Why so many protectionists here?

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Helps to understand sarcasm, NCL. It's one of the reasons I enjoy @TheCount so much.

Sorry to say that the guy is playing you, Ender. Ask him his views on this or any subject here. I guarantee you won't get an answer.

[jmdrake]

Sorry to say that the guy is playing you, Ender. Ask him his views on this or any subject here. I guarantee you won't get an answer.

And I would say that @AuH2O is playing you. Rather than actually addressing whether restricting H1B visas makes any economic sense (it doesn't by the way) he went off on some ramble about fiat currency which he never actually tied to the thread. But hey, just stick to your Count hating and don't actually engage the thread.

[undergroundrr]

Hmmmmm....I wasn't aware of that statistic.

Yeah, it's not even really new news. We lose perspective from being pummeled with the same anti-immigrant rhetoric over and over and over.

As of three years ago, Census figures show, India and China eclipsed Mexico as the top sources of U.S. immigrants, whether authorized or not. In 2013, 147,000 Chinese immigrants and 129,000 Indians came to the U.S., compared with 125,000 Mexicans.

http://www.voanews.com/a/immigrants-...a/3548112.html

[Madison320]

I know and I don't blame you. A lot of the claims made by anti-immigrationists seem to make "logical sense" until you actually look at the data.

https://fee.org/articles/hispanics-a...her-americans/
https://panampost.com/editor/2016/08...an-candidates/
http://reason.com/blog/2014/09/08/hispanic-libertarians
https://townhall.com/columnists/rach...arian-n1887818

I think the fact that they vote close to 70% for the democratic candidate, trumps (ha! ha!) those other minor stats.

And by the way, Hispanics are third behind Chinese and Indians in immigration to the US. Hispanic immigration has been declining, presumably because the economic opportunities aren't as attractive as they once were. And that's despite having an unapologetic welfare-statist in office for 8 years. They really do come here to work hard and make money.

Illegal or legal?

Anyway I still mainly agree with you. If immigration is actually a net negative for the economy, it's microscopic compared to all the other problems.

[jmdrake]

Yeah, it's not even really new news. We lose perspective from being pummeled with the same anti-immigrant rhetoric over and over and over.

As of three years ago, Census figures show, India and China eclipsed Mexico as the top sources of U.S. immigrants, whether authorized or not. In 2013, 147,000 Chinese immigrants and 129,000 Indians came to the U.S., compared with 125,000 Mexicans.

http://www.voanews.com/a/immigrants-...a/3548112.html

Well that explains the two track anti-immigration approach. On the one hand complain about the gang members, welfare queens and terrorists to cover immigration from Latin American and the Muslim world, then complain about "They're taking the high paying jobs" to cover immigration from China and India. I'm betting if most of the immigrants were coming from Western Europe they're wouldn't be such a fuss.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

And I would say that @AuH2O is playing you. Rather than actually addressing whether restricting H1B visas makes any economic sense (it doesn't by the way) he went off on some ramble about fiat currency which he never actually tied to the thread. But hey, just stick to your Count hating and don't actually engage the thread.

What I'm discussing is part of the thread. I asked his views on protectionism.

If you're going to have a discussion, then have a discussion. Don't play agitator and not give your views. I know AuH20's views very well. He's not here playing games.

[jmdrake]

What I'm discussing is part of the thread. I asked his views on protectionism.

If you're going to have a discussion, then have a discussion. Don't play agitator and not give your views. I know AuH20's views very well. He's not here playing games.

Right. But here's what your missing because of your bias. AuH2O didn't actually express a view on protectionism either and TheCount called him on it. And....so far....you haven't really expressed a view either. If you have then I missed it. Pot meet kettle.

[undergroundrr]

I think the fact that they vote close to 70% for the democratic candidate, trumps (ha! ha!) those other minor stats.

I'm a little different than some on this issue. I don't think voting for Republicans is any better or results in any less welfare-statism and deficit spending than voting for Democrats.

But ignoring that, one has to admit also that the non-stop barrage of Hispanic disparagement from the right wing wouldn't tend to engender their loyalty. Until the personality of the Republican party changes, any American who's not white and wants to support conservatives is going to have to keep the windshield wipers on and weather a lot of disbelieving exasperation from family and friends. The best you get is something along the lines of "I don't mind Mexicans but they're ruining our country." That's why I think the Libertarian Party statistics sited above are interesting. TWICE the percentage of support for the LP candidates from Latinos than whites.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Right. But here's what your missing because of your bias.

Bias? I am just pointing out a fact. If some of you people can't distinguish between AuH20 and TheCount, then I sure as fire would not hire you.

you haven't really expressed a view either.

I'll be glad to express any views on a thread where TheCount participates if he does the same.

[jmdrake]

Bias? I am just pointing out a fact. If some of you people can't distinguish between AuH20 and TheCount, then I sure as fire would not hire you.

So....you're not going to actually address the fact that neither AuH20 nor TheCount, nor you for that matter have actually said anything of value in this thread and instead you are going to reduce yourself to petty childish ad hominem attacks against me for pointing out your hypocrisy? Okay.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

So....you're not going to actually address the fact that neither AuH20 nor TheCount, nor you for that matter have actually said anything of value in this thread and instead you are going to reduce yourself to petty childish ad hominem attacks against me for pointing out your hypocrisy? Okay.

What in the world are you talking about? You have two people in Auh20 and TheCount with very different views and motivations. If you can't see that, then I don't see how you can begin to have a discussion on this topic.

[Ender]

What in the world are you talking about? You have two people in Auh20 and TheCount with very different views and motivations. If you can't see that, then I don't see how you can begin to have a discussion on this topic.

Correct.

And @TheCount is very freedom oriented; the problem is when readers cannot see his sarcasm for what it is:

SARCASM.

He has used for a long time to state his POV and stay out of head bumping. Only since the advent of the Trumpers has he been even more sarcastic- this has put him on the receiving end of a lot of hate because he doesn't support the Trump.

[BSWPaulsen]

I agree with your position but I don't think it matters whether H1Bs make wages go up or down. I think you're giving the protectionists a chance to dodge the more critical points. It's a basic free market question. Should businesses have the right to shop for labor, the same as the rest of us shop for goods?

Also I'd like to hear if the protectionists favor licensing for doctors. That limits supply and drives up wages for doctors.

Regarding the bolded:

Obvious answer: yes.

Question #1: Should corporations be able to lobby for legislation and regulation favoring them to the disadvantage of small businesses, entrepreneurs, and domestic workers?

Obvious answer: no.

Question #2: Why do you expect those in favor of protectionism to place any importance on what corporations should be able to do regarding hiring practices when everyone is routinely screwed by their usage of government power via legislation and regulation?

There is a battle for power here. Appealing to what is right matters exceedingly little when you are asking the pro-protectionists to abandon any pretense at using the government in their favor while the abuse of government power by corporations continues unabated.

That nobody should have the power either way hardly matters.

[otherone]

Regarding the bolded:

Obvious answer: yes.

Question #1: Should corporations be able to lobby for legislation and regulation favoring them to the disadvantage of small businesses, entrepreneurs, and domestic workers?

Obvious answer: no.

Question #2: Why do you expect those in favor of protectionism to place any importance on what corporations should be able to do regarding hiring practices when everyone is routinely screwed by their usage of government power via legislation and regulation?

There is a battle for power here. Appealing to what is right matters exceedingly little when you are asking the pro-protectionists to abandon any pretense at using the government in their favor while the abuse of government power by corporations continues unabated.

That nobody should have the power either way hardly matters.

Interesting that a supposedly "freedom"-oriented site that repeatedly argues for the abolition of the fed, fiat currency, and deficit spending actually advocate for federal control of the economy. . You want border protection. Economic protection. Sure. Why not. The state owns the wind. It owns Time (daylight savings time crankiness). It owns the money. Your privacy. Your land. Everything. The idiots fight like dogs at the Master's feet for crumbs. If Master were just a little more powerful, maybe your crumbs would be more plentiful. Maybe if Master had less dogs, their would be more scraps for you. Idiots.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

And @TheCount is very freedom oriented

LOL. I guess you're trying to top him in sarcasm.

He has used for a long time to state his POV and stay out of head bumping.

More lulz. He initiates the head bumping almost every time. Just like this thread with AuH20. The funny thing is he never uses it to state his position, just like in this thread. I asked him his views on protectionism, but he never answered.

[BSWPaulsen]

Interesting that a supposedly "freedom"-oriented site that repeatedly argues for the abolition of the fed, fiat currency, and deficit spending actually advocate for federal control of the economy. . You want border protection. Economic protection. Sure. Why not. The state owns the wind. It owns Time (daylight savings time crankiness). It owns the money. Your privacy. Your land. Everything. The idiots fight like dogs at the Master's feet for crumbs. If Master were just a little more powerful, maybe your crumbs would be more plentiful. Maybe if Master had less dogs, their would be more scraps for you. Idiots.

Rare is the man that advocates for the diminishment of himself and the uplifting of others.

Until man disavows power itself, and therefore the state by extension, the battle will continue to be fought. Those that have power, or access to it, versus those that would merely replace them.

Far too few would do as Cincinnatus did - obtain the power, and abandon it entirely. How do you create a society full of people like him? Point to a society full of people like that, and you'll find a society where freedom is the order of the day and petty warfare over power a relic of the past.

Until then? Heh.

[oyarde]

I am for free trade but I do not think that is what we have .

[timosman]

I am for free trade but I do not think that is what we have .

The monkeys have not evolved sufficiently yet.

[otherone]

Rare is the man that advocates for the diminishment of himself and the uplifting of others.

Until man disavows power itself, and therefore the state by extension, the battle will continue to be fought. Those that have power, or access to it, versus those that would merely replace them.

Far too few would do as Cincinnatus did - obtain the power, and abandon it entirely. How do you create a society full of people like him? Point to a society full of people like that, and you'll find a society where freedom is the order of the day and petty warfare over power a relic of the past.

Until then? Heh.

Cincinnatus was a legend. The Romans had a penchant for self-promotion. What we do know is that power speaks to power. If there is an answer, it doesn't lie in the proles, as Winston Smith mused. It lies with the constituent states. Maybe. Probably not.

[otherone]

The monkeys have not evolved sufficiently yet.

I fling dung in your general direction.

[timosman]

I fling dung in your general direction.

Well, that settles it then.

[Superfluous Man]

There have always been more protectionists here than there have been people who differ with Ron Paul on almost any other issue.

In 2008 and 2012, given the field, he was a natural draw for paleocons from the old Buchanan brigade. In 2008, Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo were in the field too. And I get the distinct impression that most of the Trump trannies we see around here these days would have backed either of those two over Ron Paul. But for some paleocons who prized noninterventionism over protectionism, they were more willing to accept Ron Paul's free trade and open border stances than Hunter and Trancredo's war mongering.

The other factor is, the Stormfronters have always seen this site as ripe recruiting grounds. They have gone through waves of trying that. They made a big push in 2008, and it seems like they have been at it again over the past year. Trump has blinded them. But also, when a lot of arguing resulted from that last summer, this website revised its guidelines to require members to be more welcoming to people like those who would have in times past been ridiculed until they left.

[timosman]

There have always been more protectionists here than there have been people who differ with Ron Paul on almost any other issue.

In 2008 and 2012, given the field, he was a natural draw for paleocons from the old Buchanan brigade. In 2008, Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo were in the field too. And I get the distinct impression that most of the Trump trannies we see around here these days would have backed either of those two over Ron Paul. But for some paleocons who prized noninterventionism over protectionism, they were more willing to accept Ron Paul's free trade and open border stances than Hunter and Trancredo's war mongering.

The other factor is, the Stormfronters have always seen this site as ripe recruiting grounds. They have gone through waves of trying that. They made a big push in 2008, and it seems like they have been at it again over the past year. Trump has blinded them. But also, when a lot of arguing resulted from that last summer, this website revised its guidelines to require members to be more welcoming to people like those who would have in times past been ridiculed until they left.

Thank you grandpa for the history lesson.

[Superfluous Man]

Thank you grandpa for the history lesson.

Which one would you have supported back then, Hunter or Tancredo?

[LibForestPaul]

Until man disavows power itself, and therefore the state by extension, the battle will continue to be fought. Those that have power, or access to it, versus those that would merely replace them.

If I must live under a Federal State, then H1B's and illegals must stop.
Give them green cards, why do you want slaves?

[timosman]

Which one would you have supported back then, Hunter or Tancredo?

I think it is time for your enema, grandpa. The nurse is already here.

[TheCount]

There is a battle for power here. Appealing to what is right matters exceedingly little when you are asking the pro-protectionists to abandon any pretense at using the government in their favor while the abuse of government power by corporations continues unabated.

I don't understand your argument, but I mostly agree with your conclusion.

Corporations can be pro-protectionism as well; the auto and steel industries are good examples of this. Categorizing protectionism as being "of the people" and free trade as corporate is an oversimplification. Corporations with the ability to purchase government power will seek the policies that benefit them, whether that means opening or closing trade.

The solution, as you said, is eliminating the ability of the government to assist one side or the other
I disagree that protectionism "in the meantime" is okay. That represents a move towards greater government intervention, not less.

[Madison320]

Regarding the bolded:

Obvious answer: yes.

Question #1: Should corporations be able to lobby for legislation and regulation favoring them to the disadvantage of small businesses, entrepreneurs, and domestic workers?

Obvious answer: no.

Question #2: Why do you expect those in favor of protectionism to place any importance on what corporations should be able to do regarding hiring practices when everyone is routinely screwed by their usage of government power via legislation and regulation?

There is a battle for power here. Appealing to what is right matters exceedingly little when you are asking the pro-protectionists to abandon any pretense at using the government in their favor while the abuse of government power by corporations continues unabated.

That nobody should have the power either way hardly matters.

Using your logic any anti liberty law can be justified if it's used against big business. "Big business is evil therefore we can raise taxes on them, regulate them, sue them for discrimination, restrict their hiring, etc."

[Madison320]

I think it is time for your enema, grandpa. The nurse is already here.

WTF?

[osan]

Yes, I am in favor. Because free trade doesn't work when you have the global fiat currency backed by a no limit credit card. You just end up with a fat useless aristocracy that can't even feed itself.

This runs in strong accord with my basic views.

The deeper point is this: "Free markets" cannot operate without distortion when they exchange markets that are not distorted.

Our trade with China is grossly distorted, primarily because of their slave labor market. It is further distorted by the official government policy of limiting American imports. This results in an artificially imbalanced trade relationship between the American and Chinese markets. As with other aspects of human relations, the phenomenon of lowest denominator rules the day. For instance, the moment the first American shoe manufacturer went offshore to $0.50/hr labor, the rest of the American footwear industry had little choice but to follow suit, lest the lone manufacturer eat all their lunches. "Lower denominator" is a euphemism for "material advantage". It's not always wrong, but it often is. It is deleterious when the advantage is artificially brought into an environment and maintained. Without such artifice, markets such as those for Chinese labor would rapidly lose much of their cost advantages, though likely not all. But if the natural rate of the Chinese market were to rise to $10/hr in the absence of governmental threats and violence, the $18/hr American labor market suddenly looks more appealing in the grander scheme of business operations.

Therefore, a free market nation (America does not really qualify either, though we are closer to it in some respects), if it is to do business with those that are not similarly free, stands well will within good reason to undertake policies that preserve their home market from the distortions they would otherwise incur as the result of trade with deviant partner nations. The sticky wicket, of course, lies in the formulation of those policies, which are anything but trivial to establish. If you will tariff Chinese goods, by how much? By what measure does one mark-up the value of Chinese labor in the form of tariffing such that trade remains a fair representation of the free?

Protectionism is not necessarily evil. As with so many things, its value predicates upon context.