# News & Current Events > Economy & Markets >  Can the United States survive without imports from other countries?

## Carsten2012b

For whatever reason, my brother has this radical notion that the United States can survive without any imports whatsoever. I tried proving him wrong with common sense, but that doesn't seem to work. Any examples that someone can share of things that we use in the United States that can't be made domestically? And please provide links to such evidence so I can show him where the findings originated from.

----------


## brooks009

We have lost most of our manufacturing base but we could rebuild it pretty quickly if we were forced to. Unlike many other countries we could not only survive without imports but flourish.

----------


## DGambler

I personally think that 3D printing will print some manufacturing back home.... Why have the long supply chains when you can print it at home or at a local printer for more involved pieces. 


I know this doesn't address your ask, just wanted to add this to the discussion.

----------


## Sam I am

There's a big difference between "surviving" and "being as well off"  

If the United States cut itself off from imports, We'd still survive, but our standard of living would likely decline.

----------


## tod evans

I tend to agree with your brother and brooks.

----------


## Bastiat's The Law

Is your brother Pat Buchanan?

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Is your brother Pat Buchanan?


 lolz

----------


## Acala

Not a whole bunch of coffee, cocoa, coconut, or olive being grown in the USA.  I could live without those products, but my lifestyle would take a hit.

----------


## psi2941

> Not a whole bunch of coffee, cocoa, coconut, or olive being grown in the USA.  I could live without those products, but my lifestyle would take a hit.


olive is produced in California

----------


## The Gold Standard

I guess it depends what you mean by survive. We would all be dramatically poorer, and the inflation we export around the globe would explode here. Less restricted trade has made us wealthier, allowing the government to steal that wealth without too many people noticing.

----------


## TaftFan

Get rid of income,corporate, and capitol gains and see what happens. Yes we would need a sales tax, but other nations have those on top of the other taxes.

----------


## oyarde

The most important question to me is ,can I survive ? , Yes , I can .

----------


## opal

European grown, non GMO corn. wheat.. etc...Monsanto free...

----------


## enoch150

> For whatever reason, my brother has this radical notion that the United States can survive without any imports whatsoever. I tried proving him wrong with common sense, but that doesn't seem to work. Any examples that someone can share of things that we use in the United States that can't be made domestically? And please provide links to such evidence so I can show him where the findings originated from.


Survive? Yes. Thrive? No. We still depend on imported oil to maintain our present lifestyle, although we've dropped from 60% imports in 2005 to an expected 32% in 2014. Imported oil will remain a fact of life for the foreseeable future simply because production costs in other countries are so much less than in the US. The only way to eliminate imported oil completely would be to significantly increase prices and curtail consumption, which would impact quality of life.

I used to get so many of these trade questions that I came up with a standard 4 part response that I could just copy and paste. Here was part 1:




> Imagine two countries, A and B. Both countries have limited resources for production, but they can both satisfy their domestic needs. In this example, domestic needs are composed of only two items: Widgets and Sprockets.
> 
> *Country A can produce 30 Widgets, 30 Sprockets, or any combination of the two.* For every Widget produced, it must produce one less Sprocket. It needs and can produce 12 Widgets and 18 Sprockets.
> 
> Country B has a different allocation of resource which make it easier to produce Widgets and harder to produce Sprockets. *It can produce only 20 Widgets or 10 Sprockets.* For Every Sprocket it produces, it must give up 2 Widgets. It needs and can produce 4 Widgets and 8 Sprockets.
> 
> *Total production then is 16 Widgets and 26 Sprockets.* Each country can satisfy its own demand.
> 
> If each country specialized in whatever it had a comparative advantage in and then traded for their needed good, both come out ahead. *Country A should produce 30 Sprockets and Country B should produce 20 Widgets.*
> ...

----------


## Mani

How do you count brands that are American but everything is made OVERSEAS?

Like Nike shoes made in Vietnam, China, Indoneisa, etc.  Nike doesn't make anything in USA (shoes-wise), which is pretty much standard for the athletic shoe industry.

If you count those as not able to import than..........I heard millions of voices of basketball shoe wearers across gyms and playgrounds suddenly cried out in terror...


All American Eagle clothing is made in various Asian factories.....Does that count?  And not just AE, but a significant amount of that type of clothing is made overseas for American brands.  

Or maybe you are only referring to NECESSITIES (which still includes NIKE shoes to a bball player mind you...)..

----------


## idiom

The US could move to thorium power and CTL fuels pretty fast.

The government would stop pretty much everything though.

----------


## amy31416

I think we'd be better off without so many imports. Too much bull$#@! going on there.

----------


## MRK

> Not a whole bunch of coffee, cocoa, coconut, or olive being grown in the USA.  I could live without those products, but my lifestyle would take a hit.





> I think we'd be better off without so many imports. Too much bull$#@! going on there.


Indeed there is ma'am.

http://www.mnn.com/food/healthy-eati...mmonly-consume




> Food fraud: 10 counterfeit products we commonly consume
> 
> Coffee, olive oil and fish are just some of the adulterated and intentionally mislabeled foods regularly passed off as something theyre not.

----------


## jmdrake

> For whatever reason, my brother has this radical notion that the United States can survive without any imports whatsoever. I tried proving him wrong with common sense, but that doesn't seem to work. Any examples that someone can share of things that we use in the United States that can't be made domestically? And please provide links to such evidence so I can show him where the findings originated from.


Any nation with sufficient natural resources can survive without imports.  We've dumbed down our children through the mis-education system that most off them could build a lean-to if their lives depended on it.  Here's one organization that is working to reverse the trend and, through open source hardware, help people provide their own means of production.

http://opensourceecology.org/

----------


## jmdrake

> Survive? Yes. Thrive? No. We still depend on imported oil to maintain our present lifestyle, although we've dropped from 60% imports in 2005 to an expected 32% in 2014. Imported oil will remain a fact of life for the foreseeable future simply because production costs in other countries are so much less than in the US. The only way to eliminate imported oil completely would be to significantly increase prices and curtail consumption, which would impact quality of life.
> 
> I used to get so many of these trade questions that I came up with a standard 4 part response that I could just copy and paste. Here was part 1:


Our current lifestyle is bollocks based on debt financing.  End the welfare state and the minimum wage tomorrow and production costs would plummet as people scrambled to take whatever job they could just so that they can eat.  Quit funding the military industrial complex to go around the world to keep the oil flowing and imported oil prices would skyrocket.  The very things this movement fight against are what makes the illusion that our global economy is "working" for us possible.  I don't think we need to cut off trade, but we aren't nearly as dependent on it or "helped" by it as some people think.

----------


## jmdrake

> I personally think that 3D printing will print some manufacturing back home.... Why have the long supply chains when you can print it at home or at a local printer for more involved pieces. 
> 
> 
> I know this doesn't address your ask, just wanted to add this to the discussion.


Oh it does address what he asked.  We as individuals can go beyond the silly false "free trade / managed trade / restricted trade"  paradigm.  Learn how to make it your own self!  If libertarians are about individualism, why do so many get stuck in a globalism mindset?  I think people should be free to import if they want to.  But it's not necessary to survive or even thrive.  (Yeah I do enjoy my exotic fruits.  I need to build a good greenhouse.)

----------


## kpitcher

I'm sure there are a lot of products not made anymore in the US. I don't think there are any more TVs made domestically. Or most computers, clothing, or happy meal toys. Our trade deficits show how much we bring in and don't make at home. That said I'm sure we could ramp up production on almost anything if there was a financial reason to.

----------


## KingNothing

> For whatever reason, my brother has this radical notion that the United States can survive without any imports whatsoever. I tried proving him wrong with common sense, but that doesn't seem to work. Any examples that someone can share of things that we use in the United States that can't be made domestically? And please provide links to such evidence so I can show him where the findings originated from.


Yes, it could.  Why couldn't it?

The standard of living would fall dramatically and life would be far less comfortable, but it could be done.

----------


## KingNothing

> I tend to agree with your brother and brooks.



I don't think you guys understand how trade works.

----------


## KingNothing

> I think we'd be better off without so many imports. Too much bull$#@! going on there.

----------


## tod evans

> I don't think you guys understand how trade works.


And I suppose you're able to explain exactly how wonderful our economy is because of the "trade" we're involved in?

Well bucko, give it your best shot......

I've worked through over 40 years of outsourcing, I lived through the decline of manufacturing and have observed the service industry take its place.

So go ahead and spout the gibberish about how much better off our nation is....

Plastic China trinkets are like a shiny object to a raccoon... And our nation seems to be infatuated with them..

----------


## fr33

It would be an excellent weight-loss plan for the country.

----------


## KingNothing

> And I suppose you're able to explain exactly how wonderful our economy is because of the "trade" we're involved in?
> 
> Well bucko, give it your best shot......



Well, the average person living in poverty has access to housing, food and education, air conditioning, multiple televisions, dishwashers, washer, dryer, phones, a computer, clothing, etc.

And this is people living below the poverty line in America.  That is how wealthy we, as a nation, are and every bit of it is caused by free trade and economic freedom.  We may be losing our way, the Fed may be manipulating the economy, the very rich may be gaining from those actions, and government's fiscal policies may be creating far more "losers" than it should, but we are still living in a manner that no people have ever lived in human history.  Ignoring this undeniable fact is silly.

----------


## KingNothing

The reason free trade works is that it opens markets to more workers, more thinkers, and more consumers.

Why on earth do you think 315 million people working to better their lives is preferable to 7 billion people doing that?  Through specialization, economies of scale, and diversity in thought, we ALL gain and we ALL advance.

----------


## fisharmor

> I've worked through over 40 years of  outsourcing, I lived through the decline of manufacturing and have  observed the service industry take its place.
> 
> So go ahead and spout the gibberish about how much better of our nation is....


The only thing stopping this country from becoming a manufacturing powerhouse is costumed men with guns.

I'm currently employed in IT.  I live in the suburbs in a 1300sf house.
If  imports really were totally cut off, my wife and I are pretty ready,  with little notice, to start making shoes and leather goods, clothes,  canvas items (covers, tents, bags, etc).  I can also weld, work sheet  metal, blacksmith, work my metal lathe, do basic woodwork, some  automotive repairs, and one part-time hobby involves making machinery,  like power hammers.

I have a good friend about an hour away with a  shop twice as big as mine, who has also been collecting cast-offs from  our industrial age.  He's ready at a moment's notice to start producing  stuff, too.  If there was an economic need for us to meet every week and  do a production run while our kids play in the yard, it wouldn't  exactly be a hardship for us.  It's what we like to do, and the only  reason we don't is because we can't raise families on it.  We both have  less good friends in the immediate area that we'd want to do business  with, too.

There are regular meetings around the country where  blacksmiths, engineers, and hobbyists sit around an talk about what a  shame it is that such nice, usable, accurate tools from the 1930s are  available at fire-sale prices and still nobody wants them.

If there were no imports coming into the country, then 
a) All those old tools would get put to use
b) An increase in prices would make it worth my while to use them
c) All those other people who want to use them would get to use them

Also,  if I wasn't driving the better part of 2 hours every day, then it would  take me less time to convert the rest of my yard to victory garden than  it would for the whole neighborhood's leaves to compost.  It would take  me 2-3 years to cull all the pests (why do two dozen deer show up in  our back yards in the suburbs?) and convert them to food.

And you  know why I'm not doing these things?  Why I'm not moving out of town  and doing it somewhere land is cheap and I can have a 3-acre garden too?
Costumed men with guns.

----------


## tod evans

I'm not ignoring the "fact" that our government is borrowing and printing "money" to keep the non-working voting block content, what ever gave you that idea?





> Well, the average person living in poverty has access to housing, food and education, air conditioning, multiple televisions, dishwashers, washer, dryer, phones, a computer, clothing, etc.
> 
> And this is people living below the poverty line in America.  That is how wealthy we, as a nation, are and every bit of it is caused by free trade and economic freedom.  We may be losing our way, the Fed may be manipulating the economy, the very rich may be gaining from those actions, and government's fiscal policies may be creating far more "losers" than it should, but we are still living in a manner that no people have ever lived in human history.  Ignoring this undeniable fact is silly.

----------


## tod evans

> The reason free trade works is that it opens markets to more workers, more thinkers, and more consumers.
> 
> Why on earth do you think 315 million people working to better their lives is preferable to 7 billion people doing that?  Through specialization, economies of scale, and diversity in thought, we ALL gain and we ALL advance.


Because afterall I should be responsible for some third-world society as well as my own........

Got it.

----------


## tod evans

10 point post!

Somebody please cover me on rep...





> The only thing stopping this country from becoming a manufacturing powerhouse is costumed men with guns.
> 
> I'm currently employed in IT.  I live in the suburbs in a 1300sf house.
> If  imports really were totally cut off, my wife and I are pretty ready,  with little notice, to start making shoes and leather goods, clothes,  canvas items (covers, tents, bags, etc).  I can also weld, work sheet  metal, blacksmith, work my metal lathe, do basic woodwork, some  automotive repairs, and one part-time hobby involves making machinery,  like power hammers.
> 
> I have a good friend about an hour away with a  shop twice as big as mine, who has also been collecting cast-offs from  our industrial age.  He's ready at a moment's notice to start producing  stuff, too.  If there was an economic need for us to meet every week and  do a production run while our kids play in the yard, it wouldn't  exactly be a hardship for us.  It's what we like to do, and the only  reason we don't is because we can't raise families on it.  We both have  less good friends in the immediate area that we'd want to do business  with, too.
> 
> There are regular meetings around the country where  blacksmiths, engineers, and hobbyists sit around an talk about what a  shame it is that such nice, usable, accurate tools from the 1930s are  available at fire-sale prices and still nobody wants them.
> 
> ...

----------


## KingNothing

> I'm not ignoring the "fact" that our government is borrowing and printing "money" to keep the non-working voting block content, what ever gave you that idea?


Every government in recent history is doing that.  I'm not saying that it is a good thing, but every government is doing it.  And if we cut ourselves off from the rest of the world and lost the ability to paper over our problems by exporting inflation, we'd be FAR worse off in the near and medium terms than we are currently.

----------


## KingNothing

> Because afterall I should be responsible for some third-world society as well as my own........
> 
> Got it.


Umm.  What?

No, dunderhead.  That goods can be made more cheaply, or resources provided more cheaply, by another nation BENEFITS all of us.  This is basic economics.  Your inability to understand it is disconcerting.

----------


## tod evans

> Umm.  What?
> 
> No, dunderhead.  That goods can be made more cheaply, or resources provided more cheaply, by another nation BENEFITS all of us.  This is basic economics.  Your inability to understand it is disconcerting.


Yup here we go..........

Glad to be the dunderhead that doesn't believe the party line..

Look around for Pete's sake.

----------


## tod evans

> Every government in recent history is doing that.  I'm not saying that it is a good thing, but every government is doing it.  And if we cut ourselves off from the rest of the world and lost the ability to paper over our problems by exporting inflation, we'd be FAR worse off in the near and medium terms than we are currently.


Yup, once again you're right!

Just look how well "every other government" is doing, heck look how well ours is doing!

Keep on keepin' on........

Rainbows-n-lollipops.

----------


## amy31416

>

----------


## The Gold Standard

If restricting trade is such a boon for us, why don't we do it on a more local level too? Don't buy anything that isn't made in your house. That way you keep the money in the family. You can grow your own food, knit your own clothes, etc. Everyone would have a job, albeit a backbreaking one. Imagine how wealthy you would be.

----------


## oyarde

> If restricting trade is such a boon for us, why don't we do it on a more local level too? Don't buy anything that isn't made in your house. That way you keep the money in the family. You can grow your own food, knit your own clothes, etc. Everyone would have a job, albeit a backbreaking one. Imagine how wealthy you would be.


I grow my own food and the Mrs makes my winter hunting shirts. Makes me feel wealthy to put on my gray Chamois shirt, throw a load of #6's in and smoke a rabbit for dinner.LOL

----------


## oyarde

> It would be an excellent weight-loss plan for the country.


lol , lean & mean.

----------


## oyarde

I should probably just give up coffee and switch to sassafrass tea and gather it myself.

----------


## oyarde

> 10 point post!
> 
> Somebody please cover me on rep...


 I did, covered. I am glad he threw that up there , everybody may not know how skilled fisharmor is.What he does in his garage is pretty impressive.

----------


## Acala

> olive is produced in California


The US imported almost 50 million gallons of olive oil last year and the demand grows every year by about 10%.  Meanwhile, the USA, including California and Arizona, does not even register on a chart of olive oil producers.  I will not live long enough to see California replace olive oil imports.  

The same goes for coffee - Hawaii grows some very good coffee, but they will never come close to supplying US demand.

So, no international trade means, for the average person, no coffee, no olive oil, no coconut oil, and no chocolate.  What would be available from domestic production would be an extremely expensive novelty at best.  That would suck.

Also, some of the best guns in the world would be unavailable.

----------


## Acala

> lol , lean & mean.


Oh, there would be PLENTY of corn, soybeans, beet sugar, trans-fats, and high-gluten wheat to fatten everyone up and ruin their health.  The healthy vegetable oils would be out of reach.

----------


## sailingaway

Of course we can 'survive'.

But why on earth would we do that?

----------


## oyarde

> Oh, there would be PLENTY of corn, soybeans, beet sugar, trans-fats, and high-gluten wheat to fatten everyone up and ruin their health.  The healthy vegetable oils would be out of reach.


Canola grows pretty well in my neck of the woods. I would rather just use bacon grease,lol, but yeah we have olive oil and vegetable oil in the pantry.

----------


## KingNothing

> If restricting trade is such a boon for us, why don't we do it on a more local level too? Don't buy anything that isn't made in your house. That way you keep the money in the family. You can grow your own food, knit your own clothes, etc. Everyone would have a job, albeit a backbreaking one. Imagine how wealthy you would be.


This is a great idea!  Imagine the unemployment rate falling all the way to zero, as everyone spends all of his/her time gathering food, hunting, maintaining a house, and knitting clothing!  It would be a utopia!

Jobs for everyone!!!

----------


## jmdrake

> Well, the average person living in poverty has access to housing, food and education, air conditioning, multiple televisions, dishwashers, washer, dryer, phones, a computer, clothing, etc.
> 
> And this is people living below the poverty line in America.  That is how wealthy we, as a nation, are and every bit of it is caused by free trade and economic freedom.  We may be losing our way, the Fed may be manipulating the economy, the very rich may be gaining from those actions, and government's fiscal policies may be creating far more "losers" than it should, but we are still living in a manner that no people have ever lived in human history.  Ignoring this undeniable fact is silly.


SMH.  Do you *honestly think* that the welfare state you described in your first sentence is funded by "free trade"?

Wrong!  The welfare state is funded by deficit spending and counterfeiting by the federal reserve!  Get rid of those two things and the average poor person will immediately be reduced to abject poverty on a Calcutta level, free trade or no free trade.  Plus what we have now isn't free trade.  It's managed trade.  I can't just go across the border and by whatever I want and bring it back.  I have to have an "import license" and other crap.

Goodness, I can't believe how people can be in this movement for so long and not have a clue of how the real world works.

Now, I'm all for getting rid of deficit spending and the welfare state.  I also don't want people in abject poverty.  But we have to be intelligent enough to know that a little NAFTA pixie dust isn't going to lift these people out of poverty.  The internal barriers to "free trade", taxes and over-regulation, need to come down.  If we maintain internal free trade while pushing false external "managed" trade as "free trade" and lie to ourselves and pretend we have a good economy *when everyone here has to know that we don't* the we are setting ourselves up for an epic financial catastrophe that makes Greece and Cyprus look like financial paradise by comparison.

----------


## oyarde

> This is a great idea!  Imagine the unemployment rate falling all the way to zero, as everyone spends all of his/her time gathering food, hunting, maintaining a house, and knitting clothing!  It would be a utopia!
> 
> Jobs for everyone!!!


I actually enjoy gathering food & hunting more than going to work, but then there is that property tax thing , so I go to work too.I am a Great American Patriot and am generous with my earnings propping up the evil , bloated , wasteful govt .

----------


## tod evans

> This is a great idea!  Imagine the unemployment rate falling all the way to zero, as everyone spends all of his/her time gathering food, hunting, maintaining a house, and knitting clothing!  It would be a utopia!
> 
> Jobs for everyone!!!


Better yet how about a large segment of society import and market foreign made goods, pay "taxes" on their earnings so that government can subsidize and or support our floundering manufacturing industry...

It's working out well...............................For some.

----------


## jmdrake

> Of course we can 'survive'.
> 
> But why on earth would we do that?


It depends on what "that" is.  If "that" is impose a government restricted ban on all imports, than no, we shouldn't do that.

If "that" is realize that our current dependence on imports from everything from oil to computers to plastic junk isn't healthy and we should look at fundamental flaws in our current society and see what can do to fix them, then we most certainly should do "that."  Our main "export" now is global stability thanks to our military.  How long can we afford that as an "export?"  What's going to happen *when* (not if) the petro-dollar is dumped?

----------


## enoch150

> Our current lifestyle is bollocks based on debt financing.  End the welfare state and the minimum wage tomorrow and production costs would plummet as people scrambled to take whatever job they could just so that they can eat.  Quit funding the military industrial complex to go around the world to keep the oil flowing and imported oil prices would skyrocket.


The military industrial complex doesn't exist to keep oil flowing to the US. It's to control resources which go to Asia and Europe. It's a sword over their heads.

Also, drilling through sand will always be cheaper than fracturing rocks and cooking them. Even if the minimum wage is repealed. If the price of oil drops, so will new exploration and production in the US.

----------


## jmdrake

> The military industrial complex doesn't exist to keep oil flowing to the US. It's to control resources which go to Asia and Europe. It's a sword over their heads.
> 
> Also, drilling through sand will always be cheaper than fracturing rocks and cooking them. Even if the minimum wage is repealed. If the price of oil drops, so will new exploration and production in the US.


Read up on the petro-dollar.  And minimum wage isn't just about oil.  There is (was) a manufacturing base.  Regardless, the overaching point I'm making is that it's not free trade that lets poor people have nice things.  It's deficit spending.

----------


## enoch150

> Read up on the petro-dollar.  And minimum wage isn't just about oil.  There is (was) a manufacturing base.  Regardless, the overaching point I'm making is that it's not free trade that lets poor people have nice things.  It's deficit spending.


There is no doubt deficit spending contributes to our present standard of living. But deficit spending is substantially funded by the trade deficit. Foreigners sell us stuff we want, then they loan some of the money we pay them for the stuff to the government to finance the deficits. Absent free trade, deficit spending wouldn't be possible at anywhere near current levels. 

The US is still one of the top manufacturing countries in the world, as well as one of the top exporting countries.

----------


## Jordan

We own the world's food. Other countries cannot live without us.

----------


## oyarde

> We own the world's food. Other countries cannot live without us.


I own the food in my area ,  how does that matter if I am dead  ?

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> It depends on what "that" is.  If "that" is impose a government restricted ban on all imports, than no, we shouldn't do that.
> 
> If "that" is realize that our current dependence on imports from everything from oil to computers to plastic junk isn't healthy and we should look at fundamental flaws in our current society and see what can do to fix them, then we most certainly should do "that."  Our main "export" now is global stability thanks to our military.  How long can we afford that as an "export?"  What's going to happen *when* (not if) the petro-dollar is dumped?


I'll have you know the American economy also exports some of the world's finest pr0n.  lolz

----------


## fr33

> We own the world's food. Other countries cannot live without us.


While the transition would be difficult, there is enough arable land outside of the US, to support the rest of the world.

----------


## Kregisen

> I think we'd be better off without so many imports. Too much bull$#@! going on there.


If you really believed that, you would be purchasing ZERO imported items since your standard of living would be higher. I would love to see that.





> I've worked through over 40 years of outsourcing, I lived through the decline of manufacturing and have observed the service industry take its place.


Did you see unicorns and dragons too? If you look at the actual statistics, you will see U.S. manufacturing has never been higher than it was before this last recession a few years ago:

http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/wp...RED-Graph1.png

Manufacturing JOBS have gone down mostly because of technological advances (which is a good thing): http://theruggedindividualist.files....6334141893.png


Keep in mind, 97% of Americans don't know what a job is. A job is *NOT* wealth. A job is a payment for wealth. In order to grow strawberries, you must spend the time planting the seeds, watering the plant, picking the strawberries, etc. If jobs were truly wealth, the government could simply pay Americans to dig holes and fill them back up again. We would have 0% unemployment and 0 wealth. If you can "purchase" the same wealth and pay less for it (less jobs), you are better off. This is why fewer manufacturing jobs is a good thing, especially since U.S. manufacturing output goes up every year (except recessions). Likewise, if you can pay poor people in a foreign country to do unskilled labor for cheaper than your time is worth (once again, a savings in the price to get the wealth), you are also better off.

This should be common sense for Americans, but sadly it is not.

----------


## Kregisen

> This is a great idea!  Imagine the unemployment rate falling all the way to zero, as everyone spends all of his/her time gathering food, hunting, maintaining a house, and knitting clothing!  It would be a utopia!
> 
> Jobs for everyone!!!


Yep, this is another argument big-government tariff supporters can't refute. If buying locally was a good thing, the argument wouldn't stop there. It would likewise lead to your family doing everything, from growing all food, to manufacturing your own car from absolute scratch. 

Likewise, if you expand from your family doing everything to your neighbors and yourself engaging in specialized trade, the argument moves on globally.




> While the transition would be difficult, there is enough arable land outside of the US, to support the rest of the world.


Food prices would skyrocket throughout the rest of the world. The U.S. has an extreme comparative advantage in food, hence why we export so much of it.

----------


## Constitutional Paulicy

If we are going to keep our standard of living from declining, were going to need to become more efficient as well as self reliant. Get government out of the way of new innovations. Too many politicians are preventing our entrepreneurial growth from occurring by favoring multinational conglomerates and their lobbyists interests. Small business owners need to be able to compete.

We have too many eggs in one basket with regard to centralized government, central banking, and multinational conglomerates. How many of you would like to be more independent, self reliant and free of *"The Man"*?

----------


## tod evans

Gosh!

I'm convinced......... couple of charts, a snarky comment about unicorns and all of a sudden I realize my own perception has been completely wrong.

Actually this kind of twisted, data manipulating doublespeak is part of the reason actual manufacturing has left this country.

Our government and it's statisticians permit such things as bolting two Chinese manufactured parts together and sticking a "Made in USA" sticker on a widget to count as "manufacturing"...There are literally thousands of other work arounds that emulate this practice and supply cooked data to the sources you site as if they're gospel..

Like I said, I've lived it, I'm still living it, and it's not getting any better no matter how many pretty charts and shiney reports government puts out.

If this is "unicorns-n-dragons" then I suppose maybe I should march on down to the state clinic and ask for some SSRI's to help with my delusions...





> Did you see unicorns and dragons too? If you look at the actual statistics, you will see U.S. manufacturing has never been higher than it was before this last recession a few years ago:
> 
> http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/wp...RED-Graph1.png
> 
> Manufacturing JOBS have gone down mostly because of technological advances (which is a good thing): http://theruggedindividualist.files....6334141893.png
> 
> 
> Keep in mind, 97% of Americans don't know what a job is. A job is *NOT* wealth. A job is a payment for wealth. In order to grow strawberries, you must spend the time planting the seeds, watering the plant, picking the strawberries, etc. If jobs were truly wealth, the government could simply pay Americans to dig holes and fill them back up again. We would have 0% unemployment and 0 wealth. If you can "purchase" the same wealth and pay less for it (less jobs), you are better off. This is why fewer manufacturing jobs is a good thing, especially since U.S. manufacturing output goes up every year (except recessions). Likewise, if you can pay poor people in a foreign country to do unskilled labor for cheaper than your time is worth (once again, a savings in the price to get the wealth), you are also better off.
> 
> This should be common sense for Americans, but sadly it is not.

----------


## Seraphim

Thrive? No (for now). Survive? Absolutely.

----------


## osan

> For whatever reason, my brother has this radical notion that the United States can survive without any imports whatsoever. I tried proving him wrong with common sense, but that doesn't seem to work. Any examples that someone can share of things that we use in the United States that can't be made domestically? And please provide links to such evidence so I can show him where the findings originated from.


Your brother is more right than wrong.  We could still recover ourselves were the will to do so present.  We have everything we need to be self sufficient as a nation of free men.  Without _any_ imports that nation would look notably different.  Just as once example, cell phones and iPads would become enormously expensive, as might much of the other electronics we currently take so much for granted.  Why?  Rare-earth elements, one of the things in which America is relatively poor and places like China are relatively rich.

Big deal.  The world turned for billions of revolutions without cell phones.  America could continue without them as well.  COULD.

----------


## fisharmor

> I'm convinced......... couple of charts, a  snarky comment about unicorns and all of a sudden I realize my own  perception has been completely wrong.


Well, I think perception is important here.



> Actually this kind of twisted, data manipulating doublespeak is  part of the reason actual manufacturing has left this country.


No true Scotsman.   Sure, I get what you're saying here.  But bolting together Chinese  parts with Chinese bolts in America is still a job, and the people who  service the bolting machine are still Americans.  It actually does  count.  And if that company is able to produce 500,000 of these widgets  every month, and were only able to produce 100,000 when they were  bolting together American parts with American bolts, that contributes to  a general increase in standard of living.

If global trade means China's standard of living is increased,  America's standard of living is increased, and everyone else in the  world able to buy the less expensive bolted-together part has his  standard of living increased, all as a result of some Chinese-American  collaboration, then I'm not sure why I would want to let "the way things  used to be" get in the way of that.

----------


## tod evans

> Well, I think perception is important here.
> 
> No true Scotsman.   Sure, I get what you're saying here.  But bolting together Chinese  parts with Chinese bolts in America is still a job, and the people who  service the bolting machine are still Americans.  It actually does  count.  And if that company is able to produce 500,000 of these widgets  every month, and were only able to produce 100,000 when they were  bolting together American parts with American bolts, that contributes to  a general increase in standard of living.
> 
> If global trade means China's standard of living is increased,  America's standard of living is increased, and everyone else in the  world able to buy the less expensive bolted-together part has his  standard of living increased, all as a result of some Chinese-American  collaboration, then I'm not sure why I would want to let "the way things  used to be" get in the way of that.


The problem I notice is that America's standard of living has declined.

I'm not speaking of plastic goods or electronics but actual standard of living, the one working parent able to save for retirement standard that I've watched become nonexistent..

I certainly don't have "the answer", hell I'm just some ol' carpenter off in the sticks, but I'm able to see pretty clearly the differences between the 60's and the 20-teens...

Maybe todays business model is actually "better".........But looking at our national debt and the social unrest I think my concerns are valid..

[edit]

The Chinese bolt and part manufacturers are taking the manufacturing jobs from Americans and putting that profit into their economy. Granted there are more bolt-turner jobs here and also all of the "jobs" associated with offshore outsourcing...

So I suppose the argument would go along the lines of "We haven't lost jobs, there's actually more jobs without actually manufacturing"...."Plus the end product is less expensive for the consumer"..

Well we're several decades into this particular business model and severely in debt, most households have two adults working or are on some type of aid..

Is it worth it?

----------


## amy31416

I can certainly see both sides of the argument, so really--no need for ill will. I'm sorta on your side, no matter what side you take. However, I come from a long line of people who've been in manufacturing, and worked in it myself for quite a while. MFG is changing, and it's not simply the good automation that we'd like to see--that's just a small part of it, in my experience. Those cheap Chinese goods come at a price that isn't really tangible. (And yes, I've bought them--mindlessly in the past, sometimes when there was no other reasonable choice.)

While some things are better due to trade, many things are worse--I'm not talking about having NO trade, and while I'm not that well-versed in it, I consider there to be a huge difference between getting Belgian chocolate, Persian rugs, Swiss watches, etc. and children's toys/honey/candy/clothes from China.

----------


## osan

> The only thing stopping this country from becoming a manufacturing powerhouse is costumed men with guns.


Indeed.

I, too, used to be in IT... probably would still be were it not for my age (55).  Nobody is interested.  I am attempting to get my $#@! together on that front, but in the meanwhile I tend the livestock, plant more fruit trees, and plan for a new shop, barn, and greenhouse, money being the only reason they are not in place.

As with you, I am a machinist, 30 years a blacksmith, minor gunsmith, fabricator, gold and silversmith trained by one of the giants in that community.  I have worked as a cabinet maker, have taught woodwork and ceramics, and find practical arts to be the most valuable knowledge.  I am becoming passably knowledgeable in the care of goats and fowl.  I have studied and cultivated herbs for cuisine and medicinally - have been a teacher and enjoy the task of getting what is in my head into those of others.  I went a little overboard on the college deal, my most recent being an MBA... good for nothing in real terms, but a life altering experience in any event.

It is my hope that by midsummer I will have finished converting my 2' crawlspace into a 10' deep basement.  A few more columns, footings and pouring of the walls and floor is all that stands in my way, but doing it alone ain't easy.

If you do not have a practical skill such as these, and no - rapping ain't one of them, so sorry - it behooves you to gain such ability.

Also know that you can provide for yourself in food terms even if you have little space.  Square-foot gardening is very effective and should be familiar to one and all.  It can even be done in an apartment.  If you have 500 square feet of yard you should be able to grow enough vegetation for yourself to last most if not all year long in conjunction with canning.  Learn to bake bread - my wife makes a fabulous sourdough, among others.  We can apples, peaches, pears and soon, apricots, nectarines, cherries, raspberries, wineberries, blackberries, currants, lingonberries, plums, and so forth.  This can all be done if you want to do it.  You do not have to be the victim of circumstance.

----------


## jmdrake

> There is no doubt deficit spending contributes to our present standard of living. But deficit spending is substantially funded by the trade deficit. Foreigners sell us stuff we want, then they loan some of the money we pay them for the stuff to the government to finance the deficits. Absent free trade, deficit spending wouldn't be possible at anywhere near current levels. 
> 
> The US is still one of the top manufacturing countries in the world, as well as one of the top exporting countries.


Again.  The current federal reserve / deficit spending based economy cannot continue indefinitely.  You are kidding yourself if you think that we are in a good position.  We are not.  And the short term pain we will face when we finally hit the inevitable brick wall will be enormous.  Who cares that other countries are willing to lend us stuff to buy their junk if the debt cycle is unsustainable?  And it is unsustainable.  That's why we as a movement are working to reign it in.  That's why we want an audit (and ultimate abolishment) of the Federal Reserve.  Really, I can't believe the arguments I'm hearing.  Did I wake up at the libertarian wing of "thinkprogress.org"?

----------


## osan

> Originally Posted by *amy31416* 
> I think we'd be better off without so many imports. Too much bull$#@! going on there.
> 
> 
> 
> If you really believed that, you would be purchasing ZERO imported items since your standard of living would be higher. I would love to see that.




Holy cow, talk about logic FAIL, conflating positive reality with what COULD be in valid theory.

No soup for you.





> Did you see unicorns and dragons too? If you look at the actual statistics, you will see U.S. manufacturing has never been higher than it was before this last recession a few years ago:
> 
> http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/wp...RED-Graph1.png


Sweet Jesus - do you even recognize how meaningless that graph is?  Where are the definitions?  We have no idea what those lines mean.  FAIL^2.





> Manufacturing JOBS have gone down mostly because of technological advances (which is a good thing):


Good?  Depends upon whom you ask.

I don't know how old you are but I was alive at the height of industrial capacity and when I was an engineering student I visited many heavy industry sites such as ship builders, steel plants and so forth.  To suggest that we are at a higher level of industrial might today vis-a-vis 1970 is well flown past the point of ridiculousness.  It holds less than zero credibility.  It is utterly absurd.  

Manufacturing widgets is NOT heavy industry.  Heavy industry provides us with the means to engage in light and medium industries.  If nobody is producing steel, there can be no tractors and hence no industrial strength agriculture - and let us not argue the merits of agribusiness.  Heavy industry is RADICAL industry, which is to say it is _fundamental_.  It is foundational to all other industries of volume significance.  Its relationship to the rest is loosely analogous to that of the Second Amendment to the rest of the BoR.  Heavy industries provide the means of doing all the rest and our heavy industrial capacities are at an all time post-industrial low, which places our capacity for self-reliance at an all time low.

When I was doing the MBA the staff, fabulous as they otherwise were, could not shut their yaps about "global interdependence" and how it is the future and how it makes everyone better off. BULL. $#@!.  It makes everyone more vulnerable to centrally operated levers.  When nation A has not the ability to feed itself and They want a certain circumstance to be established, what shall the "Them" in nation A do other than lay down and open Their legs?  Nothing.  Why?  Because those with the bigger levers have let the Little Thems know that if they do not comply those levers will move in ways that will make Little Thems feel the pinch.  If the people of nation A get uppity, the levers are all that are needed in most cases to get them back into a state of right thinking and compliance.  The more centrally controlled things become, the worse off we all are.  The apparent paradox of globalism is that despite appearing like a decentralization of control, it is actually a massive concentration of the same.  Render the entire world incapable of any nation fending for itself in a meaningful manner and you have the planet by the balls.  And of course in those rare instances where noncompliance persists, there remains the sword as an option.

----------


## jmdrake

> We own the world's food. Other countries cannot live without us.


China and India now out-produce the U.S. in wheat and rice.  The U.S. is still the top corn producer.

http://www.investopedia.com/financia...countries.aspx

----------


## osan

> I should probably just give up coffee and switch to sassafrass tea and gather it myself.


That's the right attitude.  Grow ginger as we do.  Makes a great tea.  Get fresh American ginseng roots and put it in the ground and forget it for 10 years.n  Goldmine.

Tea bushes and moso bamboo are on the to-procure list.

----------


## jmdrake

> Indeed.
> 
> I, too, used to be in IT... probably would still be were it not for my age (55).  Nobody is interested.  I am attempting to get my $#@! together on that front, but in the meanwhile I tend the livestock, plant more fruit trees, and plan for a new shop, barn, and greenhouse, money being the only reason they are not in place.
> 
> As with you, I am a machinist, 30 years a blacksmith, minor gunsmith, fabricator, gold and silversmith trained by one of the giants in that community.  I have worked as a cabinet maker, have taught woodwork and ceramics, and find practical arts to be the most valuable knowledge.  I am becoming passably knowledgeable in the care of goats and fowl.  I have studied and cultivated herbs for cuisine and medicinally - have been a teacher and enjoy the task of getting what is in my head into those of others.  I went a little overboard on the college deal, my most recent being an MBA... good for nothing in real terms, but a life altering experience in any event.
> 
> It is my hope that by midsummer I will have finished converting my 2' crawlspace into a 10' deep basement.  A few more columns, footings and pouring of the walls and floor is all that stands in my way, but doing it alone ain't easy.
> 
> If you do not have a practical skill such as these, and no - rapping ain't one of them, so sorry - it behooves you to gain such ability.
> ...


+rep!  Sadly we're becoming a nation of mindless drones that can't change a tire and can barely change lightbulbs.  During the depression people living in the country didn't starve.  In fact many of them continue their life as normal.  My parents were depression era.  That's because people were self sufficient.  That's something we should be *encouraging*.  Note that I haven't seen anyone say "ban imports."  But being this dependent on them isn't healthy as a nation.  And being so dependent on your J.O.B. or worse, on the "gubmint" isn't healthy for you as an individual.  And yes, I'm sadly in a dependent state *at the moment*, but I swear I will not be in this state 1 year from now.

----------


## fisharmor

> Well we're several decades into this particular  business model and severely in debt, most households have two adults  working or are on some type of aid..
> 
>  Is it worth it?


No, it's not worth it, but I'm also more willing to place the blame  squarely where it's deserved: on the state.  There's one major reason  why this stuff is made in China and shipped over here, and it has to do  with our governments making it less desirable to make them here, and  China's making it more desirable to make them over there.
I flat-out  reject the notion that a potential 10% increase in price isn't worth it  provided you're able to actually communicate with the people making your  parts, you're getting them in days instead of weeks, you don't have to  worry about whether your supplier's employees are committing suicide  while on shift, etc, etc.
There are other factors going into shipping jobs overseas.

Personally,  I'm working for a totally new IT company as of November 2012, because  the company I was working for, which was owned for almost 30 years by  the same guy, was purchased.  Some obscure tax code changed and he was  looking at a gigantic tax hit - so he bailed.  He sold the entire thing  without advance warning or looking back even once.

Jobs get  shipped over to China because.... and this is the hard part for most  people to recognize.... _China's business environment is actually more  stable than ours._  Their government has bought into the notion that  encouraging business adds to overall prosperity... and ours is actively  rejecting that idea.  The extra theoretical 10% cost to manufacture  here isn't 10% - it's much more, once you factor in the taxes, the cost  of regulation compliance, the lobbying efforts, saving up a legal war  chest, protecting spotted owl habitat, etc, etc.  And the bull$#@! piles  up higher every single day.





> I, too, used to be in IT...


If you worked in IT and have an MBA I could land you a good-paying  job at my company in Northern Virginia, and get paid $2500 to do it.....

----------


## jmdrake

Thread winna!  We erect *internal* trade barrier, then lower *external* trade barriers and wonder why we have high unemployment and debt.




> No, it's not worth it, but I'm also more willing to place the blame  squarely where it's deserved: on the state.  There's one major reason  why this stuff is made in China and shipped over here, and it has to do  with our governments making it less desirable to make them here, and  China's making it more desirable to make them over there.
> I flat-out  reject the notion that a potential 10% increase in price isn't worth it  provided you're able to actually communicate with the people making your  parts, you're getting them in days instead of weeks, you don't have to  worry about whether your supplier's employees are committing suicide  while on shift, etc, etc.
> There are other factors going into shipping jobs overseas.
> 
> Personally,  I'm working for a totally new IT company as of November 2012, because  the company I was working for, which was owned for almost 30 years by  the same guy, was purchased.  Some obscure tax code changed and he was  looking at a gigantic tax hit - so he bailed.  He sold the entire thing  without advance warning or looking back even once.
> 
> Jobs get  shipped over to China because.... and this is the hard part for most  people to recognize.... _China's business environment is actually more  stable than ours._  Their government has bought into the notion that  encouraging business adds to overall prosperity... and ours is actively  rejecting that idea.  The extra theoretical 10% cost to manufacture  here isn't 10% - it's much more, once you factor in the taxes, the cost  of regulation compliance, the lobbying efforts, saving up a legal war  chest, protecting spotted owl habitat, etc, etc.  And the bull$#@! piles  up higher every single day.
> 
> 
> ...

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Gosh!
> 
> I'm convinced......... couple of charts, a snarky comment about unicorns and all of a sudden I realize my own perception has been completely wrong.
> 
> Actually this kind of twisted, data manipulating doublespeak is part of the reason actual manufacturing has left this country.
> *
> Our government and it's statisticians permit such things as bolting two Chinese manufactured parts together and sticking a "Made in USA" sticker on a widget to count as "manufacturing"...There are literally thousands of other work arounds that emulate this practice and supply cooked data to the sources you site as if they're gospel..*
> 
> Like I said, I've lived it, I'm still living it, and it's not getting any better no matter how many pretty charts and shiney reports government puts out.
> ...


IDK how common this is, but Fender (at least back in the 90s) guitars were often labeled "made in Mexico" when in fact they were _assembled_ there.  The parts are all US made and are readily serviced/repaired in any US shop.

----------


## tod evans

I'm not well enough versed to place blame anywhere but I'm more than happy to jump on the blame government train!

I know what I see and what I've seen and honestly where we are as a nation scares me, scared for my son more than myself.

He will grow up knowing the trades as well as self-sufficiency but good Lord what a unproductive bunch of ninnies we've become...

----------


## enoch150

> Keep in mind, 97% of Americans don't know what a job is. A job is *NOT* wealth. A job is a payment for wealth. In order to grow strawberries, you must spend the time planting the seeds, watering the plant, picking the strawberries, etc. ... If you can "purchase" the same wealth and pay less for it (less jobs), you are better off. This is why fewer manufacturing jobs is a good thing, especially since U.S. manufacturing output goes up every year (except recessions). Likewise, if you can pay poor people in a foreign country to do unskilled labor for cheaper than your time is worth (once again, a savings in the price to get the wealth), you are also better off.
> 
> This should be common sense for Americans, but sadly it is not.


This is really the heart of it. The anti-free traders are stuck thinking income is wealth when wealth is actually the ability to consume. It is absolutely undeniable that Americans are able to consume more today than in 1970 (or whenever the "peak of heavy industrial might" is imagined.) Americans are already able to outbid the rest of the world for the goods they produce. Yet somehow the anti-free traders are convinced that everyone in the country will be better off by shrinking global production and rising prices. 

Halting free trade will make the country worse off in an absolute sense. Some people will benefit - those who were so inefficient that they were incapable of competing without government intervention to block trade - but the rest of the country will suffer.




> If jobs were truly wealth, the government could simply pay Americans to dig holes and fill them back up again. We would have 0% unemployment and 0 wealth.


Digging holes is so 1930's. Now the government hires people to count other people, or to sit on the border with a gun and scare off Mexicans, or to molest people at airports.

----------


## tod evans

Kids today are taught that consumption is wealth, in my day property was wealth.....Dirt property not stuff you can carry!

If the ability to trade paper for trinkets is the type of wealth you're seeking then I suppose our country is doing well in your eyes.

----------


## Henry Rogue

> For whatever reason, my brother has this radical notion that the United States can survive without any imports whatsoever. I tried proving him wrong with common sense, but that doesn't seem to work. Any examples that someone can share of things that we use in the United States that can't be made domestically? And please provide links to such evidence so I can show him where the findings originated from.


The people can survive, I don't know if the government in it's current form could survive.

----------


## enoch150

> Kids today are taught that consumption is wealth, in my day property was wealth.....Dirt property not stuff you can carry!
> 
> If the ability to trade paper for trinkets is the type of wealth you're seeking then I suppose our country is doing well in your eyes.


Wealth is the ability to consume the things you want. 




> ...wealth can be defined as a claim on, or command of, resources (commodities, capital equipment, time, physical labor, et cetera) that have the potential to make the individual's existence easier, more comfortable or more enjoyable (i.e. "better") than it would be in the absence of such things. Because value is subjective, wealth cannot be measured cardinally, but it is possible to measure ordinally.
> 
> In short, wealth can be said to be the ability to have desires fulfilled.
> 
> http://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Wealth

----------


## Kregisen

> Gosh!
> 
> I'm convinced......... couple of charts, a snarky comment about unicorns and all of a sudden I realize my own perception has been completely wrong.
> 
> Actually this kind of twisted, data manipulating doublespeak is part of the reason actual manufacturing has left this country.
> 
> Our government and it's statisticians permit such things as bolting two Chinese manufactured parts together and sticking a "Made in USA" sticker on a widget to count as "manufacturing"...There are literally thousands of other work arounds that emulate this practice and supply cooked data to the sources you site as if they're gospel..
> 
> Like I said, I've lived it, I'm still living it, and it's not getting any better no matter how many pretty charts and shiney reports government puts out.
> ...


Actually, you have it backwards. America sends a bunch of exports to China, where they assemble and manufacture items with the products the U.S. exported, and then send them back to America. A simple example is salmon. Salmon is caught in Alaska by fisheries, which then transport it to China for processing, and then back to the U.S. to sell. 

It's common for people to refuse seeing facts due to first-hand accounts showing differently. It could be hard for someone living in Hawaii to believe that some parts of the U.S. have blizzards. Likewise, the free trade issue revolves around what is "seen" and what is "unseen". Americans (largely uneducated on the subject) see "jobs taken away" but can't outright see the benefits of trade, such as their unbelievably low prices on many items. In order to account for what it seen and what is unseen, you have to look at the statistics. If you refuse to look at the statistics, like you yourself are admitting to, then there will be no changing your mind on whether free trade is good or not. That's fine. I don't make any money based on what you believe. I encourage you to see past your historic misconceptions and look at why free trade is good, from a critical thinking/logical perspective, before even looking at the empirical data which further proves it.

----------


## Kregisen

> [/COLOR]Sweet Jesus - do you even recognize how meaningless that graph is?  Where are the definitions?  We have no idea what those lines mean.  FAIL^2.


If you would read the graph, you would see it says INDPRO which is the industrial production index created and monitored by the board of governors at the fed. It tells you which year is equal to 100. lol of course it would be a "fail" if you can't read graphs.




> Manufacturing widgets is NOT heavy industry.  Heavy industry provides us with the means to engage in light and medium industries.  If nobody is producing steel, there can be no tractors and hence no industrial strength agriculture


Did you know that U.S. tariffs on steel that have "saved" U.S. steel manufacturing jobs have increased the cost of steel by 20% (HUGE added costs to a industry already crumbling) to U.S. automobile manufacturers, and have thus cost U.S. auto jobs in Detroit? Once again, the "seen" vs. "unseen".

If someone has a comparative advantage in steel production, let them produce steel and use the savings to do what your comparative advantage is in.




> our heavy industrial capacities are at an all time post-industrial low, which places our capacity for self-reliance at an all time low.


Stats on this please.




> When I was doing the MBA the staff, fabulous as they otherwise were, could not shut their yaps about "global interdependence" and how it is the future and how it makes everyone better off. BULL. $#@!.  It makes everyone more vulnerable to centrally operated levers.  When nation A has not the ability to feed itself and They want a certain circumstance to be established, what shall the "Them" in nation A do other than lay down and open Their legs?  Nothing.  Why?  Because those with the bigger levers have let the Little Thems know that if they do not comply those levers will move in ways that will make Little Thems feel the pinch.  If the people of nation A get uppity, the levers are all that are needed in most cases to get them back into a state of right thinking and compliance.  The more centrally controlled things become, the worse off we all are.  The apparent paradox of globalism is that despite appearing like a decentralization of control, it is actually a massive concentration of the same.  Render the entire world incapable of any nation fending for itself in a meaningful manner and you have the planet by the balls.  And of course in those rare instances where noncompliance persists, there remains the sword as an option.


This is simply reading a novel. None of this is substantiated based on fact. First off, nothing works in absolutes like this. No nation will ever be growing zero food. The U.S. is increasing in manufacturing even when accounting for inflation. Give stats on this or we'll have to assume this is all made up.

----------


## oyarde

> Wealth is the ability to consume the things you want.


Yeah , we know all of that , but you must at least consider some of us  grew up consuming all we needed and it was all provided easily by what we did or our friends did , or by others within an hours drive did , for the most part and we viewed that as a good thing.we all know it is not the same world. I am not really though all that impressed by the current state of affairs , I reckon , forgive me if this does not make sense , I am old & drunk , worked about 12 hrs today .

----------


## oyarde

> The people can survive, I don't know if the government in it's current form could survive.


I no longer care if the govt survives until tomorrow, I recall , maybe 1920's , a Judge being quoted that taxes are the price of civilized society, or some such nonsense..... I would prefer the taxes of Ceasar or King George over what I pay , and I am no longer interested in paying them. I like civilization , to a point........

----------


## tod evans

> Actually, you have it backwards. [snip] Americans (largely uneducated on the subject) see "jobs taken away" but can't outright see the benefits of trade, such as their unbelievably low prices on many items. In order to account for what it seen and what is unseen, you have to look at the statistics. If you refuse to look at the statistics, like you yourself are admitting to, then there will be no changing your mind on whether free trade is good or not. That's fine. I don't make any money based on what you believe. I encourage you to see past your historic misconceptions and look at why free trade is good, from a critical thinking/logical perspective, before even looking at the empirical data which further proves it.


I understand the position you are taking and although it is true that goods are cheaper and you may buy more stuff and even make money off less work that doesn't necessarily make these decisions wise or prudent.

One of the points I was making is that by neutering our manufacturing base we have lost the skills (not _jobs_) required to be a self sufficient nation..

Over the course of history empires that rely on "other people" to maintain their standard of living have crumbled, and here you are advocating that it's fine to rely on foreign countries because it's profitable in the short term.

There's a bigger picture than making FRN's and purchasing trinkets, knowledge, ability and infrastructure to withdraw from "entangling alliances" is every bit as important to me as hoarding trinkets.

----------


## Kregisen

> I understand the position you are taking and although it is true that goods are cheaper and you may buy more stuff and even make money off less work that doesn't necessarily make these decisions wise or prudent.
> 
> One of the points I was making is that by neutering our manufacturing base we have lost the skills (not _jobs_) required to be a self sufficient nation..
> 
> Over the course of history empires that rely on "other people" to maintain their standard of living have crumbled, and here you are advocating that it's fine to rely on foreign countries because it's profitable in the short term.
> 
> There's a bigger picture than making FRN's and purchasing trinkets, knowledge, ability and infrastructure to withdraw from "entangling alliances" is every bit as important to me as hoarding trinkets.


At least you are explaining your views better. I still disagree, but at least this can at least make sense.

----------


## tod evans

Crawling into bed with countries who used to be our sworn enemies, for money, makes us no better than a common whore.

But by golly the trinkets _are_ cheaper and there's no messy manufacturing taking place in _our_ pristine utopia..

There really is a difference between one who stands in front of a mirror for self reflection and one who stands there to primp for the next John...


After thinking about the consumption = wealth position...........I can agree that the _ability_ to consume without lowering your standard of living does equal wealth.
Problem is our nation long ago lowered its standard of living and some folks refuse to acknowledge that and instead focus on the ability to purchase trinkets.

----------


## Kregisen

The ability to consume IS your standard of living...do you mean the ability to consume without taking in debt?

----------


## tod evans

> The ability to consume IS your standard of living...do you mean the ability to consume without taking in debt?


No, I meant what I typed.."I can agree that the ability to consume without lowering your standard of living does equal wealth."

If a person takes on debt or in any way lowers their standard of living such as both parents working or selling an asset then in my opinion they have lost wealth in order to continue consuming..

----------


## Southron

We could survive without most imports quite easily I believe.  As it is, I try to buy as few imported products as possible.  I don't mind paying more for something made in the US.  When it comes to tools, I seem to save money in the long run anyway when I buy something made here over cheap disposable Chinese products.

----------


## Seraphim

I think this is being overlooked in this thread.

The US produces more food per capita than the rest of the world. Oil, gas, timber, mines - CHECK.

Surviving won't be hard for the 47% or so of Americans who are truely productive. Short of civil war, WW3 total outbreak....

Ipods, TVs, phones...the things imported, for the most part...are hardly necessary. 

*The USA is still the #1 producer of all that is good in life.*





> We could survive without most imports quite easily I believe.  As it is, I try to buy as few imported products as possible.  I don't mind paying more for something made in the US.  When it comes to tools, I seem to save money in the long run anyway when I buy something made here over cheap disposable Chinese products.

----------


## Danan

A few people seem to be in dire need of some Bastiat:

*http://www.econlib.org/library/Basti...ree%20Aldermen*
Especially relevant.

And also:

http://www.econlib.org/library/Basti...20by%20Subsidy
http://www.econlib.org/library/Basti...oreign%20Labor
http://www.econlib.org/library/Basti...e%20of%20Trade
http://www.econlib.org/library/Basti...20A%20Petition
http://www.econlib.org/library/Basti...20Wage%20Rates
http://www.econlib.org/library/Basti...Protectionists
http://www.econlib.org/library/Basti...20of%20Plunder
http://www.econlib.org/library/Basti...and%20Laborers
http://www.econlib.org/library/Basti...Chinese%20Tale

Free trade is and always has been one of the key goals of fighters for liberty.

----------


## oyarde

> We could survive without most imports quite easily I believe.  As it is, I try to buy as few imported products as possible.  I don't mind paying more for something made in the US.  When it comes to tools, I seem to save money in the long run anyway when I buy something made here over cheap disposable Chinese products.


I have too agree about tools , imported tools are $#@! .

----------


## oyarde

> A few people seem to be in dire need of some Bastiat:
> 
> *http://www.econlib.org/library/Basti...ree%20Aldermen*
> Especially relevant.
> 
> And also:
> 
> http://www.econlib.org/library/Basti...20by%20Subsidy
> http://www.econlib.org/library/Basti...oreign%20Labor
> ...


I have enjoyed reading Bastiat. I like the idea of free trade. I also like the idea of the evil Fed govt getting out of business .Business is the Peoples Business.

----------


## fr33

> I think this is being overlooked in this thread.
> 
> The US produces more food per capita than the rest of the world. Oil, gas, timber, mines - CHECK.
> 
> Surviving won't be hard for the 47% or so of Americans who are truely productive. Short of civil war, WW3 total outbreak....
> 
> Ipods, TVs, phones...the things imported, for the most part...are hardly necessary. 
> 
> *The USA is still the #1 producer of all that is good in life.*


Your alleged 47% of productive Americans for the most part are living amongst the 53% that aren't and are totally integrated to live amongst them and allow them to be parasites on an every-day basis.

Why would farmers continue to produce at the same previous rate when many, if not most, of their customers will be unable to pay them?

The fact is such a scenario would be hard on pretty much every American. Even the blue-blood paper-pushers would have to get their hands dirty; and those types would rather a war be fought than to do that.

----------


## Crystallas

Trade is the best keeper of peace.

----------


## tod evans

> I have too agree about tools , imported tools are $#@! .


Some imported tools are very well made;

Here's where woodworkers are looking for quality tools ever since manufacturing left our shores..

http://www.martin-usa.com/cms/_main/.../t75-prex.html
http://www.martin-usa.com/cms/_main/fraesen0/ts200.html


http://www.scmgroupna.com/us/spindle...0_linvincibile
http://www.scmgroupna.com/us/sliding...0_linvincibile

----------


## Austrian Econ Disciple

Sure, the US could survive, but it (the people) would be vastly poorer, and the incentive to invade neighboring countries and territories for resources would be exponentially greater (and such support of it). Trade not only increases standard of living, but also reduces the proclivity of war and violence. Its expansion should be encouraged at all possible times, not fought against...

----------


## Austrian Econ Disciple

> [/COLOR]
> Holy cow, talk about logic FAIL, conflating positive reality with what COULD be in valid theory.
> 
> No soup for you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sweet Jesus - do you even recognize how meaningless that graph is?  Where are the definitions?  We have no idea what those lines mean.  FAIL^2.
> ...


I don't understand what you're getting at. You're mad at the 'central levers' (whatever or whoever that would be in Free Trade I have no clue...), for providing resources and materials that otherwise such people would not have, or would have at much greater costs, that 'they' can take away and 'force' 'compliance'...forgetting that in your state of preference, these people would not have those resources or that standard of living in the first place, so it is better to be poorer and less inter-dependent (read: Division of Labor). Sounds wonderful...How about you restrict all trade and see how well you do and then come back to me and tell me how terrible trade is. Best start throwing out everything anyone other than you made. Bye bye computer, internet, umm...CIVILIZATION.

----------


## jmdrake

So much fail from the so called "free traders" in this thread that it's not even funny.  No "free trade" as it's currently implemented is *not* making our nation wealthy.  That does *not* mean, however, that we need protectionist trade policies.  We need policies that get government out of the way of *internal* trade.  For instance, we could be 100% energy independent if not for crippling government regulation.

See: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...51#post5003251

And that's just one example.  But what happens if America becomes energy independent?  Well the Saudis, if they haven't properly diversified their assets yet, go bankrupt.  But it's also the end of the "petro-dollar" which means the end of the USD being the world reserve currency which means the end of cheap imports and the false illusion of "wealth" the Federal Reserve has created.

----------


## tod evans

> Sounds wonderful...How about you restrict all trade and see how well you do and then come back to me and tell me how terrible trade is. Best start throwing out everything anyone other than you made. Bye bye computer, internet, umm...CIVILIZATION.


Sounds like it's you who's not "getting it", no one's screaming for trade restrictions.

However there are several bemoaning the effects of our governments interference that has caused manufacturing to be cheaper 1/2 a world away..

The interference has been in effect for so long now that several things have happened...

>) Our once industrious workforce doesn't exist
>) Our companies that employed the workforce have either folded or moved offshore
>) The long-term effects of lost industry are starting to show 
>) Two generations have been taught that patronizing foreign businesses is acceptable
>) Empires big enough to sway policy have been built using foreign labor


._......."Bye bye computer, internet, umm...CIVILIZATION."..........

And here we have another vote for plastic China trinkets.._

Please tell me; 
What industry do you derive your income from?
What is "civilization" to you?

----------


## Danan

> So much fail from the so called "free traders" in this thread that it's not even funny.  No "free trade" as it's currently implemented is *not* making our nation wealthy.  That does *not* mean, however, that we need protectionist trade policies.  We need policies that get government out of the way of *internal* trade.  For instance, we could be 100% energy independent if not for crippling government regulation.


Nobody denies that the restrictions governments put on trade domestically as well as internationally are hurtful and should be abolished. However, the economy would be even worse if it were not for foreign trade.

The point is that it is not only immoral to restrict trade with people from other countries, but it's also bad economically. Free trade (meaning no government intervention) is a positive thing that should be allowed *and* encouraged, not something like drug use that should be legal but maybe not necessarily done.

The division of labor is probably the single best intervention of human beings. The more, the better. There is no good reason to live "independed" (meaning with as little voluntary interaction with others as possible, especially with foreigners!) just for the sake of it. I mean, you are certainly free to live that way if that what's making you happy. But we got to be honest and realize that this means way lower standards of living in terms of material well-being. That's just an economic fact.

Of course the way international trade is facilitated atm is not perfect. Of course governments intervene all the time, causing inefficiencies. But you don't argue against domestic capitalism, just because the government is too much involved right now.

----------


## jmdrake

> Nobody denies that the restrictions governments put on trade domestically as well as internationally are hurtful and should be abolished. However, the economy would be even worse if it were not for foreign trade.


So called "foreign trade" is propped up by the very thing we are trying to abolish which is the federal reserve.  And seriously, your side is *ignoring* that.  Some idiot posted early on in this thread that the fact that poor people can afford imported junk is "proof" that free trade is "working".  My counterpoint, that your side *ignores* is that without being subsidized by debt financed government spending, those poor people wouldn't be able to afford that imported junk.  And without the federal reserve backed "petro dollar" our economy would be even more and there would be almost no foreign imports because nobody would be able to afford it.  I'm not saying start a trade war.  I'm saying wake up and see the truth.  We definitely *could* survive without imports and if/when this federal reserve backed house of cards comes crashing down many (if not most) of us will probably have to.  Division of labor?  Don't make me freaking laugh!  It's not "division of labor" when your own people are taken out of the labor force through welfare, regulations, child labor laws and minimum wage laws!  We are internally and intentionally handicapping our own manufacturing base while crying "Free trade".  That's not "division of labor".  It's insanity.

----------


## jmdrake

One more thing.  This whole argument is asinine *because we don't have free trade*!  NAFTA isn't free trade.  It's corportist (fascist) managed trade.  Under NAFTA Mexican companies can get special waivers where they can drive across the border without inspection as long as they first get "certified" by the U.S. government to do the inspections on their side of the border!  Are you allowed to do that as a private citizen?  If not, then it's not "free trade".  Or look what happened with the lead paint toy fiasco.  In the wake of lead based paint toys coming from China, congress passed a law saying that all toys had to be inspected for lead paint.  Only *U.S. toy manufacturers can't get lead paint!*  Guess who got an exemption and was able to do its own inspections?  *Mattel.  The same company that imported the lead based paint tainted toys in the first place!*  So, U.S. toy manufacturers get put out of business, "foreign" trade increases to fill the demand, and somehow foreign trade is responsible for what "good" we have in our economy?  Bollocks!  And before someone says "Well I don't support that", that's irrelevant.  This is the *reality* whether you support it or not.  I'm not for trade barriers.  But I'm for doing the right things, *which would have the natural result of decreasing foreign trade*.  Cut the deficit spending.  Subject imports to the same regulations placed on domestically produced goods.  Reduce taxes and regulations internally.  End the welfare state.  Quit using wars in the middle east to prop up the petro-dollar.  All of those things will *significantly* reduce foreign trade.  And yes they will be painful in the short term.  But the pain is needed.

----------


## Danan

> So called "foreign trade" is propped up by the very thing we are trying to abolish which is the federal reserve.  And seriously, your side is *ignoring* that.  Some idiot posted early on in this thread that the fact that poor people can afford imported junk is "proof" that free trade is "working".  My counterpoint, that your side *ignores* is that without being subsidized by debt financed government spending, those poor people wouldn't be able to afford that imported junk.  And without the federal reserve backed "petro dollar" our economy would be even more and there would be almost no foreign imports because nobody would be able to afford it.  I'm not saying start a trade war.  I'm saying wake up and see the truth.  We definitely *could* survive without imports and if/when this federal reserve backed house of cards comes crashing down many (if not most) of us will probably have to.  Division of labor?  Don't make me freaking laugh!  It's not "division of labor" when your own people are taken out of the labor force through welfare, regulations, child labor laws and minimum wage laws!  We are internally and intentionally handicapping our own manufacturing base while crying "Free trade".  That's not "division of labor".  It's insanity.


Again, everybody here advocating free trade is also against domestic intervention in commercial activities. Nobody ignores that, but that's not really the subject of the discussion. However, given that the Fed *is* printing money and subsidizing government spending, given that oil *is* being traded in dollars, given that people *do* get welfare, that regulations *are* a burden for entrepreneurs, that child labor laws and minimum wages *create* unemployment, given *all that*, is being able to freely trade with individuals a net benefit or a net disadvantage?

Would the economic situation be any better - _ceteris paribus_ - if the government would ban all imports tomorrow or enacted a high(er) protective tariff? The answer is: *No*, it would be even worse.

If you're asking the question if a law that would abolish free trade as well as the Federal Reserve System at the same time would be a good idea, that's a whole other topic. To answer that would be very hard. The former would create massive damage, the latter would be great. That's a difficult empirical question to answer. But that's not really a sensible question, since one does not depend on the other.

Given any imaginable state of affairs, being able to freely trade with foreigners is *never*  a net-negative. It can also *not* create (long-term) unemployment in and of itself.

----------


## osan

> I don't understand what you're getting at. You're mad at the 'central levers' (whatever or whoever that would be in Free Trade I have no clue...), for providing resources and materials that otherwise such people would not have, or would have at much greater costs, that 'they' can take away and 'force' 'compliance'...forgetting that in your state of preference, these people would not have those resources or that standard of living in the first place, so it is better to be poorer and less inter-dependent (read: Division of Labor). Sounds wonderful...How about you restrict all trade and see how well you do and then come back to me and tell me how terrible trade is. Best start throwing out everything anyone other than you made. Bye bye computer, internet, umm...CIVILIZATION.


Oh mother of all face palms...  Are you serious?

If you cannot figure out the meaning of my use of "lever" then you need more help than I am able to afford you.

In a dishonest market that is more or less centrally controlled and where nations are so labor divided that they cannot fend for themselves due to an over dependence on other nations for essentials such as basic foods, the threats posed there to freedom in such markets should be obvious.  Shrieking Jesus, man... your brain is NOT just a hat rack.  If you're breathing on your own then you are smarter than what that ridiculous paragraph suggests.  

It has been historically observed that such interference with market economies tends to drive costs up and causes all manner of other and perhaps more significant problems. 

Then you attempt to pull the exclusive-or fallacy of bivalent reasoning.  I said NOTHING nor did I imply anything about restricting all trade.  FAIL and NO friggin' soup for you.  Your "reasoning" in the paragraph above is so foul with errors you should be ashamed of yourself.

----------


## osan

> Did you know that U.S. tariffs on steel that have "saved" U.S. steel manufacturing jobs have increased the cost of steel by 20% (HUGE added costs to a industry already crumbling) to U.S. automobile manufacturers, and have thus cost U.S. auto jobs in Detroit? Once again, the "seen" vs. "unseen".


Orthogonal to anything I wrote in my power.  Nice try.  No cigar.




> If someone has a comparative advantage in steel production, let them produce steel and use the savings to do what your comparative advantage is in.


If you think it is strategically sound to completely divest yourself of the means of surviving on your own wits then remind me never to team up with you in a life and death situation because you are displaying an alarming lack of basic sense.





> Stats on this please.


Not your errand boy.  I could as well take off my shoe and pound it on the podium as I demanded you provide stats to the contrary.




> This is simply reading a novel. None of this is substantiated based on fact. First off, nothing works in absolutes like this. No nation will ever be growing zero food. The U.S. is increasing in manufacturing even when accounting for inflation. Give stats on this or we'll have to assume this is all made up.


You have just blindly asserted that my argument is based on no facts while providing no facts to disprove me.  Yeah, that's going to get you far pal.

PLONK.

----------


## Danan

> Oh mother of all face palms...  Are you serious?
> 
> If you cannot figure out the meaning of my use of "lever" then you need more help than I am able to afford you.
> 
> In a dishonest market that is more or less centrally controlled and where nations are so labor divided that they cannot fend for themselves due to an over dependence on other nations for essentials such as basic foods, the threats posed there to freedom in such markets should be obvious.  Shrieking Jesus, man... your brain is NOT just a hat rack.  If you're breathing on your own then you are smarter than what that ridiculous paragraph suggests.  
> 
> It has been historically observed that such interference with market economies tends to drive costs up and causes all manner of other and perhaps more significant problems. 
> 
> Then you attempt to pull the exclusive-or fallacy of bivalent reasoning.  I said NOTHING nor did I imply anything about restricting all trade.  FAIL and NO friggin' soup for you.  Your "reasoning" in the paragraph above is so foul with errors you should be ashamed of yourself.


How is depending on your own nation for food any less dangerous than depending on people in the whole world?

----------


## tod evans

> How is depending on your own nation for food any less dangerous than depending on people in the whole world?


Mankind is a peaceful and benevolent species that would never do such evil as sanction members of his genus with tariffs or embargos..

Than goodness we live in this utopia...

----------


## Danan

> Mankind is a peaceful and benevolent species that would never do such evil as sanction members of his genus with tariffs or embargos..
> 
> Than goodness we live in this utopia...


And your own government is intellectually and morally superior and would never enact measures that could either knowingly or unknowingly create starvation? What if your own government screws up your domestic agriculture? Wouldn't it be better to "depend" on the rest of the world than on domestic food in that case?

Global food speculation is the single best tool against starvation. We would expect that to be the case from an economic point of view and empirical analysis can also prove that. Trading globally lowers costs and increases real wages.

----------


## jmdrake

> Again, everybody here advocating free trade is also against domestic intervention in commercial activities.


SMH Have you read the tread title?  Did you read the OP?  The question at hand is "can the U.S. survive without imports."  The answer is most assuredly *it can*!  The reason it might seem that it can't is because our economy is so screwed up thanks to regulations and subsidies.  Quit being stuck on stupid.




> Nobody ignores that, but that's not really the subject of the discussion. However, given that the Fed *is* printing money and subsidizing government spending, given that oil *is* being traded in dollars, given that people *do* get welfare, that regulations *are* a burden for entrepreneurs, that child labor laws and minimum wages *create* unemployment, given *all that*, is being able to freely trade with individuals a net benefit or a net disadvantage?


That's just it.  *We CAN'T freely trade with individuals!*  Try going to Mexico, buying some goods without going through bureaucratic red tape, coming back to the U.S. and selling it and see what happens!  Corporations can take advantage of so called "free trade".  Individuals *can not*!  Are we better off with mom and pop toy manufactures being told they have to test for lead paint *when freaking Mattel is allowed to continue to import toys from China that may be poisoned without doing any testing?*  Don't give my some hypothetical BS that you clearly don't understand.  Take *that* example and tell me how fake "free trade" is improving the U.S. economy!




> Would the economic situation be any better - _ceteris paribus_ - if the government would ban all imports tomorrow or enacted a high(er) protective tariff? The answer is: *No*, it would be even worse.


Don't be an idiot.  Nobody is saying "ban all imports".  I'm saying the government should quit picking winners and losers by putting U.S. manufacturers at a competitive disadvantage!  If American companies have to test for lead paint, than any importer should have to test for it as well.  And that's just *one* example of where regulations are put on American companies that are *not* put on foreign companies and idiots think that's "free trade".

----------


## Danan

> Don't be an idiot.  Nobody is saying "ban all imports".  I'm saying the government should quit picking winners and losers by putting U.S. manufacturers at a competitive disadvantage!  If American companies have to test for lead paint, than any importer should have to test for it as well.  And that's just *one* example of where regulations are put on American companies that are *not* put on foreign companies and idiots think that's "free trade".


Of course neither the foreign, nor the domestic product should be required to be tested. I believe we all agree on that.

Now *given* that the government requires domestic producers to test, should it also require foreign producers to test? My answer is no. On the one hand two wrongs don't make a right, on the other hand this wouldn't be an economically wise thing to do. It would increase the costs of these products.

Yes, it would also mean that maybe some American companies would again be more competitive in that market, so resources (capital and labor) would go into that sector. But what have these resources done before? Where they unemployed? No, they were used in other areas of the economy. Why? Because it was the efficient/economic thing to do before foreign products were tested.

So all this measure did was reallocating resources to a more inefficient state.

It's sort of like Ron Paul's stance on 50% not paying income taxes. "We're half way there!" Instead of advocating the regulation of foreign products like domestic products, the better strategy is to get rid of the domestic ones. "Leveling the playing field" doesn't do any good, economically. It's just an emotional response.

----------


## jmdrake

> Of course neither the foreign, nor the domestic product should be required to be tested. I believe we all agree on that.


The U.S. congress doesn't.




> Now *given* that the government requires domestic producers to test, should it also require foreign producers to test? My answer is no. On the one hand two wrongs don't make a right, on the other hand this wouldn't be an economically wise thing to do. It would increase the costs of these products.


SMH.  That's just plain stupid.  It's not a case of "two wrongs making a right".  It's a case of an unbalance wrong.  If I hit someone back who hit me, that's two wrongs not making a right.  If I'm playing a sport and I'm now being tested for steroids and my opponent is not, that is an unbalanced wrong.

Who cares if it's increasing the price of "these products"?  The price of those products, when made by an American company, are already artificially high.  




> Yes, it would also mean that maybe some American companies would again be more competitive in that market, so resources (capital and labor) would go into that sector. But what have these resources done before? Where they unemployed? No, they were used in other areas of the economy. Why? Because it was the efficient/economic thing to do before foreign products were tested.


Oh goodness!  Conclusory statement is conclusory and stupid.  I assume you meant "were they unemployed" versus "where they unemployed".  Regardless we do have high unemployment.  So you can't (honestly) say the resources were used in other areas of the economy.  But you can dishonestly say a lot of things.  And the reason such economic dishonesty seems "reasonable" is because the Federal Reserve is taking up the slack with by funding the social safety net through debt and an inflation tax.  Get rid of that and all of a sudden the starving masses will no longer care that they can buy "cheap" goods from China....which really aren't cheap at all.




> So all this measure did was reallocating resources to a more inefficient state.
> 
> It's sort of like Ron Paul's stance on 50% not paying income taxes. "We're half way there!" Instead of advocating the regulation of foreign products like domestic products, the better strategy is to get rid of the domestic ones. "Leveling the playing field" doesn't do any good, economically. It's just an emotional response.


That's not what happened in this case.  It wasn't a case of reducing income tax.  It was a case of *raising regulation on one sector*.  Sorry but that's not free market and I doubt Ron Paul would agree.  If any new regulation is passed it should be applied to all players involved.

----------


## tod evans

> And your own government is intellectually and morally superior and would never enact measures that could either knowingly or unknowingly create starvation? What if your own government screws up your domestic agriculture? Wouldn't it be better to "depend" on the rest of the world than on domestic food in that case?


"My government" isn't superior to squat! And they and their cronies in Big Ag have been screwing with everybodies agriculture for decades....

But no I don't want to depend on the rest of the world for food....




> Global food speculation is the single best tool against starvation. We would expect that to be the case from an economic point of view and empirical analysis can also prove that. Trading globally lowers costs and increases real wages.


You can effectively argue lesser global pricing, but local wages to purchase foodstuffs with, go down..

But why shift the discussion to food?

I'd rather talk about America's lost industry...

----------


## oyarde

> Some imported tools are very well made;
> 
> Here's where woodworkers are looking for quality tools ever since manufacturing left our shores..
> 
> http://www.martin-usa.com/cms/_main/.../t75-prex.html
> http://www.martin-usa.com/cms/_main/fraesen0/ts200.html
> 
> 
> http://www.scmgroupna.com/us/spindle...0_linvincibile
> http://www.scmgroupna.com/us/sliding...0_linvincibile


 Glad you guys have somewhere to go for quality , I wish I could make something square  , must be something wrong with my square , or , more likely I suck at it , lol

----------


## tod evans

> Glad you guys have somewhere to go for quality , I wish I could make something square  , must be something wrong with my square , or , more likely I suck at it , lol


Not that long ago some fine woodworking machinery was built right here in the USA, there's still some speciality stuff made here but by and large the bulk of under $10k equipment comes from Taiwan or China and I won't buy or use it.

As for square, look to Pythagoras..

----------


## jmdrake

> And your own government is intellectually and morally superior and would never enact measures that could either knowingly or unknowingly create starvation? What if your own government screws up your domestic agriculture? Wouldn't it be better to "depend" on the rest of the world than on domestic food in that case?
> 
> Global food speculation is the single best tool against starvation. We would expect that to be the case from an economic point of view and empirical analysis can also prove that. Trading globally lowers costs and increases real wages.





> "My government" isn't superior to squat! And they and their cronies in Big Ag have been screwing with everybodies agriculture for decades....
> 
> But no I don't want to depend on the rest of the world for food....
> 
> 
> 
> You can effectively argue lesser global pricing, but local wages to purchase foodstuffs with, go down..
> 
> But why shift the discussion to food?
> ...


You know, it's funny that the same people who think government would purposefully screw up domestic agriculture would turn around and believe it would magically do everything in its people's best interest when it comes to "free trade".  If a government is intent on starving its own people how does "foreign trade" prevent that exactly?  What we see happening in many cases is government controlling the imported food goods and dolling it out as a source of control.  Totally irrelevant to the discussion.  But true food security is local food security, with the greatest security being what you grow for yourself.  During the great depression people living in rural areas growing their own food didn't starve.  I know some of those old timers who are still around.  Their food supply wasn't dependent on Brazil.

----------


## SkepticalMetal

If the U.S. were to turn to autarky, then yes, I think it could survive, although as others have said here, the quality of living would shoot downhill. Nazi Germany attempted to reach full self-sufficiency with all of that German nationalist nonsense, but the quality of life (of the Aryans) was still better than what, say, the Soviets had.

----------


## Demigod

> If the U.S. were to turn to autarky, then yes, I think it could survive, although as others have said here, the quality of living would shoot downhill. Nazi Germany attempted to reach full self-sufficiency with all of that German nationalist nonsense, but the quality of life (of the Aryans) was still better than what, say, the Soviets had.


Because the Soviet Government killed its population on purpose.Read about the starvation in Ukraine,the region that could feed most of Europe got to the point of parents eating their dead children.It was all done with a clear goal to kill all the remaining groups/nations/tribes that were found not obedient enough for the new regime.Who did not die was sent to Siberia.Everything the people earned was sent to the inner 1-2% of the party.

In Germany the minorities and anyone who was seen as  "unfit" was robbed ( and later on sent to work camps ) to sustain that economic "miracle" of Germany,later on they robbed the occupied countries.What the Nazis achieved was mostly due to crazy crazy luck and a couple of brilliant commanders.Their army was generally always under supplied in comparison with any other army even the Soviets,and as soon as there was no one else to steal from their standard of living started dropping .

----------


## enoch150

> Did you read the OP?  The question at hand is "can the U.S. survive without imports."
> ...
> Nobody is saying "ban all imports".


I'm curious how you might imagine zero imports would occur without a government ban. The OP did not say "can the U.S. survive with _fewer_ imports", but rather, "_without any imports whatsoever._"

The U.S. clearly does not have an absolute advantage in all things, and even if we did, there are opportunity costs to consider.

----------


## jmdrake

> I'm curious how you might imagine zero imports would occur without a government ban. The OP did not say "can the U.S. survive with _fewer_ imports", but rather, "_without any imports whatsoever._"
> 
> The U.S. clearly does not have an absolute advantage in all things, and even if we did, there are opportunity costs to consider.


Right.  The OP said "can the U.S. survive."  And the answer is unquestionably "yes".  Would it be optimal?  No.  Is what we're doing now optimal?  (killing our own industry while opening the doors for multinational corporations like Mattel to economically rape us and literally poison our children all the while pretending it's "free trade" when really it's only "free" if you are a multinational)  No.  *HELL* no.  It only seems like it's "working" because our country is being fed the morphine of the petrodollar the fake Federal Reserve Note and the cost of this is being pushed off as long as it can to future generations.  Again, go back to the beginning of this thread where someone said:




> Well, the average person living in poverty has access to housing, food and education, air conditioning, multiple televisions, dishwashers, washer, dryer, phones, a computer, clothing, etc.


Can't you see how asinine that is?  The average person living in poverty has access to those things not because they are imported, but because that poor person is living off of the government's debt spending!  Take away unconstitutional federal spending and tell me what kind of lifestyle the average person who lacks a HS education and any marketable skills will have?

Oh, and let me go back to what you said.




> Survive? Yes. Thrive? No. We still depend on imported oil to maintain our present lifestyle, although we've dropped from 60% imports in 2005 to an expected 32% in 2014. Imported oil will remain a fact of life for the foreseeable future simply because production costs in other countries are so much less than in the US. The only way to eliminate imported oil completely would be to significantly increase prices and curtail consumption, which would impact quality of life.
> 
> I used to get so many of these trade questions that I came up with a standard 4 part response that I could just copy and paste. Here was part 1:


So you already admitted that the "We can't survive" meme is bollocks.  Your question is on "thriving".  Let me take the specific example you mentioned about foreign oil.  Do you understand how the petrodollar works?  Do you understand the deal with the devil we made to provide for Middle East "security" in exchange for the dollar being the world reserve currency?  Do you realize what will happen to our nation when that house of cards inevitably comes crashing down?  Do you also realize that we could probably be energy *independent* by now if not for crippling interference by the federal government?

I'm surprised nobody commented on my thread about that very fact.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...y-independence

But it seems people are more interested in pushing their on version of free market religion, than they are in actually discussing free market solutions.

----------


## jmdrake

> I think this is being overlooked in this thread.
> 
> The US produces more food per capita than the rest of the world. Oil, gas, timber, mines - CHECK.
> 
> Surviving won't be hard for the 47% or so of Americans who are truely productive. Short of civil war, WW3 total outbreak....
> 
> Ipods, TVs, phones...the things imported, for the most part...are hardly necessary. 
> 
> *The USA is still the #1 producer of all that is good in life.*





> Your alleged 47% of productive Americans for the most part are living amongst the 53% that aren't and are totally integrated to live amongst them and allow them to be parasites on an every-day basis.
> 
> Why would farmers continue to produce at the same previous rate when many, if not most, of their customers will be unable to pay them?
> 
> The fact is such a scenario would be hard on pretty much every American. Even the blue-blood paper-pushers would have to get their hands dirty; and those types would rather a war be fought than to do that.


Of course it will be hard.  But it's inevitable.  And it's not just the so called "53%" that will be in trouble.  It's the defense contractors and government bureaucrats who don't have transferable skills.  When the inevitable happens and the dollar is no longer the world reserve currency *and by extension all imports become prohibitively expensive for the average person* and there is no more government sugar-tit to make up the difference, these people will have to adapt or die.  The good thing is, humans are the most adaptable creatures on the planet.  When Hurricane Sandy shut down Manhattan, all of a sudden everybody learned how to dumpster dive for food.  Some of these folks would figure out how to garden.  Then some adaptations won't be as healthy.  Some will realize "We can wait for others to garden and then go steal what they've got."

^That scenario, of course, is only if it all comes crashing down at once.  Hopefully, prayerfully, our FRN produced debt addiction can be brought in for a soft landing, and while that happens people can be weaned off their dependence on it.

----------


## tod evans

> You know, it's funny that the same people who think government would purposefully screw up domestic agriculture would turn around and believe it would magically do everything in its people's best interest when it comes to "free trade".


I don't think that..

It's painfully obvious to me how government has quashed manufacturing in this country and by doing so tacitly supports foreign manufacturers.

----------


## awake

Could a person survive if he never left his own home and made everything himself?...sure, but you would be much poorer for it.

Productive manufacturing is something that gets destroyed for the sake of politician created "jobs"; you have to trade in one to get the other.

----------


## tod evans

> Could a person survive if he never left his own home and made everything himself?...sure, but you would be much poorer for it.


Poorer in what way?

Material possessions I can agree with.

----------


## enoch150

> It only seems like it's "working" because our country is being fed the morphine of the petrodollar the fake Federal Reserve Note and the cost of this is being pushed off as long as it can to future generations.
> 
> Can't you see how asinine that is?  The average person living in poverty has access to those things not because they are imported, but because that poor person is living off of the government's debt spending!
> 
> Do you understand how the petrodollar works?  Do you understand the deal with the devil we made to provide for Middle East "security" in exchange for the dollar being the world reserve currency?


You have things a bit backwards. The government deficit doesn't fund the trade deficit. The trade deficit funds the government deficit. That's how foreigners came to own 44% of Treasury debt. The dollar became the world's reserve currency prior to the "petrodollar" phenomenon. The dollar became the world's reserve currency because Britain was ruined from WW2. The petrodollar situation arose later and could not occur until after the dollar became the world's reserve currency, although petrodollars did help cement that status.

Your point about federal reserve notes and costs (through debt) being pushed off to future generations is granted, but they have nothing to do with the merits of free trade.

----------


## jmdrake

> You have things a bit backwards. The government deficit doesn't fund the trade deficit. The trade deficit funds the government deficit. That's how foreigners came to own 44% of Treasury debt. The dollar became the world's reserve currency prior to the "petrodollar" phenomenon. The dollar became the world's reserve currency because Britain was ruined from WW2. The petrodollar situation arose later and could not occur until after the dollar became the world's reserve currency, although petrodollars did help cement that status.
> 
> Your point about federal reserve notes and costs (through debt) being pushed off to future generations is granted, but they have nothing to do with the merits of free trade.


No I don't have it backwards.  It's a damn vicious cycle.  Foreigners keep buying our debt because they want to prop up our economy so we'll keep buying their junk.  The cycle is spiralling out of control and can't last forever.  One of two things will happen.  The U.S. debt bubble will be brought in for a soft landing, in part by cutting off the sugar-tit that's allowing the fake illusion of the "good life" that KingNothing was referring to.  (Poor people buying washing machines and toaster ovens).  Or the bubble will burst and there will be a catostrophic collapse.

And you are totally missing the point that I'm making about the costs being pushed off to future generations.  *That's a rebuttal to KingNothings asinine point that foreign trade is what is helping poor people live the good life.  It is NOT!*  I don't know how many times I have to explain that before it sinks in.  Debt financing is what funds welfare spending, *not* free trade.  It's stupid beyond belief to use how the poor are doing in this country as proof of anything.

Also, how the U.S. became the world's reserve currency is totally irrelevant to the point I'm making regarding the petrodollar which is *it can't last forever*.  And further, with regards to energy needs, we don't need it.  The U.S., contrary to your earlier claim, could be completely free of dependence of foreign oil but for federal regulations suppressing alternatives either on purpose or through incompetence.  Yet, as you admit, the petrodollar is what is currently keeping the USD as the world's reserve currency.  So...there's no incentive on the part of the U.S. government for America to truly be energy independent.  But is that really good for the average American?

----------


## jmdrake

> Could a person survive if he never left his own home and made everything himself?...sure, but you would be much poorer for it.
> 
> Productive manufacturing is something that gets destroyed for the sake of politician created "jobs"; you have to trade in one to get the other.


*sigh* Why do people always try to turn this into "Should you not trade with anybody at all?"  America is a huge *huge* nation and we do well doing most, if not all, of our trade internally.  Again I'm *not* saying ban all imports.  But our current fascist two-in-one  party regime has slowly squeezed the life out of domestic manufacturing while opening the door wider for foreign manufacturing.  The lead paint toys example I gave is but *one* example of this.

----------


## Austrian Econ Disciple

> Poorer in what way?
> 
> Material possessions I can agree with.


Economics only deals with the material world, and you're in the Economics forum, with an economic guided thread. Also, I'd imagine that material well-being correlates quite highly with other forms of well-being (spiritual, happiness, etc.). I very often do not see the destitute and deprived uplifted of spirit or attitude, unless they are rich in other ways (e.g. living in a beautiful area (tropical paradise, etc.)). 

The point was, that trade and interaction enriches our lives and material wealth. If we could extend what we have here in US (free-trade amongst the states, relatively speaking), to all other areas of the world, that would greatly increase the well-being of billions of people.

----------


## Austrian Econ Disciple

> No I don't have it backwards.  It's a damn vicious cycle.  Foreigners keep buying our debt because they want to prop up our economy so we'll keep buying their junk.  The cycle is spiralling out of control and can't last forever.  One of two things will happen.  The U.S. debt bubble will be brought in for a soft landing, in part by cutting off the sugar-tit that's allowing the fake illusion of the "good life" that KingNothing was referring to.  (Poor people buying washing machines and toaster ovens).  Or the bubble will burst and there will be a catostrophic collapse.
> 
> And you are totally missing the point that I'm making about the costs being pushed off to future generations.  *That's a rebuttal to KingNothings asinine point that foreign trade is what is helping poor people live the good life.  It is NOT!*  I don't know how many times I have to explain that before it sinks in.  Debt financing is what funds welfare spending, *not* free trade.  It's stupid beyond belief to use how the poor are doing in this country as proof of anything.
> 
> Also, how the U.S. became the world's reserve currency is totally irrelevant to the point I'm making regarding the petrodollar which is *it can't last forever*.  And further, with regards to energy needs, we don't need it.  The U.S., contrary to your earlier claim, could be completely free of dependence of foreign oil but for federal regulations suppressing alternatives either on purpose or through incompetence.  Yet, as you admit, the petrodollar is what is currently keeping the USD as the world's reserve currency.  So...there's no incentive on the part of the U.S. government for America to truly be energy independent.  But is that really good for the average American?


If foreigners are buying our debt (e.g. loaning the USG monies), then that means they're only buying their own goods with nominal interest. That's not a winning proposition for them, and they'll eventually realize this. Also, the way deficit and surplus is calculated is completely asinine and bogus. Bastiat makes a pretty good mockery of it. In any event, the simple fact remains - trade enriches livelihood, while restriction inhibits it. We'd both like to see NAFTA, etc. gone forever, but I on the other hand would rather have free-trade (e.g., no Government involvement), and you'd rather see more restrictions imposed. NAFTA is relative after-all. I'd rather have NAFTA than have the trade policy of the North Koreans for instance, but they're both terrible recommendations. Also, I do not see anyone arguing that NAFTA is free-trade. 

All I see is people defending Division of Labor, free-trade, and other economic principles against the people who'd like to see NAFTA thrown out only to be replaced by draconian Government-imposed tariffs and other rent-seeking, competition stifling, extortionist, rights-restricting measures. There's no difference if I enter into a contract with my neighbor, or someone living in Myanmar.

----------


## Austrian Econ Disciple

> *sigh* Why do people always try to turn this into "Should you not trade with anybody at all?"  America is a huge *huge* nation and we do well doing most, if not all, of our trade internally.  Again I'm *not* saying ban all imports.  But our current fascist two-in-one  party regime has slowly squeezed the life out of domestic manufacturing while opening the door wider for foreign manufacturing.  The lead paint toys example I gave is but *one* example of this.


Why is domestic manufacturing better in any economic sense, than foreign? All I see is nationalistic drivel. Who cares if it is some guys in Washington or Wyoming producing the goods compared with someone living in Malaysia or Uganda? I don't think your quite realize the vastness of resources needed to even create the most seemingly benign good. I shall call thee in Hayek's vocabulary; fatal conceit. 

Also, for the record, I'm not arguing about political reality, but about economic maxim's. In fact, I'd argue if our choice were between NAFTA or North Korea protectionism we would be much worse off with the strict-protectionism of NK, which is what some people like Buchanan would like to see. I can only imagine the terrible consequences of such a policy (Can you imagine the popular support for wars for resources when you've overnight increased the scarcity of goods and resources and thus, lowered the standard of living tremendously?).

----------


## tod evans

And you have pulled a response to a statement of one family making everything themselves and twisted it to encompass global trade.

Thanks for reminding me that we're posting in the economics forum.

Why is it that you think I would care one iota about improving the living standards halfway across the globe when doing so is having a negative effect _economically_ on my family? 

When my family is doing well financially we're more than happy to make charitable contributions, first to the economically deprived here in this country and _then_ to those in other countries.

I personally want my neighbors to do well before I worry about the populations in other nations, and my neighbors worked for generations in the manufacturing industry, you know the heavy industry that has moved to other countries...

So feel free to call me greedy or self centered or even globally challenged, but my immediate family comes first, then my neighbors, then US citizens and finally at the bottom of the heap the " billions of people " you seem to think I should be concerned with....





> Economics only deals with the material world, and you're in the Economics forum, with an economic guided thread. Also, I'd imagine that material well-being correlates quite highly with other forms of well-being (spiritual, happiness, etc.). I very often do not see the destitute and deprived uplifted of spirit or attitude, unless they are rich in other ways (e.g. living in a beautiful area (tropical paradise, etc.)). 
> 
> The point was, that trade and interaction enriches our lives and material wealth. If we could extend what we have here in US (free-trade amongst the states, relatively speaking), to all other areas of the world, that would greatly increase the well-being of billions of people.



Here's the quoted post of mine that was made in response to a post of awakes;




> Could a person survive if he never left his own home and made everything himself?...sure, but you would be much poorer for it.





> Poorer in what way?
> 
> Material possessions I can agree with.

----------


## Austrian Econ Disciple

> And you have pulled a response to a statement of one family making everything themselves and twisted it to encompass global trade.
> 
> Thanks for reminding me that we're posting in the economics forum.
> 
> Why is it that you think I would care one iota about improving the living standards halfway across the globe when doing so is having a negative effect _economically_ on my family? 
> 
> When my family is doing well financially we're more than happy to make charitable contributions, first to the economically deprived here in this country and _then_ to those in other countries.
> 
> I personally want my neighbors to do well before I worry about the populations in other nations, and my neighbors worked for generations in the manufacturing industry, you know the heavy industry that has moved to other countries...
> ...


Ah, yes, rights only matter when they're of a benefit to you, but when the rights of other individuals cause you for sake of argument 'loss', then by gosh, we must maintain the power structure! Now, that is again for sake of argument, because if we had free-trade you would not be poorer _ceteris parabus_, but in fact, wealthier. 

Yes, you make simple axiomatic deductions and statements and then use that to make further analysis and statements. If I am in fact richer by trading with my neighbor, then I am in fact, richer by trading with my neighbor, plus the neighbor of my neighbor and so on and so forth. This is basic epistemological foundations for the Economics Forum you're on. Never mind that trade by definition results in a benefit to the parties involved, otherwise no trade would have taken place (and for the love of god do not interject 'objectivity!'). 

Also, charity does really nothing to help the poor. Teach someone to fish, don't just hand them a fish. You might make yourself feel better by being 'charitable', but if you really cared then you'd advance institutions and philosophies that actually do lift people from poverty rather than keeping them in such conditions. Look no further than USAID and Africa for instance.

PS: Guess what Rothbard started with in all his economics courses? Robinson Crusoe. It is the foundation of Austrian Economics - the individual and simple axioms.

----------


## tod evans

Once again you're flying philosophy in the face of reality..

And that's fine-n-dandy _for you._ 

Who are you to assume that my charitable contributions to people in other nations wouldn't include "Teaching them to fish"?

Now........If you think I'm going to invite people from another country to come and fish in my pond that I use to feed my family you've thought wrong...

You've done a fine job proselytizing your theories and it's obvious you're very compassionate about caring for "everyone"...

I on the other hand have dealt with the reality of philosophical economic policy for decades and hold fast to what I have observed.

The standard of living in this country has dropped with globalization, I'm not talking about technology or trinkets I'm talking about property ownership and the amount of labor required to maintain it.

Feel free to expound on the great works our consumption has provided for other nations as both of us can easily find formerly productive industrial workers cleaning toilets or flipping burgers to feed their families..

Spouting off about how it "should be" doesn't address how it is...

----------


## jmdrake

> If foreigners are buying our debt (e.g. loaning the USG monies), then that means they're only buying their own goods with nominal interest. That's not a winning proposition for them, and they'll eventually realize this. Also, the way deficit and surplus is calculated is completely asinine and bogus. Bastiat makes a pretty good mockery of it. In any event, the simple fact remains - trade enriches livelihood, while restriction inhibits it. We'd both like to see NAFTA, etc. gone forever, but I on the other hand would rather have free-trade (e.g., no Government involvement), and you'd rather see more restrictions imposed. NAFTA is relative after-all. I'd rather have NAFTA than have the trade policy of the North Koreans for instance, but they're both terrible recommendations. Also, I do not see anyone arguing that NAFTA is free-trade.


If it is such a "losing proposition" for them then why are their economies growing and ours is shrinking?  It's a losing proposition for future generations of Americans, that's for sure.  It's funny to see small government types defend deficit spending as you and others are doing right now because you refuse to admit that farce trade is actually hurting our economy.  If you are right (and you're not) then Ron Paul should quit trying to audit the Federal Reserve.  Obviously everything is happening to the benefit of America.  Rand was wrong when he told the Howard student that it wasn't good for him (the student) for us to borrow money from China so that he could get an education and then get out and not have a job.  Clearly that's not a problem because we can borrow more money from China so that he (the student) can be an educated person on welfare and buy more junk from China.  Makes sense.  




> All I see is people defending Division of Labor, free-trade, and other economic principles against the people who'd like to see NAFTA thrown out only to be replaced by draconian Government-imposed tariffs and other rent-seeking, competition stifling, extortionist, rights-restricting measures.


Then you are worse than blind.  You are someone who refuses to see.  The specific example I gave is that Mattel shouldn't be given an exemption to testing toys it imports from China for lead paint, when U.S. domestic producers *who can't even get lead paint* are forced to do the testing!  You are supporting fascism if you can't see that's wrong.   It's government picking winners and losers in the worst possible way.  We are erecting internal trade barriers while decreasing external ones for multinational companies.  And you're defending NAFTA?  What garbage!  Watch this and learn something about NAFTA from Ron Paul.







> There's no difference if I enter into a contract with my neighbor, or someone living in Myanmar.


Except *you* are not allowed to enter into a contract with someone living in Myanmar under NAFTA.  NAFTA is for multinationals.  I gave an example about how under NAFTA, multinationals are allowed to "inspect" their own trucks and drive them across the border without being inspected.  Do you think *you* could get that sweet deal?  I'm all for free trade.  NAFTA isn't it.




> Why is domestic manufacturing better in any economic sense, than foreign? All I see is nationalistic drivel. Who cares if it is some guys in Washington or Wyoming producing the goods compared with someone living in Malaysia or Uganda? I don't think your quite realize the vastness of resources needed to even create the most seemingly benign good. I shall call thee in Hayek's vocabulary; fatal conceit.


I care if some guy in Wyoming is prevented from being able to produce goods because of restrictions put on him by his own government that it does not put on someone in Myanmar.  That is not "efficient" no matter how much you try to lie to yourself and pretend that it is.




> Also, for the record, I'm not arguing about political reality, but about economic maxim's. In fact, I'd argue if our choice were between NAFTA or North Korea protectionism we would be much worse off with the strict-protectionism of NK, which is what some people like Buchanan would like to see. I can only imagine the terrible consequences of such a policy (Can you imagine the popular support for wars for resources when you've overnight increased the scarcity of goods and resources and thus, lowered the standard of living tremendously?).


You are using a dishonest straw man argument.  And you just admitted it.  False choice fallacy.  Were we living in a North Korea like state before NAFTA?  Do we have more freedom an economic prosperity now than we did before Bill Clinton was president?  And if you think our economy and way of life is so great now, then why are you even part of the liberty movement?  Serious question.  I'm not saying you have to support protectionism to be part of the liberty movement, but if you *honestly* think our economy is operating at "peak efficiency" since Bill Clinton signed NAFTA and that all of the debt spending is actually good for us and bad for everyone else, then why try to change it?

----------


## enoch150

> The standard of living in this country has dropped with globalization, I'm not talking about technology or trinkets I'm talking about property ownership and the amount of labor required to maintain it.


What property are you talking about other than land, which has nothing to do with free trade? Standard of living is measured by the ability to consume. We are clearly better off now than 40 years ago. Ownership rates are up and number of hours worked to acquire goods are down.

----------


## enoch150

> It's funny to see small government types defend deficit spending as you and others are doing right now because you refuse to admit that farce trade is actually hurting our economy.  If you are right (and you're not) then Ron Paul should quit trying to audit the Federal Reserve.


Ron Paul supports free trade.




> Murray Rothbard explained, we dont need government agreements to have free trade. In fact, true free trade means just the opposite- true free trade occurs only when government is not involved at all. We must remember that government-managed trade always means political favoritism.
> Merit, rather than politics, should determine which companies succeed in the export markets. Congress should abide by the Constitution and get out
> of the subsidy business altogether, so that real free trade can work and benefit all Americans.
> 
> The same free-market principles that compel me to oppose subsidies apply to tariffs as well. Simply put, tariffs are taxes. Like subsidies, tariffs are paid for by American taxpayers and consumers. I vote against tariffs for the same reasons I vote against any federal taxes- I want to get the federal government out of your pocketbook. Many tariff bills in Congress are touted as pro-American, but they really just raise taxes by stealth. In a free society, consumers must be allowed to buy goods from abroad if they so choose. Americans should not be taxed simply because they determine that their family budgets are better served by purchasing an imported item.


It goes on... http://www.ronpaularchive.com/2001/0...-no-subsidies/




> I'm all for free trade.


Good. Then we're on the same page. No tariffs, no import quotas, no regulations, and no restrictions on trade of any kind. Let people or business import whatever they want.




> I'm not saying you have to support protectionism to be part of the liberty movement...


I should hope not. People who support protectionism are supporting exactly the opposite of liberty.




> ... but if you *honestly* think our economy is operating at "peak efficiency" since Bill Clinton signed NAFTA and that all of the debt spending is actually good for us and bad for everyone else, then why try to change it?


Uh...




> *We'd both like to see NAFTA, etc. gone forever*, but I on the other hand would rather have free-trade (e.g., no Government involvement), and you'd rather see more restrictions imposed. NAFTA is relative after-all. I'd rather have NAFTA than have the trade policy of the North Koreans for instance, but they're both terrible recommendations. Also, *I do not see anyone arguing that NAFTA is free-trade.*

----------


## fr33

Eliminate the federal government today and most Americans would either starve to death or kill other Americans to survive.

Utopians would have you believe that overnight people would learn how to feed themselves (literally).

If you go out and buy a 100 acre farm, you'll find evidence of about 5 or 6 old homesteads from the past. Pretty much every piece of property we own confirms this. From the days when people were more individualistic and self-sufficient.

----------


## enoch150

> Eliminate the federal government today and most Americans would either starve to death or kill other Americans to survive.
> 
> Utopians would have you believe that overnight people would learn how to feed themselves (literally).
> 
> If you go out and buy a 100 acre farm, you'll find evidence of about 5 or 6 old homesteads from the past. Pretty much every piece of property we own confirms this. From the days when people were more individualistic and self-sufficient.


No one believes there wouldn't be an adjustment period if the federal government were eliminated overnight.

However, the federal government pays farmers NOT to farm, buys up and destroys goods farmers do produce, and imposes restrictions on some imported food. All of that artificially restricts supply and increases the cost of food. Then to balance it out, the government gives out food stamps. If all of that were eliminated, Americans wouldn't be so hard up as you seem to imagine. The US is still a food exporting nation, after all. It's not like we would have a shortage.

----------


## fr33

> No one believes there wouldn't be an adjustment period if the federal government were eliminated overnight.
> 
> However, the federal government pays farmers NOT to farm, buys up and destroys goods farmers do produce, and imposes restrictions on some imported food. All of that artificially restricts supply and increases the cost of food. Then to balance it out, the government gives out food stamps. If all of that were eliminated, Americans wouldn't be so hard up as you seem to imagine. The US is still a food exporting nation, after all. It's not like we would have a shortage.


One thing I'll disagree with you on. Up until about 10 years ago the price of wheat was the same it was in the 60's. The subsidies have kept food prices low, not high. Your food should cost you more than double if a free market existed.

----------


## enoch150

> One thing I'll disagree with you on. Up until about 10 years ago the price of wheat was the same it was in the 60's. The subsidies have kept food prices low, not high. Your food should cost you more than double if a free market existed.


Not every crop gets the same subsidies and I don't know exactly how (or if) the government is involved in wheat specifically, but what I do know is that farm subsidies are designed for the benefit of farmers and artificially keep prices high.

Take the recent incident with the threat of milk prices doubling if the farm subsidies bill were allowed to expire, as an example. It was often cited by the media as "dairy farmers need this subsidy or milk prices will double." True enough, but only because of another government law. Milk prices normally sell at the free market price, with the government guaranteeing a price support level just in case dairy farmers produce to much or demand drops to low. If the price drops to low, the government steps in, buys up the milk, and destroys it. The problem with the government price support expiring was not that the free market price of milk would double on its own, the problem was that another government law from 1949 would kick in and compel the government to start buying up milk at double the current free market price.

Government farm subsidies are for the benefit of farmers, not consumers.

----------


## fr33

> Not every crop gets the same subsidies and I don't know exactly how (or if) the government is involved in wheat specifically, but what I do know is that farm subsidies are designed for the benefit of farmers and artificially keep prices high.
> 
> Take the recent incident with the threat of milk prices doubling if the farm subsidies bill were allowed to expire, as an example. It was often cited by the media as "dairy farmers need this subsidy or milk prices will double." True enough, but only because of another government law. Milk prices normally sell at the free market price, with the government guaranteeing a price support level just in case dairy farmers produce to much or foreigners decide to start selling milk to the US. The problem with the government price support expiring was not that the free market price of milk would double on its own, the problem was that another government law from 1949 would kick in and compel the government to start buying up milk at double the current free market price.
> 
> Government farm subsidies are for the benefit of farmers, not consumers.


You are absolutely wrong about this. Up until  the ethanol push subsidies kept food prices lower. That is why grains stayed the same price for multiple decades while the cost of producing them sky-rocketed. It's only logical that your food prices followed the price of gas but that is not what happened. Subsidies have kept the price of food artificially low.

----------


## enoch150

> You are absolutely wrong about this. Up until  the ethanol push subsidies kept food prices lower. That is why grains stayed the same price for multiple decades while the cost of producing them sky-rocketed. It's only logical that your food prices followed the price of gas but that is not what happened. Subsidies have kept the price of food artificially low.


Food prices might follow the price of gas if all other factors remained exactly the same, but there are other factors, including the consolidation of farms to increase efficiency.

Between 1955 - 1973 and 1984 - 1995 the federal government paid farmers NOT to farm on 50,000,000 acres. The reason: prices threatened to get to low.

----------


## fr33

Maybe your going off government propaganda but the usual norm is subsidize to keep it artificially low.

----------


## Austrian Econ Disciple

How can anyone argue there would be Mad Max if the Fed were eliminated tomorrow? Instead of Mad Max I proclaim it more like modern Hong Kong. I'm sure we would all starve because we would be getting back as much or more than half our property per annum. Totally, totally horrible situation. Never mind the overnight MASSIVE wage increases. Sure, all the people on the dole would have to find a job and there would be intermediary hick ups, but jobs would be available.

----------


## Tod

Has anyone mentioned that, as rich in natural resources as the US is, there are many important minerals that we lack (at least in abundance)?

http://academic.emporia.edu/abersusa...e/newindex.htm




> Chromium is one of the major elemental resources  that the United States depends upon. Chromium is used to make stainless  steel, tool steel, and used in high temperature applications.  Since  1961, the U.S has been 100% reliable on other nations for chromium.  The  Republic of South Africa and Zimbabwe contain 98% of the world's  reserves of this mineral (Mangone, 1984, p. 32). 
> 
> Cobalt has not been mined in the U.S. since 1971, because the amount  that the United States can produce cannot compete with the price of other countries.  Cobalt is primarily  used in gas turbines and jet engines. Zaire, Zambia, Morocco and Botswana contain approximately 52% of the  free world's reserves of the mineral (Mangone, 1984, p. 38).
> 
> There are no significant ore deposits of manganese in the U.S.  available for economic production.  Manganese is a highly valuable  strategic mineral to the U.S. since it is used to make steel. All of the  manganese used by the United States is imported from other countries,  and thirty-nine percent from South Africa.  Over 75% of the free world  reserves come from South Africa and 37% of this is consumed by the world  market (Hagerman, 1984). 
> 
> Platinum is only obtained in the U.S. in trace amounts and therefore, the nation depends 100% on other  countries. South Africa contains 73% of the world reserves of platinum and virtually all of the United States need is met by this country (Hagerman, 1984).

----------


## enoch150

> Maybe your going off government propaganda but the usual norm is subsidize to keep it artificially low.


That must be why farmers lobby so hard to repeal farm subsidies. Because the government is suppressing the price.

No, the government propaganda is that food prices will rise absent the farm subsidies. The reality is that they pay farmers not to produce, or buy up the commodity if the price falls to low, or impose import restrictions. Prices are supposed to fall in a free market as technological progress creates efficiencies.

Yet another example: from 2004 - 2007 the federal government guaranteed a price floor on wheat of $3.92 / bushel.

----------


## fr33

> That must be why farmers lobby so hard to repeal farm subsidies. Because the government is suppressing the price.
> 
> No, the government propaganda is that food prices will rise absent the farm subsidies. The reality is that they pay farmers not to produce, or buy up the commodity if the price falls to low, or impose import restrictions. Prices are supposed to fall in a free market as technological progress creates efficiencies.
> 
> Yet another example: from 2004 - 2007 the federal government guaranteed a price floor on wheat of $3.92 / bushel.


Gee I wonder why I'm the youngest farmer in my county. If it's so profitable. I mean, why the $#@! is agriculture made up of gray haired old men. You and everyone else are truly in for an awakening on the subject of food prices. The price of wheat went up in 07 and still couldn't pay for itself without subsidies. And I love how you ignore every year before that when the profit margin was even worse. Please try and be objective and imagine living off that. There is no reason for the prices to be so low except for govt intervention.

----------


## enoch150

> Gee I wonder why I'm the youngest farmer in my county. If it's so profitable. I mean, why the $#@! is agriculture made up of gray haired old men. You and everyone else are truly in for an awakening on the subject of food prices. The price of wheat went up in 07 and still couldn't pay for itself without subsidies. And I love how you ignore every year before that when the profit margin was even worse. Please try and be objective and imagine living off that. There is no reason for the prices to be so low except for govt intervention.


Before that (2002 - 2003) the price support for wheat was $3.86.

What exactly is the government doing to keep prices down, to the detriment of farmers?

----------


## fr33

> Before that (2002 - 2003) the price support for wheat was $3.86.


 I guess you refuse to look at the graphs I posted. I also guess you don't have a career who's market is so flexible?




> What exactly is the government doing to keep prices down, to the detriment of farmers?


Providing subsidies to keep food prices cheap.

----------


## enoch150

> I guess you refuse to look at the graphs I posted. I also guess you don't have a career who's market is so flexible?
> 
> Providing subsidies to keep food prices cheap.


Providing subsidies to whom?

----------


## tod evans

You've come to your conclusions using what I consider to be failed logic..

Step back from the amount of stuff, "trinkets", that we as a nation consume and look at two things first;

1) Property ownership is down (land).

2) The number of working adults per household required to maintain life above "poverty" has increased from one to two.

Your idea that wealth is the ability to consume is fine for you, and it proves your argument.

My idea of wealth is ownership of property and the ability to maintain that property and then leave it to your descendants.

So in reality we're comparing apples to bulldozers, or put another way, wealth to you seems to be the ability to consume apples whereas wealth to me is the ability to own the farm that produces the apples.

I'm not arguing against free trade, I'm arguing _for_ the removal of government interference in everything from agriculture and labor to manufacturing. We need stuff other nations have and other nations need stuff that we have, and the only realistic way to work out fair market value of "stuff" is to get government out of the mix.





> What property are you talking about other than land, which has nothing to do with free trade? Standard of living is measured by the ability to consume. We are clearly better off now than 40 years ago. Ownership rates are up and number of hours worked to acquire goods are down.





> Kids today are taught that consumption is wealth, in my day property was wealth.....Dirt property not stuff you can carry!
> 
> If the ability to trade paper for trinkets is the type of wealth you're seeking then I suppose our country is doing well in your eyes.





> The problem I notice is that America's standard of living has declined.
> 
> I'm not speaking of plastic goods or electronics but actual standard of living, the one working parent able to save for retirement standard that I've watched become nonexistent..
> 
> I certainly don't have "the answer", hell I'm just some ol' carpenter off in the sticks, but I'm able to see pretty clearly the differences between the 60's and the 20-teens...
> 
> Maybe todays business model is actually "better".........But looking at our national debt and the social unrest I think my concerns are valid..
> 
> [edit]
> ...





> No, I meant what I typed.."I can agree that the ability to consume without lowering your standard of living does equal wealth."
> 
> If a person takes on debt or in any way lowers their standard of living such as both parents working or selling an asset then in my opinion they have lost wealth in order to continue consuming..

----------


## jmdrake

> Ron Paul supports free trade.


He doesn't support NAFTA.




> Uh...
> _
> Quote Originally Posted by Austrian Econ Disciple
> We'd both like to see NAFTA, etc. gone forever, but I on the other hand would rather have free-trade (e.g., no Government involvement), and you'd rather see more restrictions imposed. NAFTA is relative after-all. I'd rather have NAFTA than have the trade policy of the North Koreans for instance, but they're both terrible recommendations. Also, I do not see anyone arguing that NAFTA is free-trade.
> _


Oh screw you with your dishonest bull feces!  AED was freaking lying his stinking butt off when he claimed I wanted some closed economy like North Korea when I said no such thing and you have to be intelligent enough to know that!  I have not advocated tariffs at all.  That said, we were clearly better off with pre NAFTA tariffs than we are with current NAFTA fascist trade!  Why does your side have to lie to make a point?

Once again *the same restrictions that are put on U.S. industry should be on foreign industry!  If U.S. toy makers have to inspect for lead poison, than so should companies that import like Mattel!  And tariffs are NOT the worst form of taxation.  The income tax is.  Tariffs go back to the founding of the republic.  Farce-fascist trade, which is what NAFTA is, does not.*

----------


## jmdrake

> How can anyone argue there would be Mad Max if the Fed were eliminated tomorrow? Instead of Mad Max I proclaim it more like modern Hong Kong. I'm sure we would all starve because we would be getting back as much or more than half our property per annum. Totally, totally horrible situation. Never mind the overnight MASSIVE wage increases. Sure, all the people on the dole would have to find a job and there would be intermediary hick ups, but jobs would be available.


If you think there would be "massive" wage increases without corresponding hyperinflation, you are delusional.

If you think all of these people on the dole are magically going to find jobs that don't exist, you are delusional.

If you don't think many of these people currently on the dole with no marketable skills (including many "government workers") aren't going to start a food riot if they are cut off tomorrow, you are delusional.

If you think that I ever said or implied that I wanted a closed economy like North Korea, you are delusional.

And ultimately, I don't know of anyone who used the "Mad Max" analogy but you.  I think you're being delusional even on that point.

The point that I made, and keep making, is those who early on in this thread used the fact that the poor in this country can afford a big screen TV was "proof" that the farce trade economy was working are delusional.  The poor are able to afford expensive gadgets *because of the federal reserve*!  It's a *farce*!  How will they fair when the dole is cut off?  God only knows.  I'm all for ending the fed, don't get me wrong.  But I know that it's morphine for an economy that's in shambles.  And our government creating policies that *purposefully hurt* U.S. manufacturing, to the benefit of multinational importers, is a *huge* part of the problem.  It's not some sign of some "economic efficiency" as your side likes to claim.

----------


## Danan

> Once again *the same restrictions that are put on U.S. industry should be on foreign industry!  If U.S. toy makers have to inspect for lead poison, than so should companies that import like Mattel!*


This would in no way increase the standard of living for the average US citizen, as I said before. I know you don't believe me on that but it's really easy to see if you study economics. You probably believe that's just theorizing from the ivory tower, but I assure you it's not. It's a not very complicated axiomatic conclusion, and true just like the law of supply and demand, the insight that price fixing causes distortions or that an effective minimum wage creates unemployment. Also, it's historically and empirically evident (not that this would be necessary for it to be true).

It's akin to the internet sales tax debate. We all know that taxation is bad, economically. Bricks-and-mortar businesses argue that it's giving them a comparative disadvantague to be taxed, when online sales are not. And that's without a doubt true. But does that mean that overall the economy would be better off by "leveling the playing field"? No, it absolutely does not. That's only further making goods and services more expansive.

There is absolutely no reason to assume that free trade could in any situation be responsible for long-term unemployment. The reasons for unemployment are minimum wage laws, the Federal Reserve, government intervention and spending, etc. All of which would be possible without foreign trade (see North Korea). So even if the domestic economy is completely distorted by the government, the option of free and unrestricted trade is still increasing the standards of living.

----------


## awake

Remember, national autarky was a dream and goal of the worst socialists governments. North Korea has this policy and suffers its effects. It is an out growth of fear and ignorance, that people who live outside of ones borders are all enemies.

Freedom's essence is the freedom to buy and sell with anyone from anywhere, no restrictions.

----------


## tod evans

Buying and selling without restriction only accounts for the post manufacturing end of the supply chain.

Whether it's plastic widgets, automobiles or foodstuffs our governments interference on the production end of the supply chain has severely impacted our national standard of living..

Everything from paying folks not to produce (welfare and subsidies) to imposing cost prohibitive regulations on manufacturing has had a devastating effect on production/manufacturing...

----------


## Spanish Guy

> Buying and selling without restriction only accounts for the post manufacturing end of the supply chain.
> 
> Whether it's plastic widgets, automobiles or foodstuffs our governments interference on the production end of the supply chain has severely impacted our national standard of living..
> 
> Everything from paying folks not to produce (welfare and subsidies) to* imposing cost prohibitive regulations on manufacturing has had a devastating effect on production/manufacturing...*


And with a total trade freedom, the government will have to lift those regulations, unless they want to become poorer compared with other freer economies.

To the question, of course USA can survive without imports. An autarky is less harmful as bigger is the country, as more economic agents could benefit from the internal free trade, and smaller nations than USA, like North Korea nowadays, Cuba in the past or Spain in the 40s and the 50s, had autarkic? (correctly spelled?) economies, and managed to survive. However they did it by becoming extremely poor nations. Do really anyone would like that for America?

----------


## Southron

We need to withdraw from the WTO.  There is no reason that decisions from the WTO should trump laws passed by the Congress.

----------


## jmdrake

> Once again *the same restrictions that are put on U.S. industry should be on foreign industry!  If U.S. toy makers have to inspect for lead poison, than so should companies that import like Mattel!  And tariffs are NOT the worst form of taxation.  The income tax is.  Tariffs go back to the founding of the republic.  Farce-fascist trade, which is what NAFTA is, does not.*





> This would in no way increase the standard of living for the average US citizen, as I said before.


A) You don't know that and you're just pulling that argument straight out of your butt.

B) The "mantra" of free market economics is that the government should be picking winners and losers.  The government telling companies that *didn't* cause a problem that they have to test for it and exempting companies that did is the essence of the government creating winners an losers.

C) You've just shown you know *nothing* about free market economics.




> I know you don't believe me on that but it's really easy to see if you study economics.


I have.  And you're clueless.




> You probably believe that's just theorizing from the ivory tower, but I assure you it's not. It's a not very complicated axiomatic conclusion, and true just like the law of supply and demand, the insight that price fixing causes distortions or that an effective minimum wage creates unemployment. Also, it's historically and empirically evident (not that this would be necessary for it to be true).


WTF?  This isn't about price fixing!  It's about the fact that the government should not be imposing regulations on people who didn't cause a problem while exempting those that did!




> It's akin to the internet sales tax debate. We all know that taxation is bad, economically. Bricks-and-mortar businesses argue that it's giving them a comparative disadvantague to be taxed, when online sales are not. And that's without a doubt true. But does that mean that overall the economy would be better off by "leveling the playing field"? No, it absolutely does not. That's only further making goods and services more expansive.


Oh bullocks!  You're just showing your ignorance.  This is *not* analogous to the internet tax issue!  That's close to the most ignorant thing I've heard in this thread, and I've heard some whoppers!  Again *Mattel caused the problem by importing tainted toys from China and Mattel got the exemption!*  You're analogy is retarded.




> There is absolutely no reason to assume that free trade could in any situation be responsible for long-term unemployment.


Again, fascism isn't free trade.  You are supporting fascism.




> The reasons for unemployment are minimum wage laws, the Federal Reserve, government intervention and spending, etc. All of which would be possible without foreign trade (see North Korea). So even if the domestic economy is completely distorted by the government, the option of free and unrestricted trade is still increasing the standards of living.


More bollocks.  Pre NAFTA != North Korea.  I don't know why your side cannot debate honestly.  Then again, I do know.  It's because deep down you know you are wrong.

Edit: And I agree that internal regulation is causing long term economic problems.  But it's also masking long term economic problems.  We had minimum wage laws, the Federal Reserve, government intervention etc. long before NAFTA.  Post NAFTA our economy has suffered significantly.  Post granting China "most favored nation trading" our economy has suffered significantly.  Free trade, despite the lies that you have told yourself and are trying to tell others, is *not* our government cracking down on domestic industry while exempting importers of the problems *they caused*.

----------

