Conservatives and the Free Trade Straw Man

[Swordsmyth]

To avoid the semantic circle jerk, can you provide a word for me to use besides wealth?

I am defining wealth as generally "an asset that is used as a store of value (for later exchange) or a means of production". Clearly, you, Krug, and SOL do not like nor approve of using the word "wealth" to meet this definition.

Can you either:
1) Provide an alternate word for "wealth" that I can use to mean "an asset that is used as a store of value (for later exchange) or a means of production",
or,
2) Agree to use the above definition of "wealth" for the purpose of this discussion,
or
3) Tell me with a straight face that a lawn chair is "an asset that is used as a store of value (for later exchange) or a means of production"

My hat is off to you for spending your time on this.
I'm done with it, they don't want to learn.
They keep asking questions that have already been answered and ignoring the replies.

[TheTexan]

My hat is off to you for spending your time on this.
I'm done with it, they don't want to learn.
They keep asking questions that have already been answered and ignoring the replies.

Yup, have to call it a night though.

Got to get up early tomorrow to deposit my lawn chairs at the bank.

[tebowlives]

You're not understanding my point.

You cannot get wealthy by spending money on consumer items and services. Otherwise I could become Jeff Bezos rich by spending my savings on hookers & coke. If only it were so.

When you buy a pack of gum from a store, the store owner is receiving wealth. You are spending wealth.

I understand you receive value in exchange for your wealth, but the wealth only goes one way. To the store owner.

Isn't spending a symptom of wealth? You gain wealth to spend it.

[Brian4Liberty]

Strangely the people of the United States keep getting wealthier and wealthier all the while running a trade deficit.

Life keeps getting better and better and people have more and better products and services and yet you and Ross Perot and Pat Buchanan and the preppers keep thinking the country is going to look like Detroit any day now.

The country has run a trade deficit for almost the entirety of the last 220 years. Maybe someday you will be right and it will be instant poverty and a collapse dollar. Wrong for 220 years but keep the faith. Someday in the arc of history maybe you will be right.

"The people". You seem to conflate the entire nation with "the people". GDP is not divided up and delivered equally to every person in the nation.

What is wrong with Detroit? Are "the people" of Detroit not included in the "the people" of the US?

If the US has indeed gotten wealthier over the past few decades (debatable), it is despite the bad policies of this country.

By your argument, the Federal Reserve must be awesome because the people of the US keep getting wealthier and wealthier.

The world revolves around Wall St., didn't you know? What's good for Wall St. is good for "the people". And the peons are much better off and "wealthier" because they can all get a cheap big screen TV. Are they not entertained?

Yet none of you will address any of my points directly, preferring to delve into semantic rabbit holes and knocking down straw men.

What's really funny too, is the semantic circle jerk with Adam Smith, because even Adam Smith would agree that a lawn chair is not $#@!ing wealth. To say otherwise is to grossly misinterpret his writings.

But it's not just a lawn chair! You can have a big screen TV, an iPhone, and an Amazon Alexa in every room of your stack a prole cube in the city, or in your zero property line house in the suburbs.

But ugh, Jeff Bezos is wealthy because of what he can buy with is wealth. Under your system he would have green squares that he could use to purchase fewer things than he can buy now.

Jeff Bezos would be poorer if you had your way.

Yes, the wealth of Jeff Bezos is the wealth of "the people". A nation with 500 extremely wealthy people and 500,000,000 peons is a wealthy nation, on average.

[A Son of Liberty]

But it's not just a lawn chair! You can have a big screen TV, an iPhone, and an Amazon Alexa in every room of your stack a prole cube in the city, or in your zero property line house in the suburbs.

Conversely, I can do pikes into piles of gold coins for entertainment!

Nothing says "wealth" like Scrooge McDuck living in a cold, lifeless house with piles of money! He's saving it for... what is it, exactly? So he can say he has it, or something?

[TheTexan]

Conversely, I can do pikes into piles of gold coins for entertainment!

Nothing says "wealth" like Scrooge McDuck living in a cold, lifeless house with piles of money! He's saving it for... what is it, exactly? So he can say he has it, or something?

Yep and I'm gonna go deposit my lawn chairs at the bank.

I don't think any of you want to answer post #240 because it really cuts through this semantic gymnastics you guys are using to try to avoid the point.

The thing is - you free trade people can acknowledge my point as true (which it factually and provably is) - without losing any ground on your position. I don't know why you guys are bending over backwards so $#@!ing hard to try to convince me that a lawn chair is an asset class that secures the long-term economic security of the person who owns it.

When I raised the point I expected it to be agreed upon as an obvious point of fact that we could use as a foundation for a real debate but instead we are circle jerking each other with semantic bull$#@!. Why?? Why is this simple point so hard for you guys to acknowledge?

[A Son of Liberty]

Yep and I'm gonna go deposit my lawn chairs at the bank.

I don't think any of you want to answer post #240 because it really cuts through this semantic gymnastics you guys are using to try to avoid the point.

The thing is - you free trade people can acknowledge my point as true (which it factually and provably is) - without losing any ground on your position. I don't know why you guys are bending over backwards so $#@!ing hard to try to convince me that a lawn chair is an asset class that secures the long-term economic security of the person who owns it.

When I raised the point I expected it to be agreed upon as an obvious point of fact that we could use as a foundation for a real debate but instead we are circle jerking each other with semantic bull$#@!. Why?? Why is this simple point so hard for you guys to acknowledge?

I hadn't read post #240.

The point we're making was made by @CCTelander, when he pointed out that it is not a TRANSFER of wealth, but an EXCHANGE of wealth.

I agree with you that plastic Chinese lawn chairs aren't to be deposited in a savings account, but what is the point of the money that has been accumulated in a savings account if it cannot be exchanged for goods? And why should I not seek the best price for the goods I wish to secure, without interference by rent-seeking companies who can't compete on price? (ETA: and, again, I'm not here speaking in defense of what is currently construed to be "free trade", by any means).

As to the question you posed in post #240, I would say that wealth is simply an expression of the fruits of your labor. In some cases, that expression of the fruits of your labor is used to secure future comfort, and sometimes that expression of the fruits of your labor is used to secure present desires. In some cases, it's a 401K, in others, it's a sports car.

Trade is non-binary. I can trade goods and services with people within the arbitrarily defined boundaries of some state or outside of it. I'm not defining those boundaries. It's absurd to do so. Why should I care particularly where a good or service is procured?

You may have bought BTC at some point. Do you know whether or not that BTC was mined in China? If it was, do you not consider it securing wealth?

[Invisible Man]

The point we're making was made by @CCTelander, when he pointed out that it is not a TRANSFER of wealth, but an EXCHANGE of wealth.

Sometimes China gets accused of dumping. I'm not versed enough on the specific charges, or the latest examples, to know if this is what's really happening in any given case.

But if it ever is true that that's what they're doing, then it is a TRANSFER of wealth from China to us.

Ironically, protectionists always try to paint it as the opposite.

[TheTexan]

I hadn't read post #240.

The point we're making was made by @CCTelander, when he pointed out that it is not a TRANSFER of wealth, but an EXCHANGE of wealth.

I agree with you that plastic Chinese lawn chairs aren't to be deposited in a savings account, but what is the point of the money that has been accumulated in a savings account if it cannot be exchanged for goods? And why should I not seek the best price for the goods I wish to secure, without interference by rent-seeking companies who can't compete on price?

As to the question you posed in post #240, I would say that wealth is simply an expression of the fruits of your labor. In some cases, that expression of the fruits of your labor is used to secure future comfort, and sometimes that expression of the fruits of your labor is used to secure present desires. In some cases, it's a 401K, in others, it's a sports car.

Trade is non-binary. I can trade goods and services with people within the arbitrarily defined boundaries of some state or outside of it. I'm not defining those boundaries. It's absurd to do so. Why should I care particularly where a good or service is procured?

You may have bought BTC at some point. Do you know whether or not that BTC was mined in China? If it was, do you not consider it securing wealth?

When talking about economics its common to talk about the aggregate effects.

To try to make my point I have been trying to illustrate the effects of a single transaction: the purchase of a lawn chair.

The immediate net effect of this transaction, is:

1) I lose $30. I gain a lawn chair.
2) Kim Song-Sai gains $30. He loses a lawn chair.

Fast forward 10 years later, this is what happened to those assets:

1) My lawn chair is broken and was dumped a couple years ago somewhere in the North China Sea
2) Kim Song-Sai invested his $30, it became $100, and he used that to start a food cart business that he now uses to feed his family

What I am ultimately trying to get at, and this individual point is indisputable:

The net effect of the individual lawn chair transaction is a transfer of economic security ("wealth", "capital", "money and/or means of production", whatever). As a result of this transaction, Kim Song-Sai is building a better future for himself. I, by purchasing a lawn chair, am building a better present for myself, at the expense of my future. It is an economic fact that if I had invested the $30 in productive assets, instead of a lawn chair, I would be better off in the future.

Can we agree to the above point? (I realize that there is a lot more to it than just that, but getting on the same page on the above is a prerequisite to having any kind of meaningful discussion.)

[A Son of Liberty]

When talking about economics its common to talk about the aggregate effects.

To try to make my point I have been trying to illustrate the effects of a single transaction: the purchase of a lawn chair.

The immediate net effect of this transaction, is:

1) I lose $30. I gain a lawn chair.
2) Kim Song-Sai gains $30. He loses a lawn chair.

Fast forward 10 years later, this is what happened to those assets:

1) My lawn chair is broken and was dumped a couple years ago somewhere in the North China Sea
2) Kim Song-Sai invested his $30, it became $100, and he used that to start a food cart business that he now uses to feed his family

What I am ultimately trying to get at, and this individual point is indisputable:

The net effect of the individual lawn chair transaction is a transfer of economic security ("wealth", "capital", "money and/or means of production", whatever). As a result of this transaction, Kim Song-Sai is building a better future for himself. I, by purchasing a lawn chair, am building a better present for myself, at the expense of my future. It is an economic fact that if I had invested the $30 in productive assets, instead of a lawn chair, I would be better off in the future.

Can we agree to the above point?

Yeah, I can agree with that formulation. But I'm just not sure why I should care that Kim is working to secure his future. I, however, feel secure enough in my future that I'm comfortable taking $30 of the fruits of my labor in exchange for something I want. I wouldn't expect that I would be jeopardizing my future to buy a chair that I want. In fact, buy seeking out the best price for it, I'm leveraging less of my labor than I would be in a protectionist environment. Kim made something I want, and I bought it from him because he offered me the best value for it. I'm not sure why it matters to me if he lives on the other side of the Pacific, or the other side of the Potomac River?

I'm not intent on sending all of the fruits of my labor to Kim. I'm discerning. I'm taking some of the fruits of my labor down to the investment firm, and I'm taking some of it to the local realtor, and I'm asking them to capitalize on the fruits of my labor. Again, this isn't a zero-sum game - I'm using my wealth to not only get the chair I want at a good price, but I'm also using some of it to secure a better future for myself and my lineage. It's not like my only options in life are to purchase Chinese goods...

[TheTexan]

Yeah, I can agree with that formulation. But I'm just not sure why I should care that Kim is working to secure his future. I, however, feel secure enough in my future that I'm comfortable taking $30 of the fruits of my labor in exchange for something I want. I wouldn't expect that I would be jeopardizing my future to buy a chair that I want. In fact, buy seeking out the best price for it, I'm leveraging less of my labor than I would be in a protectionist environment. Kim made something I want, and I bought it from him because he offered me the best value for it. I'm not sure why it matters to me if he lives on the other side of the Pacific, or the other side of the Potomac River?

I'm not intent on sending all of the fruits of my labor to Kim. I'm discerning. I'm taking some of the fruits of my labor down to the investment firm, and I'm taking some of it to the local realtor, and I'm asking them to capitalize on the fruits of my labor. Again, this isn't a zero-sum game - I'm using my wealth to not only get the chair I want at a good price, but I'm also using some of it to secure a better future for myself and my lineage. It's not like my only options in life are to purchase Chinese goods...

I use China as an example but really the above formulation applies to every transaction with any person or any country.

If we are in agreement that:
A consumer purchase is a transfer of future economic security from one person to another.

Can we agree then that the below is true?
When America imports consumer goods, it has a negative effect on America's economic future and corresponding positive effect on the other country's economic future
When America exports consumer goods, it has a positive effect on America's economic future and corresponding negative effect on the other country's economic future
When America builds and then consumes those consumer goods, it has a positive effect on both America's present and America's futures

If you disagree with the above statements, can you tell me why we can agree that it can be true for an individual transaction, but is no longer true when considered in the aggregate?

[Brian4Liberty]

Conversely, I can do pikes into piles of gold coins for entertainment!

Nothing says "wealth" like Scrooge McDuck living in a cold, lifeless house with piles of money! He's saving it for... what is it, exactly? So he can say he has it, or something?

Value is subjective. A pile of gold coins may be entertainment for someone. The same goes for any collections of things. Cars, shoes, baseball cards, art, guns, vinyl records, whatever. What use do they really have? You can only drive one vehicle at a time. Stored wealth can have value for the future, as well as piece of mind.

My point remains that some cheap items in the house does not equal wealth or happiness. And a greater problem for some people is shrinking property and over-crowding. That effects happiness too.

[A Son of Liberty]

I use China as an example but really the above formulation applies to every transaction with any person or any country.

If we are in agreement that:
A consumer purchase is a transfer of future economic security from one person to another.

Can we agree then that the below is true?
When America imports consumer goods, it has a negative effect on America's economic future and corresponding positive effect on the other country's economic future
When America exports consumer goods, it has a positive effect on America's economic future and corresponding negative effect on the other country's economic future

If you disagree with the above statements, can you tell me why we can agree that it can be true for an individual transaction, but is no longer true when considered in the aggregate?

I just want to reiterate that I'm not advocating the current "free trade" paradigm, before I proceed.


When I purchase a pack of gum from the local convenience store, I'm not securing my long-term wealth. I'm taking a percentage of my long-term wealth and using it to secure an item that I want NOW. That does not mean that I'm sacrificing my entire long term wealth. In fact, when I discern between the price of a pack of gum between 2 convenience stores, I'd be a fool to choose the more expensive option, regardless of how much gum I planned to purchase. I'd be a sucker to be coerced to purchase the more expensive option, also.

When I exchange my labor for money, I do not suppose that my employer has experienced a negative effect by having paid me.

In both cases, we have voluntarily exchanged goods/services for the fruits of our labor, and both sides are made better.

This is the ENITRE point of capitalism. Erecting trade barriers only negatively impacts both parties, to the benefit of an uninvolved 3rd party (the state).

I think we're yet again at a point where we're talking past each other, my man lol. Too bad you're in Texas and I'm in the People's Republic of Maryland. I'd love to crack a beer with you and hash through this in person. I bet it would be a laugh!

[TheTexan]

I just want to reiterate that I'm not advocating the current "free trade" paradigm, before I proceed.


When I purchase a pack of gum from the local convenience store, I'm not securing my long-term wealth. I'm taking a percentage of my long-term wealth and using it to secure an item that I want NOW. That does not mean that I'm sacrificing my entire long term wealth. In fact, when I discern between the price of a pack of gum between 2 convenience stores, I'd be a fool to choose the more expensive option, regardless of how much gum I planned to purchase. I'd be a sucker to be coerced to purchase the more expensive option, also.

When I exchange my labor for money, I do not suppose that my employer has experienced a negative effect by having paid me.

In both cases, we have voluntarily exchanged goods/services for the fruits of our labor, and both sides are made better.

This is the ENITRE point of capitalism. Erecting trade barriers only negatively impacts both parties, to the benefit of an uninvolved 3rd party (the state).

I think we're yet again at a point where we're talking past each other, my man lol. Too bad you're in Texas and I'm in the People's Republic of Maryland. I'd love to crack a beer with you and hash through this in person. I bet it would be a laugh!

I updated my post with a late edit, which I think gets to the heart of my point:

When America imports consumer goods, it has a negative effect on America's economic future and corresponding positive effect on the other country's economic future
When America exports consumer goods, it has a positive effect on America's economic future and corresponding negative effect on the other country's economic future
When America builds and then consumes those consumer goods, it has a positive effect on both America's present and America's future

The above statements I believe are provably true. So given the option #1 of importing at the expense of our future, and the option #3 at manufacturing to benefit our present & future,

If we assume the above statements as true, how can #1 ever be economically justified? (aside ethical justifications)

The only time it seems to make sense, is if we were to lack the skills or manpower to build something. Which simply is not true at all. We have millions of people in this country who would be overjoyed to have a factory job. But instead of helping them - and helping us at the same time - we are helping China.

I'm in the People's Republic of Maryland

Hopefully you get out before they start loading up the trains

[Brian4Liberty]

Sometimes China gets accused of dumping. I'm not versed enough on the specific charges, or the latest examples, to know if this is what's really happening in any given case.

But if it ever is true that that's what they're doing, then it is a TRANSFER of wealth from China to us.

Ironically, protectionists always try to paint it as the opposite.

And a mouse might view a piece of cheese in a mouse-trap as a lucky break. Free cheese!

[GlennwaldSnowdenAssanged]

And a mouse might view a piece of cheese in a mouse-trap as a lucky break. Free cheese!

I had a dog that found a mouse trap with peanut butter smeared on it once.

[Brian4Liberty]

...
The above statements I believe are provably true. So given the option #1 of importing at the expense of our future, and the option #3 at manufacturing to benefit our present & future,

If we assume the above statements as true, how can #1 ever be economically justified? (aside ethical justifications)

The only time it seems to make sense, is if we were to lack the skills or manpower to build something. Which simply is not true at all. We have millions of people in this country who would be overjoyed to have a factory job. But instead of helping them - and helping us at the same time - we are helping China.
...

Yeah, there are a lot of considerations that should go into it. Seems to me that a lot of the conversation revolves around short term vs. long term.

[TheTexan]

Yeah, there are a lot of considerations that should go into it. Seems to me that a lot of the conversation revolves around short term vs. long term.

As an individual, there are times in my life where I am building my future.

There are also times in my life when its all hookers & coke.

But there has to be a balance.

With America currently there is no balance.

There is just hookers & coke.

[Brian4Liberty]

As an individual, there are times in my life where I am building my future.

There are also times in my life when its all hookers & coke.

But there has to be a balance.

With America currently there is no balance.

There is just hookers & coke.

Short term profit, hookers and coke is what drives most of Wall Street.

[A Son of Liberty]

The above statements I believe are provably true. So given the option #1 of importing at the expense of our future, and the option #3 at manufacturing to benefit our present & future,

If we assume the above statements as true, how can #1 ever be economically justified? (aside ethical justifications)

The only time it seems to make sense, is if we were to lack the skills or manpower to build something. Which simply is not true at all. We have millions of people in this country who would be overjoyed to have a factory job. But instead of helping them - and helping us at the same time - we are helping China.

I've mentioned on more than one occasion in this thread that it's not as though we ONLY buy goods from China in exchange for our currency. Some things we buy from them, and some things we do not. We do buy stupid plastic stuff from them, because they can make those things more efficiently than we can (and - again - I'm not arguing on behalf of the current quote-unquote free trade paradigm, but, for the sake of argument...)

We're securing our wealth by purchasing goods that we want, by discerning that they can provide it at a more economical cost. You refer to "we" and "them", but I'm not sure how I'm benefitted by thinking of "the Chinese" as "them" and people here as "us: I want a good; other people have that good to offer to me at various prices. So, again, why shouldn't I seek that good at the most economical price?

Hopefully you get out before they start loading up the trains

Thanks bud. I'm a short hop from WV, and I've been scoping out land over there.

[TheTexan]

We do buy stupid plastic stuff from them, because they can make those things more efficiently than we can (and - again - I'm not arguing on behalf of the current quote-unquote free trade paradigm, but, for the sake of argument...)

That's just the thing- in terms of human manpower, we can make that stuff just as efficiently as they can. Exactly the same amount of human effort.

They aren't any better at it than we are.

They are just poor.

That's their economic advantage: they are poor and desperate.

That's not a "specialization" in the sense that Adam Smith was envisioning.

We're securing our wealth by purchasing goods that we want, by discerning that they can provide it at a more economical cost. You refer to "we" and "them", but I'm not sure how I'm benefitted by thinking of "the Chinese" as "them" and people here as "us: I want a good; other people have that good to offer to me at various prices. So, again, why shouldn't I seek that good at the most economical price?

This logic is fair. However it does not address the counterpoints of protectionism. Protectionism asserts that by reducing imports and keeping manufacturing domestically, it raises wages across the board for the protectionist nation. Logic and basic economics back that up as indisputably true.

Which however begs the question: does it raise wages enough, to counter-balance the opportunity cost of buying stuff from China? It's a complicated question with complicated math - I don't know the answer, and I think anyone who says they do know the answer is full of $#@!.

[A Son of Liberty]

That's just the thing- in terms of human manpower, we can make that stuff just as efficiently as they can. Exactly the same amount of human effort.

They aren't any better at it than we are.

They are just poor.

That's their economic advantage: they are poor and desperate.

That's not a "specialization" in the sense that Adam Smith was envisioning.

Okay. Why should I spend more money to buy a piece of plastic from someone on the other side of the Potomac than I should from someone on the other side of the Pacific?

[TheTexan]

Okay. Why should I spend more money to buy a piece of plastic from someone on the other side of the Potomac than I should from someone on the other side of the Pacific?

See my ninja edit above.

[A Son of Liberty]

See my ninja edit above.

Because "America"?

[TheTexan]

Because "America"?

It's as valid reason as any.

I get the whole "I'm an individual I hate collectivism cus I'm a cool state hating anarchist" thing.

But collections of people have existed since the beginning of time and to assert they have no value or purpose I think is misguided.

[TheTexan]

Another way to look at this is this:

It's a general rule that wealthy people get wealthier. It's because wealth is exponential. If you have a great deal of wealth, it becomes easier and easier to generate more and more wealth.

At the end of World War 2, America was the wealthiest country in the world.

Then free trade happened. America began spending its wealth, distributing it across the world.

If America had instead closed its borders, and focused inwards, and retained our manufacturing here, instead of subsidizing the development of 3rd world countries,

America would be above and beyond the wealthiest country in the world, far beyond what we are today.

The rest of the world would be a complete $#@!hole, moreso than today.

But here in America we'd have cool robots that wash our dishes and sucks our dick like Rosey in the Jetson.

[TheTexan]

Instead, we're all gonna be speaking Chinese in 30 years because "omg free trade derp"

[A Son of Liberty]

It's as valid reason as any.

I get the whole "I'm an individual I hate collectivism cus I'm a cool state hating anarchist" thing.

But collections of people have existed since the beginning of time and to assert they have no value or purpose I think is misguided.

It's also as invalid a reason as any.

Don't be pedantic, man. This has been a good conversation. Don't ruin it.

Also I don't ever remember Rosie sucking a dick.

[TheTexan]

It's also as invalid a reason as any.

If you hate America, look at it then at a smaller scale.

Replace "America" with "your family & friends".

Would you rather:
1) Buy a $30 lawn chair from your friend, who frequents your shop often in turn, or
2) Buy a $29 lawn chair from some random dude in China so he can spend it in China

Is the $1 savings worth it?

[Brian4Liberty]

Another way to look at this is this:

It's a general rule that wealthy people get wealthier. It's because wealth is exponential. If you have a great deal of wealth, it becomes easier and easier to generate more and more wealth.

At the end of World War 2, America was the wealthiest country in the world.

Then free trade happened. America began spending its wealth, distributing it across the world.

If America had instead closed its borders, and focused inwards, and retained our manufacturing here, instead of subsidizing the development of 3rd world countries,

America would be above and beyond the wealthiest country in the world, far beyond what we are today.
...

But there would be less billionaires in America. The Walton family would have a business which may have grown enough to compete with JC Penny. They would not be billionaires. Jeff Bezos would be working as a programmer somewhere.