpool Cotton Exchange now apparently blacklists all Americans who do not sign an agreement not to deal with the enemies of Britain.
    It is indicated by Great Britain to the steamship lines carrying our exports that American shipments to neutral countries, if approved by British consuls, are less likely to be detained. Steamship lines refuse to take shipments until they are so approved. British consuls in American ports are engaged in accepting affidavits from American shippers that none of our exports for neutral countries will get through to Germany; though in our official protest to England we assert that for us to accede to the purpose of the ineffective British blockade would be to violate our neutral obligation to trade with both belligerents.
    It is impossible to reach this point without feeling that our American sovereignty is involved.
    More at: https://net.lib.byu.edu/estu/wwi/com...app/Clapp5.htm





    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    How exactly are you putting "an embargo on Japanese goods" in the "free trade" category?
    Same question, same answer.



    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    Hmmmm.....trying to "contain communism" in North Korea led to war and now Trump is trying to "contain communism" in China and that's different because......? Another entangling alliance masquerading as "free trade."
    There is no free trade with communist countries, they use trade warfare.
    Free trade and its necessary dependencies require that communism be contained or suppressed, or that we submit to communism.



    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    Yet another entangling alliance. Funny enough, once we "lost" the Vietnam war, Vietnam eventually because a tourist destination and exported wonderful goods and services to the U.S. like...flappy bird. (Being faecetious on flappy bird). Still, trade wasn't the problem. Entangling alliances were.
    Entangling alliances created by trade ties.




    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    The entangling alliance of the petro-dollar combined with the entangling alliance of the U.S. at first encouraging Saddam to invade Iran and then the Saddam being upset because Kuwait was undermining the price of oil when Saddam needed it to be high to pay off his Iran war debt.

    https://adst.org/2016/09/sparking-ir...nd-oil-access/

    Interestingly enough Israel supported Iran during the Iran / Iraq war. Another entangling alliance. (Oh what a tangled web we weave!)

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel...%80%93Iraq_war
    More trade created entangling alliances.


    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    The CIA wanted the opium fields the flourish again to fund their dirty wars. (Another entangling alliance). Unocal wanted a pipeline. And there are rare earth minerals. Not sure what any of this has to do with tarriffs though. The U.S. would be better off without the CIA's entangling alliances.
    More trade imperialism seeking resources cheaper than they could be obtained at home to benefit the rootless cosmopolitan international trade class and their pursuit of global government.



    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    Trade restrictions on Iraq likely motivated Osama Bin Laden to attack the U.S. Again the issue was the restriction of trade coupled with entangling alliances which fueled terrorism leading up to 9/11, 9/11 itself and the U.S. response to 9/11.



    500,000 Iraqis, most of them children, dead from U.S. restrictions on trade.

    So @Matt Collins might not have articulated the point in the most elloquent way, but he is correct. Free trade, real free trade, tends towards peace. But if you're going to pretend that embargos and/or CIA black market ops are somehow "free trade"....well that's kind of disingenous.
    We interfered in Iraq's trade, that's entirely different from protectionist tariffs.
    And, again, the reason we did so was because we were entangled in trade for cheap foreign oil and other trade connected entanglements.

    International trade on any significant scale causes wars, it has throughout history.
    And when it doesn't it causes integration and drift towards centralized tyranny and global government, like the EU.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  18. #75
    Quote Originally Posted by Madison320 View Post
    So you don't think the fact that we changed from mostly capitalistic with small government to mostly socialistic with massive government had anything to do with us not being able to make anything?
    Why were we able to do so without an immediate collapse and revolt?

    Because we could import cheap slave labor goods to mask the decline of our economy.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  19. #76
    Quote Originally Posted by TheTexan View Post
    Free trade and tariffs are both chocolate.
    No, tariffs are protein supplements for economic muscle building.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  20. #77
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Now ask why we took a side.
    We had far more trade (and thus other entanglements) with the UK.
    A mere 5% of Germany's imports and but 7% of Germany's exports were with N. America (that would include Mexico and Canada as well)

    One of the outstanding features of this war is its amazing demonstration of the economic power of England. Once Sir Walter Raleigh said that the nation which controlled the shipping of the world controlled the trade of the world and so the world itself. Sir Walter Raleigh stated the principle; the proof was in the great European War.
    England at the outset of the war owned over half the merchant shipping in the world. This she withdrew from all service that might aid her enemies. She controlled the marine insurance business. The withdrawal of English companies from participation in the underwriting of risks on German-American trade was one of the obstacles to the recovery of that trade. The London discount market, through which most of international trade had been financed, was withdrawn from the service of England's enemies.
    All this was a legitimate use of British economic power. For a belligerent to forbid trading with the enemy is as old as Tar itself. But England went further than this. We see uses of her power that strike us as more novel. The British naval power was used so to threaten with starvation the neutral nations of Europe that they agreed not only not to allow goods to pass through their territories in transit to Germany, but they even agreed not to supply Germany with their own products. Neutral merchants submit their books to English accountants who satisfy themselves that none of the neutral imports are resold into Germany.
    Early in the war the British cut the German cable, leaving us largely dependent on British and French cables for communication with northern Europe. When Italy entered the war, our dependence was complete. No message to European neutrals is allowed to reach its destination if the British censor imagines that it refers to a transaction that may be benefiting Germany. Sweden has complained that this exercise of the censor's imagination has seriously impaired her legitimate trade with us. In August, 1915, the packers were in Washington complaining of the cable censorship. They complained that, after creating the Netherlands Oversea Trust and designating it as the sole consignee for our exports to Holland, Britain was refusing to let our cables reach even the Trust.
    These cases represent unprecedented interference with the course of neutral trade. And yet Americans do not excite themselves unduly because of what Britain is doing to Denmark or Holland, even though it is our exports which are there being subjected to British supervision.
    Another set of cases comes nearer. Some of them are detailed in this chapter. Rubber from the British empire was withheld from the American trade until Americans signed an agreement not to manufacture rubber goods---from any rubber whatever---for the enemies of England. So with wool. So with tin.
    Because of a blockade which we do not recognize, we are cut off from imports from Germany, and we face serious industrial disturbance through the failure of the potash and dyestuffs supply.
    We already have seen that the Admiralty forced our copper exporters to place in its hands the direction of our copper trade. The Liverpool Cotton Exchange now apparently blacklists all Americans who do not sign an agreement not to deal with the enemies of Britain.
    It is indicated by Great Britain to the steamship lines carrying our exports that American shipments to neutral countries, if approved by British consuls, are less likely to be detained. Steamship lines refuse to take shipments until they are so approved. British consuls in American ports are engaged in accepting affidavits from American shippers that none of our exports for neutral countries will get through to Germany; though in our official protest to England we assert that for us to accede to the purpose of the ineffective British blockade would be to violate our neutral obligation to trade with both belligerents.
    It is impossible to reach this point without feeling that our American sovereignty is involved.
    More at: https://net.lib.byu.edu/estu/wwi/com...app/Clapp5.htm






    Same question, same answer.




    There is no free trade with communist countries, they use trade warfare.
    Free trade and its necessary dependencies require that communism be contained or suppressed, or that we submit to communism.




    Entangling alliances created by trade ties.





    More trade created entangling alliances.



    More trade imperialism seeking resources cheaper than they could be obtained at home to benefit the rootless cosmopolitan international trade class and their pursuit of global government.




    We interfered in Iraq's trade, that's entirely different from protectionist tariffs.
    And, again, the reason we did so was because we were entangled in trade for cheap foreign oil and other trade connected entanglements.

    International trade on any significant scale causes wars, it has throughout history.
    And when it doesn't it causes integration and drift towards centralized tyranny and global government, like the EU.
    Nothing in your wall of text has anything to do with protective tarriffs. Not unless you think protective tarriffs on British goods somehow would have changed anything.
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  21. #78
    Quote Originally Posted by TheTexan View Post
    And why did the US want the rest of the world to go along with their little scheme?
    I'm sure it had nothing to do with protective tarriffs one way or the other.
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  22. #79
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    unless you think protective tarriffs on British goods somehow would have changed anything.
    It begins to penetrate.

    And even if America couldn't produce its own rubber or something at the time it still demonstrates that it was the trade ties that got us involved on one side or the other.
    Less trade ties=less wars.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  23. #80
    I've been hoping that someone would make the Ron Paul argument, but noone has even tried. Here's a hint:

    "Managed trade, not free trade, of course creates trade dependencies and entangled alliances and leads to wars. Free market free trade however, ----- and this is the part where you educate me on how "free market free trade" is different, in such a manner that it doesn't create trade dependencies (or even, significantly fewer)".

    I have an open mind. I'm willing to be educated on the subject, if anyone does have any legitimate answers, rather than stubborn outright refusals that trade of any kind can have any negative effects (which even Ron Paul disagrees with).
    It's all about taking action and not being lazy. So you do the work, whether it's fitness or whatever. It's about getting up, motivating yourself and just doing it.
    - Kim Kardashian

    Donald Trump / Crenshaw 2024!!!!

    My pronouns are he/him/his



  24. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  25. #81
    Quote Originally Posted by TheTexan View Post
    I've been hoping that someone would make the Ron Paul argument, but noone has even tried. Here's a hint:

    "Managed trade, not free trade, of course creates trade dependencies and entangled alliances and leads to wars. Free market free trade however, ----- and this is the part where you educate me on how "free market free trade" is different, in such a manner that it doesn't create trade dependencies (or even, significantly fewer)".

    I have an open mind. I'm willing to be educated on the subject, if anyone does have any legitimate answers, rather than stubborn outright refusals that trade of any kind can have any negative effects (which even Ron Paul disagrees with).
    The prophets of "REAL" free trade all declare that it creates interdependence and the concentration of various industries in various locations where there is supposedly natural advantage.
    They portray the result as a good thing and even pronounce that it will prevent wars.
    History shows that it either causes wars as nations are required to fight for their foreign interests, or that it produces integration and the loss of independence to a global monoculture of the lowest common denominator, and global government institutions as the concentrated production and distribution of wealth is just too strong of an incentive to the power mad and makes trying to control it so much simpler and easier.
    Just look how the commerce clause and enforced internal free trade has empowered the federal government or how the common market became the EU tyranny.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  26. #82
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    It begins to penetrate.

    And even if America couldn't produce its own rubber or something at the time it still demonstrates that it was the trade ties that got us involved on one side or the other.
    Less trade ties=less wars.
    Protective tarriffs against countries you don't like = more entanglements, not less. Trump isn't pushing for tarriffs against Great Britain...or Saudi Arabia....or Israel. If there had been any protective tarriffs leading up to WW 1 they would have been against Germany just like we had an embargo against Japan leading up to WW 2. Reality is the exact opposite of what you're arguing. But if you want to have zero trade with any country like ancient China did, at least that's an argument. (Starving Timmy @TheTexan). The result was that China, which had led the world in innovation (i.e. the invention of gunpowder) fell behind the rest of the world. Pick your poison. (Or your chocolate).
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  27. #83
    Quote Originally Posted by TheTexan View Post
    I've been hoping that someone would make the Ron Paul argument, but noone has even tried. Here's a hint:

    "Managed trade, not free trade, of course creates trade dependencies and entangled alliances and leads to wars. Free market free trade however, ----- and this is the part where you educate me on how "free market free trade" is different, in such a manner that it doesn't create trade dependencies (or even, significantly fewer)".

    I have an open mind. I'm willing to be educated on the subject, if anyone does have any legitimate answers, rather than stubborn outright refusals that trade of any kind can have any negative effects (which even Ron Paul disagrees with).
    I haven't heard anybody say that trade of any kind doesn't have any negative effects. That's a straw man argument. And for the record I'm not philosphoically against tarriffs per se. But your arguments about trade do not make the case that protective tarriffs somehow prevent war. Easiest example is Japan and Wolrd War 2. It was the restriction on trade as put forward in your argument that helped lead to war.
    Last edited by jmdrake; 10-31-2024 at 08:13 AM.
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  28. #84
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    The prophets of "REAL" free trade all declare that it creates interdependence and the concentration of various industries in various locations where there is supposedly natural advantage.
    Yea, that argument makes no sense to me at all.

    a) There is no "natural advantage" to building a product in China, versus here, in terms of human labor, skill, or resources. The only "advantage" is a temporary and an artificially manufactured one

    b) To the extent that global specialization would develop in a free market, that pretty much by definition means there would be greater dependencies

    I remain open to the idea that I could be wrong, but the proponents of free trade generally and often refuse to acknowledge that even managed trade is bad, and resort to ad-hominem attacks when the questions start getting difficult for them. (Or they just call anything they refuse to answer directly a "strawman argument")
    Last edited by TheTexan; 10-31-2024 at 08:11 AM.
    It's all about taking action and not being lazy. So you do the work, whether it's fitness or whatever. It's about getting up, motivating yourself and just doing it.
    - Kim Kardashian

    Donald Trump / Crenshaw 2024!!!!

    My pronouns are he/him/his

  29. #85
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    I haven't heard anybody say that trand of any kind doesn't have any negative effects. That's a straw man argument.
    Well, a simple acknowledgement that trade does have negative effects, would help move the debate forward.

    So far there's not even been that.
    It's all about taking action and not being lazy. So you do the work, whether it's fitness or whatever. It's about getting up, motivating yourself and just doing it.
    - Kim Kardashian

    Donald Trump / Crenshaw 2024!!!!

    My pronouns are he/him/his

  30. #86
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    Protective tarriffs against countries you don't like = more entanglements, not less.
    That's ridiculous, if we trade less with them then we are less affected by anything they do and have less reason to do anything about them.
    It's literally less entangled, if they didn't exist or we had a complete embargo we would have zero entanglement with them.

    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    Trump isn't pushing for tarriffs against Great Britain...or Saudi Arabia....or Israel.
    Trump is pushing for tariffs on everyone, some more than others as is appropriate, but on everyone.

    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    If there had been any protective tarriffs leading up to WW 1 they would have been against Germany just like we had an embargo against Japan leading up to WW 2.
    That's nonsense, you assume the outcome and use it to calculate the lead up of events.
    We had the most trade with Britain so we would have the most tariffs on Britain in order to build our own ability to supply our needs without them.
    We would have had less pressure on us to side with Britain in order to keep from disrupting our economy.
    The same was the case with WWII, we sided with Britain over Japan because of our greater dependence on trade with the British Empire and the other cultural entanglements it contributed to.

    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    Reality is the exact opposite of what you're arguing.
    That would be you.

    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    But if you want to have zero trade with any country like ancient China did, at least that's an argument. (Starving Timmy @TheTexan). The result was that China, which had led the world in innovation (i.e. the invention of gunpowder) fell behind the rest of the world. Pick your poison. (Or your chocolate).
    That's nonsense, China's cultural and bureaucratic problems suppressed its innovation and the practical application of what it did innovate.
    And you don't have to cut off all trade, you only need to ensure you can produce your own needs in the absence of imports by protecting your own industries
    There are a vary few things we might not be able to produce for ourselves, but at least our foreign interests would be minimized and so would our risk of being drawn into war or global government, and we might be able to find substitutes for them.

    China's great downfall was the Opium Wars, and it was trade that caused the opium wars.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  31. #87
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    The result was that China, which had led the world in innovation (i.e. the invention of gunpowder) fell behind the rest of the world. Pick your poison. (Or your chocolate).
    That was also before the internet. It's entirely possible to keep up with the world, and even surpass, without trade. (or rather, very limited trade)
    It's all about taking action and not being lazy. So you do the work, whether it's fitness or whatever. It's about getting up, motivating yourself and just doing it.
    - Kim Kardashian

    Donald Trump / Crenshaw 2024!!!!

    My pronouns are he/him/his

  32. #88
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    That's ridiculous, if we trade less with them then we are less affected by anything they do and have less reason to do anything about them.
    It's literally less entangled, if they didn't exist or we had a complete embargo we would have zero entanglement with them.
    We traded less with Japan and according to @TheTexan's ChatGPT generated response that led to war so you're full of shyt.

    Edit: And it appears that the problem is you don't understand the term "entangling alliance." Let's use a practical example. We trade with China and we trade with Taiwan. But we have an entangling alliance with Taiwan and not with China. If China invades Taiwan we have kind of, sort of committed ourselves to defending Taiwan. On the flip side we have not promised to defend China if they were attacked. You can have trade without an entangling alliance.

    Now, here's what you don't understand about protective tarriffs. They always benefit somebody. Our embargo with Japan resulted in greater entanglement with the countries Japan was fighting. But hey, if you want zero trade at all at least that is an argument.
    Last edited by jmdrake; 10-31-2024 at 08:30 AM.
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.



  33. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  34. #89
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    We traded less with Japan and according to @TheTexan's ChatGPT generated response that led to war so you're full of shyt.
    And why did it lead to war?
    Because we had been trading with them and it created a dependency on trade with us that we then cut off in favor of our greater entanglement with the British.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  35. #90
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    And why did it lead to war?
    Because we had been trading with them and it created a dependency on trade with us that we then cut off in favor of our greater entanglement with the British.
    It's all about taking action and not being lazy. So you do the work, whether it's fitness or whatever. It's about getting up, motivating yourself and just doing it.
    - Kim Kardashian

    Donald Trump / Crenshaw 2024!!!!

    My pronouns are he/him/his

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Low Inflation Shows Tariffs Have Not Hurt U.S. Consumers
    By Swordsmyth in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-31-2019, 06:36 PM
  2. Replies: 17
    Last Post: 05-11-2019, 05:57 PM
  3. Trump's tariffs now cost Americans more than Obamacare taxes
    By TheCount in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: 10-12-2018, 08:05 PM
  4. Replies: 106
    Last Post: 03-12-2018, 03:14 PM
  5. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 07-24-2014, 10:17 AM

Posting Permissions

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