# News & Current Events > Economy & Markets >  Smoote-Hawley Tarriff

## showpan

Once again, it's necessary to debunk the Globalist fairy tales about the "damage" caused by the Smoot-Hawley Tariff. Below is a copy of U.S. GDP from 1929 through 1939. These are official government figures from the US Bureau of Economic Analysis (BLS) 


There is a link to a chart below that has key figures highlighted. On that chart, the Trade Balance has been underlined in Red. Exports have been underlined in Blue. Imports have been underlined in Orange.



** Note on the above referenced charts: The 1929 Trade balance is listed as +$0.4 billion. This is a MISTAKE. It should be +$0.3 billion. Subtracting the $5.6 billion in imports from the $5.9 billion in exports gives a difference of +$0.3 billion, not +$0.4 billion. 

Notice that there is a slight decline in both exports and imports by the end of 1930. The trade balance remained around 0 during the entire time. Exports bottomed in 1932  2 years before any revision or modification of Smoot-Hawley occurred. 


The Smoot-Hawley Tariff was signed into law on June 17, 1930, and raised U.S. tariffs on over 20,000 imported goods. Legislation was passed in 1934 that weakened the effect of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff. In effect, the 1934 legislation functionally repealed Smoot-Hawley. Thus, the effects of Smoot-Hawley cover only the period between June 17, 1930, and 1934. This is the time frame that should be focused on. 

So in reviewing the chart, what evidence is there that the Smoot-Hawley Tariff "hurt" the economy?? Is there any evidence at all? 

No, there is practically NO evidence that Smoot-Hawley hurt our economy. 

The US was already in a Depression when Smoot-Hawley was enacted. Prior to Smoot-Hawley, the 1929 Trade Surplus was +0.38% of our GDP. In other words, it contributed less than 1/200th to our economy. 

What happens if we focus on exports alone? Exports were $5.9 billion in 1929, and had declined to $2.0 billion in 1933, for a -$3.9 billion decline. This $3.9 billion decline was roughly 3.8% of our 1929 GDP, which had already declined by a whopping -46% over the same period of time. Thus, of the -46% GDP decline, only -3.8% of it was due to a fall in exports. 

But the effects on trade must also include the reduction in Imports, which ADDS to GDP. (A decline in imports increases GDP). If the import decline is added back to the GDP total (to measure the net trade balance), the "loss" becomes only -$0.2 billion from our GDP  or less than ½ of 1% of the total GDP decline. 

In other words, the document-able "loss" from the Smoot-Hawley Tariff  the "net export" loss  contributed less than ½ of 1% of our our -46% GDP decline. Overall, the Smoot-Hawley Tariff caused almost 0 damage to our economy during the Depression. 

To put this in better perspective, let's compare all the GDP components together:

1929 ..................................................  ........ 1933

GDP $103.6 billion--------------------->$56.4 billion ( decreased -$47.2 billion) 
Consum. Expend $77.4 bil-------------> $45.9 billion ( decreased -$31.5 bill) 
Private Invest $16.5 bil----------------> $1.7 billion ( decreased -$14.8 billion) 
*Trade Balance +$0.3 bil-------------->+$0.1 billion ( decreased -$0.2 billion) 
Exports $5.9 billion--------------------> $2.0 billion ( decreased -$3.9 billion) 
Imports $5.6 billion--------------------> $1.9 billion ( decreased -$3.7 billion)

Again, to re-emphasize, how much difference to US GDP did the export loss make? The Trade Balance worsened by only -$0.2 billion, or about -0.19% of our 1929 GDP ( or less than 1/5th of 1% of 1929 GDP). Meanwhile, our total GDP decreased a whopping -45.5% (or -$47.2 billion). 

How much effect did a 1/5th of 1% loss of GDP have on the Great Depression, especially when spread over a 4-year period? 

Again, where's all the "damage" that the Smoot-Hawley Tariff caused?? (Was it was all in "off-balance sheet" accounts?) 

From the actual statistics, the true "harm" caused by the Smoot-Hawley is completely fictional. The harmful effects exist only in the minds of self-serving Globalist propagandists, who hope no one will actually check the facts, and expose their disingenuous attempts to re-write history. 

Based on available statistics, Smoot-Hawley had almost NO effect on the Great Depression. At the very most, caused a -3.8% decline in GDP from loss of exports. But factoring in the GDP increase from a decline in imports, it caused less than 1% of the GDP decline. 

The Smoot-Hawley Tariff did not cause the Great Depression, nor did it worsen it or extend it. Claims to the contrary are not only false, but easily refutable. The evidence to disprove those claims is abundant, overwhelming, and freely available to the public. 

The Smoot-Hawley myth needs to be put to rest, once and for all. The claim that it worsened the Great Depression is nothing but a fairy tale. 

Economic Populist Forum: Smoot-Hawley Tariff

----------


## Cutlerzzz

Nobody has ever made the claim that the Smoot-Hawley tariff caused the depression on its own; it was one of many factors(Federal Reserve creating the bubble, taxes getting increased, Fordism, deficit spending, work programs, bailouts, ect...). 

A major problem I see with your analyst is the emphasis on GDP, as if it is a dependable measure. Simon Kuznets, who invented GDP, had this to say about it




> _The statistician who supposes that he can make a purely objective estimate of national income, not influenced by preconceptions concerning the "facts," is deluding himself; for whenever he includes one item or excludes another he is implicitly accepting some standard of judgement, his own or that of the compiler of the data. There is no escaping this subjective element._


Not even it's inventor supported using it.

As for the numbers, it is difficult to prove anything for certain with them. Given that the Great Depression was a global depression it would be natural for imports and exports to fall, as 20% of the work force lost their jobs. It is not easy to quantify how much of the decrease in imports and exports were caused by the depression, and how much were caused by the tariff bill. 

It also doesn't take into account what was being imported and what was being exported. Looking at tariffs as a net gain/loss is incorrect. 

Going from exporting 5.9 billion to 2 billion, or 4% of the 1929 GDP(for whatever its worth), was not good, and it was much more destructive than 1/500th of the economy(as your post states). It also doesn't factor in the negative impact of going from importing 5.6 billion to 1.9 billion(a change of about 3.5% of GDP, for whatever it's worth), which was likely equally destructive. 

Given that changes in tariff levels changes the equilibrium for goods and services, I would have to imagine that all else being equal, there would have to be some natural short term job displacement as resources are reallocated.

But of course, I'm no economist. If someone better versed in economics would tell me what ever mistakes I may have made, it would be appreciated.

----------


## mtj458

You have basically asserted that free trade economists hold the position that Smoot-Hawley was the main cause of the Great Depression and smacked it down.  Problem is, hardly any free trade economists think that.  Most agree that Smoot-Hawley was a negative, but not the cause for the presence or length of the Depression.

What your data does show is that international trade clearly dried up over the time period.  Of course in 1930, the world was not very globalized and international trade was a tiny part of the economy.  A huge tariff on imports today would be a lot worse because a much larger percent of our GDP than it was in 1930.  In short, it was a terrible policy that was enacted a time where it couldn't do much harm.

----------


## showpan

lol....do a search. There are literally pages of threads that deal with free trade and economy and this tariff has been continuously used as the reason or one of the main causes for the great depression. These two showed up just since I posted this yesterday!! 

"I suggest you look at the Smoot-Hawley Act, and it's role in the legitimate causes of the Great Depression. You are basically asking for something along the lines of another Smoot-Hawley."

"All I can say about protectionism and what it leads to is the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act.
It is widely known as one of the greatest acts of American protectionism, and also one of the strongest causes of the long and painful Great Depression. Look into it."

----------


## mtj458

lol...read my post again.  I said free trade economists don't think it caused the Depression, not ignorant posters on Ron Paul's forums don't think it caused the Depression.  If you want to correct people on misinterpretations of history than fine, that's great and you're right in this instance, but the vibe I get from posts like this is that protectionism isn't harmful which is complete bs.

----------


## freshjiva

Wow.

There are just so many misinterpretations of data, unfounded claims, and general economic deductions in this generally unprovoked and yet inexplicably apologetic defense of economic protectionism and isolationism.

I'll respond to why some free market economists, lead by supply-siders like Jude Wanniski, believe Smoot-Hawley triggered the Great Depression when I get some time to write it all out.

What I will say, however, is that no free market economist argues that it prolonged the depression. What they do argue is that it triggered the Stock Market Crash and subsequent fall in productivity over the next 4 years.

All I can say, though, is that for us to have a reasonable debate, we must be reasonable people. It seems like you've come here with an agenda specifically to refute Smoot-Hawley as a prime case for the Depression. That's fine, opinions are great for debate. But I just ask to keep it civil and consider the arguments the opposing side presents.

----------


## mtj458

Looking forward to the response freshjiva.  I'm curious how a 1930 act could trigger a 1929 crash though.  I've heard more more free market economists claim it has prolonged (well, not really prolonged, but worsened) than caused the depression, but few seem to think it was a very big deal.  If it was a big deal, it was because of the precedent it set and it's indirect influences.

The main problem with the analysis in the first post is it focused on the balance of trade- "Prior to Smoot-Hawley, the 1929 Trade Surplus was +0.38% of our GDP. In other words, it contributed less than 1/200th to our economy. " But that is a strange way of looking at trade. Trade isn't only beneficial when it gives us trade surpluses.  If two countries each send $100 of goods to each other, then they are presumably better off assuming the trade was voluntary.  It wouldn't make sense to say "Well since the trade surplus in that situation was 0% of GDP, we can't possibly be worse off by stopping the trade!"  Even though the first post arrives at the right conclusion, it's methodology is completely flawed. It itself is another one of the "disingenuous attempts to re-write history" that it sought to correct.

Also, does the first post take into account deflation?  Nominal figures can be very misleading during the depression.

----------


## sorianofan

Vox Day has made me question Ricardo's comparative advantage and this just makes me question tariffs even more.

It's just starting to come down to common sense.  Do we trust our eyes and see that when the US had tariffs and little business regulation we also had a crap load of industry, and that free trade (along with US workers becoming entitled and sluggish) has essentially destroyed our industry?

----------


## Diurdi

> Vox Day has made me question Ricardo's comparative advantage and this just makes me question tariffs even more.
> 
> It's just starting to come down to common sense.  Do we trust our eyes and see that when the US had tariffs and little business regulation we also had a crap load of industry, and that free trade (along with US workers becoming entitled and sluggish) has essentially destroyed our industry?


Common sense says that if you have tariffs, the protected industries may be better off, but the economy as a whole won't. Consumers will pay more for products, and there will be less products in the economy because the inefficient domestic producers are allowed to operate while efficient foreign producers are not.

An economy is only as strong as its productivity, and when tariffs protect inefficient producers, productivity will shrink.

----------


## therepublic

For a time, the Founding Fathers imposed tariffs on all imported goods from other Countries to encourage "American made" .   The U.S. had become overly dependent on foreign goods, and they knew we would never be free of England until we were free of our dependance on their products. We did experience high inflation after the American Revolution, but we also gained our independence.

  Gandhi understood this in his fight for freedom form the British as well. That is why he encouraged his people to continue their own production of salt from the sea in spite of beatings from the British.  It is also why he encouraged them to wear their own traditional attire, and produce their own cotton fabric.

   I do not think it is accidental that we once fed the world, and are now dependent on them to feed us contaminated foods.

The IMF and One World Governance

----------


## Cutlerzzz

> For a time, the Founding Fathers imposed tariffs on all imported goods from other Countries to encourage "American made" .   The U.S. had become overly dependent on foreign goods, and they knew we would never be free of England until we were free of our dependance on their products. We did experience high inflation after the American Revolution, but we also gained our independence.


By Founding Fathers, you mean Hamilton, the mercantilists and Federalists. Jefferson was against protectionism.

And by "high inflation" you mean that the currency lost over 70% of its value in just a few years.

----------


## romacox

> By Founding Fathers, you mean Hamilton, the mercantilists and Federalists. Jefferson was against protectionism.
> 
> And by "high inflation" you mean that the currency lost over 70% of its value in just a few years.


No actually all the Founding Fathers were very much for protecting the American people and our sovereignty.  You see Protectionism, democracy, profiling, free trade,  ext, are all words invented or redefined by the progressive movement to destroy any rationality.

1913 Websters dictionary definition for protectionism:
1. The act of protecting, or the state of being protected; preservation from loss, injury, or annoyance; defense; shelter; as, the weak need protection.   http://machaut.uchicago.edu/?action=search&resource=Webster%27s&word=Protectio  n&quicksearch=on

Read it again.  I never said the Founding Fathers were all for tariffs.  I said they were all for protecting the American people and our sovereignty.

----------


## Cutlerzzz

> No actually all the Founding Fathers were very much for protecting the American people and our sovereignty.  You see Protectionism, democracy, profiling, free trade,  ext, are all words invented or redefined by the progressive movement to destroy any rationality.
> 
> 1913 Websters dictionary definition for protectionism:
> 1. The act of protecting, or the state of being protected; preservation from loss, injury, or annoyance; defense; shelter; as, the weak need protection.   http://machaut.uchicago.edu/?action=search&resource=Webster%27s&word=Protectio  n&quicksearch=on


Tariffs have nothing to do with protecting anything other than special interest groups. All of the Founders DID NOT support protectionism. That's blatently false.

----------


## romacox

Tariff of 1789....Primarily for revenue; some protection for "infant industries;" (*Washington administration*).  If one takes a look at the tariff timeline, they will discover that tariffs have been used for many reasons (bad and good)   No Lie 

http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h963.html  ( a natural result though during the Washington administration was very high inflation until the American made products took the place of imported goods.  It was a very bad time for the Country, and at times it looked as though it would collapse in anarchy.

----------


## Cutlerzzz

> Tariff of 1789....Primarily for revenue; some protection for "infant industries;" (*Washington administration*).  If one takes a look at the tariff timeline, they will discover that tariffs have been used for many reasons (bad and good)   No Lie 
> 
> http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h963.html  ( a natural result though during the Washington administration was very high inflation until the American made products took the place of imported goods.  It was a very bad time for the Country, and at times it looked as though it would collapse in anarchy.


A tariff passed by the Washington administration proves that all of the Founders supported protectionism?

----------


## romacox

read it again, I never said all the Founding Fathers were for protectionism.  I said all the Founding Fathers were very much for *protecting* the American people and our sovereignty.  Protectionism is a modern word that never existed to the Founding Fathers, and if you are to understand their thinking, you need to read the early documents, because the modern ones have deliberately twisted the words and actions of our Founding Fathers, so you would not be able to understand them. You would not be able to find your way back to a republic.

Protectionist to a globalist is an insult. The older generation thinks, of course I want to protect my Country and my family (that is a good thing) , but that does not make me an isolationist.

*This has been done to dumb down our society, and to make communication impossible.* I used the word protect, and you translated it as protectionism  *(same root word, but twisted now to have very different meanings)*. See how the progressives have managed to subvert communication?

 keep in mind that the meaning of words have changed from the time of our Founding fathers to the Present. Below is a link to Webster's dictionary in 1913 and 1828. One can compare that with a modern version. http://machaut.uchicago.edu/websters

For example: The word "welfare" is used in the Preamble of the Constitution, and the 1828 edition of the word is: "2. Exemption from any unusual evil or calamity, the enjoyment of peace and prosperity, or the ordinary blessings of society and civil government; applied to states." In today's Webster's edition "welfare is defined as "receiving government aid because of poverty, etc.

Thomas Jefferson stated, " Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated."

It is interesting to type in words like democracy, republic and democratic republic to see how much that has changed. It is very surprising.
Back to the word protectionism: 1913 Websters dictionary definition for protectionism:
1. The act of protecting, or the state of being protected; preservation from loss, injury, or annoyance; defense; shelter; as, the weak need protection. http://machaut.uchicago.edu/?action=...quicksearch=on

*The Washington administration used tariffs because they  wanted to break our dependence on English products.  Gandhi did not use tariffs, but he encouraged his people to stop buying English goods and service, and to produce their own.*

----------


## showpan

"Experience has taught me that manufactures are now as necessary to our independence as to our comfort; and if... [we will purchase] nothing foreign where an equivalent of domestic fabric can be obtained without regard to a difference of price, it will not be our fault if we do not soon have a supply at home equal to our demand, and wrest that weapon of distress from the hand which has wielded it." --Thomas Jefferson to Benjamin Austin, 1816. ME 14:392

"The prohibiting duties we lay on all articles of foreign manufacture which prudence requires us to establish at home, with the patriotic determination of every good citizen to use no foreign article which can be made within ourselves without regard to difference of price, secures us against a relapse into foreign dependency." --Thomas Jefferson to Jean Baptiste Say, 1815.

"I have come to a resolution myself as I hope every good citizen will, never again to purchase any article of foreign manufacture which can be had of American make, be the difference of price what it may." --Thomas Jefferson to B. S. Barton, 1815. ME 19:223

*Thomas Jefferson repealed all internal taxes and ran the government solely from trade tariff revenue.*
"1800 - With the assistance of his Secretary of the Treasury, Albert Gallatin, newly elected Republican President Thomas Jefferson sought to reorient the fiscal policy of the United States. Jefferson’s four main goals included: (1) a reduction in government expenditures, (2) a balanced budget; (3) a decrease in the size of the national debt, and (4) alleviation of the tax burden. The latter two objectives seemed to conflict with one another; specifically, Jefferson's desire to abrogate Hamilton's funded debt plan and retire all government obligations as judiciously as possible required a steady stream of revenue.

Nevertheless, Jefferson abolished all internal taxes, including the whiskey excise tax and the land tax. Meanwhile, the Napoleonic Wars in Europe, though a diplomatic minefield for American statesmen, proved a significant stimulus to the economy of the United States. Vigorous commerce enriched merchants while customs duties swelled the federal Treasury. By 1808 the national debt had been reduced from $80 million to $57 million, even though the Louisiana purchase had added an $11 million liability. By 1806, duties proved so lucrative that Gallatin and Jefferson fretted about what to do with the surplus above that required for debt retirement. Treasury reserves increased from $3 million to $14 million between 1801 and 1808."
http://www.tax.org/Museum/1777-1815.htm

"Jefferson got repealed all the direct federal taxes passed by the Federalists and boasted that ordinary Americans would never see a federal tax collector in their whole lives."
http://www.friesian.com/presiden.htm

----------


## Cutlerzzz

> "Experience has taught me that manufactures are now as necessary to our independence as to our comfort; and if... [we will purchase] nothing foreign where an equivalent of domestic fabric can be obtained without regard to a difference of price, it will not be our fault if we do not soon have a supply at home equal to our demand, and wrest that weapon of distress from the hand which has wielded it." --Thomas Jefferson to Benjamin Austin, 1816. ME 14:392
> 
> "The prohibiting duties we lay on all articles of foreign manufacture which prudence requires us to establish at home, with the patriotic determination of every good citizen to use no foreign article which can be made within ourselves without regard to difference of price, secures us against a relapse into foreign dependency." --Thomas Jefferson to Jean Baptiste Say, 1815.
> 
> "I have come to a resolution myself as I hope every good citizen will, never again to purchase any article of foreign manufacture which can be had of American make, be the difference of price what it may." --Thomas Jefferson to B. S. Barton, 1815. ME 19:223
> 
> *Thomas Jefferson repealed all internal taxes and ran the government solely from trade tariff revenue.*
> "1800 - With the assistance of his Secretary of the Treasury, Albert Gallatin, newly elected Republican President Thomas Jefferson sought to reorient the fiscal policy of the United States. Jefferson’s four main goals included: (1) a reduction in government expenditures, (2) a balanced budget; (3) a decrease in the size of the national debt, and (4) alleviation of the tax burden. The latter two objectives seemed to conflict with one another; specifically, Jefferson's desire to abrogate Hamilton's funded debt plan and retire all government obligations as judiciously as possible required a steady stream of revenue.
> 
> ...


Are you actually claiming that Jefferson was a protectionist based on a few random quotes?

----------


## Cutlerzzz

> read it again, I never said all the Founding Fathers were for protectionism.  I said all the Founding Fathers were very much for *protecting* the American people and our sovereignty.  Protectionism is a modern word that never existed to the Founding Fathers, and if you are to understand their thinking, you need to read the early documents, because the modern ones have deliberately twisted the words and actions of our Founding Fathers, so you would not be able to understand them. You would not be able to find your way back to a republic.
> 
> Protectionist to a globalist is an insult. The older generation thinks, “of course I want to protect my Country and my family (that is a good thing) , but that does not make me an isolationist.
> 
> *This has been done to dumb down our society, and to make communication impossible.* I used the word protect, and you translated it as protectionism  *(same root word, but twisted now to have very different meanings)*. See how the progressives have managed to subvert communication?
> 
>  keep in mind that the meaning of words have changed from the time of our Founding fathers to the Present. Below is a link to Webster's dictionary in 1913 and 1828. One can compare that with a modern version. http://machaut.uchicago.edu/websters
> 
> For example: The word "welfare" is used in the Preamble of the Constitution, and the 1828 edition of the word is: "2. Exemption from any unusual evil or calamity, the enjoyment of peace and prosperity, or the ordinary blessings of society and civil government; applied to states." In today's Webster's edition "welfare is defined as "receiving government aid because of poverty, etc.
> ...


That's quite the spin.

----------


## showpan

> Are you actually claiming that Jefferson was a protectionist based on a few random quotes?


Thomas Jefferson repealed all internal taxes and ran the government solely from trade tariff revenue. What didn't you understand?
Do a search for more of his quotes if you like, I only picked out some of the ones I liked the best. There is a lot of material for you to read, his letters, speeches, etc all can be found if you actually look for them..."uncut" and "uninterpreted"

----------


## freshjiva

Tariffs alone aren't necessary "protectionist". They are one of the original sources of revenue for the federal government. In that sense, I wouldn't consider them acts of protectionism, but rather a preferable alternative to internal taxation.

The Electorate clearly applauded Jefferson's move to eliminate internal taxation in favor of small import tariffs. That's why the Treasury raised more tax revenue despite eliminating many excise/sales taxes on goods. It's a classic example of the Laffer Curve in action.

----------


## Cutlerzzz

> What didn't you understand?


Why his party spent half of its time trying to lower tariffs? Why he opposed Hamilton on tariffs? Why you're claiming that funding government is the same thing as protectionism? 

To be honest, I'm *shocked* that someone is trying to claim that Jefferson, a fan of Smith, Say and opponent of mercantilism, tried to raise tariffs in order to protect American industry. In the dozens of history and economics books I've read, and the hundreds of articles, I've never heard of anyone put Jefferson in the pro tariff camp.

----------


## kah13176

I think we must identify the purpose of the economy.

It's entire purpose is consumption.  It comes down to trading a surplus of what we have for a deficit of what we need.  Imagine a world without government.  Only those who are productive survive, which encourages competition, downward pressure on prices, and increased quality.

With trade barriers, it's harder to trade what you have for what you need.  Maybe someone in another country makes something way better than a domestic producer.  When there's trade barriers, it is harder for the consumer to obtain what he needs.  Thus we see, trade barriers not only affect the consumer, but bereft the innovative producer of incentives - i.e. profits.  This is counter-productive.

Therefore, tarrifs impede people's ability to thrive.

Again, the purpose of the economy is not to employ people for the sake of employment.  If that were so, people would be paid to dig holes and fill them up again.  The purpose is always to meet demand.  Also, seeing the need to prop up domestic producers is also counter-intuitive to libertarian philosophy.  We are all created with equal claims to life, liberty, and property no matter the place of birth.  Tarrifs result in indirect theft from foreign producers since they rob them of potential profits.

*I don't care if Ron Paul himself goes against what I've said above.  The logic is infallible.*

----------


## romacox

> "Experience has taught me that manufactures are now as necessary to our independence as to our comfort; and if... [we will purchase] nothing foreign where an equivalent of domestic fabric can be obtained without regard to a difference of price, it will not be our fault if we do not soon have a supply at home equal to our demand, and wrest that weapon of distress from the hand which has wielded it." --Thomas Jefferson to Benjamin Austin, 1816. ME 14:392
> 
> "The prohibiting duties we lay on all articles of foreign manufacture which prudence requires us to establish at home, with the patriotic determination of every good citizen to use no foreign article which can be made within ourselves without regard to difference of price, secures us against a relapse into foreign dependency." --Thomas Jefferson to Jean Baptiste Say, 1815.
> 
> "I have come to a resolution myself as I hope every good citizen will, never again to purchase any article of foreign manufacture which can be had of American make, be the difference of price what it may." --Thomas Jefferson to B. S. Barton, 1815. ME 19:223
> 
> *Thomas Jefferson repealed all internal taxes and ran the government solely from trade tariff revenue.*
> "1800 - With the assistance of his Secretary of the Treasury, Albert Gallatin, newly elected Republican President Thomas Jefferson sought to reorient the fiscal policy of the United States. Jefferson’s four main goals included: (1) a reduction in government expenditures, (2) a balanced budget; (3) a decrease in the size of the national debt, and (4) alleviation of the tax burden. The latter two objectives seemed to conflict with one another; specifically, Jefferson's desire to abrogate Hamilton's funded debt plan and retire all government obligations as judiciously as possible required a steady stream of revenue.
> 
> ...


Very valuable  information Showpan. I am amazed at how much my generation was misinformed, and fed words of babble. Each year it gets worse..    I have been researching lots of old documents and textbooks to sort through the babble and misinformation. History is a much greater teacher than I ever realized before, and I am surprised to find out how much history has been deliberately hidden from us.   Some of what you share here I did not know.  Thank you for providing it with links.

Al Gore (a proponent of Global Warming)  is now telling our children that they (he and the children)  know more about the environment than their parents...come to daddy Gore, he will understand because your parents are just too stupid.  If one's children are being taught in the public school system today,  they are being taught even more babble, and will not be able to communicate with today's parents.  

New World Order And School Text Books

----------


## Jace

..

----------


## Danke

> What's really messed up is a lot of libertarians and conservatives who support free trade aren't familiar with the history of free trade in our country.
> 
> One of the biggest free trade promoters we had was Woodrow Wilson--the same man who gave us the Federal Reserve, the income tax, universal conscription, a world war and the League of Nations.
> 
> Free trade was a large part of his internationalist agenda--or at least the agenda of those who controlled him. The Wilson administration fought against the Republicans of the day to get rid of tariffs, and won for a brief time.
> 
> After World War I, there was a huge American backlash against the internationalism of the Wilson administration and against the international bankers who profited off the war. The tariffs came back in. The 1920s were a boom time.
> 
> Republicans before World War II were for tariffs and small government. They followed in the footsteps of our Founding Fathers who saw tariffs as a way to fund a limited government and maintain economic independence. They understood that political independence went hand in hand with economic independence. Lose one and you lose the other. The Founding Fathers were aware that America, due to its geography and free enterprise spirit, was in a unique position to become both economically independent and prosperous. During the 19th century when our tariffs were highest, we became the most prosperous and advanced nation in history up to then.
> ...


Good to see you back posting, Jace.

----------


## mtj458

> What's really messed up is a lot of libertarians and conservatives who support free trade aren't familiar with the history of free trade in our country.
> 
> One of the biggest free trade promoters we had was Woodrow Wilson--the same man who gave us the Federal Reserve, the income tax, universal conscription, a world war and the League of Nations.
> 
> Free trade was a large part of his internationalist agenda--or at least the agenda of those who controlled him. The Wilson administration fought against the Republicans of the day to get rid of tariffs, and won for a brief time.
> 
> After World War I, there was a huge American backlash against the internationalism of the Wilson administration and against the international bankers who profited off the war. The tariffs came back in. The 1920s were a boom time.
> 
> Republicans before World War II were for tariffs and small government. They followed in the footsteps of our Founding Fathers who saw tariffs as a way to fund a limited government and maintain economic independence. They understood that political independence went hand in hand with economic independence. Lose one and you lose the other. The Founding Fathers were aware that America, due to its geography and free enterprise spirit, was in a unique position to become both economically independent and prosperous. During the 19th century when our tariffs were highest, we became the most prosperous and advanced nation in history up to then.
> ...


This whole argument is a fallacy.  People X, Y, and Z support bad ideas A, B, and C.  X, Y, and Z also support D. Therefore D is bad.  It's a non sequitur.  Let's argue the merits of free trade and leave the rest out of it.  Just because a "globalist" supports free trade doesn't mean you shouldn't.

----------


## nobody's_hero

> This whole argument is a fallacy.  People X, Y, and Z support bad ideas A, B, and C.  X, Y, and Z also support D. Therefore D is bad.  It's a non sequitur.  Let's argue the merits of free trade and leave the rest out of it.  Just because a "globalist" supports free trade doesn't mean you shouldn't.


That's not exactly what Jace was saying.

It was more along the lines of "be aware that you're probably being played," for 'all is not what it seems' when it comes to "free trade."

An-cap/libertarians aren't looking behind the curtain on this one. As long as they keep getting cheap stuff and never try to produce anything, maybe they don't _want_ to know what's really going on.

----------


## Cutlerzzz

Using tariffs to fund the government is wrong. Not only is it immoral, but it makes no sense. 

How much revenue do you think you can get from tariffs? 300 billion? 500 billion? How much do you think you need? You're not going to be able to pay for SS or Medicare alone with that. If your goal is to reduce government spending to a few hundred billion a year, why not just charge service fees? You can't fund the current government,

Every Austrian economist supports Free Trade. Please, don't try and claim that only the bad guys support Free Trade. It's laughable, especially when most current politicians support Fair Trade bills such as NAFTA. 

As for the Founding Fathers, have any of you ever heard of their first plan, the Articles of Confederation? What tariffs did they have under that again?

----------


## romacox

> That's not exactly what Jace was saying.
> 
> It was more along the lines of "be aware that you're probably being played," for 'all is not what it seems' when it comes to "free trade."
> 
> An-cap/libertarians aren't looking behind the curtain on this one. As long as they keep getting cheap stuff and never try to produce anything, maybe they don't _want_ to know what's really going on.


You are so right...it is a shell game every since Woodrow Wilson took office:
True free trade is not government funded or regulated by government as is NAFTA.

----------


## Cutlerzzz

> 


Yes, Paul is a strong supporters of Free Trade as well.

----------


## romacox

> That's not exactly what Jace was saying.
> 
> It was more along the lines of "be aware that you're probably being played," for 'all is not what it seems' when it comes to "free trade."
> 
> An-cap/libertarians aren't looking behind the curtain on this one. As long as they keep getting cheap stuff and never try to produce anything, maybe they don't _want_ to know what's really going on.


You are so right.  It has all been a shell game every since Woodrow Wilson took office.  True free trade is not government regulated, negotiated or funded as is NAFTA.   Ron Paul explains

----------


## nobody's_hero

> Using tariffs to fund the government is wrong. Not only is it immoral, but it makes no sense. 
> 
> How much revenue do you think you can get from tariffs? 300 billion? 500 billion? How much do you think you need? You're not going to be able to pay for SS or Medicare alone with that. If your goal is to reduce government spending to a few hundred billion a year, why not just charge service fees? You can't fund the current government,
> 
> Every Austrian economist supports Free Trade. Please, don't try and claim that only the bad guys support Free Trade. It's laughable, especially when most current politicians support Fair Trade bills such as NAFTA. 
> 
> As for the Founding Fathers, have any of you ever heard of their first plan, the Articles of Confederation? What tariffs did they have under that again?


No one is saying that "only the bad guys support free trade." 

We're saying that the "bad guys" support it, and the "good guys" don't see the problem with it. If they knew what the problem was, then they probably wouldn't support it. The an-caps don't know, or _REFUSE_ to _want_ to know, what is really going on. Thus, they have been trying to apply truly free market _theories_ of the Austrian economists to the _realities_ a centrally planned economy and are essentially committing economic suicide. These theories would be* great* if all the world was truly free (including the U.S.), but the world just ain't that free.

We've been experiencing a _massive_ transfer of wealth [leaving this nation] since the Fed was created. It's been directed (FAKE!!!!). People only _think_ they're getting a good deal.

----------


## Cutlerzzz

> No one is saying that "only the bad buys support free trade." 
> 
> We're saying that the "bad guys" support it, and the "good guys" don't see the problem with it. If they knew what the problem was, then they probably wouldn't support it. The an-caps don't know, or _REFUSE_ to _want_ to know, what is really going on. Thus, they have been trying to apply truly free market _theories_ of the Austrian economists to the _realities_ a centrally planned economy and are essentially committing economic suicide. These theories would be* great* if all the world was truly free (including the U.S.), but the world just ain't that free.
> 
> We've been experiencing a _massive_ transfer of wealth [leaving this nation] since the Fed was created. It's been directed (FAKE!!!!). People only _think_ they're getting a good deal.


I've seen almost no statists that support Free Trade. It's completely fabricated by the protectionist on this website who have ran out of arguments. The vast majority of statists support fair trade and government managed trade.

Few advocates of tariffs have any understanding of economics at all, so please, don't call people who support FREE trade ignorant of the issues. 

Austrian economists *study trade for a living*. You're telling me that you know more about the problems in the economy than every single Austrian economists that has ever lived? Are you telling me that you support the Austrian school of economics on everything besides trade, because there is just one random thing that all of the hundreds of Austrian economists have been wrong about over the last 200 years? You believe that axioms apply to everything besides Free Trade?

Since the Fed was created, the United States has created ten trillion+ dollars worth of wealth inspite of the Fed, unless you're arguing that living conditions were better in 1913. I have no idea what this has to do with Free Trade though.

----------


## nobody's_hero

> I've seen almost no statists that support Free Trade. It's completely fabricated by the protectionist on this website who have ran out of arguments. The vast majority of statists support fair trade and government managed trade.
> 
> Few advocates of tariffs have any understanding of economics at all, so please, don't call people who support FREE trade ignorant of the issues. 
> 
> Austrian economists *study trade for a living*. You're telling me that you know more about the problems in the economy than every single Austrian economists that has ever lived? Are you telling me that you support the Austrian school of economics on everything besides trade, because there is just one random thing that all of the hundreds of Austrian economists have been wrong about over the last 200 years? You believe that axioms apply to everything besides Free Trade?
> 
> Since the Fed was created, the United States has created ten trillion+ dollars worth of wealth inspite of the Fed, unless you're arguing that living conditions were better in 1913. I have no idea what this has to do with Free Trade though.


here I go getting sucked in again. 

Living conditions were better in 1913 [we didn't have the Fed—or, I should say, it was little more than an idea scribbled on a napkin that year]. We were on the road to [real] economic prosperity via a booming production powerhouse. Compare the U.S. in 1913 to any other nation in the world at the time. The burden of proof rests with the Austrian economists that tariffs [always] _ hurt_ economies, since up until we started kicking tariffs to the curb, America was a [relatively-speaking] prosperous, productive nation. (someone's about to flame me with some Latin over that one!, fire away, I've heard it before, "ergo something something")

Since we have reduced our tariffs greatly, or done away with them all together in some 'Free trade' agreements, the producers have left the United States faster than a whore leaves church when the offerin' plate is passed. We were "immoral" for protecting them when they were here in _this_ country (oh noes! protectionism!), and now (_are you ready for this?),_ _we still do business with them_ *while they are now protected by tariffs (these being honest-to-God, true, exhorbitant protectionist tariffs) imposed by the governments of the countries they've since relocated to. *  So what was the problem?—that they were "protected" here in the U.S.? That they were located here in the U.S.? In Austrian economic theory, are we supposed to rejoice in the fact that we are still "free" to do business with them even though they are still protected, just NOT here in the U.S.? 

Do you not see the irony here? 

Hell, at least when they were _here_, Americans had jobs and wealth recirculated in our economy.

I have _never_ said the Austrian economists 'don't know what they're talking about.' I believe in Austrian economic _theory_. 

I also happen to know that the world economy is not currently being run on sound _theories_, and the _theory_ that says you are free to _import_ from whomever you wish happens to be colliding with the _reality_ that we are not free to _export_ what we wish. This is NOT a natural free market shift, but I swear, in less than three more posts, some an-cap "free-trader" is going to post some load of poop about how we've naturally evolved a beyond manufacturing economy to a consumer economy. 

It's been staged. You've been had. Wake up!

----------


## ssantoro

> What's really messed up is a lot of libertarians and conservatives who support free trade aren't familiar with the history of free trade in our country.
> 
> One of the biggest free trade promoters we had was Woodrow Wilson--the same man who gave us the Federal Reserve, the income tax, universal conscription, a world war and the League of Nations.
> 
> Free trade was a large part of his internationalist agenda--or at least the agenda of those who controlled him. The Wilson administration fought against the Republicans of the day to get rid of tariffs, and won for a brief time.
> 
> After World War I, there was a huge American backlash against the internationalism of the Wilson administration and against the international bankers who profited off the war. The tariffs came back in. The 1920s were a boom time.
> 
> Republicans before World War II were for tariffs and small government. They followed in the footsteps of our Founding Fathers who saw tariffs as a way to fund a limited government and maintain economic independence. They understood that political independence went hand in hand with economic independence. Lose one and you lose the other. The Founding Fathers were aware that America, due to its geography and free enterprise spirit, was in a unique position to become both economically independent and prosperous. During the 19th century when our tariffs were highest, we became the most prosperous and advanced nation in history up to then.
> ...


This is hitting the nail on the head. +Rep

----------


## Cutlerzzz

> here I go getting sucked in again. 
> 
> Living conditions were better in 1913 [we didn't have the Fed—or, I should say, it was little more than an idea scribbled on a napkin that year]. We were on the road to [real] economic prosperity via a booming production powerhouse.


I'll take my internet, 80 year life expectancy, multiple cars, video games, and $42,000 per capita income.




> The burden of proof rests with the Austrian economists that tariffs_ hurt_ economies, since up until we started kicking tariffs to the curb, America was a [relatively-speaking] prosperous, productive nation. (someone's about to flame me with some Latin over that one!, fire away, I've heard it before, "ergo something something")
> 
> Since we have reduced our tariffs greatly, or done away with them all together in some 'Free trade' agreements, the producers have left the United States faster than a whore in church when the offerin' plate is passed.


Kicked tariffs away? Free Trade? These never happened, and it's blatently obvious. The United States does not engage in Free Trade with anyone.

Manufacturing is at all time highs by far. 






> We were "immoral" for protecting them when they were here in this country (oh noes! protectionism!), and now (are you ready for this?)


You're being immoral because telling someone they have to buy something from some government protected firm, and go to jail if they buy it from outside the country and don't send a paycheck to the government. That's immoral corporatism at its finnest. 




> Hell, at least when they were here, Americans had jobs and wealth recirculated in our economy.


Demand is infinite. Trade policy has no long term affect on unemployment.



I'm sure that this is the part where the socialist myth about how those jobs are "bad jobs" comes into play. Well, they pay more. 



http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/15824.aspx




> I have never said the Austrian economists "don't know what they're talking about." I believe in Austrian economic theory. 
> 
> I also happen to know that the world economy is not currently being run on sound theories, and the theory that says you are free to import from whomever you wish happens to be colliding with the reality that we are not free to export what we wish. This is NOT a natural free market shift, but I swear, in less than three more posts, some an-cap "free-trader" is going to post some load of poop about how we've naturally evolved a beyond manufacturing economy to a consumer economy.


You're disagreeing with every Austrian economist *ever*. 

Manufacturing is at all time highs around the United States and the world. Service sector jobs generally pay more and generally have better conditions than manufacturing jobs. 




> It's been staged. You've been had. Wake up!


You're calling for government coercion, which 90% of economists(including all Austrian economists) disagree with in this case, in order to protect unions and corporations from competition. I think you need to look into the mirror

----------


## kah13176

I think trade barriers aren't the only thing coming into play here.  Correlation doesn't mean causation.

- Regulation disparities between domestic industries and foreign counterparts - such as EPA, etc.

- Minimum wage laws.

----------


## ssantoro

> I think trade barriers aren't the only thing coming into play here.  Correlation doesn't mean causation.
> 
> - Regulation disparities between domestic industries and foreign counterparts - such as EPA, etc.
> 
> - Minimum wage laws.


I agree with the principles of Adam Smith and the Austrian school and have for many years. The free trade advocated by our government, WTO and NAFTA is not the fair trade ideology that produces fair and balanced exchange. Both, US regulations on domestic industry and the lack of regulation by foreign industry have created the disparity at the expense of the American people. Although there are a host of other factors that contribute to the imbalance, tariffs are only a small part of the whole equation as we know the whole thing is organic and can not be controlled by central planning.

----------


## showpan

> I'll take my internet, 80 year life expectancy, multiple cars, video games, and $42,000 per capita income.
> 
> Kicked tariffs away? Free Trade? These never happened, and it's blatently obvious. The United States does not engage in Free Trade with anyone.
> 
> Manufacturing is at all time highs by far. 
> 
> You're being immoral because telling someone they have to buy something from some government protected firm, and go to jail if they buy it from outside the country and don't send a paycheck to the government. That's immoral corporatism at its finnest. 
> 
> Demand is infinite. Trade policy has no long term affect on unemployment.
> ...


I have debunked every one of your points here in this thread.
What was the dollar worth in 1913?
I'll answer that for you....a lot more than it is now....lol

----------


## showpan

I guess I need to post this here too.

----------


## Cutlerzzz

> I have debunked every one of your points here in this thread.
> What was the dollar worth in 1913?
> I'll answer that for you....a lot more than it is now....lol


Actually, you posted a bunch of figures you didn't understand, had them debunked, and claimed that my statistics were all false for no explained reason.

----------


## JohnRego

> I have debunked every one of your points here in this thread.
> What was the dollar worth in 1913?
> I'll answer that for you....a lot more than it is now....lol


That's embarrassing. I would never link to a thread that ended like that for me.

----------


## nobody's_hero

> I'll take my internet, 80 year life expectancy, multiple cars, video games, and $42,000 per capita income.


Technological advances don't count, nor does a $42K inflated salary. You have to look at the *time frame*. Compare the U.S. pre-1913 (pre-Progressive, populist movement) to the rest of the world pre-1913. With tariffs, how did we fare against the rest of the world? How do you think we will fare in comparison, say, 50 years from now, especially if we did away with them completely, as an-caps advocate, at the rate we are now going?






> Kicked tariffs away? Free Trade? These never happened, and it's blatently obvious. The United States does not engage in Free Trade with anyone.


We have low tariffs in comparison to the height of the American industrial age. Compared with the countries that are kicking our rear in production right now, we have miniscule tariffs, reciprocally speaking. Perhaps, "kicked to the curb" was too strong of phrasing, but obviously, there has been a sizeable decline in tariffs since the early 20th century.



> Manufacturing is at all time highs by far.


Of course, this could reasonably be expected within any nation over time, but now compare the U.S. rate of industrial growth with that of other nations. Look at where the fastest growth is happening. I bet it ain't here.





> You're being immoral because telling someone they have to buy something from some government protected firm, and go to jail if they buy it from outside the country and don't send a paycheck to the government. That's immoral corporatism at its finnest.


Sorry to rain on your parade, but as I stated previously, you're also being immoral, and you tried so hard to get around it by buying from companies overseas . . . _that are protected by tariffs imposed by the governments of the countries they relocated to_. If anything, you essentially mean that the U.S. doesn't have the right to be immoral, but other countries do, when it comes to 'protectionism.' I salute your intentions. But  unfortunately, the fact that there's no real good way around it is a consequence of the harsh truth that some things don't fit easily into moral arguments when applied in reality. I hate it that the world is like that, but that's just the way it is. No one here has hands that aren't stained, except for maybe Anti-Federalist, who, as far as I know, won't even step on a sidewalk in front of a Wal-Mart. 




> Demand is infinite. Trade policy has no long term affect on unemployment.


In theory, yes. In reality, demand can be altered somewhat by tariffs. Again, this is not easily argued from a moral standpoint, because the morals we wish to see exist conflict with the reality that actually _does_ exist. Reason being, even if the U.S. ended all tariffs and we somehow sought to meet the demands of other nations, our producers would not be able to compete fairly with manufacturers in countries which have enacted protectionist tariffs. American companies WILL move to other nations seeking those protective tariffs (taking job positions with them), because that is the nature of the corporate mindset. No businessman in his right mind will choose a 'free society' to set up shop, *so long* *as there is an alternative which guarantees him profits*. HOWEVER, if EVERY society were truly free, then they'd have no [government] to choose from, would they?—They'd have to make decisions based on how they could succeed on their own merits, which no one here would frown on, I hope. Furthermore, as has been shown here in the U.S., consumers will go to where the cheapest goods can be bought, regardless of _why_ they are cheap. *Most* people will not reward businesses acting in 'good faith' over businesses acting in 'good prices.' Sorry. 



> I'm sure that this is the part where the socialist myth about how those jobs are "bad jobs" comes into play. Well, they pay more.


I did not say they are 'bad' jobs. I said that the conditions which brought about these jobs were bad. Example: Do you think that having a house that is worth a lot of money is a bad thing? No, of course not. *BUT* What happens if you have a house that is worth a lot of money _because_ of government/financial policy? Well, something like that happened in 2008. 

So, just don't be so giddy that the 'service economy' we have today was determined by the 'free-market'. Don't be so quick to claim that we've simply 'moved beyond' manufacturing, with such profound certainty, while we have the strongest central bank in the history of mankind at the helm. 





> You're disagreeing with every Austrian economist *ever*.


Again, they have brilliant theories on free trade, which I _cannot_ personally refute. But, for example, if I told you that the moral, most beneficial option to choose when a gun-fight was about to break out, was 'not to be around,' or 'never to harm another being', I could base my arguments on some very moral, theoretically-sound principles. Unfortunately, my theories are of little use when you're actually _getting_ shot at, since not shooting back will likely lead to severe wounds or death on your part. Morally, you win, for what it's worth. In reality, you were just a good man.




> You're calling for government coercion, which 90% of economists(including all Austrian economists) disagree with in this case, in order to protect unions and corporations from competition. I think you need to look into the mirror


I'm calling for balance, and I'm limited on ideas as to how to achieve it, I _will_ admit that. Either we have equal coercion (of which there is much disagreement) or no coercion at all (of which we would _all_ agree, yet we'll die before we see it),* but* anything in between is going to lead to nothing more than a fabricated, massive transfer of weath. 

Life's a b****, I hate things work this way. The world is not yet ready for Austrian economics, so long as governments co-mingle with corporations. In planned economies, just as bad money drives out the good, so too does bad business drive out the good business.

----------


## Cutlerzzz

> Technological advances don't count, nor does a $42K inflated salary. You have to look at the *time frame*. Compare the U.S. pre-1913 (pre-Progressive, populist movement) to the rest of the world pre-1913. With tariffs, how did we fare against the rest of the world? How do you think we will fare in comparison, say, 50 years from now, especially if we did away with them completely, as an-caps advocate, at the rate we are now going?


That wasn't the quote. You stated that there had been a massive transfer of wealth leaving the nation since the fed was created in 1913. Since then, the US has become far more wealthier due to capitalism. 




> We have low tariffs in comparison to the height of the American industrial age. Compared with the countries that are kicking our rear in production right now, we have miniscule tariffs, reciprocally speaking. Perhaps, "kicked to the curb" was too strong of phrasing, but obviously, there has been a sizeable decline in tariffs since the early 20th century.


Lowering tariffs somewhat doesn't mean that there are "no tariffs" with some countries as you claimed. The US has free trade with no nation on Earth, and tariffs against all. That is not Free Trade. 




> Of course, this could reasonably be expected within any nation over time, but now compare the U.S. rate of industrial growth with that of other nations. Look at where the fastest growth is happening. I bet it ain't here.


http://management.curiouscatblog.net...ing-data-2007/

As you can see, US manufacturing is still growing at a faster rate than most countries out there. 

As of 2007, we were outgrowing all of the major European countries and Japan, the majority of the other developed countries around the world.




> Sorry to rain on your parade, but as I stated previously, you're also being immoral, and you tried so hard to get around it by buying from companies overseas . . . that are protected by tariffs imposed by the governments of the countries they relocated to. If anything, you essentially mean that the U.S. doesn't have the right to be immoral, but other countries do, when it comes to 'protectionism.' I salute your intentions. But unfortunately, the fact that there's no real good way around it is a consequence of the harsh truth that some things don't fit easily into moral arguments when applied in reality. I hate it that the world is like that, but that's just the way it is.


I'll buy from whoever I want. The act of voluntarily buying a good is not immoral. 

I have some control over my country, I can't help it if other countries are being immoral and robbing their people. 




> No one here has hands that aren't stained, except for maybe Anti-Federalist, who, as far as I know, won't even step on a sidewalk in front of a Wal-Mart.







> In theory, yes. In reality, demand can be altered somewhat by tariffs.


No, just no. Human demand is infinite. That is one of the most basic economic principles out there and part of the Economic Problem.




> Again, this is not easily argued from a moral standpoint, because the morals we wish to see exist conflict with the reality that actually does exist. Reason being, even if the U.S. ended all tariffs and we somehow sought to meet the demands of other nations, our producers would not be able to compete fairly with manufacturers in countries which have enacted protectionist tariffs. American companies WILL move to other nations seeking those protective tariffs (taking job positions with them), because that is the nature of the corporate mindset. No businessman in his right mind will choose a 'free society' to set up shop, so long as there is an alternative which guarantees him profits. HOWEVER, if EVERY society were truly free, then they'd have no [government] to choose from, would they?They'd have to make decisions based on how they could succeed on their own merits, which no one here would frown on, I hope. Furthermore, as has been shown here in the U.S., consumers will go to where the cheapest goods can be bought, regardless of why they are cheap. Most people will not reward businesses acting in 'good faith' over businesses acting in 'good prices.' Sorry.


Enacting tariffs discourages foreign investment, not the other way around. It raises costs. 




> I did not say they are 'bad' jobs. I said that the conditions which brought about these jobs were bad. Example: Do you think that having a house that is worth a lot of money is a bad thing? No, of course not. BUT What happens if you have a house that is worth a lot of money because of government/financial policy? Well, something like that happened in 2008. 
> 
> So, just don't be so giddy that the 'service economy' we have today was determined by the 'free-market'. Don't be so quick to claim that we've simply 'moved beyond' manufacturing, with such profound certainty, while we have the strongest central bank in the history of mankind at the helm.


The housing bubble was created by government against the markets wishes. Inspite of the painful tariffs and other taxes and regulations they have to deal with, the market is moving the United States past the traditional manufacturing economy. 




> Again, they have brilliant theories on free trade, which I cannot personally refute. But, for example, if I told you that the moral, most beneficial option to choose when a gun-fight was about to break out, was 'not to be around,' or 'never to harm another being', I could base my arguments on some very moral, theoretically-sound principles. Unfortunately, my theories are of little use when you're actually getting shot at, since not shooting back will likely lead to severe wounds or death on your part. Morally, you win, for what it's worth. In reality, you were just a good man.


You don't find it at all odd that you agree with Austrian Economics on almost everything but this?




> I'm calling for balance, and I'm limited on ideas as to how to achieve it, I will admit that. Either we have equal coercion (of which there is much disagreement) or no coercion at all (of which we would all agree, yet we'll die before we see it), but anything in between is going to lead to nothing more than a fabricated, massive transfer of weath.


http://cafehayek.com/2010/10/if-trad...real-wars.html

When nations are at war with each other, they try to put up blockades against each other to keep products out.

----------


## ProIndividual

First off...

...everyone saying "mehhh, but the founders liked tariffs.."...

..are dangling an informal logical fallacy in front of us free traders like it matters.

The founders liked slavery as much as protectionism; not uniformly, but enough for it to be policy...and both are backward economic policies, and all the data proves that. Neither policy was moral.

"Appeal to antiquity", or "appeal to tradition" is an informal logical fallacy. BUSTED!


Second of all...

I'm tired of being belittled and told "you must not know this or that" because I support free trade. 

IT ISN'T US WHO LACK INFORMATION.

I used to be a protectionist libtard...then I read a bunch of books, and over a period of years, through EDUCATION (not a lack thereof), I realized how bad mercantilist and Keynesian economics are.

It's free markets or you're helping an oligrachy, it's immoral. It's free markets, or you get less of everything, and with more distorted distribution. It's free markets, or booms and busts forever.

We aren't the ones lacking in the reading department.

Stop supporting anti-free market capitalist pursuits, start supporting what the data does: FREE TRADE.

Cutlerzzz, good job so far.

----------


## showpan

> That's embarrassing. I would never link to a thread that ended like that for me.


Those facts and figures have not been debunked, not embarrassed at all...lol...at least most of my info came from the govt data unlike wiki links and other statistics that have been rewritten, like manufacturing Big Macs...lol

----------


## ProIndividual

And for the gazillionth time I'm gonna list a few applicable fallacies you protectionist suffer from...

Statist Economic Fallacies: Breaking Through the Nonsense (Part I)

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=41436



4. Tariffs that limit imports, and policies that encourage exports, are good ideas

The fallacy that government is a better judge of the most profitable modes of directing labor and capital than individuals is well illustrated by exporting policies. In the twentieth century, the federal government has sought to promote exports in various ways. The first was by forcing open foreign markets through a combination of diplomatic and military pressure, all the while keeping our own markets wholly or partially closed. The famous "open door" policy, formulated by Secretary of State John Hay in 1899 was never meant to be reciprocal (after all, he served in the McKinley administration, the most archly protectionist in American history), and it often required a gun boat and a contingent of hard charging marines to kick open the door.

A second method was export subsidies, which are still with us. The Export-Import Bank was established by Roosevelt in 1934 to provide cash grants, government-guaranteed loans, and cheap credit to exporters and their overseas customers. It remains today-untouched by "alleged" free market Republican administrations and congresses.


A third method was dollar devaluation, to cheapen the selling price of American goods abroad. In 1933, Roosevelt took the country off the gold standard and revalued it at $34.06, which represented a significant devaluation. The object was to allow for more domestic inflation and to boost exports, particularly agricultural ones, which failed; now Bush is trying it.

I'd just like to point out, FDR's agriculture policies caused the "soup lines" or "bread lines" we always hear so much about. He had 10 million acres of crops destroyed and 6 million farm animals killed in order to boost domestic food prices for producers. This raised the price of food. His subsidies to export made exporting the food more profitable than selling it domestically. The combination of the two led to food shortages. So, next time some liberal claims that stimulus and bailouts prevented "soup and bread lines", remind them those were the fault of FDR and bad economics. It doesn't even matter that stimulus and bailouts don't work (or work well), it's enough the Obama administration isn't as dull on economics as their Roosevelt predecessors. We simply don't have these "soup and bread lines" because no one is repeating FDR's mistakes, which caused them to begin with.


A fourth method, tried by the Reagan administration, was driving down farm prices to boost exports, thereby shrinking the trade deficit. The plan was that America would undersell its competitors, capture markets, and rake in foreign exchange. (When others do this it is denounced as unfair, as predatory trade.) What happened? Well, it turned out that the agricultural export market was rather elastic. Countries like Brazil and Argentina, depending on farm exports as one of their few sources of foreign exchange, which they desperately needed to service their debt loads, simply cut their prices to match the Americans. Plan fails.


But it got worse: American farmers had to sell larger quantities (at the lower prices) just to break even. Nevertheless, although the total volume of American agricultural exports increased, their real value (in constant dollars) fell - more work, lower profits. Furthermore, farmers had to import more oil and other producer goods to expand their production, which worsened the trade deficit. Then, there were the unforeseen and deleterious side-effects. Expanded cultivation and livestock-raising stressed out and degraded the quality of the soils, polluted watersheds, and lowered the nutritional value of the expanded crop of vegetables, grains, and animal proteins.

The author says "worsened" trade deficits, in italics, for a reason. Trade deficits are not negative, and the fact people think trade deficits are negative is itself a fallacy. We will cover this fallacy here, after we have finished with this part.


Finally, the policy of lower price/higher volume drove many small farmers, here and abroad, off the land, into the cities, and across the border, our border. Here is an economic policy that not only failed in its purpose but worsened the very problem it was intended to alleviate, and caused a nutritional, ecological, and demographic catastrophe.

I wished the author would have also italicized "problem", as to further drive home the point that trade deficits are not negative. So, let's address this fallacy now.


•The instinctive reaction of politicians is that if one country places a tariff barrier on our exports, we should respond by doing the same. However economic theory suggests that placing a tariff barrier on imports leads to a loss of economic welfare. It is better to not retaliate.

Time and time again, trade restrictions like tariffs have hurt our country's economy, not helped it.


The Embargo Act of 1807 and the subsequent Nonintercourse Acts were American laws restricting American ships from engaging in foreign trade between the years of 1807 and 1812. They led to the War of 1812 between the U.S. and Britain.

Despite its unpopular nature, the Embargo Act did have some limited, unintended benefits, especially as entrepreneurs and workers responded by bringing in fresh capital and labor into New England textile and other manufacturing industries, lessening America's reliance on the British merchants.[8] (Since the damage that was caused was so widespread and severe, you can liken this to 'stepping over dollars, to pick up pennies')

The Embargo was in fact hurting the United States as much as Britain or France. Britain, expected to suffer most from the American regulations, found consolation in the development of a South American market, and the British shipowners were pleased that American competition had been removed by the action of the U.S. government.

The attempt of Jefferson and Madison to resist aggression by peaceful means gained a belated success in June 1812 when Britain finally promised to repeal her Orders in Council. The British concession was too late, for by the time the news reached America the United States had already declared the War of 1812 against Britain.

The entire series of events was ridiculed in the press as Dambargo, Mob-Rage, Go-bar-'em or O-grab-me ('Embargo' spelled backward); there was a cartoon ridiculing the Act as a snapping turtle, named "O' grab me", grabbing at American shipping.



 Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act

The Tariff Act of 1930, otherwise known as the Smoot-Hawley Tariff or Hawley-Smoot Tariff (P.L. 71-361)[1] was an act, sponsored by United States Senator Reed Smoot and Representative Willis C. Hawley, and signed into law on June 17, 1930, that raised U.S. tariffs on over 20,000 imported goods to record levels.[2]

The overall level tariffs under the Tariff were the second-highest in US history, exceeded (by a small margin) only by the Tariff of 1828[3] and the ensuing retaliatory tariffs by U.S. trading partners reduced American exports and imports by more than half.

Some economists have opined that the tariffs contributed to the severity of the Great Depression.[4][5][6]

U.S. imports decreased 66% from US$4.4 billion (1929) to US$1.5 billion (1933), and exports decreased 61% from US$5.4 billion to US$2.1 billion, both decreases much more than the 50% decrease of the GDP. ( I want everyone to notice, we are in an era of a horrible economy with high unemployment and trade surpluses. In 1929, the trade surplus was $1 billion, this did not however translate to long term growth or more employment. In 1933, we ran a smaller trade surplus and had worsening effects, along with LESS TRADE OVERALL. Trade surpluses (foreign exchange deficits) are often regarded as good, but they have almost never translated into higher growth rates or low unemployment rates. The higher growth rates and lower unemployment rates are found in periods of high trade deficits (foreign exchange surpluses). The very way governments come up with trade numbers, and whether a nation has deficits or not, has been criticized as nearly erroneous, by free market economists from Frederic Bastiat to Don Boudreaux. Bastiat demonstrated that a government can record a deficit, even though a net profit was made by their citizen who was involved in the trade. This is counter intutitive, but deductively logical. The government numbers record the price at sale, not the resale value and profit made. When this profit is taken into account, then the only debt in the 'trade deficit' that is not covered by the foreign exchange surplus is government debt acrued by borrowing from foreigners. When people say "we need to do something about the trade deficit", I say "yes we do, we need to stop letting the government run in deficit and debt by borrowing money from foreigners". The common misconception is that unbalanced, or even unreciprocated, trade is bad for the economy. In fact, private sector trade is not debt, and is not bad for the economy at all. It's the debt the government runs up in the trade deficit that materializes as debt, and gives trade deficits a bad name. Private sector trade, good...Public Sector borrowing, bad. As you can see from the severely diminished trade numbers above, protectionism shrinks the economic pie, while free trade (or at least free-er trade) expands the total economic pie, benefiting everyone.)

According to government statistics, U.S. imports from Europe decreased from a 1929 high of $1,334 million to just $390 million during 1932, while U.S. exports to Europe decreased from $2,341 million in 1929 to $784 million in 1932. Overall, world trade decreased by some 66% between 1929 and 1934.[15]

Although the tariff act was passed after the stock-market crash of 1929, some economic historians consider the political discussion leading up to the passing of the act a factor in causing the crash, the recession that began in late 1929, or both, and its eventual passage a factor in deepening the Great Depression.[16] Unemployment was at 7.8% in 1930 when the Smoot-Hawley tariff was passed, but it jumped to 16.3% in 1931, 24.9% in 1932, and 25.1% in 1933.[17]

Imports during 1929 were only 4.2% of the United States' GNP and exports were only 5.0%. Monetarists such as Milton Friedman who emphasize the central role of the money supply in causing the depression, downplay the Smoot-Hawley's effect on the entire U.S. economy.[18]

I think it's fair to say the money supply was responsible for the deflation (too little money in circulation), and the tariffs were responsible for reduction in trade and GDP, overall.

I think it's pretty clear, interfering in the economy to spur exports or reduce imports only hurt the economy. Which, by chance, brings us to our next fallacy...





5. The fallacy of trade deficits

The 19th century economist and philosopher Frédéric Bastiat expressed the idea that trade deficits actually were a manifestation of profit, rather than a loss. He proposed as an example to suppose that he, a Frenchman, exported French wine and imported British coal, turning a profit. He supposed he was in France, and sent a cask of wine which was worth 50 francs to England. The customhouse would record an export of 50 francs. If, in England, the wine sold for 70 francs (or the pound equivalent), which he then used to buy coal, which he imported into France, and was found to be worth 90 francs in France, he would have made a profit of 40 francs. But the customhouse would say that the value of imports exceeded that of exports and was trade deficit against the ledger of France.[30]

In the above example, there is a single trader who is traveling and trading across national borders. The Frenchman owns a cask of wine worth 50 francs, and travels with it to England. France records an export of 50 francs, England an import of 50 francs.. In England, he sells his wine for 70 francs (or the pound equivalent) and buys 70 francs worth of English coal. He then leaves England for France with the 70 francs of coal, so that Enland records this as an export and France as an import. So, England has exported 20 francs more than it has imported, for a trade surplus of 20 francs. Meanwhile France imported 20 francs more than it exported, for a trade deficit of 20 francs. This is the last time the trade is recorded by either government, the entire reason why trade numbers are irrelevant in most cases to trade effects. Therefore, it's important to notice that the nation with the trade surplus (England) actually "lost money" on the trades, while the nation with the trade deficit (France) actually made all the profits. But the trade did not conclude with the importation of 70 francs of English coal by the Frenchman...he then sells it in his native France for 90 francs, without any government recording it as an import/export. This means the trader profited 40 francs overall (he turned 50 francs of wine into 90 francs), and yet his government calls it a 20 franc loss. The idea he lost money for himself, or for his nations GDP, is erroneous.



The idea trade surplus or deficit is directly tied to whether the trade is "balanced" or not, is fallacious. The trade deficit is exactly balanced by the foreign exchange surplus in the private sector. The trade surplus is exactly balanced by the foreign exchange deficit. Every product traded for currency is an investment in currency. Every trade of currency for a commodity is an investment in that commodity. There basically is no such thing as "balanced trade", because every trade is balanced by virtue of the fact they are voluntary, and because of the inverse relationship of trade and foreign exchange. Trade and foreign exchange are negatively correlated.

By reductio ad absurdum, Bastiat argued that the national trade deficit was an indicator of a successful economy, rather than a failing one. Bastiat predicted that a successful, growing economy would result in greater trade deficits, and an unsuccessful, shrinking economy would result in lower trade deficits. This was later, in the 20th century, affirmed by economist Milton Friedman.

Contrary to popular misconception, trade deficits are correlated with higher growth rates, lower unemployment, and wealthier periods. The opposite is true for trade surpluses. We should embrace trade deficits, if in fact we put any creedance in them at all.





NOTICE, I ADDRESS THE SMOOT-HAWLEY TARIFF ACT.

----------


## showpan

And I already proved that the Smoot-Hawley Tariff didn't do what you claim...lol

----------


## ProIndividual

> And I already proved that the Smoot-Hawley Tariff didn't do what you claim...lol


No, you didn't. It did deepen the Depression, that much is in my DATA. It screwed up trade.

I never claimed it caused, or was the majority problem with the Great Depression...and I mention as much.

But keep being a dogmatist afraid of facts...I'm used to it from protectionists and other assorted mercantilist/Keynesians.


How does it feel to be a mercantilist/Keynesian? I used to be one...I wasn't very educated at the time, young, and didn't like myself very much. I'm so glad I shed my false beliefs and woke up to free markets...it made my whole life better, and my understanding of the world much clearer.

You should try it.



Ps. Try addressing all the data in my post about the general idea of protectionism in the forms of tariffs, subsidies, increased money supply, and manipulations in trade deficits/balance/surpluses. I'd love to see you show how I'm wrong. 

Trade deficits being negative for an economy is FACTUALLY wrong. They're corollary to good times, like lower unemployment and higher growth. Trade restrictions, subsidies, and currency manipulation...AS I SHOWED....fail for logical reasons.

I also addressed immigration in another post we are dueling in...if arguing with a wall is considered dueling anyway.



Some folks claim FDR sucked, then say "let's repeat his mistakes! Can never have too many soup and bread lines! Food shortages, woohoooo!"

----------


## nobody's_hero

> That wasn't the quote. You stated that there had been a massive transfer of wealth leaving the nation since the fed was created in 1913. Since then, the US has become far more wealthier due to capitalism.


Compared to some other nations of the world (biggest competitors), you could easily say we have no tariffs. It's not that far off. If you want to argue semantics, be my guest. Compare China's tariffs with the U.S. Compare Japan's tariffs with the U.S. _Overall_, we pretty much have 'no tariffs.' 

Wealth _has_ been leaving the U.S. since 1913. I see it does not take much for the Fed's illusion to fool you.





> Lowering tariffs somewhat doesn't mean that there are "no tariffs" with some countries as you claimed. The US has free trade with no nation on Earth, and tariffs against all. That is not Free Trade.


No free trade, anywhere. Got it. Agreed.  Varying degrees of trade, yes? How's that working out for us? 





> As you can see, US manufacturing is still growing at a faster rate than most countries out there. 
> 
> As of 2007, we were outgrowing all of the major European countries and Japan, the majority of the other developed countries around the world.


The updated *data from the United Nations* (<<-----that's where I stopped reading, sorry) on manufacturing output . . . 

It isn't so much that it's not possible, but the UN has an agenda, which has been to siphon wealth from the U.S. by _any_ means possible and redistribute it to the rest of the world. Other than that, I _could_ believe them, when they tell us we're still economically strong, while taking our wallets out of our back pockets.






> I'll buy from whoever I want. The act of voluntarily buying a good is not immoral. 
> 
> I have some control over my country, I can't help it if other countries are being immoral and robbing their people.


So you'd buy a stolen CD player, knowing it's stolen, and be so bold as to admit that it's your voluntary right to 'do business with whomever you please'. 

Most of the Asian continent is shipping C.D. players to the U.S. that have come from protected (EVIL!!!!) economies. Shucks, at least when I buy it, I know it's only because _I don't really have a choice_. I'd much rather make my own C.D. player. Call it what you will, but you can't claim the moral high ground here. None of us can, really.  And it does suck, I'll admit. 




> No, just no. *Human demand is infinite*. That is one of the most basic economic principles out there and part of the Economic Problem.


Not quite. In a theory which assumes there is _complete_, _unregulated_ competition in the world, in which demand can be met, yes. In reality . . . 

Real-life example: There is an ice cream truck that comes through my neighborhood, and one day, I was doing yard work in the heat and decided I wanted a chocolate eclair. So I go to the window and look at the menu, and lo and behold, _one_ damn ice cream bar is priced at $2.75.  At that point, my demand for ice cream _immediately subsided_ and I did without. My decision was based on the irrationality of paying that much for an ice cream bar at the time. There is _always_ a price (it may be rediculously high, mind you) at which demand gets capped, regardless of the circumstances. 






> Enacting tariffs discourages foreign investment, not the other way around. It raises costs.


Ok, try this: Substitute 'protective tariffs' for 'subsidies' (both forms of corporatism). You're telling me that a government giving a company subsidies (bailouts) is *NOT* going to encourage investment (foreign or otherwise)? _According to what reality_, on what planet? AIG's stock skyrocketed after government deemed them too big to fail, and promised them support. Those investors you seem to think will do the right thing if given a choice between 'freedom' and 'government-guaranteed profits' made a _killing_, and not because they believed in freedom. I'm not saying it was _right_ or _moral_, understand that. I'm saying that this is what actually happened. 






> The housing bubble was created by government against the markets wishes. Inspite of the painful tariffs and other taxes and regulations they have to deal with, the market is moving the United States past the traditional manufacturing economy.


Again, I think you're in for a rude awakening, but I can't put my argument more clearly than I already have. Time will tell. 






> You don't find it at all odd that you agree with Austrian Economics on almost everything but this?


Oh, but _I agree with this_,_ in theory_. But when I try to put it into practice, something about being free to import all I want but not being able to export what I want, due primarily to government manipulation in various regions of the world, including governments I can't control, seems kind of a half-***ed interpretation of Austrian economic theory, to me. The half-implemented theory seriously clashes with unfortunate reality, and that's the ONLY problem I have with it. 

If I woke up tomorrow and there was not a government in the world, I'd be "free trade's" newest and loudest advocate.




> When nations are at war with each other, they try to put up blockades against each other to keep products out.


That's the old way. Now when a nation wants to go to war, they do it economically (except for the U.S. and a few others, who seem to be lagging behind the trend). You keep American goods out of your country and leave Americans no choice but to import yours. Of course, it helps to buy off a few hundred or so D.C. bureaucrats so no one argues loudly for things like sovereignty and the like.

----------


## showpan

There isn't any proof at all that it deepened the great depression either since the worlds economy was still sinking....you haven't proved anything at all. I stand with our founding fathers and you stand with globalist neocons. 



dueling...lol...the math never lies.

----------


## Cutlerzzz

> Compared to some other nations of the world (biggest competitors), you could easily say we have no tariffs. It's not that far off. If you want to argue semantics, be my guest. Compare China's tariffs with the U.S. Compare Japan's tariffs with the U.S. _Overall_, we pretty much have 'no tariffs.'


No, you cannot. Any business in a foreign country has to pay a fee to sell to America. Americans generally having to pay a greater fee to sell does not change that at all.




> Wealth _has_ been leaving the U.S. since 1913. I see it does not take much for the Fed's illusion to fool you.


Look, I'm not trying to insult you, but that is just plain stupid. The US economy is 100 times largers than it was in 1913. Capital has been accumulating for 98 years. Technology has been improving for 98 years. 

Those numbers I showed you before about wages are adjusted to inflation. The average American makes 6 times more now than he did in 1913 according to most of my sources.

Do you know anyone who would rather live in 1913 than today? 




> No free trade, anywhere. Got it. Agreed.  Varying degrees of trade, yes? How's that working out for us?


Pretty good, as comparative advantage has kept prices down and allowed the American work force to specialize.




> The updated *data from the United Nations* (<<-----that's where I stopped reading, sorry) on manufacturing output . . . 
> 
> It isn't so much that it's not possible, but the UN has an agenda, which has been to siphon wealth from the U.S. by _any_ means possible and redistribute it to the rest of the world. Other than that, I _could_ believe them, when they tell us we're still economically strong, while taking our wallets out of our back pockets.


Most economic data is provided by central banks, international organizations, or special interest groups. If you can invalidate the statistic, then be my guess(I'll just post another one backing it up). If you can't, than accept it. It's amazing how close minded someone can be...




> So you'd buy a stolen CD player, knowing it's stolen, and be so bold as to admit that it's your voluntary right to 'do business with whomever you please'. 
> 
> Most of the Asian continent is shipping C.D. players to the U.S. that have come from protected (EVIL!!!!) economies. Shucks, at least when I buy it, I know it's only because _I don't really have a choice_. I'd much rather make my own C.D. player. Call it what you will, but you can't claim the moral high ground here. None of us can, really.  And it does suck, I'll admit.


It was created through voluntary means. I guess that War is Peace now.




> Not quite. In a theory which assumes there is _complete_, _unregulated_ competition in the world, in which demand can be met, yes. In reality . . . 
> 
> Real-life example: There is an ice cream truck that comes through my neighborhood, and one day, I was doing yard work in the heat and decided I wanted a chocolate eclair. So I go to the window and look at the menu, and lo and behold, _one_ damn ice cream bar is priced at $2.75.  At that point, my demand for ice cream _immediately subsided_ and I did without. My decision was based on the irrationality of paying that much for an ice cream bar at the time. There is _always_ a price (it may be rediculously high, mind you) at which demand gets capped, regardless of the circumstances.


You don't seem to understand what I'm saying. It is not about short term demand. It is about an economic law regarding human nature. There will always be employment opportunities, as human desires are infinite. The biggest question about economics is meeting unlimited human desires with limited resources. 




> Ok, try this: Substitute 'protective tariffs' for 'subsidies' (both forms of corporatism). You're telling me that a government giving a company subsidies (bailouts) is *NOT* going to encourage investment (foreign or otherwise)? _According to what reality_, on what planet? AIG's stock skyrocketed after government deemed them too big to fail, and promised them support. Those investors you seem to think will do the right thing if given a choice between 'freedom' and 'government-guaranteed profits' made a _killing_, and not because they believed in freedom. I'm not saying it was _right_ or _moral_, understand that. I'm saying that this is what actually happened.


Except that it is not a direct subsidy. It will raise costs. It is the opposite of a subsidy. 




> Oh, but _I agree with this_,_ in theory_. But when I try to put it into practice, something about being free to import all I want but not being able to export what I want, due primarily to government manipulation in various regions of the world, including governments I can't control, seems kind of a half-***ed interpretation of Austrian economic theory, to me. The half-implemented theory seriously clashes with unfortunate reality, and that's the ONLY problem I have with it. 
> 
> If I woke up tomorrow and there was not a government in the world, I'd be "free trade's" newest and loudest advocate.


You don't seem to understand the theory at all. The point of the theories behind Free Trade(and Comparative Advantage) is that it will work in all cases. It is rather simple, if you can recognize that the division of labor is good.




> That's the old way. Now when a nation wants to go to war, they do it economically (except for the U.S. and a few others, who seem to be lagging behind the trend). You keep American goods out of your country and leave Americans no choice but to import yours. Of course, it helps to buy off a few hundred or so D.C. bureaucrats so no one argues loudly for things like sovereignty and the like


Do you have any examples of this? 

Last I checked, the US put up sanctions of Iraq long before invading, and is trying the same with Iran and North Korea.

----------


## nobody's_hero

OKay, on last one, and then I'm going out of town for the weekend so the free-traders won't have to put up with me for three whole days 



> No, you cannot. Any business in a foreign country has to pay a fee to sell to America. Americans generally having to pay a greater fee to sell does not change that at all.


Balance. Anything else is a transfer of wealth fabricated by inter-governmental policies. 




> Look, I'm not trying to insult you, but that is just plain stupid. The US economy is 100 times largers than it was in 1913. Capital has been accumulating for 98 years. Technology has been improving for 98 years. 
> 
> Those numbers I showed you before about wages are adjusted to inflation. The average American makes 6 times more now than he did in 1913 according to most of my sources.
> 
> Do you know anyone who would rather live in 1913 than today?


Name one society in the world that has not developed in the past century. I'll bet you even the most primitive, isolated Amazonian tribe in South America has found a new use for wood in the past 100 years. I'm saying that wealth has been siphoned off by managed trade, not that 'we are not wealthier/more advanced than we were.' It's sort of like when the Fed claims that the dollar is strong, by comparing the dollar with currencies in countries that are simply going poorer at a faster rate than we are. It looks really good to someone who hasn't analyzed it beneath the surface. You start to think about where we _should/could be_ compared to where we _are_.




> It was created through voluntary means. I guess that War is Peace now.


Voluntary for who? It's more complicated than saying 'war is peace'. I already told you,_ this is the way it works_—not the way we dream it to work in free trade workshops at the Mises institute. Believe me, the time for Austrian free-trade economics will come, but they're still ahead of their time. For instance, as much as I'd like to go to Greece right now and hand out literature from Mises.org, I doubt they'd be in much of a mood for it, admidst the rioting for more government intervention. 




> You don't seem to understand what I'm saying. It is not about short term demand. It is about an economic law regarding human nature. There will always be employment opportunities, as human desires are infinite. The biggest question about economics is meeting unlimited human desires with limited resources.


We'll see. I think the only chance a lot of people are going to have for employment is going to be to move to a country that is more totalitarian than ours, that imposes truly protectionist policies for industries that former Americans are attracted to out of desparation. 




> Except that it is not a direct subsidy. It will raise costs. It is the opposite of a subsidy.


It is not a cost to the industries. They are cozy where they're at. 

The sad truth is that if one nation offers 'protection' and another doesn't, it becomes very easy to predict where businesses will set up shop. As stated earlier, if given the option to sleep with the government, corporations will not choose a 'free society' over 'guaranteed profits'. A few may do the admirable thing, and those might be considered the "mom-and-pop" stores that are being shuttered by "competition" from businesses that are sleeping with some government, somewhere in the world. This is because 99% of the consumers will always choose 'cost' over 'character.' Either every government in the world must offer_ equal_ protection, or there must be no governments to offer _any_ protection. I'd *prefer* the latter; I could _tolerate_ the former. Not an ideal option by any means, but an option nonetheless.




> You don't seem to understand the theory at all. The point of the theories behind Free Trade(and Comparative Advantage) is that it will work in all cases. It is rather simple, if you can recognize that the division of labor is good.


Nearly every time it is attempted in practice, government gets in the way. This is because there is one thing that Austrian economist free-traders have not factored in, and that is that governments, as well as the most freedom-loving capitalists in the private sector, will also compete for resources. Unfortunately, when one government takes more resources than another, it upsets the dynamics drastically in the private sector (they have to take it from _somebody_). As stated before, they must either take the same proportionately from everyone, or they take _nothing_ proportionately from everyone (this will happen when governments don't exist).




> Do you have any examples of this? 
> 
> Last I checked, the US put up sanctions of Iraq long before invading, and is trying the same with Iran and North Korea.


Trade war with China. They have us by the balls. As Jace said, we've pretty much lost that trade war. I'm not talking about militarily. The days of defeating nations militarily are quickly closing. Future wars will be fought using only lawyers, bureaucrats, and banks.

Y'all have a good weekend. I've been re-reading my posts and, as I tend to do especially on the economics forum, I got heated. So in retrospect, I apologize for parts where things got . . . sour. Yet, I'm not as frustrated with the 'free traders' as I am with the establishment. I look forward to the day when the establishment is dissolved and the free-traders have a chance to really show their stuff.

Ron Paul 2012.

----------


## Cutlerzzz

> Balance. Anything else is a transfer of wealth fabricated by inter-governmental policies.
> 
> Name one society in the world that has not developed in the past century. I'll bet you even the most primitive, isolated Amazonian tribe in South America has found a new use for wood in the past 100 years. I'm saying that wealth has been siphoned off by managed trade, not that 'we are not wealthier/more advanced than we were.' It's sort of like when the Fed claims that the dollar is strong, by comparing the dollar with currencies in countries that are simply going poorer at a faster rate than we are. It looks really good to someone who hasn't analyzed it beneath the surface. You start to think about where we _should/could be_ compared to where we _are_.


Do you realize that importing goods increases wealth? Can you name any economists today who believe that imports are bad?




> Voluntary for who? It's more complicated than saying 'war is peace'. I already told you,_ this is the way it works_not the way we dream it to work in free trade workshops at the Mises institute. Believe me, the time for Austrian free-trade economics will come, but they're still ahead of their time. For instance, as much as I'd like to go to Greece right now and hand out literature from Mises.org, I doubt they'd be in much of a mood for it, admidst the rioting for more government intervention.


It's voluntary because the only two parties involved agree to it on their own accord.




> We'll see. I think the only chance a lot of people are going to have for employment is going to be to move to a country that is more totalitarian than ours, that imposes truly protectionist policies for industries that former Americans are attracted to out of desparation. 
> 
> It is not a cost to the industries. They are cozy where they're at. 
> 
> The sad truth is that if one nation offers 'protection' and another doesn't, it becomes very easy to predict where businesses will set up shop. As stated earlier, if given the option to sleep with the government, corporations will not choose a 'free society' over 'guaranteed profits'. A few may do the admirable thing, and those might be considered the "mom-and-pop" stores that are being shuttered by "competition" from businesses that are sleeping with some government, somewhere in the world. This is because 99% of the consumers will always choose 'cost' over 'character.' Either every government in the world must offer_ equal_ protection, or there must be no governments to offer _any_ protection. I'd *prefer* the latter; I could _tolerate_ the former. Not an ideal option by any means, but an option nonetheless.


Protectionism DOES raise costs. That is indisputable. It raises prices for everyone, including producers. 




> Nearly every time it is attempted in practice, government gets in the way. This is because there is one thing that Austrian economist free-traders have not factored in, and that is that governments, as well as the most freedom-loving capitalists in the private sector, will also compete for resources. Unfortunately, when one government takes more resources than another, it upsets the dynamics drastically in the private sector (they have to take it from _somebody_). As stated before, they must either take the same proportionately from everyone, or they take _nothing_ proportionately from everyone (this will happen when governments don't exist).


The government getting involved does not make Free Trade a bad idea. If you think otherwise, point out some actual specific problem.





> Trade war with China. They have us by the balls. As Jace said, we've pretty much lost that trade war. I'm not talking about militarily. The days of defeating nations militarily are quickly closing. Future wars will be fought using only lawyers, bureaucrats, and banks.


You have one of the strangest conceptions of trade I've ever seen. Do you even realize that a trade deficit is not a budget deficit? You have the same arguments as some British mercantilist from 300 years ago. Countries with healthy economies run bigger trade deficits than countries with unhealthy economies, as a strong economy encourages foreign investment.

China has lost big time in their attempts to manipulate their currency. They are impoverishing their own people in order to help selected industries, and make things cheaper for the United States in the process. The United States is receiving actual products from China; we are getting material wealth. They are receiving paper dollars with value that is rapidly deteriorating. This is good for the United States; China is only hurting themselves with this intervention. 





> Y'all have a good weekend. I've been re-reading my posts and, as I tend to do especially on the economics forum, I got heated. So in retrospect, I apologize for parts where things got . . . sour. Yet, I'm not as frustrated with the 'free traders' as I am with the establishment. I look forward to the day when the establishment is dissolved and the free-traders have a chance to really show their stuff.
> 
> Ron Paul 2012


Have a good weekend. Ron Paul 2012.

----------


## ProIndividual

> Balance. Anything else is a transfer of wealth fabricated by inter-governmental policies.


"Nothing, however, can be more absurd than this whole doctrine of the balance of trade..." --- Adam Smith

----------


## ProIndividual

> dueling...lol...the math never lies


Yeah I agree...but that picture of a building is called an anecdote, not math...and you pull up a pic like that everytime you can't refute our numbers...hmmm.

----------


## Jace

..

----------


## romacox

To say that the Founding Fathers liked tariffs is a bit of a stretch, and I do not find where anyone here has actually argued  that. They have said the following though: 

The Truth is we know: 
tariffs are written in the Constitution as one of the enumerated powers
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, *Imposts* (tariffs) and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
The Washington administration did use them to sever our dependence on British goods by encouraging American Made During this time the Country did suffer very high inflation.  The Country came close to collapsing into anarchy several times.  But we also gained our freedom. 

However, according to Justice Joseph Story (Supreme Court Justice from1811 to 1845, borne 3 years after the American Revolution and who's  father fought in the American Revolution):George Washington was the one most interested in making sure the Federal Government had restricted powers to collect revenue.  The reason for this was that, several times during the American Revolution, he had to leave his starving,  scantly clothed troops to beg the Continental Congress for funds.  You see the Continental Congress had no power to tax, and that nearly cost us the war. The Founding Fathers viewed taxation as one of the powers that could be most abused, yet a necessary evil, if we were going to have a standing army to protect us from invasion by foreign armies. * Woodrow Wilson added the taxation of labor, which was one the Founding Fathers were opposed to, and is likely more dangerous than any that the Founding Fathers  authorized such as tariffs.* (*See Jace's Post*)

*Note: one very important point made by some in this discussion is that because of the over reaching powers of the Federal Reserve (known by our Founding Fathers as the Central Bank), all taxes are currently abused.  Until we nullify the Fed, we can never return to a Republic (true freedom) .* *(see Jace's Post.  He said several wise things.  We are really arguing over the wrong things...shell games to detract us.*  )

 * Brief History Of The Federal Reserve:*
        The story of central banking goes back at least to the seventeenth century, to the founding of the first institution recognized as a central bank, the Swedish Riksbank. Established in 1668 as a joint stock bank, it was chartered to lend the government funds and to act as a clearing house for commerce. A few decades later (1694), the most famous central bank of the era, the Bank of England,

        While these early central banks helped fund the governments debt, they were also private entities that engaged in banking activities. Because they held the deposits of other banks, they came to serve as banks for bankers, facilitating transactions between banks or providing other banking services. They became the repository for most banks in the banking system because of their large reserves and extensive networks of correspondent banks.

        The U.S. experience was most interesting. It had two central banks in the early nineteenth century, the Bank of the United States (17911811) and a second Bank of the United States (18161836). Both were set up on the model of the Bank of England, but unlike the British, Americans bore a deep-seated distrust of any concentration of financial power in general, and of central banks in particular, so that in each case, the charters were not renewed.

        Andrew Jackson, who became president in 1828, was determined to end the power of the central bankers over the United States. He made the following statements:

        It is not our own citizens only who are to receive the bounty of our government. More than eight millions of the stock of this bank are held by foreigners is there no danger to our liberty and independence in a bank that in its nature has so little to bind it to our country?  Controlling our currency, receiving our public moneys, and holding thousands of our citizens in dependence would be more formidable and dangerous than a military power of the enemy.

        You are a den of vipers and thieves. I intend to root you out, and by the grace of  the Eternal God, will root you out.

            And he did root the out in 1836.  But they returned under Woodrow Wilson in what is now called The Federal Reserve.

        In 1835, President Jackson completely paid off the U.S. national debt.  He is the only U.S. president that has ever been able to accomplish this.

        Richard Lawrence attempted to shoot Andrew Jackson, but he survived.  It is alleged that Lawrence said that wealthy people in Europe had put him up to it.

    James A. Garfield became president in 1881, and he was a staunch opponent of the banking powers.  In 1881 he said the following.

    Whoever controls the volume of money in our country is absolute master of all industry and commerceand when you realize that the entire system is very easily controlled, one way or another, by a few powerful men at the top, you will not have to be told how periods of inflation and depression originate.

    President Garfield was shot about two weeks later by Charles J. Guiteau on July 2nd, 1881.  He died from medical complications on September 19th, 1881.

    In 1914 the Federal Reserve (*New Name For Central Bankif people dont like it, just change the name)* opened for business again under Woodrow Wilson. * Note: even though it has the word Federal in its name, it is not part of the Federal Governmentit is privately owned by International Bank Cartels.*

    One of the key players in the creation of the Federal Reserve was Mayer Armshel Rothschild.  He made the following statement:

    Give me control of a nations money supply, and I care not who makes its laws

The Federal Reserve is a staunch supporter of Keynesian Economics which basically believes that debt is money.

----------


## VBRonPaulFan

> dueling...lol...the math never lies.


I've never seen anyone's silly argument so utterly destroyed as ProIndividual did to you in the other thread. you resort to ad hominems, character assassinations, and logical fallacies after your claims are destroyed. you're correct, math doesn't lie. the problem is that you don't seem to understand the math. stop making these asinine posts, you're embarrassing yourself at this point.

----------


## therepublic

> To say that the Founding Fathers liked tariffs is a bit of a stretch, and I do not find where anyone here has actually argued  that. They have said the following though: 
> 
> The Truth is we know: 
> tariffs are written in the Constitution as one of the enumerated powers
> The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, *Imposts* (tariffs) and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
> The Washington administration did use them to sever our dependence on British goods by encouraging American Made During this time the Country did suffer very high inflation.  The Country came close to collapsing into anarchy several times.  But we also gained our freedom. 
> 
> However, according to Justice Joseph Story (Supreme Court Justice from1811 to 1845, borne 3 years after the American Revolution and who's  father fought in the American Revolution):George Washington was the one most interested in making sure the Federal Government had restricted powers to collect revenue.  The reason for this was that, several times during the American Revolution, he had to leave his starving,  scantly clothed troops to beg the Continental Congress for funds.  You see the Continental Congress had no power to tax, and that nearly cost us the war. The Founding Fathers viewed taxation as one of the powers that could be most abused, yet a necessary evil, if we were going to have a standing army to protect us from invasion by foreign armies. * Woodrow Wilson added the taxation of labor, which was one the Founding Fathers were opposed to, and is likely more dangerous than any that the Founding Fathers  authorized such as tariffs.* (*See Jace's Post*)
> 
> *Note: one very important point made by some in this discussion is that because of the over reaching powers of the Federal Reserve (known by our Founding Fathers as the Central Bank), all taxes are currently abused.  Until we nullify the Fed, we can never return to a Republic (true freedom) .* *(see Jace's Post.  He said several wise things.  We are really arguing over the wrong things...shell games to detract us.*  ).


Ditto:  If we want to know what really harms this Country, look closely at what Woodrow Wilson did, and it wasn't tariffs. (see Jace's post....shell games? yes, bait and switch too.

----------


## showpan

> I've never seen anyone's silly argument so utterly destroyed as ProIndividual did to you in the other thread. you resort to ad hominems, character assassinations, and logical fallacies after your claims are destroyed. you're correct, math doesn't lie. the problem is that you don't seem to understand the math. stop making these asinine posts, you're embarrassing yourself at this point.


Embarrassment would be selling my country out so that share holders and CEO's can steal the wealth of working Americans who no longer work. Pictures tell a thousand words.

----------


## showpan

One more real fact to add for those who wish to remain in denial. 
*Brian Wesbury* who made this chart you guys seem to think actually means something was made by another neocon globalist FED.
Not only was he one of Cheney's economic advisers...lol...he is a member of the *Academic Advisory Council of the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago* and CEO of First Trust Portfolios who actually stated in Feb 2008 that:
"We are not in a recession and we are not even headed for one. We should be buying stocks. This whole subprime lending issue. At its worst, and this is using the worst assumptions that I can make, itll be about a $250 billion problem. I dont even think that well get to that level; thats the worst I can make it. $250 billion is less than .3 percent of all the economys assets. We have a $14 trillion GDP. We have $100 trillion in assets. Its just too small of a problem to take the economy down. So I think we are blowing it out of proportion today and it is causing more fear than it should."

Q: If we get a President Obama or a President Clinton, should we be terrified at what they might do to the economy?

A: Maybe my answer here will surprise you, but I am going to say No.
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=25189







If you are going to talk charts, then please don't post ones from so called economic experts who don't know their ass from a hole in the ground.
Try here first.....better study up on your economics lessons so you actually understand them.

----------


## Cutlerzzz

Lol

Just give it up Showpan. The number is 100% valid.

----------


## romacox

As some of you know, I am studding early  documents and textbooks to find the true history that was never taught  in school. I am also posting these articles for free to homeschool families because they (and I) have come to believe that history is important if we are to prevent repetition of past mistakes (like loss of freedoms).  

But what you don't know is that often before writing an article, I come here and discuss it with you all.  It helps me sort out what is important, what isn't, and how to say it.  you have also lead me to many important facts. I find many people on this site to be more analytical in their thinking then on most blogs .  So for that I thank you. You are awesome.

You just helped me with two more articles about the Constitution and it's history.

P.S.  Something posted by Jace led me to this article from Mises Institute that I think you will like.

http://mises.org/etexts/rootofevil.asp  It is about the 16th amendment.

----------


## JohnRego

Showpan is right about one thing. The founders definitely were in favor of tariffs.

----------


## mtj458

xx

----------


## showpan

> As some of you know, I am studding early  documents and textbooks to find the true history that was never taught  in school. I am also posting these articles for free to homeschool families because they (and I) have come to believe that history is important if we are to prevent repetition of past mistakes (like loss of freedoms).  
> 
> But what you don't know is that often before writing an article, I come here and discuss it with you all.  It helps me sort out what is important, what isn't, and how to say it.  you have also lead me to many important facts. I find many people on this site to be more analytical in their thinking then on most blogs .  So for that I thank you. You are awesome.
> 
> You just helped me with two more articles about the Constitution and it's history.
> 
> P.S.  Something posted by Jace led me to this article from Mises Institute that I think you will like.
> 
> http://mises.org/etexts/rootofevil.asp  It is about the 16th amendment.


This is an excellent article by Mises. 
A few things that are missing however:
Washingotn's whiskey tax. Washington himself bought into a distillary and then enacted an excise tax which caused a rebellion. Many people veiwed this as though he were "taxing" the competition. More people actually died in that rebellion than the revolution as Washington used the militia against them. This is veiwed as a very bad piece of our founding history and often left out. Jefferson later repealed the Tax.
The Depression of 1873 has not been diagnosed properly and some of it's root causes were never mentioned. 
Panic of 1873
In 1871, Otto von Bismarck extracted a large indemnity in gold from France and ceased minting silver thaler coins, abandoning the silver standard. The first symptoms of the crisis were financial failures in the Austro-Hungarian capital, Vienna, which spread to most of Europe and North America by 1873. America then encted the Coinage Act of 1873 which basically dropped silver and changed to the gold standard. The Act had the immediate effect of depressing silver prices which hurt Western mining and other interests including investment and bonds. The Panic of 1873 began on September 18 with the failure of the Philadelphia investment house of Jay Cooke. Cooke had played a large role in financing the Union war effort by marketing federal bonds to farmers and workers. Cooke's failure drove panicked banks to demand payment of loans. Investors rushed to sell stocks in order to protect their capital. As stocks on the New York exchanges sunk lower, borrowers had no money with which to pay their debts. Businessmen, many of whom had borrowed money to expand their operations during boom times, released workers. At the same time, investors in Europe, where a depression is already underway, begin to call in American loans. The New York Stock Exchange closes its doors for 10 days The collapse of Jay Cooke's bank sets off the "Panic of 1873" and the ensuing depression during which more than 15,000 businesses fail. 
The mises article also fails to point out just who the "socialists" actually were. They were made up primarily of German and other european immigrants who came here to fight for the North on the promise of land and other compensations. If the north had never opened the floodgates, the south would have surely won the civil war. The turning point was on the 3rd day of the Battle of Shiloh in which a million man immigrant army arrived after two days of almost complete annihilation by Southern forces. 
Mises misses the whole point in their diagnosis of just what the Civil War actually did. It was a war of greed that paved the way for the reduction of states rights, corporate personahood, corporate takeover and the concentration of power. I have been to Tennessee and viewed a lot of historical records and documents that actually led to the War. It was then that I realized the extent of the lies that we are being taught. There is a lot of information available on the web, much of it is buried and you have to pick through everything to get a complete picture. Even then, a lot of information has never been published, like those documents in Memphis.
The 16th Amendment. 
The government has basically rewritten history by ruling the income tax as an "excise" tax authorized by our constitution. Do a search...lol

In order to portray an accurate view of our history, one must research from many, many different sources and sift through them all in order to locate all of the "missing" pieces much like a puzzle. Our history has been rewritten so much, using misinformation and incomplete information in order to sway public opinions, the task of collecting all of this information will be never ending...good luck and happy hunting.

----------


## showpan

> Lol
> 
> Just give it up Showpan. The number is 100% valid.


I will never just "lay down" like you seem to hope for. You made the asinine comment that I didn't know how to read a chart and yet you still don't know what that chart represents....lol

----------


## Cutlerzzz

> I will never just "lay down" like you seem to hope for. You made the asinine comment that I didn't know how to read a chart and yet you still don't know what that chart represents....lol


You've displayed time and time again that you don't understand most of the charts you post. You even gave up arguing and now claim that everybody is neocon disagreeing with you and advocating limited government. Nobody in either topic is defending you, not even your fellow protectionists. Nobody is impressed by your personal attacks, poor arguments, or by your claim that you will never lay down in an eight page internet debate. You're making an ass out of yourself. 

It's amazing that you're criticizing a valid statistic because it comes from the Fed, when yesterday you posted charts that came from the Fed and another that came from labor unions. It is impossible to take your criticism of the numbers seriously when you have posted numbers from the same source.

----------


## showpan

1. The Smoote-Hawley Tarriff did not cause or extend the great depression.

2. Tariffs are constitutional and taxes are not.

----------


## Danke

> As some of you know, I am studding early  documents and textbooks to find the true history that was never taught  in school. I am also posting these articles for free to homeschool families because they (and I) have come to believe that history is important if we are to prevent repetition of past mistakes (like loss of freedoms).  
> 
> But what you don't know is that often before writing an article, I come here and discuss it with you all.  It helps me sort out what is important, what isn't, and how to say it.  you have also lead me to many important facts. I find many people on this site to be more analytical in their thinking then on most blogs .  So for that I thank you. You are awesome.
> 
> You just helped me with two more articles about the Constitution and it's history.
> 
> P.S.  Something posted by Jace led me to this article from Mises Institute that I think you will like.
> 
> http://mises.org/etexts/rootofevil.asp  It is about the 16th amendment.


http://www.losthorizons.com/comment/...allyaMoron.pdf

----------


## Jace

..

----------


## therepublic

> Obama and most establishment candidates are against free trade? 
> 
> Obama is a free trader in the tradition of Woodrow Wilson, FDR and Bill Clinton, and so is the entire establishment, on both Democratic and Republican sides. The establishment marches lockstep on this, following economic counsel flowing from Federal Reserve-backed economists. 
> 
> Obama is no protectionist, that's for sure. He has warned us repeatedly against xenophobia, isolationism and protectionism. Obama just turned over a good portion of our trucking industry to the Mexicans and is aggressively pushing through free trade deals with Korea, Panama and Colombia. He has bipartisan support on this. I understand the anarchist rebuttal is to call this managed trade, but the fact is these deals will increase the flow of American capital into Korea, Panama and Colombia and increase the flow of their goods into our market.
> 
> We always hear about the benefits of these free trade deals but few point out the huge downsides. The benefits go to the financial sector, and for the short term, to the consumer as higher cost American producers are eliminated and replaced with low cost government subsidized foreign competition. In my opinion, the downsides far outweigh the benefits. In my own life, I feel the downsides directly in the deterioration of my community, while the benefits go to a handful of people in New York who I don't know. Any drop in the price of goods from these deals is so small that it has no effect on my standard of living.
> 
> The fact that Mexican truckers will now deliver to the American market replacing American truckers improves my life how? Wiping out the livelihood of fellow working Americans helps me how? Is saving a few cents at the supermarket worth it? Am I even going to notice any change in prices at the supermarket?  
> ...


Well said.

----------


## Paul Or Nothing II

> Showpan is right about one thing. The founders definitely were in favor of tariffs.


Nobody is arguing over that but tariffs just aren't good, they lead to higher prices, favoritism & corporatism. In fact, the Civil War started over the issue of tariffs, which has been a very significant event in American history because it essentially killed the States Rights & turned United STATES of America into United EMPIRE of America.




> 2. Tariffs are constitutional and taxes are not.


Just because they're Constitutional doesn't mean they're good. And YES, tariffs ARE a tax. When you put tariffs on imported goods, the importers add the tariff-cost to the eventual price that the Americans buy at so ultimately it's the American people that pay tariffs & not only is it a tax but it's a very inequitable form of taxation because not every American buys imported goods neither does every American buy the same amount of foreign goods which means that "tariff-tax" is paid isn't paid by everyone equally so it violates the principle that government should treat all its citizens equally & all should've an equal right to their life, liberty & property.

Further, tariffs lead to favoritism & corporatism as politicians use tariffs to protect those businesses that bribe them, which allows such businesses to eek higher prices & profits out of the American people than they would've had cheaper foreign substitutes were available in the market, you need competition between producers in the markets to drive down prices of goods/services, not tariff-protected monopolies & cartels.




> Obama is a free trader


Nope, free trade means people trading with other people without government intervention which is NOT what Obama stands for.




> Obama is no protectionist, that's for sure.


Just because he's not a protectionist, does NOT automatically mean that he's a free-trader, he's a socialist-corporatist. Definitely NOT a free-trader.

----------


## The Grinning Maniac

I thought showpan was joking. He really isn't. 




> "A White House wonk says building a Big Mac is a manufacturing job.
> Fast-food jobs should not be considered service sector work because it actually is "combining inputs to manufacture a product" - and should be reclassified as manufacturing work, Gregory Mankiw wrote in the Bush administration's annual economic report.
> 
> Democrats accused President Bush's chief economist of trying to mask the fact that 2.2 million high-wage jobs have been lost since Bush took office.
> 
> "Unable to stop the hemorrhaging of American manufacturing jobs, the Bush administration is offering up some world-class job creation sleight of hand: Change the definition of what constitutes a manufacturing job," griped Rep. George Miller (D-Calif.)."


Who's to say what the manufacturing statistics now represent? The way they "hedonically" adjust inflation statistics and such, especially. It wouldn't surprise me.

----------


## romacox

Obama is a Free Trader and is against protectionism (tariffs) if you use the modern version of twisted definitions invented by the globalists.  IMF website
WTO website

But he is not a true free trader if you use the original definitions.

*Partial List of twisted definitions*
1.  Americans did not like *Central banks* (central governance of any kind for that matter). So in 1913 they changed central bank to Federal Reserve falsely insinuating it was a branch of the government. 

2.  root word *protect* defined:To cover or shield from danger or injury; to defend; to guard; to preserve in safety; a word of general import both in a literal and figurative sense. Walls protect a city or garrison; clothing is designed to protect the body from cold; arms may protect one from an assault; our houses protect us from the inclemencies of the weather; the law protects our persons and property; the father protects his children, and the guardian his ward; a shade protects us from extreme heat; a navy protects our commerce and our shores; embassadors are protected from arrest.

by a*dding ism to the root word protect*,  it has been twisted to mean: Government actions and policies that restrict or restrain international trade, often done with the intent of protecting local businesses and jobs from foreign competition. Typical methods of protectionism are import *tariffs,* quotas, subsidies or tax cuts to local businesses and direct state intervention. http://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/protectionism.asp

3.  *Democracy: 1818:* Government by the people; a form of government, in which the supreme power is lodged in the hands of the people collectively, or in which the people exercise the powers of legislation. Such was the government of Athens. (Note: Athens collapsed due to mob rule)

*Democracy twisted in 1913* Government by popular representation; a form of government in which the supreme power is retained by the people, but is indirectly exercised through a system of representation and delegated authority periodically renewed; a constitutional representative government; a republic.
http://machaut.uchicago.edu/?resourc...=on&use1828=on

4.  *Republic 1828* defined: A commonwealth; a state in which the exercise of the sovereign power is lodged in representatives elected by the people. In modern usage, it differs from a democracy or democratic state, in which the people exercise the powers of sovereignty in person. Yet the democracies of Greece are often called republics.

*Republic defined 1913*: A state in which the sovereign power resides in the whole body of the people, and is exercised by representatives elected by them; a commonwealth. Cf. Democracy, 2. &hand; In some ancient states called republics the sovereign power was exercised by an hereditary aristocracy or a privileged few, constituting a government now distinctively called an aristocracy. In some there was a division of authority between an aristocracy and the whole body of the people except slaves. No existing republic recognizes an exclusive privilege of any class to govern, or tolerates the institution of slavery. Republic of letters, The collective body of literary or learned men. <-- Democratic republic, a term much used by countries with a Communist system of government. --> 
http://machaut.uchicago.edu/?resourc...=on&use1828=on

And these are but a few examples. 

It is all done to dumb down our society, to divide us (no longer able to communicate rationally), to prevent us from finding the way back to a republic (unable to understand the Constitution's original meaning).

NAFTA, and other government negotiated "free trade" deals are not free trade by the original definitions, but to the globalists (like the Federal Reserve, IMF and WTO) they are. They feel that to have different currencies, different laws as they cross borders all impede international trade.  That is why on their websites they openly talk about "One World Governance", "one world currency", and homogenizing in order to erase "imaginary borders" by using education, labor, religion ext. (see links in the first paragraph)

----------


## Jace

..

----------


## Cutlerzzz

> Obama just turned over a good portion of our trucking industry to the Mexicans


How does a president turn over an industry through voluntary exchange? 




> and is aggressively pushing through free trade deals with Korea, Panama and Colombia. He has bipartisan support on this. I understand the anarchist rebuttal is to call this managed trade, but the fact is these deals will increase the flow of American capital into Korea, Panama and Colombia and increase the flow of their goods into our market.


As you say, these are no free trade agreements.




> Any drop in the price of goods from these deals is so small that it has no effect on my standard of living.
> 
> The fact that Mexican truckers will now deliver to the American market replacing American truckers improves my life how? Wiping out the livelihood of fellow working Americans helps me how? Is saving a few cents at the supermarket worth it? Am I even going to notice any change in prices at the supermarket?


Truck driving is hardly a great wage, and this will free up American labor to do something else, driving down prices in whatever market they enter. This is how society advances. 




> The Koreans heavily subsidize their industries and have all manner of stealth cultural and non-tariff trade barriers to block the sale of American goods in their market. The Koreans are looking out for their interests, which they see as further capturing American industrial production, market share, and jobs. They are going to milk it for all it's worth. Why wouldn't they? They want a better life for themselves and their children and if that means a decline in the living standards of Americans thousands of miles away, so be it. They will do what they think is best for themselves and their country. If you've ever been to Asia, you'd know they are highly collectivist and nationalistic over there and they are all about increasing their economic development through economic warfare. That's why it's difficult to find Japanese cars in Korea and Korean cars in Japan, but you can sure find both in the USA.


They aren't raising their living standards, they're driving up prices in their own country to benefit special interest groups, just as you're trying to do here. 




> These free trade deals will eliminate more economic production in the United States, drive down American wages, increase our unemployment and increase calls by the struggling American worker for more government assistance, pushing more of our populace into a debased state of government dependency.
> 
> The only manufacturing  we have left is in the military industrial complex. Our leaders sure are protectionist when it comes to that.


This has been debunked multiple times in the last few days and ignoring it will not make it any different. US manufacturing is at by far the highest levels in our history, wages have been rising, and there had been no long term change in the unemployment trend before the 2008.  

The irony of this part of your post is that you're speaking of economic dependency on government, while suggesting putting a gun to anyone's head whom wants to pay for goods from other countries and demanding they pay the government, in order to protect special interest groups. 




> The Founding Fathers never would have agreed to selling out their fellow citizens like this. They understood that in order to preserve political independence, you had to strive for economic independence. They understood that America was uniquely positioned to become prosperous and independent and free. The globalists understand the same thing. That's why for 100 years now they have been aggressively pushing for economic inter-dependence, infiltrating the media, academia and every political movement--left, right and center--to propagandize for free trade and mass immigration. The globalists fear an economically independent United States with a prosperous citizenry that is uninterested in participating in foreign wars and nation building abroad


The system originally created by the Founding Fathers, The Articles of Confederation, had no taxation power. Then in their new system, the one you're promoting, they gave us tariffs, excise taxes, central banking, the Sedition Act, and a Constitution they have ignored since day one.

----------


## Cutlerzzz

> Here's what Ron Paul says about the issue in "Liberty Defined" in the chapter titled "Taxes."
> 
> 
> 
> So Ron sees tariffs as a regrettable form of indirect taxation that doesn't attack the property rights of citizens directly. I wish all the free trade zealots who attack tariffs would attack the income tax with as much zeal. Obviously, the income tax is way more of a threat to liberty than the tariff. Today, the progressive income tax is a reality while the tariff is nearly non-existent and universally opposed by the establishment. Yet so much energy is put into disinformation about tariffs and about the history of the tariff in our country. Remember that the Progressives under Woodrow Wilson eliminated the tariff and replaced it with the progressive income tax. Opposition to tariffs is rooted in the progressive movement, which gave us the Fed and the income tax.
> 
> I am not an anarchist. I want the limited government that the Founding Fathers envisioned--not the no-government borderless utopia that anarchists are selling. I see the tariff as the best means to achieve a limited Constitutional government. Reading about Thomas Jefferson brought me to this conclusion. In his day, he ended direct taxation of citizens and funded the government through tariffs. This increased American economic production and provided enough revenue to fund a limited government. The economy boomed because productive capacity expanded at home and more Americans had money in their pockets. Americans purchased plenty of foreign goods with their extra income and this provided the revenue to fund a Constitutional government. This is the American solution to our trade deficit and to our loss of productive capacity and our unemployment problems. But for tariffs to work, implementation goes hand in hand with eliminating the Fed and the income tax and untangling ourselves from our Empire. My view is what the globalists and warmongers call "isolationism" and "protectionism." Mention this view to conservatives and liberals alike and then out comes the old line about Smoot-Hawley causing for the Great Depression. This kind of arguing is the result of a public school education. 
> 
> Remember, the tariff that gets blamed for being a cause of the Civil War was violently opposed by slave owners, who are the antithesis of libertarians. Slave owners didn't like tariffs. Go figure.
> ...


What little argument you have is based on the fallacy that production has decreased, while it has been at all time highs in reality. Everything else is a sad attempt to slander opposition. 




> They had to because their lives depended on it. They were keenly aware of human nature and how power corrupts and steals liberty. You don't need Hayek or Mises or other foreign economists from banker financed think tanks to tell you about liberty. We have our own American tradition and we need to return to our roots. I suppose what we really need in our country right now is a fiery guy like Andrew Jackson who can take a bullet and take on the bank and root out the den of vipers that is leading us to ruin


So somehow, Mises and Hayek are evil men, yet we need to listen the murderer politician Andrew Jackson, who killed thousands of innocent civilians? 




> It took a while for the Russians to wake up to the reality of Marxism. Russian Marxists could win every argument with their infallible logic and their zeal. They always had rational reasons when things went wrong. There was always something else to blame. It took nearly 100 years before they finally gave up on the theory. It's interesting that some of the biggest backers of free trade today are the Neoconservatives who are direct descendents of Marxists.


Communism had lost the argument long ago and been debunked by Mises. 




> Today, we are surrendering our productive economy to protectionist countries that have centrally planned economies and strong socialist and collectivist tendencies (Japan, Korea, China, Germany). We are replacing our productive economy with a service economy (lawyers, civil servants, real estate agents, insurance agents, financiers) that does not produce wealth, only siphons it. And even our service economy is being outsourced to foreigners now.


Those jobs pay far more and have better working conditions than manufacturing. That is indisputable. To claim that jobs that satisfy human demand, cure ailments, create insurance, help coordinate production are useless only shows off how little you know of economics. 




> Remember, the tariff that gets blamed for being a cause of the Civil War was violently opposed by slave owners, who are the antithesis of libertarians. Slave owners didn't like tariffs. Go figure.


So anyone opposing tariffs probably supports slavery as well. Genius.




> Today, the progressive income tax is a reality while the tariff is nearly non-existent and universally opposed by the establishment. Yet so much energy is put into disinformation about tariffs and about the history of the tariff in our country. Remember that the Progressives under Woodrow Wilson eliminated the tariff and replaced it with the progressive income tax. Opposition to tariffs is rooted in the progressive movement, which gave us the Fed and the income tax.


Wilson did not eliminate tariffs. That is a blatent lie, but I would expect nothing less.




> So Ron sees tariffs as a regrettable form of indirect taxation that doesn't attack the property rights of citizens directly.


Ron has claimed time and time against that he supports free trade. Tariffs do attack property rights directly. They are a tax.




> I am not an anarchist. I want the limited government that the Founding Fathers envisioned--not the no-government borderless utopia that anarchists are selling. I see the tariff as the best means to achieve a limited Constitutional government. Reading about Thomas Jefferson brought me to this conclusion. In his day, he ended direct taxation of citizens and funded the government through tariffs. This increased American economic production and provided enough revenue to fund a limited government. The economy boomed because productive capacity expanded at home and more Americans had money in their pockets. Americans purchased plenty of foreign goods with their extra income and this provided the revenue to fund a Constitutional government. This is the American solution to our trade deficit and to our loss of productive capacity and our unemployment problems. But for tariffs to work, implementation goes hand in hand with eliminating the Fed and the income tax and untangling ourselves from our Empire. My view is what the globalists and warmongers call "isolationism" and "protectionism." Mention this view to conservatives and liberals alike and then out comes the old line about Smoot-Hawley causing for the Great Depression. This kind of arguing is the result of a public school education.


The economy tanked and went into a depression under Jefferson. 


Do you have any actual economic arguments? Anything factual? Any evidence to suggest that manufacturing is in a decline? Or are you just going to claim that the Founding Father, a group of Gods, decided to give us tariffs over a decade after the revolution, and claim that anyone opposed to these taxes is just a probably a communist slave owner, owned by banks, and that Austrian economists are no different?

----------


## romacox

> . But for tariffs to work, implementation goes hand in hand with eliminating the Fed and the income tax and untangling ourselves from our Empire. My view is what the globalists and warmongers call "isolationism" and "protectionism." Mention this view to conservatives and liberals alike and then out comes the old line about Smoot-Hawley causing for the Great Depression. This kind of arguing is the result of a public school education.


You said a lot of valuable information, but I wanted to emphasize this in particular.

----------


## Danke

> Here's what Ron Paul says about the issue in "Liberty Defined" in the chapter titled "Taxes."
> 
> 
> 
> So Ron sees tariffs as a regrettable form of indirect taxation that doesn't attack the property rights of citizens directly. I wish all the free trade zealots who attack tariffs would attack the income tax with as much zeal. Obviously, the income tax is way more of a threat to liberty than the tariff. Today, the progressive income tax is a reality while the tariff is nearly non-existent and universally opposed by the establishment. Yet so much energy is put into disinformation about tariffs and about the history of the tariff in our country. Remember that the Progressives under Woodrow Wilson eliminated the tariff and replaced it with the progressive income tax. Opposition to tariffs is rooted in the progressive movement, which gave us the Fed and the income tax.
> 
> I am not an anarchist. I want the limited government that the Founding Fathers envisioned--not the no-government borderless utopia that anarchists are selling. I see the tariff as the best means to achieve a limited Constitutional government. Reading about Thomas Jefferson brought me to this conclusion. In his day, he ended direct taxation of citizens and funded the government through tariffs. This increased American economic production and provided enough revenue to fund a limited government. The economy boomed because productive capacity expanded at home and more Americans had money in their pockets. Americans purchased plenty of foreign goods with their extra income and this provided the revenue to fund a Constitutional government. This is the American solution to our trade deficit and to our loss of productive capacity and our unemployment problems. But for tariffs to work, implementation goes hand in hand with eliminating the Fed and the income tax and untangling ourselves from our Empire. My view is what the globalists and warmongers call "isolationism" and "protectionism." Mention this view to conservatives and liberals alike and then out comes the old line about Smoot-Hawley causing for the Great Depression. This kind of arguing is the result of a public school education. 
> 
> Remember, the tariff that gets blamed for being a cause of the Civil War was violently opposed by slave owners, who are the antithesis of libertarians. Slave owners didn't like tariffs. Go figure.
> ...


Exactly.

----------


## romacox

P.S. I wanted to add that Woodrow Wilson was opposed as much or more than Obama. The people hated him. After  Woodrow Wilson left office, everything appeared to return to normal.  But the mistake the people of that time made was not repealing everything that president had done.  Those things remained on the books to be implement by every  President there after...just more slowly.

----------


## The Grinning Maniac

> Truck driving is hardly a great wage, and this will free up American labor to do something else, driving down prices in whatever market they enter. This is how society advances.


This is always the excuse. They'll find something else. As if someone who is a truck driver has tons of marketable skills. They're driving a truck. Like they're just going to start writing apps for the iPhone. Even if, at 45, they decided to retrain...that costs money. Bye, bye retirement. But even apart from that, how can you make that argument for EVERY industry that leaves? Textiles, automotive, tool and die, truck driving, telemarketing, tech support, etc...and on up the value chain. 

How do you not see things as a game of musical chairs?



> "Those jobs pay far more and have better working conditions than manufacturing."


Not for long when you flood the market with applicants who are desperate for work. Law school grads are having trouble finding jobs now. Glut of lawyers.




> Manufacturing is at the highest levels ever!


Really? Then please go through your house, or the local store and find me some products made in this country post-1980. I really want to know how these numbers are right when so little is produced here. Even if the numbers are right, doesn't that just mean that remaining factories here switched to total automation? If what we're talking about is JOBS then the point is moot.

PS: Jace...I want to buy you a fish sandwich.

----------


## VBRonPaulFan

> Really? Then please go through your house, or the local store and find me some products made in this country post-1980. I really want to know how these numbers are right when so little is produced here. Even if the numbers are right, doesn't that just mean that remaining factories here switched to total automation? If what we're talking about is JOBS then the point is moot.


http://articles.sfgate.com/2009-02-1...oducts-profits



> So what's made in the USA these days?
> 
> The United States sold more than $200 billion worth of aircraft, missiles and space-related equipment in 2007. And $80 billion worth of autos and auto parts. Deere & Co., best known for its bright green and yellow tractors, sold $16.5 billion worth of farming equipment last year, much of it to the rest of the world. Then there are energy products like gas turbines for power plants made by General Electric, computer chips from Intel and fighter jets from Lockheed Martin. Household names like GE, General Motors, IBM, Boeing and Hewlett-Packard are among the largest manufacturers by revenue.
> 
> High-end products
> Several trends have emerged over the decades:
> 
> -- America makes things that other countries can't. Today, "Made in USA" is more likely to be stamped on heavy equipment or the circuits that go inside other products than the TVs, toys, clothes and other items found on store shelves.
> 
> ...

----------


## The Grinning Maniac

> -- U.S. companies have shifted toward high-end manufacturing as the production of low-value goods moves overseas. This has resulted in lower prices for shoppers and higher profits for companies.


And when the Asian nations begin doing high-end manufacturing on the cheap too (if they haven't already)? What stops that leaving too? And also...emphasis on "higher profits for companies". Big emphasis.

----------


## Cutlerzzz

> This is always the excuse. They'll find something else. As if someone who is a truck driver has tons of marketable skills. They're driving a truck. Like they're just going to start writing apps for the iPhone. Even if, at 45, they decided to retrain...that costs money. Bye, bye retirement. But even apart from that, how can you make that argument for EVERY industry that leaves? Textiles, automotive, tool and die, truck driving, telemarketing, tech support, etc...and on up the value chain. 
> 
> How do you not see things as a game of musical chairs?
> 
> 
> Not for long when you flood the market with applicants who are desperate for work. Law school grads are having trouble finding jobs now. Glut of lawyers.


I'll post the actual facts, the hard numbers, just to be willfilly ignored once again.







Production is at all time highs, wages are at all time highs, and there has been no change to the unemployment trend.


People are desperate for work right now because there is a severe recession caused by the Federal Reserve, but I guess that you consider the Austrian School some banker financed think tank, so you probably don't subscribe to that. Before that there was not a large portion of the population desperate for work and unemployment was well within historical averages. 

These sob stories about how they "took mah jab!", regardless of what the real facts are, is the only way that Democrats get elected.

----------


## Jace

..

----------


## romacox

I come from a long line of farmers and ranchers.  Over 20 years ago they were saying the same thing we small business owners are saying today.  They warned that if farm land continued to be destroyed here, and food production shipped over seas, we would become dependent on foreign countries to feed us.  Many looked at the struggling small family farms going out of business, and thought it was a shame, but few lifted a hand to help as Willie Nelson did. 

We did not listen. We use to feed the world, now the world feeds us contaminated food. The Farm subsidies were advertised that they help the small farm, but in fact this government welfare goes to large conglomerates...some of them do not even own an inch of farm land.

Now we are hearing the same reports from small business owners...many of us having been in business for many years (in my case since 1984).  Jace, and others are exactly correct in what they are saying. If this continues we will be dependent on foreign countries like China to feed, cloth, house, medicate, educate....enslave us.

----------


## romacox

> Wilson and Obama have a lot of similarities. 
> 
> Wilson was the banker's secret candidate and through him we got the Fed and the income tax. President Taft blocked the first attempt at a new central bank, but then Teddy Roosevelt undermined his buddy Taft and ran third party, and Wilson ended up winning. And so, the wheels were set in motion that put us where we are 100 years later. 
> 
> Wilson got re-elected under the slogan, "He kept us out of war." In his second term, he started up the draft, got us into the war, cracked down on the press, jailed war dissenters and nationalized much of our economy. He was the worst president we ever had, in my opinion.
> 
> Wilson openly criticized the Constitution as being a backward document. Obama famously criticized our Constitution for being about negative rights that define what the government can't do to us, instead of being about positive rights and what government can and should do to us. Obama should never have been elected for those statements alone.
> 
> Like Wilson, Obama is the banker's candidate who was sold to the public as an antiwar progressive. Obama is surrounded by the same wealthy types of Bernard Baruch characters that pulled Wilson's strings.
> ...


I agree, but  if Obama does not win, I fear they have others like him all lined up.  Herman Cain  worked for the Kansas branch of the Federal Reserve.  I think at this point, the only candidate that will risk his life to stand against the Federal Reserve is Ron Paul, and I believe he may be running again to protect his son from the fate of others who have stood up against these ruthless banksters.
The History Of Money And The Federal Reserve

Why in the world would anyone in their right mind be defending the globalist so called "free trade deals"?  Do they not know who is behind it? The globalists keep playing the same games on us over and over again...they even explain their path on their websites.  How is anyone missing that?  

P.S. Thank you Jace for speaking out.  You explain the truth so eloquently.

----------


## Bossobass

> I'll post the actual facts, the hard numbers, just to be willfilly ignored once again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Production is at all time highs, wages are at all time highs, and there has been no change to the unemployment trend.
> ...


Golly.

Production is at an all time high. You would think someone who argues with as much condescension as you do would have the intelligence to realize that we're in 6 wars that we instigated and are going broke to supply, so the logical thing to do when sporting Federal Reserve industrial production graphs would be to separate production of weapons systems from all other production:




Regarding "real wages" increases, the same lack of scrutiny/blind acceptance of establishment numbers and graphs exists in your blurt. Please factor in that pre-1913 there was no income tax levied by local, state or federal governments. There were no credit cards or debt instruments of any kind charging the usury rates that bank lobbyists have succeeded in making legal. There was no cable TV bill, a commercial delivery monopoly, to create the desire for things people don't need, purchased with money they don't have. There were absent back then approximately 90% of the excise taxes paid on virtually everything, from A to Z. There was not $1.5 Billion Dollars A Day due in interest on the public debt. There was no Retail State Sales Tax. There was no Social Security Tax. There was no Medicare Tax. There was no Medicaid Tax. ETC.

The government provided Unemployment Graph is so laughable, I won't even address it.

If you're gonna preach condescendingly, here's a suggestion: Have a point, and back it by actual research. Better yet, ping Jace and ask for his advice. He's extremely well-researched and puts it down in well thought out and easy to understand outlines.  

These pro-global bag lapper threads have become pure agony.

Bosso

----------


## romacox

Our Founding Fathers referred to what we now call the Federal Reserve as the Central Bank.

In ancient times most lived off their land producing food while others produced  goods and services.  They had no need for money because they  bartered between each other (chickens, cows, ext)

But it made for a unreliable labor force because most people preferred to work for themselves, and had little need to work for others on a permanent basis.  The British and Dutch, in need of a labor force on their plantations located in various Colonies,  concocted a brilliant plan.  Folks, they decided to tax those “free roamers” for their land. But the catch was this:  they could not pay for it with bartering (things like cows and chickens) they must pay their taxes by money that only the British and Dutch central banks could issue (Much like the Federal Reserve issues today).

The plan worked brilliantly.  People who would not be loyal to the plantation owners must now work for them to obtain this solely central bank  issued money just to keep their own land.    Andrew Jackson was so against the Central Banks that he referred to them as a “den of thieves” 

They even spoke of this plan in the news papers:
http://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/cgi-bin/paperspast?a=d&d=THD18840522.2.31


No matter how much power they get, they always want more, and they don't mind putting it in writing.

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/...2/boughton.htm

http://www.wto.org/english/news_e/sppl_e/sppl12_e.htm

----------


## Jace

..

----------


## Cutlerzzz

> Golly.
> 
> Production is at an all time high. You would think someone who argues with as much condescension as you do would have the intelligence to realize that we're in 6 wars that we instigated and are going broke to supply, so the logical thing to do when sporting Federal Reserve industrial production graphs would be to separate production of weapons systems from all other production:


Naturally, you're forced to take a 10 year graph start starts in 00, the beginning of a recession, and 09, the end of a recession. All that your graph shows is that there was a downturn from 00-02, growth from 03-06, and a downturn from 07-09. Had you shown the previous 20 years your entire argument would have been debunked. 

That doesn't even factor in the unquantifiable industrial production that was siphoned off from the private sector into a government sector.




> Regarding "real wages" increases, the same lack of scrutiny/blind acceptance of establishment numbers and graphs exists in your blurt. Please factor in that pre-1913 there was no income tax levied by local, state or federal governments. There were no credit cards or debt instruments of any kind charging the usury rates that bank lobbyists have succeeded in making legal. 
> 
>  There were absent back then approximately 90% of the excise taxes paid on virtually everything, from A to Z. There was not $1.5 Billion Dollars A Day due in interest on the public debt. There was no Retail State Sales Tax. There was no Social Security Tax. There was no Medicare Tax. There was no Medicaid Tax. ETC.


None of that is a part of real wage statistics. Yes, those are destructive policies, but those are irrelevant to this discussion.

Real wages are up, productivity is up. Just admit it and things will become easier.




> There was no cable TV bill, a commercial delivery monopoly, to create the desire for things people don't need, purchased with money they don't have.


TV has raised the quality of life around the world, and viewership is voluntary. 





> The government provided Unemployment Graph is so laughable, I won't even address it.




It doesn't matter how you slice it. Unemployment has had a normal long term trend.




> If you're gonna preach condescendingly, here's a suggestion: Have a point, and back it by actual research. Better yet, ping Jace and ask for his advice. He's extremely well-researched and puts it down in well thought out and easy to understand outlines


Yes, because claiming that Woodrow Wilson removed all trade barriers(blatently false), productivity is down(blatently false), Austrian Economists are being paid off by banks(while citing the pro central banking Founding Fathers), and that people who opposed tariffs also supported slavery, is CLEARLY an adult level conversation based in reality. He did not even make an argument. He launched a series of poorly researched, inaccurate, childish attacks.




> These pro-global bag lapper threads have become pure agony.


Not anywhere near as annoying as the willfully ignorant mercantilists, who believe that the government is needed to steer the market in order to protect special interest groups.

----------


## romacox

> Funny you mention this. My dad just read a book about this same thing and we were talking about it today. The way he explained it was that during the days of the British Empire when the Brits ruled much of Africa, the Africans were subsistence farmers but the Brits wanted their labor. So they put a hut tax on the Africans that could only be paid in Royal currency. If the Africans didn't pay the tax, they were imprisoned. The only way to get currency to pay the tax was to work as labor for the Brits.
> 
> Kinda sounds like the same scheme the bankers set up here in 1913. 
> 
> This system was more humane to them than outright slavery, and it's cheaper because you don't have to house and feed the labor. Tariffs don't suit their purposes because you can't force the population into wage slavery and dependency with a tariff. It takes the income tax to do that. Of course, in 1913 the income tax was sold to the people as being a tax the rich would pay to fund social services for the people.


  What is the name of the book Jace?  I would love to read it.

----------


## showpan

> and that people who opposed tariffs also supported slavery,


oh, really.....

George Washington, upon his death bed set all of his slaves permanently free in his last will and testament. 
"I hope it will not be conceived, from these observations, that it is my wish to hold the unhappy people who are the subject of this letter in slavery. I can only say, that there is not a man living who wishes more sincerely than I do, to see a plan adopted for the abolition of it."  - George Washington. April 12, 1786, to Robert Morris: 

Thomas Jefferson was a consistent opponent of slavery throughout his life. He considered it contrary to the laws of nature that decreed that everyone had a right to personal liberty. He called the institution an "abominable crime," a "moral depravity," a "hideous blot," and a "fatal stain" that deformed "what nature had bestowed on us of her fairest gifts."
Early in his political career Jefferson took actions that he hoped would end in slavery's abolition. He drafted the Virginia law of 1778 prohibiting the importation of enslaved Africans. In 1784 he proposed an ordinance banning slavery in the new territories of the Northwest. From the mid-1770s he advocated a plan of gradual emancipation, by which all born into slavery after a certain date would be declared free.

"The existence of slavery makes us fancy many things that are founded neither in reason or experience." - Alexander Hamilton
As an adult, Hamilton consistently opposed slavery, served as an officer of the New York Manumission Society and tended to hold the southern planter class in low regard. In January 1785, he attended the second meeting of the New York Manumission Society (NYMS). John Jay was president and Hamilton was secretary; he later became president. He was also a member of the committee of the society which put a bill through the New York Legislature banning the export of slaves from New York

John Adams.
His sentiments on the subject of slavery are well known. They are well summed up in the language of a letter to Robert I. Evans, June, 1819: 
"Every measure of prudence, therefore, ought to be assumed for the eventual total extirpation of slavery from the United States. 
"I have, through my whole life, held the practice of slavery in such abhorrence, that I have never owned a negro or any other slave; though I have lived for many years in times when the practice was not disgraceful; when the best men in my vicinity thought it not inconsistent with their character; and when it has cost me thousands of dollars of the labor and subsistence of free men, which I might have saved by the purchase of negroes at times when they were very cheap."-- Works of John Adams , vol., p. 380. 

James Madison.
From Mr. Madison's Report of Debates in the Federal Convention. Mr. Madison: We have seen the mere distinction of color made, in the most enlightened period of time, a ground of the most oppressive dominion ever exercised by man over man. 
Mr. Madison: And, in the third place, where slavery exists, the republican theory becomes still more fallacious. 
Mr. MADISON THOUGHT IT WRONG TO ADMIT, IN THE CONSTITUTION, THE IDEA THAT THERE COULD BE PROPERTY IN MEN. 
Mr. Madison to Joseph Jones.--[Extract.] 
Philadelphia, Nov. 28, 1780. 
Yours of the 18th came yesterday. I am glad to find the Legislature persist in their resolution to recruit their line of the army for the war; though without deciding on the expediency of the mode under their consideration, would it not be as well to liberate and make soldiers at once of the blacks themselves, as to make them instruments for enlisting white soldiers? It would certainly be more consonant with the principles of liberty, which ought never to be lost sight of in a contest for liberty. 

John Jay
As a leader of the new Federalist Party, Jay was the Governor of New York State from 1795 to 1801, and he became the state's leading opponent of slavery. His first two attempts to pass laws for the emancipation of all slaves in New York failed in 1777 and in 1785, but his third attempt succeeded in 1799. The new law that he signed into existence brought about the emancipation of all slaves there before his death in 1829.

Benjamin Franklin in 1787 began to serve as President of the Pennsylvania Society for Promoting the Abolition of Slavery. The Society was originally formed April 14, 1775, in Philadelphia, as The Society for the Relief of Free Negroes Unlawfully Held in Bondage; it was reorganized in 1784 and again in 1787, and then incorporated by the state of Pennsylvania in 1789. The Society not only advocated the abolition of slavery, but made efforts to integrate freed slaves into American society.
 In 1789 he wrote and published several essays supporting the abolition of slavery and his last public act was to send to Congress a petition on behalf of the Society asking for the abolition of slavery and an end to the slave trade. The petition, signed on February 3, 1790, asked the first Congress, then meeting in New York City, to "devise means for removing the Inconsistency from the Character of the American People," and to "promote mercy and justice toward this distressed Race."
The petition was introduced to the House on February 12 and to the Senate on February 15, 1790

----------


## Cutlerzzz

> oh, really.....
> 
> George Washington, upon his death bed set all of his slaves permanently free in his last will and testament. 
> "I hope it will not be conceived, from these observations, that it is my wish to hold the unhappy people who are the subject of this letter in slavery. I can only say, that there is not a man living who wishes more sincerely than I do, to see a plan adopted for the abolition of it."  - George Washington. April 12, 1786, to Robert Morris: 
> 
> Thomas Jefferson was a consistent opponent of slavery throughout his life. He considered it contrary to the laws of nature that decreed that everyone had a right to personal liberty. He called the institution an "abominable crime," a "moral depravity," a "hideous blot," and a "fatal stain" that deformed "what nature had bestowed on us of her fairest gifts."
> Early in his political career Jefferson took actions that he hoped would end in slavery's abolition. He drafted the Virginia law of 1778 prohibiting the importation of enslaved Africans. In 1784 he proposed an ordinance banning slavery in the new territories of the Northwest. From the mid-1770s he advocated a plan of gradual emancipation, by which all born into slavery after a certain date would be declared free.
> 
> "The existence of slavery makes us fancy many things that are founded neither in reason or experience." - Alexander Hamilton
> ...


Thank you for backing me up, Showpan.

----------


## showpan

They were pro tariffs and clearly against slavery. Hamilton would be the exception however since his actions did not support his views. When a friends slave ran away, he turned him in after discovering where he was hiding, the consequences for runaways at the time were quite severe. He also reduced tariffs as he wanted to copy the British system...lol...after we had just fought our independence from it. Thankfully, Jefferson was elected and reversed much of Hamilton's policies. Jefferson and others formed the Democratic Republican Party and had to start their own publications in order to spread the word of what Hamilton and the federalists were up to since they had support from most of that era's publications. Much like we find ourselves today...MSM owned by large corporations who support the neoconservative gloabalist agenda and Ron Paul being about the only one who stands against them. Today we have the internet, although they are rapidly changing that on us too with shills, sock puppets, search modifiers and such.

----------


## romacox

> They were pro tariffs and clearly against slavery. Hamilton would be the exception however since his actions did not support his views. When a friends slave ran away, he turned him in after discovering where he was hiding, the consequences for runaways at the time were quite severe. He also reduced tariffs as he wanted to copy the British system...lol...after we had just fought our independence from it. Thankfully, Jefferson was elected and reversed much of Hamilton's policies. Jefferson and others formed the Democratic Republican Party and had to start their own publications in order to spread the word of what Hamilton and the federalists were up to since they had support from most of that era's publications. Much like we find ourselves today...MSM owned by large corporations who support the neoconservative gloabalist agenda and Ron Paul being about the only one who stands against them. Today we have the internet, although they are rapidly changing that on us too with shills, sock puppets, search modifiers and such.


Showpan, you definitely know your history, and thank you for speaking out.

  I am currently reading a book by Justice Joseph Story (Justice of the Supreme Court from 1811 to 1845, born three years after the Declaration of Independence, and who's father fought in the American Revolution).  He takes each single clause in the Constitution, and not only tells the history and reasoning behind them.  

Here is what Justice Joseph Story says about the 3/5th clause which is so misrepresented by the media and educational system:

There has been much interesting conversation lately concerning the early U.S. Constitution and slavery, particularly concerning Article I (section 2), and the XIII Amendment. So I decided to research the matter by reading the early accounts rather than recent interpretations, and here is what I discovered.

    Article I Section 2 refers to slaves as "three fifths of all other Persons".

_The XIII Amendment (Section I) stated that "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction." (Note: it was not Amendment XIII, but the XIV amendment that amends article I Section 2)
_At first glance one can easily make some false conclusions unless they know the history which I share with you here. During the creation of the Constitution, Article I (Section 2) was not about slavery. Check it out: it is all about State's representation in the House of Representatives. Slavery only entered the discussion as a result of an attempted power grab. Each State wanted to make sure they had ample voting powers.

The non-slavery States were in a very heated discussion with the slave holding States. The latter insisted on a representation strictly according to the number of inhabitants, whether they were slaves or free persons. The non-slave holding States contended for representation according to the number of free persons only.

As one can see this could have given the slave holding States a big advantage, and encouraged more slavery. By simply importing more slaves, a State could have easily increased their representation, and power in the House Of Representatives.The disagreement was so volatile that it nearly ended the creation of the Constitution of these United States.

After much discussion, a compromise was reached which was that three fifths of the slaves were counted as part of the number of free persons, as the basis of the appointment of Representatives. Interesting note: They purposely did not use the word slaves because the framers did not want to make it appear that the Constitution endorsed slavery, but it was well understood that "other persons" referred to the slave population. 

http://www.read-phonics.com/constitution-slavery.html

*Note:* (1) The word slavery was never used in the original Constitution. George Mason, who is known as the architect of the Constitution, said: [Slavery is a] slow Poison, which is daily contaminating the Minds & Morals of our People. Every Gentleman here is born a petty Tyrant…. And in such an infernal School are to be educated our future Legislators & Rulers.

(2) Visiting a black college had a profound effect on Ben Franklin. Several years later he joined an abolition Society. Franklin came to believe that slavery should be ended, and eventually freed his own two slaves. 




These things are not in our history text books today. What happened to the truth?

That is a most interesting story. Many changes took place after the passing of our Founding Fathers. But, major changes began under Woodrow Wilson, who established the Federal Reserve and the United Nations. He believed in segregation and that blacks were inferior. He ousted all of the elected black leaders in government, and began a powerful movement to rewrite history. There was a large uprising of public objections. He was not a popular President. 

We actually had elected  black representatives, and revolutionary heroes. A black man, Wentworth Cheswell,  rode with Paul Revere, but we never hear about him.  I wrote an article about this stolen history, and one black gentleman told me he knew about this.  His family passed it down from generation to generation so that it would not be lost.
http://www.read-phonics.com/american-history.html

*The progressives have managed not only to distort word definitions, they have done the same with American History.  That is not to say the Founding Fathers were perfect, but they were far wiser and greater than modern history allows us to know. It is no accident that our children are not being taught these things...it is now up to parents to show them.  I have provided several links above so parents can do just that. Why? because it is so very important for the young ones to know how to find their way back to a Republic.*

----------


## ProIndividual

Explaining free trade to a protectionist:

It's like explaining radio to the deaf.



At least the deaf attempt to comprehend what you're saying.

----------


## Bossobass

> Explaining free trade to a protectionist:
> 
> It's like explaining radio to the deaf.
> 
> 
> 
> At least the deaf attempt to comprehend what you're saying.


Try just showing a real world example of this Free Trade you worship.

A deaf man can tell when his pocket is being picked.

Bosso

----------


## Jace

..

----------


## Jace

..

----------


## Bossobass

> Naturally, you're forced to take a 10 year graph start starts in 00, the beginning of a recession, and 09, the end of a recession. All that your graph shows is that there was a downturn from 00-02, growth from 03-06, and a downturn from 07-09. Had you shown the previous 20 years your entire argument would have been debunked. 
> 
> That doesn't even factor in the unquantifiable industrial production that was siphoned off from the private sector into a government sector.


What the graph shows is that without including MacDonalds hamburgers and Weapons Systems in your fudged graph, the truth of the matter becomes painfully evident, to everyone but the Free Trader Cultists.

Remember... DDT is good for you and your children. The government proved it years ago:








> None of that is a part of real wage statistics. Yes, those are destructive policies, but those are irrelevant to this discussion.
> 
> Real wages are up, productivity is up. Just admit it and things will become easier.


Perfect. Having 6 taxes raped off the top of your paycheck every week doesn't affect real wages. Do you actually ever read what you post? 

Productive people who have the longest work week, shortest vacation time, fewest sick days, shortest sick leave, most patents, most inventions, etc., of any people who ever lived on this planet... has nothing to do with the fact that industrial production in the US has been obliterated and the numbers fudged to obscure that fact from the lazy believer.

Debt and war are up, everything else is down. Just admit it and all things will become easier.






> TV has raised the quality of life around the world, and viewership is voluntary.


Repeating for the propaganda lover in you: Had the government not had TV, people might not have ended up eating and drinking the $#@! by the ton. Quality of life... wow.



I guess if you really do need to know what toothpaste most dentists recommend and you need your news to be fair and balanced...




> Yes, because claiming that Woodrow Wilson removed all trade barriers(blatently false), productivity is down(blatently false), Austrian Economists are being paid off by banks(while citing the pro central banking Founding Fathers), and that people who opposed tariffs also supported slavery, is CLEARLY an adult level conversation based in reality. He did not even make an argument. He launched a series of poorly researched, inaccurate, childish attacks.
> 
> Not anywhere near as annoying as the willfully ignorant mercantilists, who believe that the government is needed to steer the market in order to protect special interest groups.


At the turn of the century, tariffs, among other things, enabled the US to surpass the British Empire in less than a decade. IOW... US manufacturers = special interest group... British Empire globalists free traders = specially targeted group... result = win for US, lose for BE.

After the removal of the dollar from the Bretton Woods gold standard, that world renowned production capacity was erased by the globalists in less than a decade. That required, among many other devious BS machinations, giving Communist China, who supplied every weapon that killed 55,000 US soldiers in Vietnam 5 years earlier, Most Favored Nation status. $#@!in' aye, who couldn't see the free market logic in that?

You guys actually believe the "Chinese Miracle" was funded with the savings accounts of the peasants and built with bamboo poles in a decade and a half.

100 years of industrial production without par reduced to being called "The Rust Belt" in less than a decade. Public money allocated to raze the mills and build in their stead... shopping malls. 700 million credit cards keeping the USPS alive for 20 years. Home equity loans approved on the spot with no docs. New construction loans approved before you even apply. Yeah, evidence of the free market at work, no doubt. 

Food Safety Act, Patriot Act, They Hate Us Because We're Beautiful, Green Shoots, The New Economy, M3 Is Too Expensive To Calculate, Health Care Is A Right, industrial production is up, productivity is up, and, don't forget, It's A Global Economy With Liberty And Free Trade For All.

What effect did S/H tariffs have on the GD? None whatsoever. It's been proven countless times using the governments own stats. 

Tariffs with reciprocity IS free trade. What we've had for the past 30 years is pure BS. Warfare and Welfare funded by debt secured with home equity and future taxes on earnings and retirement savings and funded by profits taken by foreigners who are given one way street free trade in exchange for those debt purchases and military base privileges isn't productive and has an expiration date.

Bosso

----------


## The Grinning Maniac

Bravo.

----------


## Paul Or Nothing II

> Tariffs with reciprocity IS free trade.


Nope, if other countries want to put import-tariffs & raise the prices of their domestic goods then so be it, we needn't "reciprocate" & raise prices of goods here, that'd be stupidity

And I find it quite funny that all the "tariffers" seem to think that the only reason the country is where it is because of not having tariffs & if we'd tariffs everything would be great  People are missing the basic point that all of these problems are caused by Fed, warfare-welfare-state, overregulation & overtaxation & if these things are taken care of then there'd be so many businesses who'd want to set up shop here & there'd be so many jobs & productivity that tariffs won't be needed anyway.

It should be obvious to any rational person that even if tariffs are raised on the manufacturing imports to protect local manufacturing industries, it'd raise the prices quite a bit & there'd be more price inflation than there already is so again, if other countries want to raise their domestic prices then let them but that doesn't mean we should be just as stupid as them. Again, economic problems that are there have been caused by Fed, overregulation & overtaxation so deregulation, cutting taxes & having sound money is the cure, NOT tariffs.

----------


## VBRonPaulFan

This is really an argument of practicality vs. philosophical purity, IMO. There are really good points both ways, but if I was going to find some way to fund a government... it'd be through voluntary donations/user fees and tariffs.

----------


## Cutlerzzz

This entire conversation is insane. I'm talking to mercantilists whom believe that the economy is to be run by the government. The market is incapable of rationally allocating resources or creating wealth; we need politicians with no profit motive to steer to the economy. Theories and statistics be damned, they'll take out jobs if we don't have the government save us.




> What the graph shows is that without including MacDonalds hamburgers and Weapons Systems in your fudged graph, the truth of the matter becomes painfully evident, to everyone but the Free Trader Cultists.


It shows no such thing. It shows that over a short period of time there were two recessions, as already shown. Had the previous 10 years been shown the statistic would have completely invalidated your claim. You're grasping at straws.




> Perfect. Having 6 taxes raped off the top of your paycheck every week doesn't affect real wages. Do you actually ever read what you post? 
> 
> Productive people who have the longest work week, shortest vacation time, fewest sick days, shortest sick leave, most patents, most inventions, etc., of any people who ever lived on this planet... has nothing to do with the fact that industrial production in the US has been obliterated and the numbers fudged to obscure that fact from the lazy believer.


That's nice, but it is not related to the discussion of how much people make. The average American makes 6 times more now than they did in 1913 and has access to technology that nobody could dream of in 1913. That is the end of the discussion.




> Debt and war are up, everything else is down. Just admit it and all things will become easier


I'm talking to someone who believes that if I don't pay for said wars I should go to jail. The irony.





> Repeating for the propaganda lover in you: Had the government not had TV, people might not have ended up eating and drinking the $#@! by the ton. Quality of life... wow.


As a supporter of freedom, I am glad that people can now sit back, relax, have fun, and get fat. This was all created by increased productivity through voluntary exchange. You wish to lower productivity and decrease wealth. Your anti capitalistic mentality is showing.




> At the turn of the century, tariffs, among other things, enabled the US to surpass the British Empire in less than a decade. IOW... US manufacturers = special interest group... British Empire globalists free traders = specially targeted group... result = win for US, lose for BE.


Of course it is the government to credit. It could not be the American people who are to credit. The government deserves it; we would be helpless without the legislature guiding us. 

I don't have any idea what you're trying to pull with the claim that the US surpassed Britain. The United States population was growing far faster than Britains(twice as large by the turn of the century), and the United States had lower overall tax rates. 19th century Britain was one of the richest, most powerful nations in history. They declined only in relative terms, as the rest of the world began their Industrial Revolution throughout the 19th century, and many countries had their population grow at a far faster rate. 




> After the removal of the dollar from the Bretton Woods gold standard, that world renowned production capacity was erased by the globalists in less than a decade. That required, among many other devious BS machinations, giving Communist China, who supplied every weapon that killed 55,000 US soldiers in Vietnam 5 years earlier, Most Favored Nation status. $#@!in' aye, who couldn't see the free market logic in that?


And yet, US manufacturing is more than three times higher now than it was in the early 70s.




> You guys actually believe the "Chinese Miracle" was funded with the savings accounts of the peasants and built with bamboo poles in a decade and a half.


It was built by Capital, the same way every other country in the world industrialized. Your "argument" would apply to every other country in the world that has ever industrialized; they all started out with nothing.




> Food Safety Act, Patriot Act, They Hate Us Because We're Beautiful, Green Shoots, The New Economy, M3 Is Too Expensive To Calculate, Health Care Is A Right, industrial production is up, productivity is up, and, don't forget, It's A Global Economy With Liberty And Free Trade For All.


And yet you're spending this entire thread defending the disguisting system of theft and murder in order to protect special interest groups.




> What effect did S/H tariffs have on the GD? None whatsoever. It's been proven countless times using the governments own stats.


It's been shown time and time again in this topic that it did contribute to the depression.

----------


## Cutlerzzz

> They were pro tariffs and clearly against slavery. Hamilton would be the exception however since his actions did not support his views. When a friends slave ran away, he turned him in after discovering where he was hiding, the consequences for runaways at the time were quite severe. He also reduced tariffs as he wanted to copy the British system...lol...after we had just fought our independence from it. Thankfully, Jefferson was elected and reversed much of Hamilton's policies. Jefferson and others formed the Democratic Republican Party and had to start their own publications in order to spread the word of what Hamilton and the federalists were up to since they had support from most of that era's publications. Much like we find ourselves today...MSM owned by large corporations who support the neoconservative gloabalist agenda and Ron Paul being about the only one who stands against them. Today we have the internet, although they are rapidly changing that on us too with shills, sock puppets, search modifiers and such.


The Founding Fathers owned slaves and yet they were opposed to slavery. Is this the Michelle Bachmann forums? 

Hamilton lowered tariffs? The tariffs bills at the time were literally named after Hamilton because they were largely his ideas. Are you some kind of parody? A troll?

You think that Mercantillism is for low tariffs? 

Good job Showpan. This might have been the dumbest post I have ever read. There is no way I can believe that you are a serious poster, and not a troll looking to get a rise out of us.

----------


## showpan

> The Founding Fathers owned slaves and yet they were opposed to slavery. Is this the Michelle Bachmann forums? 
> 
> Hamilton lowered tariffs? The tariffs bills at the time were literally named after Hamilton because they were largely his ideas. Are you some kind of parody? A troll?
> 
> You think that Mercantillism is for low tariffs? 
> 
> Good job Showpan. This might have been the dumbest post I have ever read. There is no way I can believe that you are a serious poster, and not a troll looking to get a rise out of us.



One of the earliest statements on U.S. trade policy is Alexander Hamilton's Report on Manufactures in 1791. This report called for government support of manufacturing through higher import tariffs, which Hamilton never implemented. In contrast, Hamilton's proposal for bounties (subsidies) failed to receive support, and it was Congress who adopted virtually every tariff recommendation put forward in the report by early 1792 after amending Hamilton's bill.

Cutlerzzz...although you keep fishing, I will not be baited with such games and history and economics will not be rewritten here. 
I rather enjoy correcting false historical misconceptions. Our founders were amazing men....well at least most of them were anyway.

----------


## Cutlerzzz

> One of the earliest statements on U.S. trade policy is Alexander Hamilton's Report on Manufactures in 1791. This report called for government support of manufacturing through higher import tariffs, which Hamilton never implemented. In contrast, Hamilton's proposal for bounties (subsidies) failed to receive support, and it was Congress who adopted virtually every tariff recommendation put forward in the report by early 1792 after amending Hamilton's bill.
> 
> Cutlerzzz...although you keep fishing, I will not be baited with such games and history and economics will not be rewritten here. 
> I rather enjoy correcting false historical misconceptions. Our founders were amazing men....well at least most of them were anyway.


When you're claiming that Hamilton tried to lower tariffs, and that low tariffs are what mercantilist stood for. I think that enough has been said, you're just trolling. It explains all of the dumb things you have said. Nobody could actually be this stupid. Your own links debunk your statements for crying out loud.

----------


## showpan

> When you're claiming that Hamilton tried to lower tariffs, and that low tariffs are what mercantilist stood for. I think that enough has been said, you're just trolling. It explains all of the dumb things you have said. Nobody could actually be this stupid. Your own links debunk your statements for crying out loud.


....then you didn't read my post or those links. More personal attacks from behind your keyboard....?

Production as you claim is NOT up if you consider that fast foods and fish wrapping are not manufacturing jobs.

As former president H.W. Bush was writing NAFTA back In 1991, another despicable lie was being written by the North American Industry Classification System in order to justify this obvious sell out of American jobs. Not only did NAICS reclassify fast foods (hamburgers, salads, fires, soft drinks) as part of manufacturing changing their classification from food service and processing, they also reclassified pasteurization of milk and fish wrapping among others. What is even more shocking, in order to embellish their lie, they also made it *retroactive to unemployment statistics beginning in...1995*, the year that NAFTA was enacted.
They not only reclassified manufacturing, they did this to the service sector too. This shifting of employment to service sectors under NAICS resulted in declines in other sectors like Agriculture and Retail Trade with the reclassification of restaurants into the service sector. Changes in the definition of Wholesale Trade establishments result in only a small decline 4.8% down to 4.1% so nobody would really notice but the increase in service sector was huge because they also reclassified other industries where nobody really ever pays attention. Corporate headquarters of companies are now classified as service activities under NAICS. Formerly, under SIC these business establishments were classified according to the business activity of the enterprise they served. Also Professional, Technical, Healthcare, Social Assistance and Educational were all reclassifies into the service sector. 
The restructuring of industry groups under NAICS when it was implemented in 1997 resulted in a decline in the average weekly wage for manufacturing by $90, but an increase of $74 in service sector. Any statistics in manufacturing and service after 1995 should be considered bunk since the way in which these statistics are collected have been greatly altered. This also effects government handouts (corporate welfare) since reclassifies industries are now able to exploit subsidies and loopholes that were once meant for those industries they were actually created for.

----------


## Cutlerzzz

> ....then you didn't read my post or those links. More personal attacks from behind your keyboard....?


No, you once again posted a link about something you don't understand, or willfully ignore. Your own link will lead you to the fact that Hamilton proposed those tariffs, that the tariffs were named after him, and that industry got various subsidies after Hamilton proposed them through out the 1790s. The Anti-Federalists opposed them. 

Were you serious before when you claimed that Mercantilists stood for lower tariffs, or was that a brainfart?

And don't forget that you started these insults. When you insult somebody else, and then claim that mercantilism was the belief in lower tariffs, expect to be called stupid or accused of trolling.




> Production as you claim is NOT up if you consider that fast foods and fish wrapping are not manufacturing jobs.


Prove it.




> Any statistics in manufacturing and service after 1995 should be considered bunk since the way in which these statistics are collected have been greatly altered.


I forgot, you don't care about statistics or theory. Just copy/paste random articles you get from your union.




> This also effects government handouts (corporate welfare) since reclassifies industries are now able to exploit subsidies and loopholes that were once meant for those industries they were actually created for


Corporate welfare is never justified.

----------


## showpan

> No, you once again posted a link about something you don't understand, or willfully ignore. Your own link will lead you to the fact that Hamilton proposed those tariffs, that the tariffs were named after him, and that industry got various subsidies after Hamilton proposed them through out the 1790s. The Anti-Federalists opposed them. 
> 
> Were you serious before when you claimed that Mercantilists stood for lower tariffs, or was that a brainfart?
> 
> And don't forget that you started these insults. When you insult somebody else, and then claim that mercantilism was the belief in lower tariffs, expect to be called stupid or accused of trolling.
> 
> 
> 
> Prove it.
> ...


You had better read this entire thread again to see who actually started the insults and twisted words around.
And I will stand by my comment that anyone who agrees with what has happened is supporting necon globalist policies....big difference between that and "free trade" Did you actually read my post on Hamilton? Did you do a search like I did that revealed Hamilton never proposed those tariffs, he wanted very low tariffs, 5% and bounties that nobody approved of so congress rewrote the bill....see, I just stated it again for you since you didn't understand it the first time. Your response was based on no facts at all, just your opinions and further attacks. I proved my last point by searching through the NAICS site and reporting my findings...if you are going to refute them...why don't you do the same instead of more personal attacks and insults and then claims that you didn't start them.

stupid debate tactics:
1) Attack The Messenger: Instead of addressing the argument that has been made, people using this method attack the person making it instead. This is particularly easy for many delusional people on the left who believe that almost everyone on the right is a racist, sexist, homophobic, Fascist who longs for the return of the Confederacy and is planning to start throwing leftists in prison camps if they let their guard down for five minutes. The charge made doesn't even have to be accurate, in fact it's better in some ways if it's off target. That's because the more whacked out the charge is, the more compelled your opponent will feel to spend his time defending himself while you continue to make your points.

2) The Bait & Switch: When a claim is made and your opponent refutes it, don't try to respond, simply change the subject. Example,

Lefty Debater: I think we all know what kind of job George Bush has done with the economy. Right off the bat, he got the economy into a recession.

Conservative Debater: Excuse me, but you're incorrect. The recession started under Bill Clinton, not George Bush.

Lefty Debater: Well what about his tax cuts? They're for the rich, the rich I tell you!

Conservative Debater: What about getting rid of the marriage penalty and increasing the child tax credit? Are you arguing that only rich people get married and have kids?

Lefty Debater: Haliburton, did I mention Haliburton? What about that, huh? I guess you want to dodge that issue.

The best part about this from the left-wing debater's perspective is that since they never acknowledged they were wrong, they can feel free to make the exact same incorrect claim in future debates.

3) The Blitzkrieg: The goal here is blast your opponent with so many accusations that they can't possibly respond. Example,

Lefty Debater: George Bush? Who would defend someone who was AWOL from the National Guard, used coke, lied about weapons of mass destruction, raised taxes on the poor, wants to cut Social Security, is the worst environmental President we've ever had, and who has destroyed the US economy?

Moderator: That's great, but the question was, "Should the Israelis kick Arafat out of the "Disputed Territories"?

It doesn't matter if all -- or even any -- of the accusations are true, relevant, or make any sense. The goal is just to get them out there. Making an accusation takes a few seconds, refuting one takes much longer. So an opponent confronted with these accusations will never actually have time to respond.

4) Enter The Strawman: Tremendously exaggerating your opponent's position and then claiming to fight against a position they don't hold is always a great way to dodge the issues. In all fairness, this is a technique often used by the left & right. But still, the right can't hold a candle to the left in this area. I mean how many times have you heard, "Republicans are going to take your Social Security away," "The GOP wants to poison the water and the air," "Republicans want to take away your Civil Rights" etc, etc?

This whole concept has gotten so out of hand on the left that we now even have some people on the left comparing the Israelis to Nazis. Look, when you're claiming that a bunch a Jews defending themselves from people who want to kill them are like Nazis, you've gone so far past irony that you almost need a new word to describe it like -- "Idiorony" or "outofyourmindony". But that's what happens when people wink at all these strawmen that are tossed out in debates. Eventually some people start to take them seriously and build on them.

5) History Will Be Kind To Me For I Intend To Write It: The technique is similar to using strawmen in some respects. What you try to do is to rewrite history, to claim that a debate in a previous time was different than it actually was. Here's an example of how this is done,

Mother: I told you to be back by 11 PM and you're just getting in at 1:30 AM!

Teenage Daughter: I don't think I remember you mentioning that...

Mother: I told you 3 times to be in by 11, I left a note reminding you on the dinner table and snuck one into your purse, I called you on your cellular phone at 10:30 and reminded you to make it home by 11 and I even told your boyfriend he'd better have you back in time.

Teenage Daughter: Oh, oh, oh wait...I remember now -- you meant 11 PM? I thought you meant 11 AM. I thought that by getting in at 1:30 AM I was here 9 and 1/2 hours early. Silly me!

Mother: Nice try, you're still grounded!

The build-up to Iraq war has been treated in a similar fashion by the anti-war crowd. Before the war there were complaints that Bush wouldn't stick to one reason for invading, now there are claims that it was only about WMD. There was almost no debate on Capitol Hill between Dems & the GOP about whether Iraq actually had WMD until after the war when it became apparent that none were going to be quickly be found. Throwaway lines that were hardly noticed before the war (like the controversial yet true 16 words in the State of the Union speech) have been treated as if they were core arguments made by the Bush administration after the fact. It's all just a way to rewrite history.

6) I'm Not Hearing You -- La La La: Just totally ignoring what your opponent has to say and going on to something else is another technique often used by politicians of all stripes, but no one, and I mean no one, can hang with Yasser Arafat and company when it comes to totally blowing off any uncomfortable questions that are asked. For example...

Moderator: So Mr. Arafat, are you willing to disarm Hamas & Islamic Jihad?

Arafat: The Israelis want to kill me! They are causing all the problems! We want peace, but the Israelis don't!

Moderator: That's fine Mr. Arafat, but are you willing to disarm Hamas & Islamic Jihad?

Arafat: Why don't you ask the Israelis if they will stop their terrorism against our people? Why don't you ask them that?

Moderator: Mr. Arafat you seem to be ignoring my question.

Arafat: Are you questioning me? Do you know who I am? I am general Arafat! This interview is over!

When they duck the question, it's a pretty good indication that they don't have an answer anyone wants to hear.

7) Motives Matter, Results Don't: Oftentimes when people on the left are losing an argument or can't explain why they seem to be so inconsistent on certain issues, they start questioning the motives of their opponents. For example, if you favored going to war with Serbia based on nothing more than humanitarian grounds, then logically you should also be in favor of invading Iraq for exactly the same reason. But of course, that's not how it works for a lot of people.

So to get around that, they just claim that there are impure motives afoot. The Bush administration may have claimed to care about stopping terrorism, weapons of mass destruction, humanitarian causes, or UN Resolutions, but it was really all about stealing oil, getting payoffs for business buddies, getting revenge for an attack on "daddy", because Bush needed Iraqi sand for his garden, Bush was jealous of Saddam's rugged good looks, etc, etc, who cares -- they're all equally ridiculous. When the real issues are too tough to deal with, it's all too easy to just pretend something else is what you're really upset about.

8) That Context Is On A Need To Know Basis: Stripping away the context of a situation is a favored technique of people who hate the United States. They talk about something the United States has done without discussing the reasoning behind it, the actions that provoked it, or other things that the United States might have also done that would place us in a more favorable light. It's very easy to make someone look like a bad guy if you simply don't include every detail that doesn't support your case. For example,

Lawyer: Your honor, I intend to prove that my client is innocent of all charges and that the police shot him maliciously, recklessly, and without cause as he was minding his own business at the park.

Judge: He was minding his own business? According to the police report I have in front of me, your client had shot 3 drug dealers who were standing in "his spot" and was firing off rounds from an Uzi at a passing school bus, two nuns on a nearby park bench, and at the officers as they arrived. That doesn't sound like he was "minding his own business" to me.

Lawyer: It does if his business is being a drug dealing thug -- ha, ha, ha! Hey, that's just a little joke. It was getting a little tense in here....you're not laughing. OK, just checking -- is that plea bargain still available?

9) That's Mean, Mean, Mean! When it comes to certain subjects, ordinarily rational people turn into complete bubbleheads. For example, you could probably put together a bill that called for nuclear waste to be dumped in every Walmart in America and as long as you called it the, "Feed The Children For A New Tomorrow Bill" about a 1/3rd of the American population would support it. So naturally, some people take advantage of this and claim that certain policy proposals are "mean". Once you say that, results, logic, how expensive the project is, etc, etc, goes out the window and the argument becomes over whether someone is "mean" or not.

----------


## Cutlerzzz

Nice job changing the subject again when you cannot defend any of your insane points. You clearly started the insults, calling me a neocon globalist who wished to destroy American industry, and claimed that I was probably bought off by banks in a conspiracy. 

Those tariffs were NAMED after Hamilton for a reason. He was a mercantilist, as you have noted. However, you don't seem to have a basic level of understanding on these things. You claim that mercantilism is the belief in low tariffs. That is the *opposite* of what a mercantilist believes in. Mercantilism is based on the idea that you need to export more than you import, as you advocate. You're a mercantilist.

----------


## nobody's_hero

> Nice job changing the subject again when you cannot defend any of your insane points. You clearly started the insults, calling me a neocon globalist who wished to destroy American industry, and claimed that I was probably bought off by banks in a conspiracy. 
> 
> Those tariffs were NAMED after Hamilton for a reason. He was a mercantilist, as you have noted. However, you don't seem to have a basic level of understanding on these things. You claim that mercantilism is the belief in low tariffs. That is the *opposite* of what a mercantilist believes in. Mercantilism is based on the idea that you need to export more than you import, as you advocate. You're a mercantilist.


Well, China has adopted the mercantilist strategy, and it seems to be working for much of Asia, for that matter. In fact, you could throw much of Asia into the mix of countries actually benefiting from "exporting more than they import".

----------


## showpan

> Well, China has adopted the mercantilist strategy, and it seems to be working for much of Asia, for that matter. In fact, you could throw much of Asia into the mix of countries actually benefiting from "exporting more than they import".


The Chinese government has continued its successful policy of imposing tariffs and non-tariff barriers upon U.S. products.

1. In 2009, the Chinese government excluded American products from its catalogs of the products that could be purchased with its consumer subsidies. Through this and other means it reduced imports from the United States despite the growth of the Chinese economy by a reported 8.7%.

2. In February, new Chinese tariffs of up to 105% on American chicken products helped the Chinese government reduce imports from the United States, despite growth of the Chinese economy by a reported 11.9%.

3. On April 13, China's Commerce Ministry announced new duties on a type of U.S. steel used in the power sector.

4. This week, the Chinese government raised its tariffs on some U.S. nylon from 36.2% to 96.5%, The Wall Street Journal's Market Watch reported on April 22:

China's Commerce Ministry imposed a 96.5% duty on certain types of nylon imports from the U.S., more than doubling a preliminary anti-dumping tariff of 36.2% set in October, according to a report by the Xinhua news agency....

The Obama administration lets China practice mercantilism, the strategy of maximizing exports and minimizing imports. In 2009, we bought $305 billion worth of goods and services from China, while the Chinese government only let its people buy $85 billion worth from us (according to preliminary BEA statistics).

U.S. exports to China would increase if the Obama administration were to insist upon balanced trade, as permitted by a special WTO rule for trade deficit countries. He could impose an across-the-board tariff on all Chinese goods whose rate would be kept proportional to the U.S.-China trade deficit. The Chinese government would then take down its many, many barriers to U.S. products.

----------


## Cutlerzzz

> Well, China has adopted the mercantilist strategy, and it seems to be working for much of Asia, for that matter. In fact, you could throw much of Asia into the mix of countries actually benefiting from "exporting more than they import".


China is growing inspite of tariffs, and not all of Asia is doing so well. Japan has protectionist policies and have found themselves in a depression for 20 years now, one of the longest in history. China has lower taxes, fewer regulations, and they actual save money, that is they are growing. China is also in a bubble right now making things look better than they are. The United States had a trade deficit for its first 100 years of existence, and yet by 1880 we were right behind Britain and Germany for the worlds largest economy. You cannot feed yourself with paper, or warm yourself with gold. You need real products to do so. Imports trade paper for real products that individuals value; that is good for the world. Mercantilism is the idea that paper and gold is wealth that needs to be perpetually accumalted by trading products that people work to produce in exchange for said paper and gold. It's the idea that working is not means to an end, but the end itself. It's the idea that we need a strong central government to guide the economy in order to stop market prices from reaching equalibrium.

You're a good poster and a Ron Paul supporter, it's just frustrating that you don't agree with us on this issue.

----------


## ProIndividual

> Nice job changing the subject again when you cannot defend any of your insane points.


Cutlerzzz, they are like every other coercive point of view on any other subject...those who think government is needed to direct individuals in their lives, regardless of the topics (like trade, immigration, currency competition, drug policy, religious and moral values, etc.,etc.) are either uninformed or sadistic sociopaths who revel in wielding power.

We convinced all the uninformed already...all that remains to debate us are sadists and sociopaths hell-bent on controling our lives. These people HATE that my property rights mean I can trade with whomever I please because it benefits me, not their precious COLLECTIVE. Then they have the nerve to say we are "greedy" or "it is ins't sustainable"...right, like any State in history has ever been sustainable, while every economy recovers after the fall of the State.

We won a long time ago...dogmatism isn't able to concede. We did what good we can...let them bounce their silly ideas off each other in a sound tunnel of echos...that's all they want to do anyway. It's obvious this isn't about a lack of information, it's about a lack of "give a $#@!" for any evidence that doesn't fit their failed case.

I give you mad props for doing so well for so long, but arguing with a wall isn't going to change the wall's mind

----------


## Cutlerzzz

> Cutlerzzz, they are like every other coercive point of view on any other subject...those who think government is needed to direct individuals in their lives, regardless of the topics (like trade, immigration, currency competition, drug policy, religious and moral values, etc.,etc.) are either uninformed or sadistic sociopaths who revel in wielding power.
> 
> We convinced all the uninformed already...all that remains to debate us are sadists and sociopaths hell-bent on controling our lives. These people HATE that my property rights mean I can trade with whomever I please because it benefits me, not their precious COLLECTIVE. Then they have the nerve to say we are "greedy" or "it is ins't sustainable"...right, like any State in history has ever been sustainable, while every economy recovers after the fall of the State.
> 
> We won a long time ago...dogmatism isn't able to concede. We did what good we can...let them bounce their silly ideas off each other in a sound tunnel of echos...that's all they want to do anyway. It's obvious this isn't about a lack of information, it's about a lack of "give a $#@!" for any evidence that doesn't fit their failed case.
> 
> I give you mad props for doing so well for so long, but arguing with a wall isn't going to change the wall's mind


You're probably right. I'll let this topic die now. I have no idea how some on this forum have been debating this for 4 years. Hopefully someone changed their mind somewhere.

----------


## Fox McCloud

I'm going to leave this...right....here:

----------


## nobody's_hero

> You're a good poster and a Ron Paul supporter, it's just frustrating that you don't agree with us on this issue.


Same to you, although, our 'us' is much smaller than your 'us', given the poll results floating around in that other thread.  I think it was around 75% for 'removal of all trade barriers'.

But, despite being in the minority, and despite the fact that those in charge will _never_ listen to the 'protectionists' on RPF, I still waste my time on these issues, when there are more critical issues that we could be working towards. 

It's just . . . hard to stay out of these 'free trade' threads when you're basically seeing the exact opposite in what the free traders assure us is a positive shift for this economy.

----------


## -C-

If what you're advocating is protectionism, such as tarrifs, fixed exchange rates of currencies, and essentially other anti-free trade/market measures....these people here will chew you up and spit you out. Probably ban you once or twice after everyone becomes inflamed and rages at, and about you, for a couple of days.

So stop making sense.

----------


## romacox

> Same to you, although, our 'us' is much smaller than your 'us', given the poll results floating around in that other thread.  I think it was around 75% for 'removal of all trade barriers'.
> 
> But, despite being in the minority, and despite the fact that those in charge will _never_ listen to the 'protectionists' on RPF, I still waste my time on these issues, when *there are more critical issues that we could be working towards*. 
> 
> It's just . . . hard to stay out of these 'free trade' threads when you're basically seeing the exact opposite in what the free traders assure us is a positive shift for this economy.


Yes like end the FED, and their move toward a "Global Governance". That would do wounder take care of all the misinformation in our textbooks since Woodrow Wilson, correct the economy, ext . An audit of the Fed would reveal much truth about these free trade deals.

----------


## Bossobass

> Nope, if other countries want to put import-tariffs & raise the prices of their domestic goods then so be it, we needn't "reciprocate" & raise prices of goods here, that'd be stupidity
> 
> And I find it quite funny that all the "tariffers" seem to think that the only reason the country is where it is because of not having tariffs & if we'd tariffs everything would be great  People are missing the basic point that all of these problems are caused by Fed, warfare-welfare-state, overregulation & overtaxation & if these things are taken care of then there'd be so many businesses who'd want to set up shop here & there'd be so many jobs & productivity that tariffs won't be needed anyway.
> 
> It should be obvious to any rational person that even if tariffs are raised on the manufacturing imports to protect local manufacturing industries, it'd raise the prices quite a bit & there'd be more price inflation than there already is so again, if other countries want to raise their domestic prices then let them but that doesn't mean we should be just as stupid as them. Again, economic problems that are there have been caused by Fed, overregulation & overtaxation so deregulation, cutting taxes & having sound money is the cure, NOT tariffs.


You seem to have it backwards.

If any country has anything we need/want and we have anything they need/want, reciprocity removes the tariffs and other barriers. If that country wishes to only export while placing impossible barriers on imports, (especially when that country engages in dumping and other mafia tactics) while promising to set aside a percentage of the enormous prosperity that results in to perpetuate US government deficit spending for the privilege, tariffs it is. That's free trade in the real world.

Free Traders are all the same. Free trade does not exist and never has and never will. It's a corporate slogan and nothing more.

For those of us who actually still make $#@! people in the rest of the world want to buy, free trade is a bull$#@! sandwich to go with your mug of piss. You face 100% tax, 19% VAT and 6% Duty, but if they have a knock off cheap version of your very same product, order it and it will be at your doorstep in 5 days via air freight, no VAT, no TAX, no DUTY.

Honestly, why people want to take that $#@! for decades while they carry the "Free Trade is GOOD" signs into every public discussion is too baffling for me to comprehend.

Mega corporations do not pay US taxes and can spill a billion gallons of oil in the ocean, cover it up with poisonous chemicals and walk away with impunity while decreeing that the US taxpayer should eat the damages, so spare me the oppressive tax/regulations angle. Taxation and regulations are written by the megas and handed to their congress-slaves to enact to eliminate small business from the equation.

Free trade assures their move offshore will be a 100% success while small business withers on the vine domestically. That's because they know we'd kick the $#@! out of them on a level playing field.

It blows to spend your own money to develop a unique and high quality product because every red cent of available capital goes to the government (and through welfare, straight into the coffers of the megas) and when Indians, Chinese, Europeans, Japanese, etc., contact you wanting to purchase your product, you have to say no because their countries trade barriers double the price of your wares or block them altogether. It blows even more to hear average citizens crying "Free Trade, you dumb whiners!".

Bosso

----------


## Jace

..

----------


## Cutlerzzz

> Same to you, although, our 'us' is much smaller than your 'us', given the poll results floating around in that other thread.  I think it was around 75% for 'removal of all trade barriers'.
> 
> But, despite being in the minority, and despite the fact that those in charge will _never_ listen to the 'protectionists' on RPF, I still waste my time on these issues, when there are more critical issues that we could be working towards. 
> 
> It's just . . . hard to stay out of these 'free trade' threads when you're basically seeing the exact opposite in what the free traders assure us is a positive shift for this economy.


The Fed is still the number 1 issue, and the income tax number 2.

----------


## Paul Or Nothing II

> You seem to have it backwards.
> 
> If any country has anything we need/want and we have anything they need/want, reciprocity removes the tariffs and other barriers. If that country wishes to only export while placing impossible barriers on imports, (especially when that country engages in dumping and other mafia tactics) while promising to set aside a percentage of the enormous prosperity that results in to perpetuate US government deficit spending for the privilege, tariffs it is. That's free trade in the real world.


You can't seem get your economics straight.

The living standards of people in a country depend on the cheap & abundant supply of all the desirable goods/services. Even if a country is blocking our exports, it's hurting it's own people, subjecting them to lesser living standards, & if we "retaliate" then that raises prices of goods in America & less goods are available domestically, they are much costlier than they otherwise would be & thereby Americans are subjected to lower living standards.

Your position of "reciprocity" is like saying you wouldn't buy something from a person unless he buys something from you, imagine how terrible your life will be if YOU PERSONALLY tried to produce everything that others wanted & in return to buy what you want from them, you wouldn't be able to make everything cost-effectively & of high quality & YOUR PERSONAL living standard will be TERRIBLE. Now, apply the same logic to the country as a whole & realize the problems it causes.

If a country doesn't buy anything from us then somebody else will but that's no reason for us to increase costs & lower living standards of Americans by forcing them to buy costlier, less cost-effective goods. If we're getting cheaper goods from someone then that allows our enterpreneurs & local capital to focus on meeting our other demands or demands of those nations who do want our exports & that will create jobs & prosperity for Americans, unnecessarily raising prices & lowering the supply of cheaper products will NOT do that.

And blaming other countries for buying our deficit is just as ludicrous as blaming the banks for giving your loans, well, other countries aren't forcing our government to waste on warfare-welfare, they shouldn't be doing that anyway, this blame-game of blaming other nations for the mistakes of our poor governance is the height of ludicrousness.




> Free Traders are all the same. Free trade does not exist and never has and never will. It's a corporate slogan and nothing more.


Sure, they talk about "free trade" but they're NOT for it, they're for "corporatized regulated managed trade" & blaming REAL free trade because of that is like blaming "patriotism" because of "Patriot Act" is crap. It just doesn't make sense.




> For those of us who actually still make $#@! people in the rest of the world want to buy, free trade is a bull$#@! sandwich to go with your mug of piss. You face 100% tax, 19% VAT and 6% Duty, but if they have a knock off cheap version of your very same product, order it and it will be at your doorstep in 5 days via air freight, no VAT, no TAX, no DUTY.


This is ludicrous, it's GOOD that they're offering us cheap products so we don't need to make them here, so that our enterpreneurs & capital can focus on OTHER stuff that people here need & we'll work on producing those other things cheaply & of high quality here, & if they don't take it from us, who cares, we're getting their stuff cheaply & creating the rest ourselves while their people are forced to pay higher prices & subjected to lower living standards.

You guys here are just playing the political blame-game, if we can't solve our problems then blame someone else for them, that's what you're doing.

AGAIN, our real problems are Fed, unsound currency, over-regulation, over-taxation, socialism wasting savings/capital & corporatized agreements like NAFTA, CAFTA, etc which are NOT free trade, they benefit big corps at the cost of smaller industries, & if these things are gotten rid of then that'll in itself bring lots of jobs, abundant goods/services & higher living standards for America as a whole.




> Honestly, why people want to take that $#@! for decades while they carry the "Free Trade is GOOD" signs into every public discussion is too baffling for me to comprehend.


Yeah, well, that requires understanding economics, the classical economics which has always been about sound money, deregulated markets, minimum taxation & free trade.




> Mega corporations do not pay US taxes and can spill a billion gallons of oil in the ocean, cover it up with poisonous chemicals and walk away with impunity while decreeing that the US taxpayer should eat the damages, so spare me the oppressive tax/regulations angle. Taxation and regulations are written by the megas and handed to their congress-slaves to enact to eliminate small business from the equation.


Why is it SO DIFFICULT for people here to understand that NAFTA, CAFTA, WTO are NOT part of the REAL free trade. Seriously, Ron has been saying this for YEARS. And if Congress isn't doing their job then that's the problem of Congress, raising domestic prices of goods by imposing tariffs on imports & subjecting Americans to higher prices & lower living standards is NOT going to help. And guess what, because Congress does NOT work for the people, all the more reasons to disallow them the ability to impose tariffs because early American history is very clear that politicians have always wanted to put tariffs on competing foreign goods to protect their favored local businesses & thereby allowing local businesses that fund politicians to squeeze much higher prices from the American people. Tariffs even played a significant role in Northern politicians using tariffs to protect Northern businesses & forcing the South to buy much costlier goods.




> Free trade assures their move offshore will be a 100% success while small business withers on the vine domestically. That's because they know we'd kick the $#@! out of them on a level playing field.


Corporations are leaving America because of over-regulation, over-taxation, if they're gotten rid of then many of them around the world would definitely want to set up shop here & create jobs & produce more cheaper, high quality goods/services.

It blows to spend your own money to develop a unique and high quality product because every red cent of available capital goes to the government (and through welfare, straight into the coffers of the megas) and when Indians, Chinese, Europeans, Japanese, etc., contact you wanting to purchase your product, you have to say no because their countries trade barriers double the price of your wares or block them altogether. It blows even more to hear average citizens crying "Free Trade, you dumb whiners!".[/QUOTE] 




> It's important to understand free trade, not just the theory but how it has worked in practice. Free trade has a long history that predates the Athenian Empire. It has been implemented across time with results that are consistent over the centuries. Free trade has winners and losers.


It is extreme intellectual dishonesty of you "tariffers" that it's the classical economics which supports sound free market money, deregulated markets, minimum taxation AND free trade that you hail all its other aspects & yet see free trade as something sinister *facepalm*

How did most of guys find out about Fed & the monatary system, who showed you the right way of going about a sound currency, who told about less taxation & deregulation? It was the classical & Austrian economics & just because you can't understand how free trade works or what REAL free trade is, you start criticizing the same schoool of economics that liberated you from your mainstream regulated, centrally planned economics? REALLY REALLY intellectually dishonest.




> America rose when it had high tariffs while Britain declined under free trade.


America rose INSPITE of tariffs, NOT because, it surpassed Britain, naturally because it was a much much bigger country with more natural & human resources & largely unregulated, untaxed environment allowed it prosper like no other nation ever had but that was INSPITE of tariffs, NOT because of them.

In fact, tariffs had been one of the main tools of favoritism & corporatism within America until the early 20th century because that's the only power politicians had of sucking money out of the Americans, tariffs were regularly used to favor local businesses that bribed politicians & they were a source of enormous corporatism, & they even played a significant role in the Civil War as corporatist Northern politicians had for decades used tariffs on Southern imports in order to make Northern manufacturing goods more competitive as well as to gather government revenue in order to subsidize Northern businesses.

All this nonsense about this guy & that guy was for "free trade" & then he did so & so bad things is ludicrous, they talked about "free trade", in the same way "Patriot Act" is NOT about patriotism, it's a misnomer & misleads people, in the same, they use the word "free trade" when they talk about NAFTA, CAFTA, WTO, etc etc which are NOT the REAL free trade anyway, they're corporatized trade agreements that benefit the biggies & NONE of the free traders here support that.

Again, the problems of America stem from Fed, unsound currency, over-regulation, over-taxation, destruction of capital through socialism & corporatism, unless these issues are resolved, you're going to get America to rise again, & making goods costlier & thereby lowering Americans' living standards by putting tariffs is NOT going to do that.

----------


## The Grinning Maniac

> Your position of "reciprocity" is like saying you wouldn't buy something from a person unless he buys something from you, imagine how terrible your life will be if YOU PERSONALLY tried to produce everything that others wanted & in return to buy what you want from them, you wouldn't be able to make everything cost-effectively & of high quality & YOUR PERSONAL living standard will be TERRIBLE. Now, apply the same logic to the country as a whole & realize the problems it causes.


That logic doesn't follow, because the country as a whole should be capable of producing everything that everyone needs and trading equally. We used to, didn't we? 




> This is ludicrous, it's GOOD that they're offering us cheap products so we don't need to make them here, so that our enterpreneurs & capital can focus on OTHER stuff that people here need & we'll work on producing those other things cheaply & of high quality here


....What things? There's an entire economy's worth of new stuff that the Chinese CAN'T make? Explain. Give me an example. 

As an aside, think of all the creative businesses we could have if we legalized every drug, prostitution and high-explosives for civilian use. 

"Bob's House of Acid and Ass"
(I'm actually slightly serious.)

If we're going to have a service economy, let's get SERIOUS. 

As an aside, I have a question. You'll hate it I'm sure, but what about barring US manufacturers from having their plants overseas if they want to do business with America? Do you see that as having undesirable effects?

----------


## showpan

One of the problems with the free trade argument is that other countries are not on board. They still charge us to do business there but we no longer charge them. This is not going to change anytime soon. Lower tariffs did not result in them doing the same. High tariffs in this country have resulted in at least 150 years of proven growth within this nation. Corrupt politicians have used them to punish others just as people kill, not guns. The only way to accomplish Ron Paul's goal of 0 taxes would be e return to the old system that made this country the biggest industrialized nation in the world. High tariffs and no taxes. He would also eliminate the many regulations that have been designed to steal money and kill our growth and jobs. This would essentially set up a "free market" within this country and wean us off the dependency of the British....oops, I mean the Chinese who can now buy up our land and contribute as much as they want to Obama's campaign.
I do actually want a free market....I want it here. 
I do not want to be the worlds halfway house, police, bank, enablers...or whatever else they have planned for us.

----------


## showpan

it double posted again...lol

----------


## Paul Or Nothing II

> That logic doesn't follow, because the country as a whole should be capable of producing everything that everyone needs and trading equally. We used to, didn't we?


Here's what is NOT logical. Raising prices on domestic goods by imposing tariffs, which means goods are costlier for Americans to buy, which means they'll be able to enjoy LESS goods/services & therefore, have a lower living standard.

Again, let's say you decide that YOU PERSONALLY would make your own fridge, your own TV, grow your own food on your land, etc etc How efficient would that be? Would you be able to make everything & do it as well as it can be done? Probably not. So isn't it more efficient if you'd focus on doing things that you CAN do well & buy rest of the stuff cheaply & cost-effectively from others who CAN make it more cost-effectively from others from the income you have?

The idea that a country should be able to meet all its citizens' needs is chimerical & only those people who believe in CENTRAL-PLANNING would contemplate anything like that. Freedom & free markets DON'T work like that.

When you've freedom, people will want to buy the most cost-effective goods/services so putting unnecessary costs by putting tariffs & thereby raising prices & lowering people's living standards does NOT help. Again, if someone is providing us with goods more cost-effectively AND if we're not over-regulated & over-taxed then enterpreneurs here will move our local labor & capital to meet our OTHER local demands that they CAN meet more easily, not to mention capital from other countries will also come here as well & create OTHER goods/services more cost-effectively & improve living standards of America as a whole.




> ....What things? There's an entire economy's worth of new stuff that the Chinese CAN'T make? Explain. Give me an example.


Here's the thing, I don't believe in communist central-planning so I don't know what goods/services enterpreneurs will be interested in producing if we're NOT over-regulated & over-taxed & allow freedom to prosper but if they're given an unregulated untaxed market to work with then they'll produce things that have a demand in America as well as in other countries & things that they CAN do well.

Some of you people here act as if China is the only country that exists other than US & like China is some cornucopia that produces everything & does it really well, when that's NOT the truth at all. Our problems are local, over-regulation that's choking enterpreneurship & over-taxation & socialism that's destroying capital, & causing the capital to run to other countries, these issues need fixing & things will automatically get better if we let freedom work its magic, for the most part, freedom is what turned destitute slave colonies into the most powerful Republic ever.




> As an aside, think of all the creative businesses we could have if we legalized every drug, prostitution and high-explosives for civilian use. 
> 
> "Bob's House of Acid and Ass"
> (I'm actually slightly serious.)
> 
> If we're going to have a service economy, let's get SERIOUS.


Service economy is what developed countries depend on, it's a natural progression while developing countries depend highly on labor-intensive LOW-PAID manufacturing; if a country/government tries to "direct" capital & labor into a certain industry against the natural inclination of the markets then that only hurts the people even more; and besides, if we're "lucky" to have an economic collapse & thereby see a tremendous drop in our living standards & income-expectations then we might see more manufacturing jobs coming back in as well as more destitution & poverty like we see in China, India, etc I'm sure you guys will love it then 




> As an aside, I have a question. You'll hate it I'm sure, but what about barring US manufacturers from having their plants overseas if they want to do business with America? Do you see that as having undesirable effects?


It's economic effects aside, if you believe in government dictatorship & that Americans don't deserve their freedoms then nothing wrong with that 

On the side of economics, if an American business is producing the same goods more cost-effectively overseas then blocking them again has the effect of unnecessarily forcing Americans to buy more costlier goods than they need to, which means they're subjected to lower living standards than they would've'd otherwise.

On the issue of "lost jobs", it again comes down to the question of WHY? Why do businesses leave America? The answer again, comes down to over-regulation choking enterpreneurship, & over-taxation & socialism destroying capital, & causing the capital to go overseas. If we've free markets then we'll've enough jobs & goods/services & a good living standard that we won't be bothered about some American companies going overseas or China using tariffs on our exports to the effect of lowering THEIR people's living standards.




> One of the problems with the free trade argument is that other countries are not on board.


As has been pointed out many a times, it does NOT matter. Putting retaliatory tariffs on our imports only raises our domestic prices & thereby Americans are able to enjoy LESS goods/services than they otherwise would & that lowers Americans' living standards; subjecting one's own citizens to lower living standards because some other country is doing it to their citizens is stupidity.

As I've said, if China blocks our exports then that labor & capital which goes into things that we export to them, will go into other areas, & into other local & foreign demands for goods/services, the labor & capital merely relocates. Again, the REAL problem today is that of over-regulation choking enterpreneurship & over-taxation & socialism destroying American capital & causing American capital to go overseas as well as capital in other countries is reluctant to come here due to over-regulation & over-taxation so solving these issues are the crux of the matter; putting tariffs on imports is like treating the symptoms instead of treating the disease, that's doesn't help.




> They still charge us to do business there but we no longer charge them.


They aren't charging "us", they're essentially charging THEIR PEOPLE & forcing them to pay higher prices on our products while allowing local corporations to make higher profits at the expense of ordinary people & thereby subjecting THEIR PEOPLE to lower living standards, we ought NOT to do the same to our people.




> High tariffs in this country have resulted in at least 150 years of proven growth within this nation.


Nope, America grew IN SPITE of politicians & corporations raping Americans with higher costs & tariffs, NOT because of it. America grew because it was a largely unregulated, untaxed market which allowed enterpreneurial spirit to prosper & allowed labor & capital to be go into productive areas AND America & Americans would've been BETTER OFF without politicians & corporatist businesses looting American people with tariffs & higher prices for goods/services.




> Corrupt politicians have used them to punish others just as people kill, not guns.


This is how socialists also argue that just because politicians misuse regulation doesn't mean we shouldn't have regulation but such arguments are fallacious to the core, politicians always have & always will misuse their power to benefit those businesses that bribe & fund them, back then they used tariffs, today they do it in the name of "regulation" so if you get rid of regulation & hand tariffs back to them then they'll again use them to benefit their favored businesses so that they could make higher profits at the expense of American people paying higher prices for goods & having lower living standards. 




> The only way to accomplish Ron Paul's goal of 0 taxes would be e return to the old system that made this country the biggest industrialized nation in the world. High tariffs and no taxes.


As has been pointed out many a times before, tariffs DEFINITELY are a TAX on the American people as American people are forced to pay much higher prices for goods, & what's worse is that tariffs are an inequitable form of taxation, a socialist type of tax since not every American will buy imported goods & not every American will buy them to the same extent, so some Americans will be paying higher tariff-tax than others which is akin to a policy adopted by socialist governments that think they can treat all their citizens differently but in a free society, that should NOT happen, all Americans MUST be treated EQUALLY by their government & thus, the tax must equal or equitable, which is where tariffs fail completely.




> He would also eliminate the many regulations that have been designed to steal money and kill our growth and jobs.


If that much is done then you won't need tariffs anyway; further, tariffs are ALSO a form of market regulation which also needs to be done away with in order to rid ourselves of favoritism & corporatism.




> This would essentially set up a "free market" 
> I do actually want a free market....I want it here.


Tariffs are incompatible with free markets, tariffs are used to protect inefficient businesses at the expense of more efficient businesses & at the expense of American people.

----------


## showpan

> Here's what is NOT logical. Raising prices on domestic goods by imposing tariffs, which means goods are costlier for Americans to buy, which means they'll be able to enjoy LESS goods/services & therefore, have a lower living standard.


Tariffs do not raise the price for goods made and sold here. They raise the price on cheap foreign goods that in many cases have been copied and use slave and child labor. Your logic is flawed because of this and the fact that most of what we export are decent paying jobs and now 1/4 of this country has a living standard comparable to a 3rd world country. Tariffs are still imposed on our goods and China is doing quite well, their people aren't, but their economy makes ours look silly now that we have chewed our own feet off.





> The idea that a country should be able to meet all its citizens' needs is chimerical & only those people who believe in CENTRAL-PLANNING would contemplate anything like that. Freedom & free markets DON'T work like that.


There is no such things as a free market.




> When you've freedom, people will want to buy the most cost-effective goods/services so putting unnecessary costs by putting tariffs & thereby raising prices & lowering people's living standards does NOT help. Again, if someone is providing us with goods more cost-effectively AND if we're not over-regulated & over-taxed then enterpreneurs here will move our local labor & capital to meet our OTHER local demands that they CAN meet more easily, not to mention capital from other countries will also come here as well & create OTHER goods/services more cost-effectively & improve living standards of America as a whole.


This country is dying....see my first response.








> Some of you people here act as if China is the only country that exists other than US & like China is some cornucopia that produces everything & does it really well, when that's NOT the truth at all. Our problems are local, over-regulation that's choking enterpreneurship & over-taxation & socialism that's destroying capital, & causing the capital to run to other countries, these issues need fixing & things will automatically get better if we let freedom work its magic, for the most part, freedom is what turned destitute slave colonies into the most powerful Republic ever.


It's not socialism that has destroyed capitol, it's greed.





> Service economy is what developed countries depend on, it's a natural progression while developing countries depend highly on labor-intensive LOW-PAID manufacturing; if a country/government tries to "direct" capital & labor into a certain industry against the natural inclination of the markets then that only hurts the people even more; and besides, if we're "lucky" to have an economic collapse & thereby see a tremendous drop in our living standards & income-expectations then we might see more manufacturing jobs coming back in as well as more destitution & poverty like we see in China, India, etc I'm sure you guys will love it then


This country will not and cannot survive on a service economy. You are not going to take 10 Million people from manufacturing and turn them into "doctors and lawyers"....instead, what has actually happened, is that some of them now work at Walmart and McDonalds......how much of a pay cut was it? The rest are still unemployed. Developed nations like we once were, rely on manufacturing to support service. As more and more people get fired, more and more "service" jobs and companies are disappearing. It's happening weekly, companies closing, more people are unemployed. Less taxes are collected, and now the government is on the verge of financial ruin, along with 1/4 of the countries population. We are in a depression.






> It's economic effects aside, if you believe in government dictatorship & that Americans don't deserve their freedoms then nothing wrong with that


Corporate fascism is taking hold and it is the direct result of dismantling a strong middle class. Without money and jobs, the people cannot fight back.




> On the side of economics, if an American business is producing the same goods more cost-effectively overseas then blocking them again has the effect of unnecessarily forcing Americans to buy more costlier goods than they need to, which means they're subjected to lower living standards than they would've'd otherwise.


Again, the living standards have already been lowered by the removal of tariffs. The unemployment in this country is a direct result of NAFTA. Immigration is an indirect result.




> On the issue of "lost jobs", it again comes down to the question of WHY? Why do businesses leave America? The answer again, comes down to over-regulation choking enterpreneurship, & over-taxation & socialism destroying capital, & causing the capital to go overseas. If we've free markets then we'll've enough jobs & goods/services & a good living standard that we won't be bothered about some American companies going overseas or China using tariffs on our exports to the effect of lowering THEIR people's living standards.


*Why did companies leave, they were payed to leave*. 






> As has been pointed out many a times, it does NOT matter. Putting retaliatory tariffs on our imports only raises our domestic prices & thereby Americans are able to enjoy LESS goods/services than they otherwise would & that lowers Americans' living standards; subjecting one's own citizens to lower living standards because some other country is doing it to their citizens is stupidity.


Stupid is what we have now, dog food that kills, drywall that makes people sick, baby toys that make them ill. Less choice, higher prices, smaller cans, less services....you are like opposite day. 




> As I've said, if China blocks our exports then that labor & capital which goes into things that we export to them, will go into other areas, & into other local & foreign demands for goods/services, the labor & capital merely relocates. Again, the REAL problem today is that of over-regulation choking enterpreneurship & over-taxation & socialism destroying American capital & causing American capital to go overseas as well as capital in other countries is reluctant to come here due to over-regulation & over-taxation so solving these issues are the crux of the matter; putting tariffs on imports is like treating the symptoms instead of treating the disease, that's doesn't help.


NAFTA and the FED killed this country...without jobs, people can't survive, they loose their homes, they can't buy cars, they can't buy food, they can't pay taxes...local government can no longer survive, state governments start to go bankrupt and federal government is doomed......if you think that this wasn't planned, you are still sleeping.

----------


## Paul Or Nothing II

> Tariffs do not raise the price for goods made and sold here. They raise the price on cheap foreign goods that in many cases have been copied and use slave and child labor.


Yes, tariffs block cheaper imports which means people here are FORCED to buy COSTLIER local products & their living standard goes down because MORE of their income is spent on buying LESS goods/services.

And most of those people in China are NOT slaves, they get PAID for their work & they can leave the work & choose another one, that's NOT slavery unless you're going to be making COMMUNIST "wage slavery" argument which wouldn't be surprising at all with all the anti-freedom communist arguments you're making anyway.

There's nothing wrong as such about child-labor either, if those children don't work what they can then their family's income goes down & most would be starved & die anyway.




> *Tariffs are still imposed on our goods and China is doing quite well, their people aren't*


Eventually the TRUTH comes out, china & its businesses are doing very well because of tariffs but *NOT its people* & that's exactly what tariffs do, they help the government & businesses make more money *BUT the people suffer*




> There is no such things as a free market.


Of course not when there are so many communists/socialists like you in the world who believe in leeching off other people 




> It's not socialism that has destroyed capitol, it's greed.


Typical communist/socialist response, making generic statements & then suggesting anti-liberty anti-freedom communist/socialist COERCIVE "solutions"




> You are not going to take 10 Million people from manufacturing and turn them into "doctors and lawyers"....instead, what has actually happened, is that some of them now work at Walmart and McDonalds......how much of a pay cut was it? The rest are still unemployed.


So you want OTHERS to pay HIGHER PRICES & thereby have lower living standard just so that these 10 million could be better off? *That's exactly what defines socialism, some people FORCED to suffer for others*

Who says they need to be "doctors & lawyers"? They don't. They should earn according to what work they're capable of doing or improve/increase their skills in order to command higher wages, that's how a NON-communist/socialist free society works ie people earn according to their skill & talent.

Again, I've mentioned over & over again, tariffs are NOT going to magically solve these problems, the real problems are Fed, over-regulation, over-taxation & destruction of capital through socialism & causing the capital to go overseas; and UNLESS these things are gotten rid of NOTHING is going to change, putting tariffs will just raise prices & lower the living standard of the country as a whole.




> Developed nations like we once were, rely on manufacturing to support service. As more and more people get fired, more and more "service" jobs and companies are disappearing. It's happening weekly, companies closing, more people are unemployed. Less taxes are collected, and now the government is on the verge of financial ruin, along with 1/4 of the countries population. We are in a depression.


See above.

Tariffs are NOT going to solve any of these problems & it's sheer economic ignorance to think otherwise, tariffs will only raise prices & lower the living standard of America as a whole.




> Corporate fascism is taking hold and it is the direct result of dismantling a strong middle class. Without money and jobs, the people cannot fight back.


And tariffs will make people even poorer as the income is further "redistributed" by forcing some people to pay higher prices for goods for the sake of other people securing a little higher wage; the prosperity of the country is dictated by the amount of goods/services available within the country & blocking cheaper products to protect costlier products leads to REDUCTION in the amount of goods/services available within the country & the general living standard of Americans is lowered & they become poorer, just like they do under ANY form of socialism INCLUDING tariff-related socialism.




> Again, the living standards have already been lowered by the removal of tariffs. The unemployment in this country is a direct result of NAFTA. Immigration is an indirect result.


Again, living standards have been lowered by Fed, over-regulation, over-taxation, socialism destroying the capital & causing it to go overseas; just putting tariffs is NOT going to make things right, it's another kind of socialism & only a way of raising prices & lowering living standards further. Until the aforementioned issues are gotten rid of, things are not going to improve.




> *Why did companies leave, they were payed to leave*.


Another ridiculous conspiracy theory *facepalm* It's possible that SOME of the conspiracy theories are true but that does NOT mean that EVERYTIHNG is a conspiracy.

They left because it was unprofitable for them to run their businesses here & wage-laws, over-regulation & over-taxation, etc were the main reasons.




> Stupid is what we have now, dog food that kills, drywall that makes people sick, baby toys that make them ill. Less choice, higher prices, smaller cans, less services....you are like opposite day.


None of that is going to improve by putting tariffs & thereby forcing people to pay higher prices & lower their living standard.

And it's not even funny that you're accusing me of the things that you are because if we look at your approach at the economy as a whole, YOU are the one who wants LESS CHOICES by blocking foreign products, YOU want HIGHER PRICES by blocking CHEAPER foreign products.




> NAFTA and the FED killed this country...without jobs, people can't survive, they loose their homes, they can't buy cars, they can't buy food, they can't pay taxes...local government can no longer survive, state governments start to go bankrupt and federal government is doomed......if you think that this wasn't planned, you are still sleeping.


And if you think tariffs are going to fix all these problems then YOU are sleeping. Seriously, it's not even funny that you overlook the REAL problems & trumpet for your socialist policy of tariffs which is completely based on DOGMA & NOT on reason, logic & SOUND ECONOMICS.

----------


## Jace

..

----------


## showpan

> So you want OTHERS to pay HIGHER PRICES & thereby have lower living standard just so that these 10 million could be better off? *That's exactly what defines socialism, some people FORCED to suffer for others*
> 
> Who says they need to be "doctors & lawyers"? They don't. They should earn according to what work they're capable of doing or improve/increase their skills in order to command higher wages, that's how a NON-communist/socialist free society works ie people earn according to their skill & talent.


You must really hate Americans. Just because you keep repeating your lies does not make it truth. It's more like 25 MILLION who have to suffer so that a handful of elitists can make more money from their shares. How can anyone earn what they are worth when the only manufacturing jobs are making Big Macs. It is clear what you think about other people.

Citigroup Plutonomy Report Part 1 
Oct 16, 2005

- The World is dividing into two blocs - the Plutonomy and the rest.  
The U.S., UK, and Canada are the key Plutonomies - economies powered by the wealthy. Continental Europe (ex-Italy) and Japan are in the egalitarian bloc.

- Equity risk premium embedded in "global imbalances" are unwarranted.  
In plutonomies the rich absorb a disproportionate chunk of the economy and have a massive impact on reported aggregate numbers like savings rates, current account deficits, consumption levels, etc.  

This imbalance in inequality expresses itself in the standard scary "global imbalances". We worry less.

- There is no "average consumer" in a Plutonomy.   

Indeed, traditional thinking is likely to have issues with most of it.  We will posit that:  
the world is dividing into two blocs - the plutonomies, where economic growth is powered by and largely consumed by the wealthy few, and the rest.  
Plutonomies have occurred before in sixteenth century Spain, in seventeenth century Holland, the Gilded Age and the Roaring Twenties in the U.S.  

What are the common drivers of Plutonomy?

Disruptive technology-driven productivity gains, 
creative financial innovation, 
capitalist-friendly cooperative governments, 
an international dimension of immigrants and 
overseas conquests invigorating wealth creation, 
the rule of law, and 
patenting inventions.  

Often these wealth waves involve great complexity, exploited best by the rich and educated of the time.          

We project that the plutonomies (the U.S., UK, and Canada) will likely see even more income inequality, disproportionately feeding off a further rise in the profit share in their economies, capitalist-friendly governments, more technology-driven productivity, and globalization.

In a plutonomy there is no such animal as "the U.S. consumer" or "the UK consumer", or indeed the "Russian consumer".  
There are rich consumers, few in number, but disproportionate in the gigantic slice of income and consumption they take. There are the rest, the "non-rich", the multitudinous many, but only accounting for surprisingly small bites of the national pie. i.e., focus on the "average" consumer are flawed from the start.

Citigroup Plutonomy Report Part 2 
Mar 5 2006

RISKS -- WHAT COULD GO WRONG? 
Our whole plutonomy thesis is based on the idea that the rich will keep getting richer. This thesis is not without its risks. For example, a policy error leading to asset deflation, would likely damage plutonomy. Furthermore, the rising wealth gap between the rich and poor will probably at some point lead to a political backlash. Whilst the rich are getting a greater share of the wealth, and the poor a lesser share, political enfrachisement remains as was -- one person, one vote (in the plutonomies). At some point it is likely that labor will fight back against the rising profit share of the rich and there will be a political backlash against the rising wealth of the rich. This could be felt through higher taxation on the rich (or indirectly though higher corporate taxes/regulation) or through trying to protect indigenous [home-grown] laborers, in a push-back on globalization -- either anti-mmigration, or protectionism. We don’t see this happening yet, though there are signs of rising political tensions. However we are keeping a close eye on developments.

----------


## romacox

For me the wake up call came in a serious of events as a business owner since 1984.  I noticed we had to take many twists and turns in what we sold to succeed, but for many years thought it was normal "supply and demand" coupled with competition, at work.

Coming from a family of farmers and ranchers, I knew what had happened to them, and listened to their warnings.

 I had no clue that what  happened to the farmers and ranchers was now happening to the business world until a few  years ago. We were installing windows and doors for several different companies like Sears, Home Depot, independent builders. Norandex, individuals ext.

1.  One of the companies we installed for had an unusually good salesman...one of the few that did accurate measurements.  He suddenly quit when the company sold out to an international corporation, and he said something that still haunts me.  He said, "big changes are coming, and you installers had better stick together", but he said no more.

2.  In Florida workman's comp costs a minimum of 20,000 per year for the construction industry (every State is different).  However if one has no more than 3 owners on the payroll, they can hire up to 2 employees, and file for Workman's Comp Exemption. 

 Suddenly the companies we were installing for decreased the amount they were willing to pay, and insisted that we had to obtain workman's comp on everyone regardless of the law.  It did not make much sense, but I still wasn't getting the whole picture. We did some digging, and found that by using a payroll service geared to the Construction industry, they could provide us affordable workman's comp ins. However eventually the corporations said we could no longer use the payroll service. Interestingly enough, even the Workman's comp office issued warnings against using payroll services in this manner, *which made retaining our legal employees impossible..
*
3.  The small builders were going out of business as bigger and bigger building corporations took over.  The inspection codes that the small builders had to adhere to were still on the books, but now being ignored. Roofs (among many other things) were improperly done, and the City inspectors were passing them.  If a City inspector passes a home, the builder and City are protected from a law suits. The inspections were suppose to protect the homeowner, but now protects the builder instead.

4. The walls and concrete slabs had always been properly prepared so our installations were accomplished in one trip. But suddenly walls were crooked, and the slab was not properly prepared.  My husband and crew made 3 trips explaining to one slab layer what had to be corrected so that they could install the sliding glass door.  Each time the man shook his  head indicating he understood. On the last trip we discovered he spoke no English, and could not read blue prints.

5.  One of the corporations we worked for offered us the following:  if we hired two  companies (ones they chose) under us as subcontractors, they would pay us $1000.00 per week per company, and the corporation would take care of payroll. We ran the usual background check, and discovered the two owners had DWIs, and could not legally drive, could not obtain liability insurance, or workman's comp.  Due to the liability, we turned the deal down.  We lost the work, but the two illegal employers and their employees were hired...I guess they had someone willing to accept the offer.

That is when I knew something was wrong, and began to do major research to figure out what was happening.  I discovered that the very same game played on the farmers and ranchers are now being played on workers and small business owners. It is the same game the British Empire used to gain control of their various colonies, but now it is on a global scale.    

6.  Even more recently I have been researching old documents, and comparing them with newer ones. (old dictionaries with new ones, original Constitution with amended one, older text books with newer ones. ext).  I am totally blown away with what I am discovering.

Our Founding Fathers and history was definitely  not perfect, but it is no where near as bad as we have been taught.  Many word definitions from the time of our Founding Fathers to now have a totally opposite definition making understanding of the Constitution all askew.   All roads point to this having all started under Woodrow Wilson, and his creation of the Federal Reserve (Central Banks).

Having studied some sociology and psychology I know a  big red flag is when people say words like *all, always or never.*...like "all tariffs are bad."   History shows some have been used for bad purposes, but some have accomplished good results as the Founding Fathers intended them to do.

P.S. other industries are reporting similarly.  Here is one about the FAA licensing people to work on planes who cannot speak English  http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-260490

----------


## Cutlerzzz

> Having studied some sociology and psychology I know a  big red flag is when people say words like *all, always or never.*...like "all tariffs are bad."   History shows some have been used for bad purposes, but some have accomplished good results as the Founding Fathers intended them to do.


How about "all rape is bad"? Or "all theft is bad"?

----------


## romacox

> How about "all rape is bad"? Or "all theft is bad"?


I usually don't like to get involved in taking a whole article out of context by discussing one very small portion of it. But...

I said red flags...you do understand that term, right?  Besides that, show me where history has ever indicated theft or rape was ever anything but bad.

----------


## Cutlerzzz

> I usually don't like to get involved in taking a whole article out of context by discussing one very small portion of it. But...
> 
> I said red flags...you do understand that term, right?  Besides that, show me where history has ever indicated theft or rape was ever anything but bad.


I agree. Theft and rape is always bad. So we agree that taxes are all bad.

----------


## therepublic

> I agree. Theft and rape is always bad. So we agree that taxes are all bad.


You argue about a small tick, and miss the elephant in the room.  Your question has already been answered in earlier posts. Go back and reread them.

----------


## Cutlerzzz

> You argue about a small tick, and miss the elephant in the room.  Your question has already been answered in earlier posts. Go back and reread them.


Small tick? Locking people in jail for not sending their paycheck to the government is a small tick?

----------


## The Grinning Maniac

First of all stop calling everything and everyone communist/socialist. Its an annoying catch phrase and it makes you look foolish. 

You just said that word again. I dont think it means what you think it means 
Princess Bride

I am firmly capitalist. I just know a rigged game when I see one.




> Here's what is NOT logical. Raising prices on domestic goods by imposing tariffs, which means goods are costlier for Americans to buy, which means they'll be able to enjoy LESS goods/services & therefore, have a lower living standard.


This is not necessarily true. I really only have anecdotal evidence to go on, but from what I understand and have observed, prices of products have not uniformly gone down since labor has moved offshore. In many cases, the difference has just ended up in producers pockets. Former bigwigs of Wal-Mart have admitted as much. They stressed moving production to Asia in order to boost profits and raise stock prices.  (PBS documentary on Wal-Mart. Google it.)

I dont think the prices of products would have to change if companies reverted their profit margins to what they were pre-offshoring. However, I do agree with you that government regulations could be trimmed back. Not eliminated to the base level of China, but trimmed in order to make things easier. I think I might start a thread one of these days to discuss what could be practically done/list ridiculous regulatory costs. But thats another day.




> Here's the thing, I don't believe in communist central-planning so I don't know what goods/services enterpreneurs will be interested in producing if we're NOT over-regulated & over-taxed & allow freedom to prosper but if they're given an unregulated untaxed market to work with then they'll produce things that have a demand in America as well as in other countries & things that they CAN do well.


Heres the youre a communist if you dont believe what I do thing again. Please stop. Youre not understanding.what CAN they produce? What could these entrepreneurs possible produce that a competitor operating in a low-wage country couldnt undercut them on? What could they invent that couldnt be reverse-engineered in China and sent back to us at a lower cost than production? 

If its a technical service, what would it be that you couldnt get Indians to do for cheaper? Product design? Web design? Graphic design? What isnt vulnerable? If its agricultural, Mexico can do it. Youre waving your hand and saying freedom will take care of it. But one-sided free trade hasnt worked.

Wouldn't people having better-paying jobs give them more money with which to start businesses? Wouldn't removing the threat of being unfairly undercut by low-wage competitors make people more likely to start a business? I know I'd be more interested.

Heres what I want you to answer: Why would companies ever come back to this country if they have the option of operating where they can pay wages that are next to nothing? Do you think removing all regulations would cause them to ignore that huge selling point? Or do you want Americans to work for Chinese wages too? At which point, doesnt our standard of living go down from where it is right now, regardless of all this new freedom?

----------


## therepublic

> Small tick? Locking people in jail for not sending their paycheck to the government is a small tick?


What does that have to do with tariffs or the price of tea in China?  Picking one sentence out of context, and hijacking the conversation in a direction that has nothing to do with the OP is a waste of  time. * Instead tell us what you are about.  Are you against all taxes?  If so explain.  Are you an anarchist?  If not how would you fund a government?*

----------


## therepublic

OK, now for those of you who are not hijacking the conversation by taking things out of context (those who are communicating your personal beliefs), please continue.  I was enjoying your writings.

----------


## ProIndividual

> Instead tell us what you are about. Are you against all taxes? If so explain. Are you an anarchist? If not how would you fund a government?


_Do excuse me Cutlerzz, while I step in and take this dance._


A government shouldn't be so large as to require theft to fund itself. Maybe a truely limited government would have donations, a lottery, or user fees fund it. Maybe the State didn't need to grow with percentage of GDP, and population. Perhaps the State could of stayed relatively the same size as Constitutionally it is only supposed to do like 16 things. None of those things, with few exceptions, needed to be grown continuously along with our personal per person wealth or population. 

So what would fund the government? Anything but theft. As tariffs are a tax on the consumer, not the importer (no tax is paid by corporations or traders, it's paid by the coonsumer at the point of final sale), it is also theft.

This is not difficult to understand.

And I am an anarchist. Since you think that disqualifies my opinion, I'll not stick around for your STATIST reply.

----------


## axiomata

> This is not necessarily true. I really only have anecdotal evidence to go on, but from what I understand and have observed, prices of products have not uniformly gone down since labor has moved offshore. In many cases, the difference has just ended up in producers pockets. Former bigwigs of Wal-Mart have admitted as much. They stressed moving production to Asia in order to boost profits and raise stock prices.  (PBS documentary on Wal-Mart. Google it.)


How does an admitted desire to boost profits and and raise stock prices necessarily equate with a rise in merchandise prices? In fact the opposite is true. Walmart has boosted it's profits and stock prices by continuously undercutting it's competitors.

----------


## axiomata

> I want not so much free trade as the spirit of free trade for my country.* Free trade means a little more wealth; the spirit of free trade is a reform of the mind itself, that is to say, the source of all reforms.


-Bastiat

----------


## therepublic

> _Do excuse me Cutlerzz, while I step in and take this dance._
> 
> 
> A government shouldn't be so large as to require theft to fund itself. Maybe a truely limited government would have donations, a lottery, or user fees fund it. Maybe the State didn't need to grow with percentage of GDP, and population. Perhaps the State could of stayed relatively the same size as Constitutionally it is only supposed to do like 16 things. None of those things, with few exceptions, needed to be grown continuously along with our personal per person wealth or population. 
> 
> So what would fund the government? Anything but theft. As tariffs are a tax on the consumer, not the importer (no tax is paid by corporations or traders, it's paid by the coonsumer at the point of final sale), it is also theft.
> 
> This is not difficult to understand.
> 
> And I am an anarchist. Since you think that disqualifies my opinion, I'll not stick around for your STATIST reply.


Being an anarchist does not disqualify you.  Thanks for being real, and not hiding behind others words.  I may not agree with you, but do find sincerity, and different opinions interesting.

----------


## romacox

> Being an anarchist does not disqualify you.  Thanks for being real, and not hiding behind others words.  I may not agree with you, but do find sincerity, and different opinions interesting.


I don't totally agree with anarchy either, but their ideas are quite relevant.  They help point out that government does not need to  provide as many services as most of the rest of us think.  But keeping it real is the only way to communicate with any possibility of understanding. Thanks proindividual, and therepublic

----------


## ProIndividual

> Being an anarchist does not disqualify you. Thanks for being real, and not hiding behind others words. I may not agree with you, but do find sincerity, and different opinions interesting.


Thanks...I feel the same way. Sorry I inferred you disqualified me.

----------


## ProIndividual

> Thanks proindividual, and therepublic


Thank you too romacox.

----------


## romacox

> _Do excuse me Cutlerzz, while I step in and take this dance._
> 
> 
> A government shouldn't be so large as to require theft to fund itself. Maybe a truely limited government would have donations, a lottery, or user fees fund it. Maybe the State didn't need to grow with percentage of GDP, and population. Perhaps the State could of stayed relatively the same size as Constitutionally it is only supposed to do like 16 things. None of those things, with few exceptions, needed to be grown continuously along with our personal per person wealth or population. 
> 
> So what would fund the government? Anything but theft. As tariffs are a tax on the consumer, not the importer (no tax is paid by corporations or traders, it's paid by the coonsumer at the point of final sale), it is also theft.
> 
> This is not difficult to understand.
> 
> And I am an anarchist. Since you think that disqualifies my opinion, I'll not stick around for your STATIST reply.


ProIndividual, I have a question.

1.  Don't all anarchists believe in no government what so ever...nada,  zilch, or do some believe in a limited government? I am thinking that If there is no government at all there would be no government to donate to.  

Here are the 18 enumerated powers given to Congress by the Constitution:  
1. The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts (tariffs) and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

2.  To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

3. To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

4.  To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

5. To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

6.  To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

7.  To establish Post Offices and post roads

8.  To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

9.  To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

10.  To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

11.  To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

12. To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

13. To provide and maintain a Navy;

14.  To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

15. To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

16. To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

17.  To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

18.  To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

I assume anarchists would do away with number one...the power to tax.  Are there any others they would eliminate?

P.S. I am assuming that if there is no government, there is no need for a Constitution either.  Is that correct?

----------


## Fox McCloud

> I assume anarchists would do away with number one...the power to tax.  Are there any others they would eliminate?
> 
> P.S. I am assuming that if there is no government, there is no need for a Constitution either.  Is that correct?


2-18 would go as well...and yes, we anarchists believe that the Constitution is not needed...and, as a matter of fact, a gross abuse of state power in comparison to...say, the Articles of Confederation.

Going back to the Constitution, right now, would be amazing...but once we're there, we need to roll the Constitution itself back.

----------


## showpan

> How does an admitted desire to boost profits and and raise stock prices necessarily equate with a rise in merchandise prices? In fact the opposite is true. Walmart has boosted it's profits and stock prices by continuously undercutting it's competitors.


I can go to Walmart and find higher prices on certain items than Ace Hardware for example. The only reason that Ace wasn't closed like the other smaller retail stores here was because they also sell lumber and hardware that Walmart doesn't sell. When Walmart opened here, they used cheaper prices to get rid of the competition. Once those stores closed, prices went up and are now higher than what those other stores were. As their prices went up, more and more people are now buying from the internet. This will soon change as sales taxes will become a reality for internet sales. Guess who lobbied for that?

----------


## Fox McCloud

> I can go to Walmart and find higher prices on certain items than Ace Hardware for example. The only reason that Ace wasn't closed like the other smaller retail stores here was because they also sell lumber and hardware that Walmart doesn't sell. When Walmart opened here, they used cheaper prices to get rid of the competition. Once those stores closed, prices went up and are now higher than what those other stores were. As their prices went up, more and more people are now buying from the internet. This will soon change as sales taxes will become a reality for internet sales. Guess who lobbied for that?


(1) Predatory pricing isn't a very legit strategy and hasn't been practiced much as it's easily circumvented (ie: slowing your own business down and/or start buying their prodcuts and sell them at an ever so slight markup)....just try going to your manager and start telling him to sell things at a loss...I guarantee it won't go over well.

(2)Even if this _did_ work, and they raised their prices once competition was gone, then the other businesses (or similar ones) could come back in and, again, undercut the person who engaged in predatory pricing+price raising...making the "predatory pricers" original goal a complete and total moot point.

Also, care to provide any evidence that Walmart is lobbying for it? It's not like they'd get off scott-clean, either--they have an internet branch, as well.

Take for example, the case of Herbert Dow: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V6dD-ifIr8s

----------


## ProIndividual

Anarchists believe in allowing others (minarchists) to have voluntary government, but will not voluntarily take part in them. In this meaning, anarchists are not opposed to government, they are opposed to the State (the monopoly on government, or the monopoly on the social contract). In fact, for 80% of human history we had no State, but did have government. Go to Wikipedia and search "stateless society", or "stateless", you should see what I mean. It's not that we say it's all peaches and cream without the State either...we say of evils, liberty is the lesser, of virtues it is the greater, in all things it is liberty that has the preferable results. All bad results exist, but to a lesser extent because there is no uniform effects widespread by force of threat of violence or law. No, anarchists are not out to abolish government (we want self government ourselves), we are out to abolish coercion, and therefore the State.

So you are free to fund your government, I'll fund mine (myself). 

There doesn't need to be one monopolized social contract in one area deemed by whatever gang holds the power, and subverts the rest of the gangs. This concept of "gang turf" is how most of us (people in general) imagine government (holding a forced monopoly on a social contract within a certain geogrphic area). In minarchism and anarchism (simulatenously, as neither denies the other existance), there is no such turf. Borders are there to stop disease epidemics and violent people from entering the nation, not to deem the area in which a set of monopolized rules will be followed. The lowest standard for law is natural law, or "do no harm"...and anarchists wish for this to be enforced. We see the judiciary as beneficial when not monopolized. It's the other two branches we really question. If an anarchist harmed someone, that would be the standard of law to judge them, their lack of social contract deems "do no harm" the standard. With a minarchist, it's any standard they sign up for, assuming the punishments don't violate current social norms (you cannot cut off a hand for theft, for example). So minarchists can have social contracts, and anarchists don't have to. If the judiciary is funded by user fees, the anarchist will fund it when found guilty...the minarchy will fund it when the charges prove false. There will never be a world without willing particpants in government social contracts, and we don't wish to have one. Uniformity is only possible with coercion, something anarchism is opposed to.

There is no reason 3 people can't all live next to each other on a street, and still have 3 separate social contracts...you the Constitution, some liberal a socialist style contract, and me no contract at all. When the State's bully based monopoly on social contracts end, competition is allowed.

I wouldn't ban boxing, but I don't want to be assaulted. You can punch each other in the face, hell I might watch for entertainment, but stop punching me. Minarchy and anarchy combined is a boxing match (the boxers are minarchists, the audience the anarchists), the State is assault. See the difference? Also compare S&M sex to rape. You are free to harm yourself with any sadistic pleasure you like, whether S&M sex, boxing, or government...you aren't free to assualt me, rape me, or use the State to compel me.

Of those 18 powers, how many require growth to keep pace with population and our income per household? Notice if we shrink both, the government doesn't do the same (see nations where population shrank, like Japan after this recent disaster). Most of even those 18 things are not dependent directly on population or income of the citizenry percentagely, and yet the government grew and continued to raise taxes overall. 

I's get rid of #2. Of course poor planning is the only reason a nation is run in deficit and debt, not surplus and reserves for emergencies. We should also run basically balanced budgets when a proper reserve is in place. I wrote about it elsewhere:


Ending Intergenerational Tyranny: Extinction of National Debt

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=41726


Trade being managed by government in #3 implies protectionism, not free trade. Therefore, it implies a lack of respect for property rights (you may buy, sell, or hire anything or anyone you like, you're goods produced and cash alike are your property). No govt should need treaties to have free trade (free market capitalism). Why they would need to regulate trade is to hand out favors to certain domestic oligarchs, securing power at the expense of the consumers here. All regulation in trade, beyond fraud or harm, or what have you, is coercion of your property rights.

#4, bankruptcy is fine, natural;ization isn't needed if free trade exists in #3, as labor is a good of trade. Immigration is therefore a non-issue except for epidemic disease and violent people entering. Bankruptcy can be privatized I would suspect. No monopoly is necessary to function.

Famous quote :

"Why is there only one Monopolies Commission?"

That is a conflict that is "self evident", eh?


#5 is something Ron Paul wants to end, the monopoly on money. We have been advocating currency competition in the free market since the 1850s. The government doesn't make gold and silver money, this was money before governments deemed it so. So RP is right, end the FED, the monopoly on money, and allow open competition so the people can choose the currency of the lowest inflationary rate to protect their properties.

#6 goes with #5.

The psot office can be privatized in #7, as shown by anarchist Lysander Spooner, when he kicked the governments ass in first class mail in the USA until they outlawed competition. He is the reason you have mail delivered to your home, he invented it.

Why should the govt promote arts and science in #8? This is simply a misallocation of other peoples money. If sciences and arts are beneficial to man, they will have value in the market, and be bought. No theft is needed to pay for them, donations and prices will suffice. This, again, can be privatized anyway.

#9 can be privatized or a public/private partnership, or some open/closed bid process....no monopoly is required. Without the monopoly on social contracts, I have no issue with #9 in principle...all societies need an arbitar system to resolve disputes peacefully.

#10 is already privatized if you do not declare war, and instead use Letters of Marque and Reprisal. We do neither, as we don't follow the document at all. But assuming we privatize it, I'm okay with that...collective defense is okay, although coercing people to fight in wars they don't DIRECTLY consent to is not. I would vastly change our military to make it funded by donations and manned by action-specific volunteers (whether war, foreign aid, what have you). But collective self defense is a must, and hence the borders for disease and violent people.

#11, falls under #10. Except the declaration of war, all can be directly privatized. War can be too, but even if it isn't, wars won't happen without coerced troops ( they refuse now they go to jail), and coerced funds (taxed money from people who do not agree with the war or aid mission, as opposed to willing donors). The moral justification for your military event will disappear when your volunteers or funding does if you do it my way. So mostly, privatize 11#, but even if not fully, you can make it more voluntary and less coercive.

#12...notice we never disband after two years. Standing armies aren't legal NOW. I think we may require professional troops, like professional hostage situation trained police, but not as a mjority of our forces. Most of our forces should be either disbanded or made militia of the states, and therefore only committed to wars/aid missions by personal consent. The universal duty of full time soldiers will pay more than those who do not give universal consent to all wars/aid missions. So I'm against how we do things now, but 12 isn't that bad really....if followed. It can be privatized largely also (at the very least, private management would do them well). An unfunded army after the two years limit would...disband! Only full timers would remain.

#13 is far more important than #12, but again, can be privatized, and doesn't require forced funding.

#14 goes with the last two or so.

#15 would be by consent, but if so, it's okay. Even I might respond to a call for self defense, I'm no pascifist afterall. Almost none of our military actions are self defense though...most of them have been to force open trading markets on our victims, never intending to reciprocate. This was John Hay and Hamilton's "American School", or "American Plan" of economics. Violence for money, no consent. Obviously I'm against that, and a truely volunteer military (one fiunded voluntarily and one where troops volunteer for each operation separately) would prevent it largely.

#16 goes with the previous answers.

#17, I'm all for new States. It's the answer to the dumb question "what if all of Mexico wanted to emigrate here? Would you still want open borders?"...yes, I'd still want free trade of labor, but if they all wanted to come here, why not ask them to become a State? A voluntary social contract is fine by me, and despite it's drawbacks, the Constitution is better than most. I think the whole area and land part is irrelevant as I explained earlier, but if they MUST do it by land area (gand turf) by a government vote or something (gang), then so be it. Again, this is only an issue because the State demands a monopoly on social contracts. In my version, you could be a citizen of the U.sS. in another country like expatriates are now...except without being an expat! You'd just be in another location....the standard of law you are subject to is not land based, it's contractual! The rest is able to be privatized or at least privately managed without a monopoly.

#18 is okay, but only for those who consent to the social contract (the Constitution). If I do not consent, they have no authority. Read "No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority" by Lysander Spooner. It explains what you require. If it does anything without consent, I'm against it.

If there is no government, there is no need for a Constituion, true...but I'm not saying there has to be NO government. I'm saying there has to be strctly consentual government (consentual self abuse) at most. The Constitution can remain, it just needs to become voluntary strictly, and then it is fine. You can even skip all my changes to 1-18, if you simply allow me to opt-out. My changes are to make the monopolized social contract more pallatable for me. If you allow me an option to get out, then you can keep all the compulsory sadism you please  . We only need discuss changes in my favor BECAUSe of the monopoly the social contract enforces (with violence, or the threat thereof).

----------


## Jace

..

----------


## showpan

That's exactly what they did, raise their prices once the other stores had closed.....and now they pay the town to keep other competition out like Target just recently found out.
Walmart lobbying....It's all over the net....why not search for yourself sometime?

Clash of the retail titans: Wal-Mart lobbies for an ‘Amazon tax’
Wal-Mart is one of the main backers of the campaign – and it is a campaign – and is bent on ensuring that the world’s largest Internet retailer doesn’t become the world’s largest retailer, a perch held by Wal-Mart.

And this is what they lobbied for when it concerns our ports which is one of the reasons a new megaport is being built in Mexico and Mexican truckers will deliver straight to Walmart resulting in tens of thousands of more jobs lost.

Wal-Mart's dirty secret is out
In the past few years, Wal-Mart has:
Opposed the introduction of anti-terrorist "smart containers" and electronic seals for cargo containers coming into U.S. ports. The retail industry called them "feel good (security) measures."
Opposed independent and regular inspections of supply-chain security practices around the world.
Opposed tougher rules requiring Wal-Mart to let Customs know what it's shipping in and where it comes from.
Opposed new container-handling fees to pay for improved port security.
The corporate lobbyists at RILA boasted in a 2005 lobbying report to Wal-Mart and other retailers about its "continued industry leadership in opposition to ill-advised and onerous port security measures (i.e., cargo fees, increased physical inspections)." In fact, beating back meaningful port security measures topped RILA's agenda.
One of the United States' top port security experts, retired Coast Guard Cmdr. Stephen Flynn, puts the cost of helping protect our ports at 0.2 percent of the value of cargo in the containers. The cost to Wal-Mart would be about $36 million -- less than one-third of 1 percent of the $11.2 billion profit the company raked in last year, or several million dollars less than CEO Lee Scott's pay over the past two years.
Wal-Mart and its corporate lobbyists have instead invested heavily in the members of Congress with the most sway over ports and supply-chain security issues, as well as the Bush administration and the Republican National Committee. Compare Wal-Mart's 2003-04 Washington campaign contributions with those of Target, its chief rival: Wal-Mart spent $2.7 million, putting it third on the list of top corporate contributors. Target spent $295,000, good for 192nd place.
RILA and Wal-Mart insist that making cargo containers and supply-chains secure against terrorist attacks be voluntary. The essence of this policy is "trust, but don't verify" and that's just the way Wal-Mart and RILA want to keep it.
The successes of Wal-Mart are made doubly dangerous by the shift of manufacturing work from the United States to developing countries. Twenty years ago, Wal-Mart bought only 6 percent of its merchandise overseas. Today, "Wal-Mart and China are a joint venture, and both are determined to dominate the U.S. economy as much as they can in a wide range of industries," Duke University professor Gary Geriffi told PBS's "Frontline."

Read more: http://www.seattlepi.com/local/opini...#ixzz1T0VcyaxV

----------


## romacox

Thank you ProIndividual for an honest insight into your political philosophy.   It is more pleasant reading than the irrational postings of those who hide behind others words taken out of context.  I often simply skip over those without even reading them.

If the economy does go belly up, we are likely to experience anarchy.   Looking at recent history, I would predict that for some areas of the Country, it will be much like what we witnessed in Louisianan after Katrina, and for other areas much like we witnessed in Nashville after the flooding there.  When Rome fell, areas that had become dependent on others suffered greatly.  However areas like Constantinople thrived for another 1000 years. 

History also reveals that when Empires fall, foreign invaders begin to take advantage by looting assets and resources.  This was seen after the fall of the Minoans, Roman Empire, Constantinople, ext.  Interestingly enough the early  American colonies joined forces not only to stand against England, but they had been taken advantage by foreign Nations, and even the larger colonies took advantage of the smaller ones. So the Unification strengthened them to stand against such forces. 

However, as Jace points out, Woodrow Wilson invited those foreign powers right into the seat of our government when he established the Federal Reserve.  *Government certainly is an enemy that citizens failed to keep control of. It is much like having a guard dog...he certainly can be an asset, but one had better keep control of him.* But my research reveals that  the Federal Reserve is now our government controlling every aspect of our lives...even our political leaders.  

Personally, I believe the Constitution should have more restrictions on the power of the Government to tax.  However Woodrow  Wilson increased that power considerably  in the XVI Amendment.

----------


## Cutlerzzz

> The wonderful thing about the Founding Fathers was that they were realists. They understood human nature and its weaknesses from direct personal experience. They understood that Plato's Philosopher King did not exist, so they built a Republic. 
> 
> The Founding Fathers are part of our heritage. We should turn back to them and try to live up to their ideals, and not rely on foreign utopian ideologies for guidance on economics and governance.
> 
> Look to experience and the way things work in the real world. Examine how things are and not how they should be. Try to understand the mind of man. We need pragmatism and a trust in our ideals, not utopianism. 
> 
> Anarchism = Utopianism
> 
> Our enemy today is the same banking cabal that was stealing the liberties and draining the wealth of the American colonists. This cabal spends great sums of money to infiltrate political movements across the political spectrum. They insert their globalist goals into all political movements. Open borders, free trade, mass immigration. Left, right and center. Anarchism is one of the tools used to pull the liberty movement into the globalist orbit. 
> ...


The Founding Fathers created a Central Bank, and originally had no tariffs. But of course, you don't care about the facts or reason. You have already shown that much.

----------


## ProIndividual

> Anarchism = Utopianism


Fail...all utopias are uniform by coercion or some fantasy of human unity. The constitution uses monopolies to attain this uniformity (which we all see is impossible with 300 million citizens). Anarchism, as I've explained time and again, lacks any aspiration for uniformity. It simple asks that coercion is illegal uniformly, to both individuals and institutions (like government). Therefore tax is theft, conscription is akin to slavery, and war is the health of the State (the monopolies). We simply ask, again, that you box with willing boxers, and let us be the audience. Stop punching us in our face against our wills, we aren't willing boxers. You can't say it's assault when a person does it, but it's just fair baoxing when the government does it.

That is the definition of utopian...

...an ideal community or society possessing a perfect socio-politico-legal system. (This implies a monopoly, something anarchism rebukes.)

Anarchism cannot be utopian by it's definition...nice slander of my beliefs though, thanks.

And after 200+ years of swearing the document restrains government growth, and gives us a small government state utopia, have you not noticed it fails and just gives us larger and larger government? Repeating the same mistakes over and again expecting a different result is...

...the definition of insanity.

If we try for anarchy, and we get your small government (or better yet, God forbid, VOLUNTARY governmnet and not tyranny), I'll cry me a river. But logically it follows, if you try for small govt State and get a large one, then if you try for a lack of a State you may just get your small govt.

Just a rational thought.

----------


## romacox

> The Founding Fathers created a Central Bank, and originally had no tariffs. But of course, you don't care about the facts or reason. You have already shown that much.


*Do you read more than one or two sentences of anybody's posts because nowhere did anyone, nor does history state what you just said. In fact everyone has stated just the opposite of what you just said.
*
*The Founding Fathers did not create Central Banks*, Foreign bankers created them.  President Woodrow Wilson ,*who is not a Founding Father,* but who is a progressive invited them into the seat of our government in 1914 (well after the creation of the United States).  It has also been clearly stated several times that George Washington and Jefferson (Founding Fathers) did use tariffs with very successful results:

Shopan wrote in a previous post giving links for documentation:
Nevertheless, Jefferson (who is a Founding Father) abolished all internal taxes, including the whiskey excise tax and the land tax. Meanwhile, the Napoleonic Wars in Europe, though a diplomatic minefield for American statesmen, proved a significant stimulus to the economy of the United States. Vigorous commerce enriched merchants while customs duties swelled the federal Treasury. By 1808 the national debt had been reduced from $80 million to $57 million, even though the Louisiana purchase had added an $11 million liability. By 1806, duties proved so lucrative that Gallatin and Jefferson fretted about what to do with the surplus above that required for debt retirement. Treasury reserves increased from $3 million to $14 million between 1801 and 1808."
http://www.tax.org/Museum/1777-1815.htm

"Jefferson   got repealed all the direct federal taxes passed by the Federalists and boasted that ordinary Americans would never see a federal tax collector in their whole lives."
http://www.friesian.com/presiden.htm

I wrote: After the Revolutionary War was won, Washington (who is a Founding Father)  knew that as long as Americans were dependent on products from England, we would never truly be free of their control.  So in1789 his administration imposed  a tariff (taxes on certain imported  goods).  It was designed to encourage “American Made” products.  Note: The United States use to feed the world, but has now become dependent on the world to feed us.

Gandhi (not a Founding Father, but famous man who freed India from British colonialism. He was assassinated before he could free them from the Central Bank  ) did not use tariffs to accomplish India’s independence from the British. But he did encourage his people to produce their own products.  He encouraged his people to make their own salt from the sea in spite of beatings from the British, and he also encouraged them to wear their traditional attire, and even  to spin the cotton to weave them. http://educatorssite.com/?p=650

The stated goal of progressives like George Soros. and Carl Marx is to destroy the Republic, create the delusion of a democracy (mob rule), then anarchy, and finely offer people a solution to the chaos  with a World Governance.  That fact  is not said to insinuate all anarchists here are after that goal, but it is what many progressives have written about as their goal .

"Democracy is the road to socialism." Karl Marx (note the Founding Fathers created a Republic, and were opposed to democracies. It was under Woodrow Wilson (a progressive. not a Founding Father) that the U.S. started being described as a democracy, and word definitions began to be  changed.

P.S. Not only did our Founding Fathers not create the Central Banks.... they warned against them.  Are you aware of how dumb your above statement sounds? It appears that you are here, no to contribute to intelligent conversation, but to disrupt them.

----------


## romacox

ProIndividual.  Having lived and worked on cattle ranches in the wilderness mountains of Arizona, I know that small groups can operate successfully without government assistance or interference, and it is an awesome experience. However, I would hate to think we had to stand against a foreign invasion with what little we had.  I know what happened to the Tibetans.

Governments are dangerous, sort of like having a guard dog...he can be an asset only if one keeps control of him rather than the reverse.  History shows that Constitutionally restricted Republics are the least dangerous only if the people are educated (not by government), and stay vigilant.

----------


## Paul Or Nothing II

> Paul or Nothing II,
> 
> China uses tariffs, regulations and currency manipulation to protect local producers from foreign competition. China is one of the most protectionist countries in the world, yet the standard of living for the average Chinese person is rising.


Firstly, thanks for admitting the obvious that China uses tariffs for the benefit of CORPORATIST INTERESTS, NOT THE CHINESE PEOPLE, which itself tells us how bad tariffs are.

Yes, average Chinese person's living standard is rising BUT it'd rise EVEN FASTER if they weren't forced pay HIGHER PRICES on many goods because then they could enjoy more goods & thereby enjoy a EVEN BETTER living standard than they're enjoying; their living standard would be rising even FASTER, if their government weren't diluting their purchasing-power by diluting their currency to keep avoid short-term unemployment of low-skilled people, they're essentially taking money from the middleclasses to 

Further, have you ever studied economics & that markets always move towards equilibrium in the long-run? The thing is that Chinese people were subjected to destitute poverty for a long time because Chineses market was closed so there was less competition for US & Western labor, after China (& even India) significantly opened up their economies, that unleashed a huge previously untapped labor-market which now was in direct compatition with their Western equals who'd been earning inflated wages due to less competition & regulations such as wage-laws in the West & had almost created a monopoly, & as it works with markets, when more competition enters, the prices go down so the the Western inflated wages are going down while Chinese, Indian, etc wages are moving up & market-equilibrium will be reached when both Western & "Eastern" wages meet & after that point, BOTH Western & "Eastern" wages will start to rise as they can all ask for higher wages without fear of losing jobs. This is what free trade, in the long-run, it benefits everyone but too bad people are so obsessed with using tyrannical measures, including tariffs, to gain in the short-run.

And you can't hope to circumvent the market, nobody can in the long-run can do that, even Fed & central-bankers around the world think they can keep producing fictional money & still circumvent the market but they CAN'T, it's the market-equilibrium that causes "bust" after an inflation-driven "boom" caused by central-banks but as you might know by now, it doesn't last & in the long-run, the market-equilibrium causes a "correction" to occur & a "bust" inevitably follows.

In the same way, if you try to circumvent the market by raising prices on cheaper imports then that REDUCES the number of goods in the domestic markets & INCREASES PRICES because the whole process merely "redistributes" income of the rich & the middleclasses among the poor & it may have some good effect for poor Americans earning a little higher wage BUT in the long-run, the country as a whole is poorer than otherwise it would've been as the savings/capital of the rich & middleclasses is absorbed & the thing with this process is that those who've become rich by bribing politicians remain rich but those who've become rich justly by providing useful goods/services unnecessarily lose their capital & this is an egregious violation of their property-rights.

This is just basic economics you should already know if you wish to argue economics but obviously, you & your buddies are NOT interested in understanding economics, they're interested in the DOGMA that "whatever Founders believed must be right", you don't believe in independent thinking & that's NOT how one makes FACTUAL arguments.

Moreover, you've NOT done anything to dispute my case that tariff-TAX causes a form of socialism & corporatism.

As I've said, tariffs are a TAX on AMERICAN PEOPLE because importers just add the tariff-tax to the price, & all Americans won't be buying imported goods &/or definitely, all Americans won't be buying them to the same extent, which means some Americans will be paying more into the government than others. This is hardly different from socialist progressive income tax that you tariffers so dislike. Why is the socialist progressive income taxation so bad? Because it forces some Americans to pay more into the government that other Americans & that's UNFAIR because government is supposed to treat ALL AMERICANS EQUALLY & tariff-TAX violates this principle, that means some Americans are benefitting at the cost of other Americans, that's what socialism is all about.

And as I've explained before, Wilson was NOT a free trader, someone just saying something does NOT mean that they actually mean it, he supported REGULATED, CORPORATIZED trade as do most internatiolist-corporatists, & when big businesses can bribe the politicians & make the "regulations" that favor them then in that environment, they don't need tariffs BUT if we'd limited government which facilitated an UNREGULATED market then these people won't be able to use regulations to get unfair advantage so in that environment, if you leave tariffs in the hands of politicians then they'll be bribed & tariffs will be used for the benefit of the corporations & early American history is ample proof of this, the political tariff-war between the North & the South is crystal clear. Northern politicians always wanted to tariff to make inefficient Northern businesses more competitive & to subsidize Northern businesses with the tariff-revenues.

Founders were NOT infallible, they left slavery in tact, non-propertied white men & women weren't allowed to vote, same with blacks so the argument that "tariffs are good because Founders supported them" is completely baseless.

And guess what, due to the Chinese people's pressure, Chinese government is lowering tariffs - China to cut import tariffs on mid-range, high-end products



> China's government is considering a plan to lower tariffs on some luxury goods, an official said, a move that could bolster imports—if it's able to overcome political resistance in a society increasingly concerned about the gap between rich and poor.


May be some of the regular Chinese people have the commonsense to realize that ADDING COSTS to goods makes them COSTLIER & therefore they're able to buy/enjoy LESS of goods & thereby their living standards is LOWERED.

The assumption that China is completely export-dependent country is fallacious, huge chunk of their economy is driven by domestic-consumption; it might come as a surprise to some of you but the 1.3 billion or whatever people they've, they do CONSUME goods/services  And that's the reason they've import-tariffs so that people are forced to buy HIGH-PRICED local goods, benefittng the local companies while the ordinary Chinese people are subjected to HIGH PRICES & LOWER LIVING STANDARDS as they're forced to spend more of their incomes on less goods.

And for the whole theory of "oh, they want to destroy the chosen land ie America" is just conspiracism at its height. British empire didn't fall because someone caused them to fall, they fell because the people on the lands they were OCCUPYING eventually got pissed off & kicked them out, it was NOT because they'd a central-bank or because they'd free trade; the numbers of the British were TINY compared to the people in the lands they were occupying so sooner or later, some of them were bound to overthrow the British & then a trend would've followed even if they did NOT have central-bank & free trade.

And, Central-banking isn't endemic to Britain or US only, even China & other countries have central-banks which are just as destructive, corporatist & elitist & are raping the local people so saying that "oh, they're helping the Chinese but hurting the US" is just ridiculous, they're hurting EVERYONE.

Further, America didn't surpass Britain because of tariffs, tariffs only raised prices on American people while benefitting the corporatist businesses; America surpassed Britain because it was extremely free as well as it'd many more resources & people than Britain.

And even if we keep the sound economic arguments aside for a moment, who'll be administering the tariffs? - THE POLITICIANS. Who do they work for? - The plutocrats & corporatists that bribe them & fund their campaigns. So you can give ANY power to politicians to meddle in the markets & its only going to be used to benefit the corporatist interests & that's exactly why it's important that they are NOT given ANY powers to meddle in the economy & it is because politicians always have been & always will be corrupt that we must have the smallest government with very restricted scope of power.

----------


## Paul Or Nothing II

> You must really hate Americans. Just because you keep repeating your lies does not make it truth. It's more like 25 MILLION who have to suffer so that a handful of elitists can make more money from their shares. How can anyone earn what they are worth when the only manufacturing jobs are making Big Macs. It is clear what you think about other people.


And you must really love socialism & corporatism I guess. Again, if you think "handful of elitists" are affected by raising of prices then I'm sorry to say but you seem to have no clue about even the basic economics. You ought to understand the basic fact of economics that manufacturing goods or whatever, whenever prices are unnecessarily forced to be raised on ANYTHING across the chain, it eventually raises prices on the CONSUMERS so you're NOT asking to raise the prices on "elitist businesses" when use impose tariffs on manufacturing goods, you're essentially raising prices on the CONSUMERS ie AMERICAN PEOPLE.

As for people making Big Macs, they're NOT "entitled" to a good incomes, NOBODY is "entitled" to anything other than what their skill fetches them, if those people want to earn more then they must improve/raise their skill-level & thereby command a higher income; if you expect that some Americans should pay higher prices on goods & thereby have a lower living standard just so that other Americans could earn a higher income beyond what their skill deserves & thereby INEFFICIENT businesses should be able to make profits then obviously you're a socialist & a corporatist, there are no two ways about that, it's a fact.

As I've said before, tariffs are a TAX & it's a TAX on AMERICAN PEOPLE & because not American will buy imported goods to the same extent, the tariff-TAX causes some Americans to pay more into the government than other Americans which means it's an INEQUITABLE form of taxation, similar to the socialist progressive income tax of today which forces some Americans to pay more into the government than other Americans which goes against the principle that government must treat ALL AMERICANS EQUALLY.




> Citigroup Plutonomy Report Part 1 
> Oct 16, 2005
> 
> - The World is dividing into two blocs - the Plutonomy and the rest.  
> The U.S., UK, and Canada are the key Plutonomies - economies powered by the wealthy. Continental Europe (ex-Italy) and Japan are in the egalitarian bloc.
> 
> - Equity risk premium embedded in "global imbalances" are unwarranted.  
> In plutonomies the rich absorb a disproportionate chunk of the economy and have a massive impact on reported aggregate numbers like savings rates, current account deficits, consumption levels, etc.  
> 
> ...


NONE of this has much to do with tariffs & the fact that it's an INEQUITABLE form of taxation. Everything you're describing above is the product of governments & politicians using their power to benefit those who bribe & fund them & guess what, who administers the tariffs? - THE POLITICIANS. So even if we keep the sound economic arguments against tariffs aside, nothing is going to change the fact that politicians always have & always will be corrupt & they'll use their powers to benefit those that bribe them. So in the current environment where corporatist elite can control the markets by controlling the "regulations" (including trade agreements) then they don't need to push for tariffs BUT if we go back to limited form of government & the UNREGULATED markets that they facilitate then tariffs will be the only tool the corporate-elite will've to gain an unfair advantage in the markets so as the early American history & the tariff-war between the North & the South shows, it'll used to benefit the corporatist interests at the expense of the American people having to pay higher prices on goods & being subjected to lower living standards than they could've had.

----------


## Paul Or Nothing II

> First of all stop calling everything and everyone communist/socialist. Its an annoying catch phrase and it makes you look foolish. 
> 
> You just said that word again. I dont think it means what you think it means 
> Princess Bride
> 
> I am firmly capitalist. I just know a rigged game when I see one.


I'm NOT calling "everyone & everything" communist/socialist, I'm only those things that ARE communist/socialist & not understanding what communism/socialism is makes you look like a fool

Further, here's what's foolish, you can't be "firmly capitalist" by supporting tariffs because capitalism are about free trade & tariffs are anti-free trade & therefore anti-capitalism.




> This is not necessarily true. I really only have anecdotal evidence to go on, but from what I understand and have observed, prices of products have not uniformly gone down since labor has moved offshore. In many cases, the difference has just ended up in producers pockets. Former bigwigs of Wal-Mart have admitted as much. They stressed moving production to Asia in order to boost profits and raise stock prices.  (PBS documentary on Wal-Mart. Google it.)


Here's the thing, economies are very complex phenomena so there may be some factors that may put downward pressure on costs while at the same time, there may be other factors that may simultaneously be putting upward pressure on costs but that doesn't mean that the downward factors putting downward pressure don't exist.

The thing is that if those same goods are produced by American asking higher wages then it automatically mean that those goods will cost more than they do when they're produced by cheaper laborers.

As for the unemployed Americans, as I've said, the wage-laws, over-regulation, over-taxation & Fed causing these boom-bust cycles, government destroying capital by sucking it out of the private sector through taxes, all these things need to be resolved & the American unemployment wouldn't be an issue.




> I dont think the prices of products would have to change if companies reverted their profit margins to what they were pre-offshoring. However, I do agree with you that government regulations could be trimmed back. Not eliminated to the base level of China, but trimmed in order to make things easier. I think I might start a thread one of these days to discuss what could be practically done/list ridiculous regulatory costs. But thats another day.


Here's the thing, if you believe in freedom & every person's right to their life, liberty & property then you must realize that products produced by the companies are the property of the company & the people that run them & they've a right to sell them at whatever price they want just like you've right to sell your property at whatever price you want & government telling them to sell at a lower price then that'd be a violation of their property-rights, & secondly, price-controls just DON'T work, government CAN'T set prices & control markets & that's why communism/socialism self-destructs, if you force people to sell their produce at a lower price than what they deem profitable then they'll stop producing it & invest somewhere else, & if there's strong demand for certain goods then that'll lead to an illegal underground-market where sellers can sell at much higher price than they would've had there been no price-controls because when it's illegal to sell at a profitable price then the risks are higher so will be the prices & the less people will be able to buy/enjoy them.

You can't get businesses to lower their profits by force without hurting the markets & the people, the only way that truly lowers profits is by allowing free competition, letting the firms to compete for customers & then they try to optimize their sales & minimize their costs as much as they can & this is only possible in a free market, it's not going to happen through government "regulation", in fact, government "regulation" is what hinders free competition.

As for "regulations", they're always just a tool in the hands of those corporatists who are willing bribe & fund politicians & bureaucrats & then they can set the rules as they see fit to counter & eliminate competition so "regulations" are unnecessary, all we need is for people's right to life, liberty & property to be protected & that'll be enough. The costs imposed due to the "regulations" are an additional imposition on the markets as they suck capital out of the economy which could otherwise be used productively.




> Heres the youre a communist if you dont believe what I do thing again. Please stop. Youre not understanding.what CAN they produce? What could these entrepreneurs possible produce that a competitor operating in a low-wage country couldnt undercut them on? What could they invent that couldnt be reverse-engineered in China and sent back to us at a lower cost than production? 
> 
> If its a technical service, what would it be that you couldnt get Indians to do for cheaper? Product design? Web design? Graphic design? What isnt vulnerable? If its agricultural, Mexico can do it. Youre waving your hand and saying freedom will take care of it. But one-sided free trade hasnt worked.
> 
> Wouldn't people having better-paying jobs give them more money with which to start businesses? Wouldn't removing the threat of being unfairly undercut by low-wage competitors make people more likely to start a business? I know I'd be more interested.
> 
> Heres what I want you to answer: Why would companies ever come back to this country if they have the option of operating where they can pay wages that are next to nothing? Do you think removing all regulations would cause them to ignore that huge selling point? Or do you want Americans to work for Chinese wages too? At which point, doesnt our standard of living go down from where it is right now, regardless of all this new freedom?


Firstly, I'm not saying "you're communist if you don't believe what I do", it's more like "you're communist if you've communist believe in communist policies". It's the vision of communist central-planners to produce everything that the country needs or at least that's what they say, & you should know how that works out eventually  So it should be obvious to any "non-communist" that the country just can't ensure that it produces everything it needs, some it'll produce & export, others it'll've import or at least it's the better to do so if it can't produce it as well cost-effectively as some other country, afterall the more goods/services there are domestically the better off the people will be so non point in raising prices & thereby forcing people to spend MORE of their income on LESS goods.

Anyways, the thing is that you think everyone else on the planet is capable of producing everything well & cheaply except Americans; it has to be said that you've a very low view of the the American people 

The problem is that you & other tariffers here put too much emphasis on manufacturing goods even though clearly a lot of these countries are producing them because they're mostly low-paid jobs & they do it because they're much poorer & uneducated & most of them incapable of doing high-skilled work.

As I've said in the other post, markets tend to move towards equilibrium in the long-run & because a lot of these bigger labor-markets were closed, the Western labor had little competition so for a long time, a lot of the unskilled & low-skilled Western laborers have enjoyed over-inflated wages due to regulations such as wage-laws as well as less competition but after these bigger untapped labor-markets especially China & India were opened up, they were/are in direct competition with their Western equals so obviously a lot of Western inflated incomes are going to come down while "Eastern" incomes are going to rise until the two reach an equilibrium & then they might start moving up again for everyone as the labor-market is getting closer to getting completely tapped BUT the upside is that more labor mean more goods/services are being produced in the world & as you might know, higher supply puts downward pressure on costs (exactly the same thing with labor) so we can try to circumvent the market by putting tariffs & stuff but in the long-run markets always win, so as I've said, if we try to force those jobs to remain here & pay unnecessarily higher wages to Americans then that's just going to drive the jobs & capital out of the country like it has been for a while & imposing additional tariff-tax will raise prices further & drive the living standards of all Americans downwards.

The biggest wrong assumption you make that people in these poor countries will forever work for peanuts when that's not true at all, incomes & living standards in these countries have been rising so sooner or later, as I've said, their incomes & Western incomes will reach an equilibrium level, they're NOT going to be perpetually working for $1 an hour  so most of your fears are completely unfounded.

What we need to do is get rid of wage-laws, over-regulation, over-taxation, Fed's boom-bust cycles, stop the destruction of capital through socialism & these are the real issues that need to be dealt with. Imagine that over 40% of GDP is used up by the government (federal, state, local), imagine if most of this was left in the private sector by significantly cutting taxes & regulations, that'd create a lot of jobs, more goods/services, thereby lower prices & higher living standard than currently enjoyed by the American people.

----------


## brushfire



----------


## Cutlerzzz

> *Do you read more than one or two sentences of anybody's posts because nowhere did anyone, nor does history state what you just said. In fact everyone has stated just the opposite of what you just said.
> *
> *The Founding Fathers did not create Central Banks*, Foreign bankers created them.  President Woodrow Wilson ,*who is not a Founding Father,* but who is a progressive invited them into the seat of our government in 1914 (well after the creation of the United States).  It has also been clearly stated several times that George Washington and Jefferson (Founding Fathers) did use tariffs with very successful results:
> 
> Shopan wrote in a previous post giving links for documentation:
> Nevertheless, Jefferson (who is a Founding Father) abolished all internal taxes, including the whiskey excise tax and the land tax. Meanwhile, the Napoleonic Wars in Europe, though a diplomatic minefield for American statesmen, proved a significant stimulus to the economy of the United States. Vigorous commerce enriched merchants while customs duties swelled the federal Treasury. By 1808 the national debt had been reduced from $80 million to $57 million, even though the Louisiana purchase had added an $11 million liability. By 1806, duties proved so lucrative that Gallatin and Jefferson fretted about what to do with the surplus above that required for debt retirement. Treasury reserves increased from $3 million to $14 million between 1801 and 1808."
> http://www.tax.org/Museum/1777-1815.htm
> 
> "Jefferson   got repealed all the direct federal taxes passed by the Federalists and boasted that ordinary Americans would never see a federal tax collector in their whole lives."
> ...


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articles_of_Confederation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_B..._United_States

You have no understanding of anything about history, economics, or liberty. You have shown no knowledge of anything thus far. You openly reject all theories and empirical evidence. You have never even heard of the Articles of Confederation, the First Bank of the United States, or  the Second Bank of the United States. You have made no coherent argument in any of these threads. Pasting together random quotes and denying historical *fact*(tariffs and the central bank in this case) does not make you look smart. It makes you look *dumb*.

----------


## romacox

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articles_of_Confederation
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_B..._United_States
> 
> You have no understanding of anything about history, economics, or liberty. You have shown no knowledge of anything thus far. You openly reject all theories and empirical evidence. You have never even heard of the Articles of Confederation, the First Bank of the United States, or  the Second Bank of the United States. You have made no coherent argument in any of these threads. Pasting together random quotes and denying historical *fact*(tariffs and the central bank in this case) does not make you look smart. It makes you look *dumb*.


*Touche.  I am sure you are very intelligent.* 

  Wikipedia  has an official sounding name.  However it is often a very unreliable resource because anyone can submit an article to them, and Wikipedia accepts them checking only for interest not accuracy.

   The first link you posted talks much about the Continental Congress having no power to tax, and how it hindered the success of battle against England...that is true. *The Continental Congress had no tariff because it did not have the power to tax at all.  However, as soon as the Union took place, the Founding Fathers, wanting to make sue they did not repeat the problems the Country experienced under the Continental Congress,  did make sure the "More Perfect Union" (as they referred to it) did have the power to tax, and included tariffs in the Constitution .  Washington (our first President ) , as stated in earlier posts, did use tariffs which helped develop the devastated  American industry and helped facilitate our independence from England.*

The second one does state some facts, but leaves out enough that it is rather misleading.  

    The story of central banking goes back at least to the seventeenth century, to the founding of the first institution recognized as a central bank, the Swedish Riksbank. Established in 1668 as a joint stock bank, it was chartered to lend the government funds and to act as a clearing house for commerce. A few decades later (1694), the most famous central bank of the era, the Bank of England,

    While these early central banks helped fund the government’s debt, they were also private entities that engaged in banking activities.  Because they held the deposits of other banks, they came to serve as banks for bankers, facilitating transactions between banks or providing other banking services. They became the repository for most banks in the banking system because of their large reserves and extensive networks of correspondent banks. 

    The U.S. experience was most interesting. It had two central banks in the early nineteenth century, the Bank of the United States (1791–1811) and a second Bank of the United States (1816–1836). Both were set up on the model of the Bank of England, but unlike the British, Americans bore a deep-seated distrust of any concentration of financial power in general, and of central banks in particular, so that in each case, the charters were not renewed. This paragraph is what you were referring to. Note: These early banks were on the gold Standard.

Although the last vestiges of the gold standard disappeared in 1971, its appeal is still strong. Those who oppose giving discretionary powers to the central bank are attracted by the simplicity of its basic rule. Others view it as an effective anchor for the world price level. Still others look back longingly to the fixity of exchange rates. *Despite its appeal, however, many of the conditions that made the gold standard so successful vanished in 1914.  (Woodrow Wilson's term)* In particular, the importance that governments attach to full employment means that they are unlikely to make maintaining the gold standard link and its corollary, long-run price stability, the primary goal of economic policy.
http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/GoldStandard.html     http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/officer.gold.standard

        Andrew Jackson, who became president in 1828, was determined to end the power of the central bankers over the United States. He made the following statements:

        “It is not our own citizens only who are to receive the bounty of our government. More than eight millions of the stock of this bank are held by foreigners… is there no danger to our liberty and independence in a bank that in its nature has so little to bind it to our country? … Controlling our currency, receiving our public moneys, and holding thousands of our citizens in dependence… would be more formidable and dangerous than a military power of the enemy.”

        “You are a den of vipers and thieves. I intend to root you out, and by the grace of  the Eternal God, will root you out.”

            And he did root the out in 1836.  But they returned under Woodrow Wilson in what is now called The Federal Reserve.

        In 1835, President Jackson completely paid off the U.S. national debt.  He is the only U.S. president that has ever been able to accomplish this.

        Richard Lawrence attempted to shoot Andrew Jackson, but he survived.  It is alleged that Lawrence said that “wealthy people in Europe” had put him up to it.

    James A. Garfield became president in 1881, and he was a staunch opponent of the banking powers.  In 1881 he said the following….

    “Whoever controls the volume of money in our country is absolute master of all industry and commerce…and when you realize that the entire system is very easily controlled, one way or another, by a few powerful men at the top, you will not have to be told how periods of inflation and depression originate.”

    President Garfield was shot about two weeks later by Charles J. Guiteau on July 2nd, 1881.  He died from medical complications on September 19th, 1881.

    In 1914 the Federal Reserve (New Name For Central Bank…if people don’t like it, just change the name) opened for business again under* Woodrow Wilson.* (a progressive President who was hated by the people at that time(  Note: even though it has the word “Federal” in it’s name, it is not part of the Federal Government…it is privately owned by International Bank Cartels.
    One of the key players in the creation of the Federal Reserve was Mayer Armshel Rothschild.  He made the following statement:

    “Give me control of a nations money supply, and I care not who makes it’s laws”

The Federal Reserve is a staunch supporter of Keynesian Economics which basically believes that “debt is money”.

----------


## Jace

..

----------


## showpan

> And you must really love socialism & corporatism I guess. Again, if you think "handful of elitists" are affected by raising of prices then I'm sorry to say but you seem to have no clue about even the basic economics. You ought to understand the basic fact of economics that manufacturing goods or whatever, whenever prices are unnecessarily forced to be raised on ANYTHING across the chain, it eventually raises prices on the CONSUMERS so you're NOT asking to raise the prices on "elitist businesses" when use impose tariffs on manufacturing goods, you're essentially raising prices on the CONSUMERS ie AMERICAN PEOPLE.
> 
> As for people making Big Macs, they're NOT "entitled" to a good incomes, NOBODY is "entitled" to anything other than what their skill fetches them, if those people want to earn more then they must improve/raise their skill-level & thereby command a higher income; if you expect that some Americans should pay higher prices on goods & thereby have a lower living standard just so that other Americans could earn a higher income beyond what their skill deserves & thereby INEFFICIENT businesses should be able to make profits then obviously you're a socialist & a corporatist, there are no two ways about that, it's a fact.
> 
> As I've said before, tariffs are a TAX & it's a TAX on AMERICAN PEOPLE & because not American will buy imported goods to the same extent, the tariff-TAX causes some Americans to pay more into the government than other Americans which means it's an INEQUITABLE form of taxation, similar to the socialist progressive income tax of today which forces some Americans to pay more into the government than other Americans which goes against the principle that government must treat ALL AMERICANS EQUALLY.
> 
> 
> 
> NONE of this has much to do with tariffs & the fact that it's an INEQUITABLE form of taxation. Everything you're describing above is the product of governments & politicians using their power to benefit those who bribe & fund them & guess what, who administers the tariffs? - THE POLITICIANS. So even if we keep the sound economic arguments against tariffs aside, nothing is going to change the fact that politicians always have & always will be corrupt & they'll use their powers to benefit those that bribe them. So in the current environment where corporatist elite can control the markets by controlling the "regulations" (including trade agreements) then they don't need to push for tariffs BUT if we go back to limited form of government & the UNREGULATED markets that they facilitate then tariffs will be the only tool the corporate-elite will've to gain an unfair advantage in the markets so as the early American history & the tariff-war between the North & the South shows, it'll used to benefit the corporatist interests at the expense of the American people having to pay higher prices on goods & being subjected to lower living standards than they could've had.


In reality, everything you claim is just the opposite. The plutonomy report describes exactly what they are doing and eliminating tariffs while paying companies to move was essential to their globalist strategy. The FED used monetary policies to gain control of large industries and bad trade agreements created an unfair advantage that favored companies to relocate. The result is a  large inequality that has left 1/4 of this country unemployed or underemployed. Their version of "free markets" is Marxist and they are leading the world into corporate fascism.

----------


## Fox McCloud

> In reality, everything you claim is just the opposite. The plutonomy report describes exactly what they are doing and eliminating tariffs while paying companies to move was essential to their globalist strategy. The FED used monetary policies to gain control of large industries and bad trade agreements created an unfair advantage that favored companies to relocate. The result is a  large inequality that has left 1/4 of this country unemployed or underemployed. Their version of "free markets" is Marxist and they are leading the world into corporate fascism.


You haven't countered a single point he's made--you're just sticking negative labels on things and leaving at that---or worse, insinuating it's all part of some global conspiracy...if you're just going to throw out claims like this or engage in name-calling, then you've already lost the debate.

----------


## romacox

> And even if we keep the sound economic arguments aside for a moment, who'll be administering the tariffs? - THE POLITICIANS. Who do they work for? - The plutocrats & corporatists that bribe them & fund their campaigns. So you can give ANY power to politicians to meddle in the markets & its only going to be used to benefit the corporatist interests & that's exactly why it's important that they are NOT given ANY powers to meddle in the economy & it is because politicians always have been & always will be corrupt that we must have the smallest government with very restricted scope of power.


You got that part right...*Ron Paul writes: * 

"The real enemy of tax reform is the spending culture in Washington. Let me repeat: we will never have tax reform in this country until Congress changes its spending habits. The reform rhetoric, regardless of which party it comes from, never changes the reality that federal spending grows every year. Congress spent $2.4 trillion in the last Bush budget; the new budget proposes to spend $2.7 trillion. The same unconstitutional agencies are funded, the same unwise programs are perpetuated, but at higher levels than last year. The previous budget serves merely as a baseline; the only question in any given year is how much spending will increase. Once created, no spending program is ever eliminated. The cycle goes on and on, with different administrations and different people in Congress."

"But could America exist without an income tax? The idea seems radical, yet in truth *America did just fine without a federal income tax for the first 126 years of her history. Prior to 1913, the government operated with revenues raised through tariffs, excise taxes, and property taxes, without ever touching a worker's paycheck*. Even today, individual income taxes account for only approximately one-third of federal revenue. Eliminating one-third of the proposed 2007 budget would still leave federal spending at roughly $1.8 trillion — a sum greater than the budget just 6 years ago in 2000! Does anyone seriously believe we could not find ways to cut spending back to 2000 levels? Perhaps the idea of an America without an income tax is not so radical after all. It's something to think about this week as we approach April 15th."
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul316.html


I think it was Jace who said something to the effect that the tax on labor is far more dangerous then the tariff... and we divide ourselves over the Tariff? It's sort of like the news reporting on Paris Hilton while the Country burns. I can only imagine how delighted progressives are that we argue over tariffs rather uniting, and finding ways to end the fed, end the IRS, and repeal the tax on labor.

----------


## Cutlerzzz

> *Touche.  I am sure you are very intelligent.* 
> 
>   Wikipedia  has an official sounding name.  However it is often a very unreliable resource because anyone can submit an article to them, and Wikipedia accepts them checking only for interest not accuracy.
> 
>    The first link you posted talks much about the Continental Congress having no power to tax, and how it hindered the success of battle against England...that is true. *The Continental Congress had no tariff because it did not have the power to tax at all.  However, as soon as the Union took place, the Founding Fathers, wanting to make sue they did not repeat the problems the Country experienced under the Continental Congress,  did make sure the "More Perfect Union" (as they referred to it) did have the power to tax, and included tariffs in the Constitution .  Washington (our first President ) , as stated in earlier posts, did use tariffs which helped develop the devastated  American industry and helped facilitate our independence from England.*
> 
> The second one does state some facts, but leaves out enough that it is rather misleading.  
> 
>     The story of central banking goes back at least to the seventeenth century, to the founding of the first institution recognized as a central bank, the Swedish Riksbank. Established in 1668 as a joint stock bank, it was chartered to lend the government funds and to act as a clearing house for commerce. A few decades later (1694), the most famous central bank of the era, the Bank of England,
> ...


That's a nice rant and all, but it has little to do with the facts that the Founding Fathers created a central bank(three times), and originally had no tariffs.

----------


## therepublic

> You got that part right...*Ron Paul writes: * 
> 
> "The real enemy of tax reform is the spending culture in Washington. Let me repeat: we will never have tax reform in this country until Congress changes its spending habits. The reform rhetoric, regardless of which party it comes from, never changes the reality that federal spending grows every year. Congress spent $2.4 trillion in the last Bush budget; the new budget proposes to spend $2.7 trillion. The same unconstitutional agencies are funded, the same unwise programs are perpetuated, but at higher levels than last year. The previous budget serves merely as a baseline; the only question in any given year is how much spending will increase. Once created, no spending program is ever eliminated. The cycle goes on and on, with different administrations and different people in Congress."
> 
> "But could America exist without an income tax? The idea seems radical, yet in truth *America did just fine without a federal income tax for the first 126 years of her history. Prior to 1913, the government operated with revenues raised through tariffs, excise taxes, and property taxes, without ever touching a worker's paycheck*. Even today, individual income taxes account for only approximately one-third of federal revenue. Eliminating one-third of the proposed 2007 budget would still leave federal spending at roughly $1.8 trillion — a sum greater than the budget just 6 years ago in 2000! Does anyone seriously believe we could not find ways to cut spending back to 2000 levels? Perhaps the idea of an America without an income tax is not so radical after all. It's something to think about this week as we approach April 15th."
> http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul316.html
> 
> 
> I think it was Jace who said something to the effect that the tax on labor is far more dangerous then the tariff... and we divide ourselves over the Tariff? It's sort of like the news reporting on Paris Hilton while the Country burns. I can only imagine how delighted progressives are that we argue over tariffs rather uniting, and finding ways to end the fed, end the IRS, and repeal the tax on labor.


bump

----------


## axiomata

Bumping a strawman I see.  No one is arguing whether a uniform tariff is worse than a progressive income tax.  They are arguing whether a protective tariff is bad.

----------


## therepublic

> No one is arguing whether a uniform tariff is worse than a progressive income tax.  They are arguing whether a protective tariff is bad.


Exactly, and we could argue that until dooms day getting absolutely nowhere, when that isn't even the real problem at hand.  Have you joined the phone bank to help get Ron elected?

P.S.  As romacox explained: even though tariffs worked for the first 126 years, they will not work given the current conditions.  (The U.S. has the second highest business tax rate, and is littered with an increasing maze of legal requirements, and loopholes destroying every good that government touches .  That would all have to be dealt with  before tariffs could possibly work.)  Paul Or Nothing II, and Jace both hit the nail on the head as romacox stated.

----------


## Paul Or Nothing II

> You sound like Al Gore selling NAFTA. Same arguments. 
> 
> Sorry. Not buying it this time.


Oh, a straw man argument. Well, this is what people are left with when their baseless arguments have got no factual legs to stand on 

Seriously, can you actually read or has dogma clouded your judgement so much that you're resorting to OUTRIGHT LYING to defend your indefensible position?

I've said OVER & OVER & OVER & OVER that NAFTA & other "free trade agreements" are NOT FREE TRADE, they're REGULATED, CORPORATIZED trade & I don't support them so your insinuation that I support NAFTA is the height of INTELLECTUAL DISHONESTY. But again, this is what people do when they can't make any rational arguments based of sound economic facts.




> In reality, everything you claim is just the opposite. The plutonomy report describes exactly what they are doing and eliminating tariffs while paying companies to move was essential to their globalist strategy. The FED used monetary policies to gain control of large industries and bad trade agreements created an unfair advantage that favored companies to relocate. The result is a  large inequality that has left 1/4 of this country unemployed or underemployed. Their version of "free markets" is Marxist and they are leading the world into corporate fascism.


Reality EXACTLY is how I've said it is. Right now, tariffs are low because politicians & corporatists that fund them don't need tariffs to profiteer because they can profiteer using the "regulations" & "trade agreements" they enact BUT if we'd an UNREGULATED market which we would if we have a limited government then tariffs will be corporatists' ONLY tool for profiteering & gaining an unfair advantage over others, & early American history & the tariff-wars between North & South sufficiently prove this.




> You got that part right...*Ron Paul writes: * 
> 
> "The real enemy of tax reform is the spending culture in Washington. Let me repeat: we will never have tax reform in this country until Congress changes its spending habits. The reform rhetoric, regardless of which party it comes from, never changes the reality that federal spending grows every year. Congress spent $2.4 trillion in the last Bush budget; the new budget proposes to spend $2.7 trillion. The same unconstitutional agencies are funded, the same unwise programs are perpetuated, but at higher levels than last year. The previous budget serves merely as a baseline; the only question in any given year is how much spending will increase. Once created, no spending program is ever eliminated. The cycle goes on and on, with different administrations and different people in Congress."
> 
> "But could America exist without an income tax? The idea seems radical, yet in truth *America did just fine without a federal income tax for the first 126 years of her history. Prior to 1913, the government operated with revenues raised through tariffs, excise taxes, and property taxes, without ever touching a worker's paycheck*. Even today, individual income taxes account for only approximately one-third of federal revenue. Eliminating one-third of the proposed 2007 budget would still leave federal spending at roughly $1.8 trillion — a sum greater than the budget just 6 years ago in 2000! Does anyone seriously believe we could not find ways to cut spending back to 2000 levels? Perhaps the idea of an America without an income tax is not so radical after all. It's something to think about this week as we approach April 15th."
> http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul316.html


Saying "America did just fine" doesn't mean anything; tax is tax & inequitable is inequitable, there are no two ways about that. It doesn't change the fact that tariff-TAX is an INEQUITABLE form of taxation & that some Americans were FORCED to pay more into the government than others which violates the principle that government should treat ALL its citizens EQUALLY.

Again, you're NOT making an argument based on sound economics, it's just dogma.




> I think it was Jace who said something to the effect that the tax on labor is far more dangerous then the tariff... and we divide ourselves over the Tariff? It's sort of like the news reporting on Paris Hilton while the Country burns. I can only imagine how delighted progressives are that we argue over tariffs rather uniting, and finding ways to end the fed, end the IRS, and repeal the tax on labor.


Why is it that you're being so intellectually dishonest to suggest that just because I'm opposed to tariffs that I'm for an income-tax? It's really disingenuous of you to make such insinuations in spite of the fact that I've already said that I hate income-tax just as much as I hate tariff-tax, they're both INEQUITABLE forms of taxation where some Americans pay more into the government than other Americans.




> Exactly, and we could argue that until dooms day getting absolutely nowhere, when that isn't even the real problem at hand.  Have you joined the phone bank to help get Ron elected?


This is a completely philosophical movement so nothing wrong with discussing things & arriving at facts using logic, reason & sound economics.

Just because we won't be repealing the income-tax tomorrow, doesn't mean we can't talk about why it's so bad; in the same way, just because we won't be raising tariffs tomorrow doesn't mean we can't talk about why they are so bad.




> P.S.  As romacox explained: even though tariffs worked for the first 126 years, they will not work given the current conditions.  (The U.S. has the second highest business tax rate, and is littered with an increasing maze of legal requirements, and loopholes destroying every good that government touches .  That would all have to be dealt with  before tariffs could possibly work.)  Paul Or Nothing II, and Jace both hit the nail on the head as romacox stated.


While I agree that getting rid of over-regulation & over-taxation MUST be a priority BUT tariffs NEVER "worked" unless you mean that they "worked" in FORCING Americans to pay higher prices on goods & thereby subjected them to lower living standards that they could've had otherwise while corporatists that funded the politicians profiteered at the expense of American people.




> Bumping a strawman I see.  No one is arguing whether a uniform tariff is worse than a progressive income tax.  They are arguing whether a protective tariff is bad.


Mostly, straw man arguments is all they've got. None of them seem interested in debating sound economics, they're all about "Founders said this", "Wilson did that", "Ron Paul said this", "income tax that" & so on but no factual arguments based on reason, logic & sound economics.

----------


## therepublic

> Oh, a straw man argument. Well, this is what people are left with when their baseless arguments have got no factual legs to stand on 
> 
> Seriously, can you actually read or has dogma clouded your judgement so much that you're resorting to OUTRIGHT LYING to defend your indefensible position?
> 
> I've said OVER & OVER & OVER & OVER that NAFTA & other "free trade agreements" are NOT FREE TRADE, they're REGULATED, CORPORATIZED trade & I don't support them so your insinuation that I support NAFTA is the height of INTELLECTUAL DISHONESTY. But again, this is what people do when they can't make any rational arguments based of sound economic facts.
> 
> 
> 
> Reality EXACTLY is how I've said it is. Right now, tariffs are low because politicians & corporatists that fund them don't need tariffs to profiteer because they can profiteer using the "regulations" & "trade agreements" they enact BUT if we'd an UNREGULATED market which we would if we have a limited government then tariffs will be corporatists' ONLY tool for profiteering & gaining an unfair advantage over others, & early American history & the tariff-wars between North & South sufficiently prove this.
> ...


Straw men resort to insults when they have lost.  If you can't kill the message, kill the messenger.

----------


## showpan

> You haven't countered a single point he's made--you're just sticking negative labels on things and leaving at that---or worse, insinuating it's all part of some global conspiracy...if you're just going to throw out claims like this or engage in name-calling, then you've already lost the debate.


It's really quite simple, a global conspiracy is in play and if you choose to ignore that facts that have been presented, that is your right. Do not expect others to stand and be called socialists and communists for pointing out that a plutocracy has been created and what tools they have used. You are in a very small *minority* who believe otherwise.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...es-only-please.)

----------


## ProIndividual

> It's really quite simple, a global conspiracy is in play and if you choose to ignore that facts that have been presented, that is your right. Do not expect others to stand and be called socialists and communists for pointing out that a plutocracy has been created and what tools they have used. You are in a very small majority who believe otherwise.
> 
> http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...es-only-please.)



Umm, you just did it again...lol. A "very small majority" you say?

----------


## terlinguatx

...

----------


## ProIndividual

> ProIndividual. Having lived and worked on cattle ranches in the wilderness mountains of Arizona, I know that small groups can operate successfully without government assistance or interference, and it is an awesome experience. However, I would hate to think we had to stand against a foreign invasion with what little we had. I know what happened to the Tibetans.
> 
> Governments are dangerous, sort of like having a guard dog...he can be an asset only if one keeps control of him rather than the reverse. History shows that Constitutionally restricted Republics are the least dangerous only if the people are educated (not by government), and stay vigilant.


I appreciate your opinion. I would only ask you to consider that ending the State enforced monopoly on the military (not competing militaries for the money, that would be disasterous; but a fully volunteer military where some soldiers choose a contract that involves going to any war the govt wants, like now...and another contract that most soldiers will choose that allows them to opt-in or out of wars, foreign aid missions, etc., making wars of aggression nearly impossible), through contract (as I just described) and through funding (being funded by not theft, but donations). If the manpower is completetly voluntary (it's hard to say signing up for Afghanistan on 9/12 and ending up in Iraq is "voluntary"), whether by signing a more lucrative universal service contract or by opting into the individual operation (not the battles in that operation; once in, you're in), and IF the funding is completely voluntary, then any operations (wars, aid, etc.) will have their moral justification quantified.

The monopoly that used to conscript (and I will argue still does by bait and switch recruitment, preying on kids in high schools, etc.) will not allow any such quantification.

When the volunteers dry up, or the donations dry up, so to does all moral justification for operations. Otherwise we concede both that our people are unpatriotic and won't give the money if truely needed, and that our people are cowards who only fight when a force of law and threat of prison or worse coerces them to do so.

I don't think you believe these things...you may even agree with what I suggest (or not). I just want to be clear...I'm not for a military-less society...I'm just for a society without coercion. We can have a military without the coercive monopoly. It would be more moral, more efficient, more dedicated, and more liked around the world.

And might I also suggest that a little private management of the spending wouldn't hurt anything. I'd think privatizing just the money management of the military, in some kind of public/private partnership, at the least, would be good. 

I'm totally in agreement with you...we need a military for defense. But collective defense isn't offense. The guard dog is on a chain and licks his masters hand...we have a rabid dog running around humping our neighbors dogs, $#@!ting on their lawns, and biting us (afterall our kids die in places they don't morally agree with being in)! Let's put a damn shock collar on Rover, and be done with it.

----------


## showpan

> Umm, you just did it again...lol. A "very small majority" you say?


I'm pretty sure this hasn't happened before...thanks for pointing out my error though...lol...I fixed it in my post

----------


## Paul Or Nothing II

> Straw men resort to insults when they have lost.  If you can't kill the message, kill the messenger.


Oh! The irony! 

Again, you've NOT been able to dispute the fact that tariffs are a TAX on AMERICAN PEOPLE, that it's an INEQUITABLE form of taxation & that they raise prices on goods & lower living standards. And all of your pro-tariffs arguments have already been refuted beyond any doubt with reason & sound economics.

And could you care to clarify what straw man argument I've made in my last post? Or should I take it that you're the one making a straw man argument by claiming that I've made one?




> It's really quite simple, a global conspiracy is in play and if you choose to ignore that facts that have been presented, that is your right. Do not expect others to stand and be called socialists and communists for pointing out that a plutocracy has been created and what tools they have used. You are in a very small *minority* who believe otherwise.
> 
> http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...es-only-please.)


Even though I wasn't quoted, the insinuation was there so I'll reply anyway.

I've NEVER said that there isn't a plutocracy out there, it's out there, the North American Union in the pipeline, Trilateral Commission, CFR & so on but putting tariffs & FORCING Americans to pay higher prices & lowering their living standards is NOT going to help. So I've NOT called you communist/socialist because of that, I've called you guys communist/socialist because.........guess what, BECAUSE you believe in communist/socialist policies, you believe that government should direct capital through tariffs, you believe that some Americans should be FORCED to pay more for the benefit of other Americans, that's communist/socialist thinking; NOT those who believe in freedom & EVERY person's right to their life, liberty & PROPERTY & the role of the limited government to treat all its citizens EQUALLY.




> A big tarriff on all imports, except a few raw materials, is the only thing that can "fix" our economy. It by no means will end trade, it will just make domestic products more competitive. And for the idealists out there, yes I agree trade is good, but realize that we already don't have free trade because of all the restrictions in America from OSHA to minimum wage, tarrifs are needed even things out. We need them now to create jobs here and bring in goverment revenue. It's the only realistic fix. Yes it will make consumption a little more expensive, but we consume like gluttons now so we could stand a decrease. As an added bonus the dollar will appreciate.


Look, either you believe that EVERY person has an EQUAL right to his/her life, liberty & PROPERTY or you don't.

If you do believe that then you should recognize that tariffs are an INEQUITABLE form of taxation & thus, anti-liberty, because NOT all American will buy imported goods to the same extent so some will be FORCED into paying much more into the government than others, & that violates the liberty-principle that government MUST treat all its citizens EQUALLY.

Further, jobs have left America because of over-regulation, over-taxation, & destruction of capital caused by the government-spending so until these issues are resolved, nothing is going to get better; tariffs will redistribute the wealth of American people much like income-tax or inflation does & thereby America as a whole will be poorer due to the destruction of capital it'll cause.

As for the government, NO, they don't need any more revenue than they already have, they're already eating up 40% of the economy, they shouldn't need any more & in fact, they MUST reduce it or they're going to absorb the economy like all big governments do, & tariffs will only quicken that process as tariffs will lower the amount of goods/services available, thereby lower the capital in the country (goods/services ARE the capital, NOT the toilet-paper we call money), thereby more unemployment & misery, & therefore more socialism & more self-destruction of the economy.




> I appreciate your opinion. I would only ask you to consider that ending the State enforced monopoly on the military (not competing militaries for the money, that would be disasterous; but a fully volunteer military where some soldiers choose a contract that involves going to any war the govt wants, like now...and another contract that most soldiers will choose that allows them to opt-in or out of wars, foreign aid missions, etc., making wars of aggression nearly impossible), through contract (as I just described) and through funding (being funded by not theft, but donations). If the manpower is completetly voluntary (it's hard to say signing up for Afghanistan on 9/12 and ending up in Iraq is "voluntary"), whether by signing a more lucrative universal service contract or by opting into the individual operation (not the battles in that operation; once in, you're in), and IF the funding is completely voluntary, then any operations (wars, aid, etc.) will have their moral justification quantified.
> 
> The monopoly that used to conscript (and I will argue still does by bait and switch recruitment, preying on kids in high schools, etc.) will not allow any such quantification.
> 
> When the volunteers dry up, or the donations dry up, so to does all moral justification for operations. Otherwise we concede both that our people are unpatriotic and won't give the money if truely needed, and that our people are cowards who only fight when a force of law and threat of prison or worse coerces them to do so.
> 
> I don't think you believe these things...you may even agree with what I suggest (or not). I just want to be clear...I'm not for a military-less society...I'm just for a society without coercion. We can have a military without the coercive monopoly. It would be more moral, more efficient, more dedicated, and more liked around the world.
> 
> And might I also suggest that a little private management of the spending wouldn't hurt anything. I'd think privatizing just the money management of the military, in some kind of public/private partnership, at the least, would be good. 
> ...


I support the sentiment. Supporting the military/state-militias through voluntary contributions will definitely help in preventing FORCED destruction/waste of people's wealth through unnecessary wars & the "wealth-transfer" it causes to the Military-Industrial-Complex, & it'd be a lot more civil way of financing the military/state-militias.

----------


## Paul Or Nothing II

Again, it should very obvious to any rational person with even a minimal understanding of economics that price-increase ANYWHERE across the chain equals to a price-increase for the CONSUMERS ie AMERICAN PEOPLE

If Chinese workers are producing something at $2 while their American counterparts are asking $7 for it then why should OTHER Americans be FORCED by the government to pay the extra cost? That's a socialist FORCED wealth-transfer right there by the government, that's a violation of those Americans' property-rights who're FORCED to buy costlier local products & subjected to a lower living standard for no fault of theirs.

On the other hand, those Americans who still buy foreign goods, be it due to lower supply of local goods or due to superior quality of the foreign goods, are FORCED to pay the extra cost to the government, again, that's a violation of their property-rights & an INEQUITABLE form of taxation.

Not to mention, the whole process allows local inefficient businesses to profiteer, that probably wouldn't even be in business without the tariff-protection; & early American history is proof that in the absence of other "regulations", corporatist businesses bribe politicians to raise tariffs & profiteer at the expense of American people.

And this is NOT it. Had it not been for the tariffs, the added cost/capital would've gone into some other area & produced more jobs, more goods/services & helped lower prices of those goods/services so in effect, it hurts the American people TWICE, firstly, the DIRECT price-rise due to tariffs & secondly, the INDIRECT price-rise that the added cost/capital would've prevented elsewhere, if that cost/capital wasn't transferred/destroyed UNJUSTLY.

Moreover, as I've said in the last post, the whole process of imposing tariffs only lowers the amount of goods/services in the economy, the capital in the economy is lowered because goods/services ARE essentially the capital (money is just a medium to facilitate easy exchange & a possible holder of purchasing-power for future consumption) so reduction in capital means reduction in further production & therefore more unemployment & misery, which will strengthen calls for more socialism in a welfare-state & then government will suck even more capital from the economy & continue to destroy the economy.

As for those saying, _"America did just fine with tarriffs for so long so why would it not now?_". Well, total government expenditure (Fed, state & local) back then was about 5-10% (see link below) of the economy & a significant % of it was sucked out of the economy through tariffs but it the total expenditure wasn't big enough to MASSIVELY affect the economic progress of the country as it was offset due to a largely unregulated, untaxed freer market but economy was STILL BEING HURT & Americans were being FORCED to pay higher prices than they should've & they'd lower living standards than they OTHERWISE would've had, if that capital wasn't sucked out of the economy through tariffs. 
TODAY, the total government expenditure is near 40% & if you suck even more out of the economy through tariffs then that'll only aggravate the destruction of the economy & the destruction of the American nation.

http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/d...olor=c&local=s

----------


## Jace

..

----------


## The Grinning Maniac

> Not to mention, the whole process allows local inefficient businesses to profiteer, that probably wouldn't even be in business without the tariff-protection; & early American history is proof that in the absence of other "regulations", corporatist businesses bribe politicians to raise tariffs & profiteer at the expense of American people.


Paying workers jack-crap with no benefits or time off and polluting the environment as much as you want...yup, that's certainly "efficient". Any business that doesn't roll like that shouldn't exist. Clearly. Why wouldn't you beat your workers?

Again, I have to ask, do you want the US to implement the working conditions of the Chinese? Please don't sidestep with quotes about freedom and efficiency and markets. Just answer the question so we know where things stand, thanks.

----------


## Bossobass

As a hobby, over the years, and to further enlighten myself, I've often looked for the origins of the countless sayings and strange traditions of men (like why people 'clink' glasses before they drink).

In a recent search for the origins of yet another saying, I came across a history gem:

In the late 18th and early 19th centuries, China had many goods that Europeans craved.




> Despite strict government regulations, foreign trade in China expanded during the late 18th century and early 19th century. As trade grew, the West found themselves to have a large and rising trade deficit with China. They were increasingly anxious to balance their trade. Yet the Chinese, having a self-sufficient econom, showed little interest in Western products.





> The more tea,silk and porcelain the British imported, the lower the money stock of silver the British Empire had. This was because China was on the silver standard and they would not buy any English goods to off set the trade imbalance. (Sound familiar?)


This caused a huge drain on the silver reserves of Great Britain and a huge pile of silver for China.




> Finally, in 1820, the West found a product which China did not have, opium. Between 1829 and 1855, opium smuggling developed rapidly along China's South Coast. In 1820, 9,708 chests of opium was smuggled in per year. 15 years later, the smuggled opium rose to 35,445 chests, a growth of 400%. (Sound familiar?)


This drug infestation had the opposite effect, as addicted Chinese went from the casual wealthy user to 90% of males under 40 and they became less productive and more interested in getting stoned, China saw a net outflow of silver, while the trade monopoly enjoyed by the East India Company netted them huge profits.




> Prior to the 1830s, there was but one port open to Western merchants, Guangzhou (Canton) and but one commodity that the Chinese would accept in trade, silver. Before 1828, large quantities of the Spanish silver coin, the Carolus, flowed into China in payment for the exotic commodities that Europeans craved; in contrast, in the decade of the 1830s, despite an imperial decree outlawing the export of yellow gold and white silver, "only $7,303,841 worth of silver was imported, whereas the silver exported was estimated at $26,618, 815 in the foreign silver coin, $25,548,205 in sycee, and $3,616,996 in gold". 
> 
> Although the Chinese imperial government had long prohibited the drug except for medicinal use, the "British Hong" (companies such as Dent, Jardine, and Matheson authorized to operate in Canton) bought cheaply produced opium in the Begal and Malwa (princely) districts under the auspices of the British East India Company, the number of 150 lb. chests of the narcotic being imported rising from 9,708 in 1820 to 35,445 in 1835. With the British government's 1833 cancellation of the trade monopoly enjoyed by the East India Company, cheap opium flooded the market, and China's net outflow of silver amounted to some 34 million Mexican silver dollars over the course of the 1830s.
> 
> As the habit of smoking opium spread from the idle rich to ninety per cent of all Chinese males under the age of forty in the country's coastal regions, business activity was much reduced, the civil service ground to a halt, and the standard of living fell. The Emperor Dao guang's special anti-opium commissioner Lin Ze-xu (1785-1850), modestly estimated the number of his countrymen addicted to the drug to be 4 million, but a British physician practising in Canton set the figure at 12 million. Equally disturbing for the imperial government was the imbalance of trade with the West: whereas prior to 1810 Western nations had been spending 350 million Mexican silver dollars on porcelain, cotton, silks, brocades, and various grades of tea, by 1837 opium represented 57 per cent of Chinese imports, and for fiscal 1835-36 alone China exported 4.5 million silver dollars. The official sent in 1838 by the Emperor Dao guang (1821-1850) of the Qing Dynasty to confiscate and destroy all imports of opium, Lin Ze-xu, calculated that in fiscal 1839 Chinese opium smokers consumed 100 million taels' worth of the drug while the entire spending by the imperial government that year spent 40 million taels. He reportedly concluded, "If we continue to allow this trade to flourish, in a few dozen years we will find ourselves not only with no soldiers to resist the enemy, but also with no money to equip the army" quoted by Chesneaux et al., p. 55). *By the late 1830s, foreign merchant vessels, notably those of Britain and the United States, were landing over 30,000 chests annually.* (Sound familiar?)


Thus, I found the answer to my question; where did the saying "All the tea in China" come from?:




> *Meantime, corrupt officials in the hoppo (customs office) and ruthless merchants in the port cities were accumulating wealth beyond "all the tea in China"* by defying imperial interdictions that had existed in principle since 1796. The standard rate for an official's turning a blind eye to the importation of a single crate of opium was 80 taels. Between 1821 and 1837 the illegal importation of opium (theoretically a capital offence) increased five fold. A hotbed of vice, bribery, and disloyalty to the Emperor's authority, the opium port of Canton would be the flashpoint for the inevitable clash between the governments of China and Great Britain.





> *The Outbreak of the First Opium War*
> 
> This war with China . . . really seems to me so wicked as to be a national sin of the greatest possible magnitude, and it distresses me very deeply. Cannot any thing be done by petition or otherwise to awaken men's minds to the dreadful guilt we are incurring? I really do not remember, in any history, of a war undertaken with such combined injustice and baseness. Ordinary wars of conquest are to me far less wicked, than to go to war in order to maintain smuggling, and that smuggling consisting in the introduction of a demoralizing drug, which the government of China wishes to keep out, and which we, for the lucre of gain, want to introduce by force; and in this quarrel are going to burn and slay in the pride of our supposed superiority. — Thomas Arnold to W. W. Hull, March 18, 1840
> 
> *Upon his arrival in Canton in March, 1839, the Emperor's special emissary, Lin Ze-xu, took swift action against the foreign merchants and their Chinese accomplices, making some 1,600 arrests and confiscating 11,000 pounds of opium. Despite attempts by the British superintendent of trade, Charles Elliot, to negotiate a compromise, in June Lin ordered the seizure another 20,00 crates of opium from foreign-controlled factories, holding all foreign merchants under arrest until they surrendered nine million dollars worth of opium, which he then had burned publicly. Finally, he ordered the port of Canton closed to all foreign merchants.* Elliot in turn ordered a blockade of the Pearl River. In an ensuing naval battle, described as a victory by Chinese propagandists, in November 1839 the Royal Navy sank a number of Chinese vessels near Guangzhou. By January 1841, the British had captured the Bogue forts at the Pearl's mouth and controlled the high ground above the port of Canton. Subsequently, British forces scored victories on land at Ningbo and Chinhai, crushing the ill-equipped and poorly trained imperial forces with ease. Viewed as too moderate back at home, in August 1841 Elliot was replaced by Sir Henry Pottinger to launch a major offensive against Ningbo and Tiajin. By the end of June British forces occupied Zhenjiang and controlled the vast rice-growing lands of southern China.
> 
> The key to British victory was Her Majesty's Navy, which used the broadside with equal effect against wooden-hulled vessels, fortifications are river mouths, and city walls. The steel-hulled Nemesis, a shallow-draft armed paddle-wheeler loaned to the campaign by the British East India Company, quickly controlled the river basins and the Pearl River between Hong Kong and Canton, regardless of winds or tides that limited the effectiveness of Chinese junks. On land, Chinese bows and primitive firelocks proved no match for British muskets and artillery. For leading the Royal Marines to victory General Anthony Blaxland Stransham was knighted by Queen Victoria. His forces utterly defeated on land and sea, Lin Ze-xu in September 1840 had been recalled to Peking in disgrace, and Qi-shan, a Manchu aristocrat related to the Emperor, installed in Lin's place to deal with the foreign devils whose decisive victories were undermining the authority of the Qing Dynasty, which gradually lost control of a population of 300 million.
> 
> The Cost of Peace
> ...


So, China engaged in a "protectionist" trade policy that netted them a staggering trade imbalance with Great Britain, draining GB of its silver. They refused to acquiesce to GB's "Fair Trade" BS because they were well aware of its affect on Malaysia, India, Turkey, The Philippines and other neighboring nations. They didn't have to import western goods because they were a self sustaining economy that built stuff the rest of the world wanted.

The British plague cornered the market on opium and reversed the trade imbalance with China by drug trafficking.

The Chinese made opium trafficking illegal.

The Brits smuggled and bribed the drugs into China.

China cracked down on the illegal trafficking.

The King sent in the Marines.

The Nanking Treaty netted GB ports, Hong Kong and Most Favored Nation status and reparations for the confiscated opium.

GB's main export, opium, poured into China.

Sounds like Utopia, that Fair Trade stuff.

China lost control of it's sovereignty through the Nanking Treaty for a century. Then, after the US defeat in Vietnam, during which the VC were supplied with weapons by China, and a history of the most brutal government in history, Reagan lobbies for and Congress bestows upon China Most Favored Nation status, and the very best of the very best version of MFN at that.

The US adopts the same one-way street Fair Trade policy of GB, calling it Free Trade while moving the steel, textiles and other industries to China en-masse. China is routinely allowed to place taxes, duties, bans and other similar planks of the trade barrier wall on imports while they face none of the above with their highest tier MFN status, steal intellectual property, dump against competitors who chose to remain in the US and other really cool Free Trade stuff. For this Utopian arrangement, better known as "The Chinese Miracle", China only has to agree to set aside a percentage of their resulting mammoth trade surplus to... buy US debt, allowing the Federal Reserve's giant debt Ponzi Scheme to continue for a while longer.

It's my opinion that, now that the rats have jumped ship and moved their enterprises to China of Oz, thus exposing who they are, slam up the tariffs and other trade barriers and let them suck the other end of the pipe.

Tariffs with reciprocity is free trade. All of the above is a Rothschild-fiat currency-fueled BS story that makes Al Capone look like an alter boy, and anyone who buys the Free Trade slogan is an idiot who never invented or manufactured anything in his life and who prefers the pot metal and plastic version of the real McCoy.

I wouldn't endorse the acid trip of Free Trade for All The Tea In China.

Bosso

----------


## Cutlerzzz

> The whole concept of free trade is racist to begin with.


This is what your whole "argument" boils down to.

----------


## terlinguatx

[QUOTE=

----------


## Jace

..

----------


## Paul Or Nothing II

> So Thomas Jefferson, who enacted tariffs, was a socialist?


IN ESSENCE, yes, and he lied to the Americans people as well by calling tariffs "external tax" as if to say that tariffs-tax wasn't being paid by Americans when in fact it was. May be he & some other Founders were extremely fearful of a British takeover & thereby were OVER-cautious & MAY BE some people MAY deem it justifiable BUT that does NOT mean they were right in impossing an INEQUITABLE tariff-tax on American people & thereby reducing the number of goods/services in the economy & lowering Americans' living standards & causing a wealth-transfer that tariffs cause.




> Your argument for free trade is the same one we heard from Clinton and Gore about the benefits of NAFTA. The Mexicans will do the blue collar work which will free up Americans for the high-paying jobs. Didn't happen, did it? What happened was Wall Street financiers made a killing and everyone who works for a living sucked on the big one.


Firstly, I've NEVER said that ALL Americans will end up with high-paying jobs, I've said it's UNJUST of government to VIOLATE people's PROPERTY-RIGHTS by FORCING them to pay more & causing a wealth-transfer, it's neither justifiable nor good for the economy.

And again, NAFTA is NOT free trade, it's REGULATED CORPORATIZED trade so no wonder corporatists profited big, that's what it supposed to do.




> I know, I know. It's managed trade. That's the fallback argument, just like global warming zealots can always explain away a cold snap as climate change.


It's NOT a fallback argument because NAFTA & REAL free trade are two DIFFERENT things; REAL free trade helps increase REAL WEALTH ie goods/services in the country & thereby lower prices & people are better off BUT REGULATED TRADE is corporatist in nature, NOT the people & the country; that's a BIG DIFFERENCE between the two.

You blaming REAL free trade due to REGULATED trade is like when people blame capitalism due to corporatism because they both end up creating rich people BUT the fact is that under capitalism, generally, people get rich by producing more goods/services & thereby making others richer than they would've been otherwise; same holds true for free trade, it would have the effect of lowering incomes & the NOMINAL wages would go down BUT the REAL wages would go up & REAL WAGES is what counts.




> And if you think Chinese people can't do the good jobs, you don't know the Chinese. Protectionist China is going to take every manufacturing job there is, and they're coming after your cubicle job, too. Soon they'll be competing with Wal-Mart on the retail front. They are building their own big box stores in China now. They will build them here. Watch it happen.


Typical communist/socialist fear-mongering 

I've NEVER said that Chinese can't do good jobs, I've said they can't RIGHT NOW because they're poorer & less skilled but as their incomes rise then they will but as I've before US incomes & their incomes will be moving towards equilibrium. And I don't give a $#@! about how much manufacturing they do, it's because we've minimum-wage laws & welfarism that chases those jobs overseas & because government is wasting nearly *40%* of the economy.

Seriously, when will you learn that goods/services are the REAL WEALTH? The more of them are here, the cheaper they'll be & MORE people will be able to enjoy them. If you protect manufacturing then that'll suck out from other sectors & even more people will be laid off there as the manufacturing are set above the market-wage & thereby raise prices & less goods/services will be available & the country will be POORER for it.




> Meanwhile, all those millions of Mexicans displaced by NAFTA will keep streaming across the border to take jobs as construction workers, plumbers, truck drivers, electricians, etc. And they will do it for less pay than an American can raise a family on. Plus, they'll vote in their ethnic compatriots who promise to pay off their underwater mortgages and put their kids through school for free.


I'm NOT for immigration, other than controlled high-skilled-workers' immigration so I believe border-vigilante should be given more freedom & let them take of the business.




> In the real world, free trade causes a collapse in wages and a concentration of wealth in the financial sector.


Of course, NOMINAL wages would go down as competition is expanded but REAL wages rise as more goods/services are produced & thereby their prices go down too; these are natural functions of supply & demand, please learn some sound economics at the earliest.

Just like how there are a few companies producing a good & when new companies enter the market & more goods/services are produced, there nominal profits of the existing companies would go down because of increased supply; in the same way, free market means, workers don't get to monopolize or cartelize the market & ask for higher wages as they've compete with workers elsewhere so nominal wages go down due to increased competition but on the other hand, more & more goods/services are available as people can buy in the cheapest market & more goods/services mean lower prices as well so people's living standards are enhanced.




> The whole concept of free trade is racist to begin with. Americans are smarter and creative so we will take the high value jobs. The Mexicans are poor and ignorant so they can work for Ford. The Chinese are uncreative drones so they can build Mattel toys and make our shoes. It's not true. What's true is Americans are dumb for killing the goose that laid the golden egg just to turn it over to a few fast-talking shysters on Wall Street.


So you really are a lefty afterall! This is what lefties do, when they can't make rational arguments they throw in the racist card in the hope that the person will retreat 

Anyways, since you want to talk about "racism", here's what's racist. Your belief that American workers should be paid more for doing the same job as their Chinese, Mexican counterparts, THAT'S RACISM. It is racist to believe that there's something great about Americans that makes them SUPERIOR to their counterparts in other countries that they "deserve" more, nope, they don't. So it is PROTECTIONISM that's racist. 

Free trade has nothing to do with racism, it's a belief that people should earn according their merit & skills, nothing racist about that.

----------


## Jace

..

----------


## Paul Or Nothing II

> Paying workers jack-crap with no benefits or time off and polluting the environment as much as you want...yup, that's certainly "efficient". Any business that doesn't roll like that shouldn't exist. Clearly. Why wouldn't you beat your workers?


Wow! More straw man arguments! How surprising! 

You see, people get "jack-crap" because that's what supply & demand determines. In essence, it's not the businesses that set wages of labor, supply & demand factors do; if businesses could set wages then wouldn't EVERYONE be working on $1 or whatever? But that's NOT how it works.

The lower-skilled jobs earn a lower incomes because the supply of such labor is very high so it's cost/wages are lower while higher-skilled jobs earn a higher incomes because supply of such labor is lower & these supply/demand factors are what essentially set prices/incomes.

If you artifically raise incomes by government FORCE then that only displaces capital from other sectors & causes more unemployment & because less goods/services are produced, their prices are higher & more people are miserable than they otherwise would be while allowing the market to take its course will maximum jobs, maximum goods/services & lower prices & everyone is better off.

As I've said in my last post, if a Chinese workers is doing a job at $2 & tariffs are put up to make sure that American workers get $7 for the same job then how is the additional cost paid? As I've said, it sucks out more capital from other areas of the economy causing lower-skilled workers in those areas to lose their jobs.

The pollution argument shows your lack of understanding of libertarianism. Pollution is prevented through property-rights so if someone pollutes your property then you've a right to redress, if someone pollutes "public property" then members of the public can sue them; this way the issue of pollution is dealt with DIRECTLY rather than relying on government politicians & bureaucrats making "regulations", the "regulations" only ensure that corporatists who bribe politicians & bureaucrats get to pollute & do so "legally" so members of public can't sue them because they'd be "in compliance" with the "government regulations". 




> Again, I have to ask, do you want the US to implement the working conditions of the Chinese? Please don't sidestep with quotes about freedom and efficiency and markets. Just answer the question so we know where things stand, thanks.


I don't WANT to but if that's what they end up with then they can't be allowed to STEAL from others & again, if they're paid higher wages above the market-wage then that displaces even more workers in other areas of the economy so it's not like there's anything gained in the process other than more unemployment, less goods/services & higher prices & more misery & causing the country's economy to spiral downwards.

The biggest problem I see with you guys is that you think "money" is wealth but in essence, as the Weimar Republic & many other countries & recently Zimbabwe found out, money is NOT wealth, not in a national sense anyway but goods/services are the REAL WEALTH & we can't increase real wealth in the economy by REDUCING the the goods/services in the economy.

Again, it all comes down to the fact that economy is dynamic & INTERCONNECTED thing so if you FORCE prices to rise in one area then that automatically displaces capital in other areas. Further, as the prices rise, people demand higher incomes to keep their prosperity & guess who has more bargaining power? The higher-skilled workers. Because their supply is lower in the economy & how is this rise in demand for income of higher-skilled employees accommodated for? Well, by laying off more lower-skilled employees. So more unemployment, less goods/services, higher prices & it's a NEGATIVE SPIRAL for the economy as a whole.

So if you think that you can circumvent the market like how communist/socialist central-planners think or how the central-bankers around the world think then you should consider learning some sound economics at mises.org

----------


## Paul Or Nothing II

> As a hobby, over the years, and to further enlighten myself, I've often looked for the origins of the countless sayings and strange traditions of men (like why people 'clink' glasses before they drink).
> 
> In a recent search for the origins of yet another saying, I came across a history gem:
> 
> In the late 18th and early 19th centuries, China had many goods that Europeans craved.
> 
> This caused a huge drain on the silver reserves of Great Britain and a huge pile of silver for China.
> 
> This drug infestation had the opposite effect, as addicted Chinese went from the casual wealthy user to 90% of males under 40 and they became less productive and more interested in getting stoned, China saw a net outflow of silver, while the trade monopoly enjoyed by the East India Company netted them huge profits.
> ...


This is just a grotesque misrepresentation of the economic events of the time 

At the time, most of Britain & most of Europe had been leaping ahead of all the other countries including China due to Industrial Revolution which'd caused them have much higher level of prosperity than China so China was in a pretty similar position that it is today in the sense that it'd huge land & labor to produce things & export them, tea & silk were their main exports to Europe which meant that goods were going out of China & silver (money) was coming in.

Now, it is important to understand how "commodity-standard" (in this case "silver-standard") works. When country C exports to country E, goods go out & silver (money) comes in while silver (money) goes out of country E & goods come in. Because there'd been a gap in the living standards of Europe & China, China for a fair number of years had been exporting to Europe which caused Chinese silver-reserves to increase & lowered European silver-reserves BUT what does it mean? It means that China's "money-supply" (or "silver-supply" if you will) increased while Europe's silver-supply decreased which meant that an ounce of silver in China had LOWER purchasing-power while an ounce of silver in Europe had HIGHER purchasing-power.

Now, under normal circumstances, if free markets are allowed work, it'd just mean that Chinese will find cheaper European goods attractive & Europeans will find Chinese costlier goods less attractive which means European imports into China will increase & silver will go back into Europe as a result & this is how the markets keep moving back & forth towards equilibrium.

But as has been said, Chinese were protectionist because, like some people on this forum, they thought money (ie silver) was wealth but the fact is, goods/services are the REAL WEALTH so they didn't allow the markets to move towards equilibrium due to their protectionism & caused what an increase in money-supply causes ie inflation & prices rose, production fell & people started becoming poorer & they started indulging in drugs too as has been mentioned.

Now, because there was a high demand for opium in China & Chinese government wouldn't allow it, smuggling was inevitable & Chinese war-against-drugs failed just as badly as America's war-against-drugs is failing.

Now, it wasn't like Britain intended to destroy China or anything, they were NOT FORCING Chinese people to take drugs, Chinese people had the choice NOT to use them but obviously Chinese people wanted them, that's why there was a huge demand for it & British merely saw it as an opportunity to make profits & to reverse silver-supply so that they could buy more Chineses products.

But obviously Chinese government was intent on protectionism & they started seizing opium supplies being smuggled in from Britain which caused tensions to escalate & a war ensued.

Now, I'm NOT saying British were saints, NO, but blaming the war on free trade is extremely unfair because it was NOT free trade that caused the war, it was PROTECTIONISM that caused the war.

If China had NOT been protectionist & after their money-supply (ie silver-supply) had increased, had they adopted free trade & let Chinese people buy European goods which they'd've found cheaper then the silver-supply would've been reversed & market moved towards equilibrium so Chinese people would've'd more goods & higher living standards while giving silver in return would mean Chinese silver-supply would've decreased & their inflation would've been sucked out while Europe's money-supply would've increased & they would've bought more Chinese goods which they obviously wanted to which'd've created demand for Chinese goods & thereby cause chinese businesses to envision profits & thereby create jobs & goods/services.

This is what happens in a free market; countries as a whole & their people benefit as they get to buy cheapest & more goods/services than they otherwise could.

*CURRENT AMERICA-CHINA SITUATION*

Generally, people find it easier to understand the link between import-export, currencies, free trade & prosperity when we look at how these things work under a "commodity-standard" so I'll try to explain these things in the context of current America-China situation. When we're on a paper-money-standard, NOTHING amongst these variables & how they lead to prosperity changes but understanding the underlying relationship may get difficult to understand due to added factors like government manipulation of currency but the underlying effects do NOT change.

Now, under a paper-currency, WITHOUT any manipulation, when US keeps buying alot of Chinese goods, it'd cause Yuan to rise against dollar & over time, Chinese would find US products cheaper & US would find Chinese products costlier & then market equilibrium will go back & forth like that.

But in real life, China either buys dollars or devalues their currency in order to NOT allow it to rise against the dollar. But this does NOT have any negative effect on US. WHY? Well, when US buys from China, it gets cheap goods which enhance Americans' living standards while it gets US dollars in return. Of course, it doesn't allow its currency to rise but that only hurts the purchasing-power of Chinese people BUT those dollars get reinvested in US one way or another which helps create jobs & goods/services in US & the additional income that is generated out of it is what allows Americans to buy more Chinese goods so it's essentially a win-win situation for BOTH countries (except the Chinese people, of course but they too benefit to a degree anyway) so they're essentially keeping their people poor through tariffs & currency-manipulation to provide US with cheaper goods, not a bad situation to be in for the US.

Now, what'll happen if we adopt protectionism & put up tariffs? Well, it'll obviously mean an end to cheaper goods as well as MORE of our capital will be used up for LESS goods because our workers will've to be paid much higher wages because of minium-wage laws & everything so MORE of our capital will be engaged in production of LESS goods which obviously means much higher prices AND it also means that that ADDITIONAL CAPITAL that'll be needed will be sucked out from other areas of the economy which means you'll've MORE job-losses & drop in production & higher prices in those areas.

Now, interventionists mostly see the economy as a static model & that's why they think that they can meddle in one area of the economy & not affect others but that's not how the real-world economies work; in fact, they're very dynamic so every time you meddle in one area, it causes all others to re-adjust accordingly & that's why central-planning is so difficult to engage in because of the dynamic nature of economies.

So because of economy's dynamic nature, even if prices increase in one area, it causes all the other prices to re-adjust according their new supply/demand factors. Because as prices initially rise even in an area of the economy, people bearing those high prices demand higher incomes to ensure their prosperity & higher-skilled people have the most bargaining power because their skills are in shorter supply than lower-skilled people & in order to free up more capital to accommodate higher incomes of higher-skilled people, businesses have to lay off more lower-skilled people which causes more unemployment among the poor low-skilled workers, decrease in production of goods/services AND higher prices of goods/services that the business is producing & so on & so on it causes a "domino effect" throughout the economy. Therefore, prices & unemployment throughout the economy keep having upward pressure, the production keeps having downward pressure *UNTIL the market is put back in charge*; if not then the economy keeps eating itself. This is how socialism destroys economies & countries, the more socialist the country, the faster it degenerates.

So again, when one raises questions over US unemployment & drop in living standards (reduction in REAL WEALTH ie goods/services) then one must realize that *40%* of the US economy is being sucked out every year, plus, there are minimum-wage laws, over-regulation, etc etc & obviously Fed's boom-bust & inflation cycles don't help the economy & unemployment either which are further choking enterpreneurship in the US & that is why US is suffering so unless these resolved or at least significantly ameliorated, US & its economy is likely to continue to spiral downwards, in terms of prosperity, for some time to come. Putting tariffs to "save jobs" is like treating the symptom rather than treating the underlying diseases which is over-regulation, over-taxation, Fed, etc; tariffs WON'T help, they'll cause EVEN MORE unemployment as they'll displace capital & workers in other areas of the economy & cause a "domino effect" of lower goods/services & higher prices & higher unemployment.

The bottomline is that NOBODY can circumvent the markets & in the long-run, it always causes more harm than good.

*TRADE DEFICIT MYTH*

----------


## Paul Or Nothing II

> This is what your whole "argument" boils down to.


Obviously, that's all they've got, no real economic arguments 




> Your ideology does not mesh with reality.


Oh yeah, then please point out the structural abnormalities which make it different in "reality", otherwise you're just making an unfounded assertion.




> Theoretically I agree with your logic, I'm as much a capitalist as anyone else, but let's face the facts.


No, sorry, let's face facts, you're NOT a capitalist, you don't respect property-rights & you think it's ok for government to STEAL money from it citizens however they wish & you believe in FORCED wealth-transfer so you're obviously a socialist.




> We are not going to let sick people die, or unproductive people starve to death in the streets. Elements of socialism to prevent these things are an inherent part of our society.


*Thanks for admitting that you support socialism, unlike others here, at least you're being honest enough to admit that you're socialist* 

The thing is MORE people will die in the streets WITH tariffs, & socialism & the destruction it causes; it'll cause MORE unemployment, LESS goods/services, HIGHER prices & LOWER living standards & MORE misery. On the other hand, if you DON'T intervene in the markets, it'll lead to LESS unemployment, MORE goods/services, LOWER prices, HIGHER living standards & LESS misery AND not only that but if more goods/services are available then people will be more open to offering help to poor & sufferring.




> Sure, a 100% free market would be the logical and most efficient choice, but it will never happen in our democracy because that very ideal dictates that unproductive people should starve. Now that brings us to the issue of trade. We start from a competitive disadvantage due to the above socialistic factors that aren't going away. The only way to overcome that disadvantage is to tax imports. This would by no means end trade, it would just make domestic goods more competitive and strengthen the dollar. *What's more important, cheap(er) blue jeans from china or  TEN MILLION+ extra jobs in America and the domino effect of benefits that come with it and ripple through society?*
> 
> We import $2.0 trillion in goods each year. Let's say we exclude a broad definition of raw materials from the tariff, then we have about $1.2 trilion in imports that would be taxed. Let's say the tax is 50%. So now your Hyundai is going to be $30,000 instead of $20,000, your walmart polo is going to be $15 instead of $10, etc... Big whoop.... we consume too much already. Let's look at the up side though. Assume the 50% tax on imports decreases imports by 50% (for hypothetical ease). Here's what could happen:
> 
> 1) An extra $600 billion would now be produced in america. (50% of $1.2 trillion)
> 
> 2) That extra $600 billion produced locally broken down into paychecks of $50,000 each could employ 12,000,000, yes *TWELVE MILLION PEOPLE AT $50,000* _on average_. Guess what, that pretty much matches the total number of unemployed in America right now.
> 
> 3) The $600 billion still imported (remember we're still importing another $800 billion in raw materials, that we're not even talking about) would be taxed at 50% and generate government revenues of $300 billion. Thus taking a huge chunk out of the deficit.
> ...


Please read my recent posts to Grinning Maniac & Bossoboss.




> This view is what is called "the race to the bottom."
> 
> Don't worry. Your view won with the people who matter a long time ago.
> 
> Say goodbye to the American middle class. It's on its death bed anyway.


Can you even understand English, let alone economics?

If government FORCING wages/prices upwards is what causes prosperity then why have minimum-wage at $7-8? Why not $50? Why not $100? Why not $1000? Will that cause a "a race to the TOP"? 

GOODS & SERVICES are the REAL WEALTH so when the free market is allowed to work & thereby, there's maximum utilization of labor & capital that leads to production of maximum goods/services which is REAL WEALTH which determines people's living standards. Money alone & NOMINAL wages do not count for $#@!, if we've a hyperinflation then we'll all be billionaires but it won't buy $#@! so go to mises.org & learn some damn sound economics.

----------


## Seraphim

Paul or Nothing II is pretty much dead on.

I have very little else to contribute other then to say that. He got most of it.

----------


## Cutlerzzz

+1 to Paul or Nothing. 

You have further obliterated their arguments. Anyone who was on the fence before this thread that took the time to read it will know who won the debate. There is no need to continue wasting your time at this point, IMO.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

Goldman Sachs and The Federal Reserve won the debate.

----------


## showpan

> Goldman Sachs and The Federal Reserve won the debate.


And the people have lost. I wonder how well anarchy is doing in places like Somalia...lol

----------


## Fox McCloud

> Goldman Sachs and The Federal Reserve won the debate.


 


> And the people have lost. I wonder how well anarchy is doing in places like Somalia...lol


Resorting to guilt by association and subject changing, yet again, I see.

Also, Somalia is a misnomer, for the most part---people don't claim that perfection will arise out of anarchy--it's merely suggested that anarchy is _better off_ than under a statist regime--and things have, as a matter of fact, improved there: http://mises.org/daily/5418/Anarchy-in-Somalia

It also has the lowest telecom rates in all of Africa--that's fairly impressive for a country that has no government at all.

----------


## Paul Or Nothing II

> +1 to Paul or Nothing. 
> 
> You have further obliterated their arguments. Anyone who was on the fence before this thread that took the time to read it will know who won the debate. There is no need to continue wasting your time at this point, IMO.


Thanks. I know what has been said by many in this thread should be more than enough for any rational person to come out on the side of free trade but it's just that I find it annoying when socialists PRETEND to be pro-liberty & I just can't resist the temptation 




> Goldman Sachs and The Federal Reserve won the debate.


Another straw man argument! 

Again, not surprising at all. None of the proponents of REAL free trade here support central-banking because that's anti-free market capitalism so your argument is very childish to say the least.

And guess what, who supported central-banking during early American history? Who cartelized the banking-industry through National Banking Acts? Who introduced the first unbacked fiat-paper-money in the United States? Who introduced the first income-tax in the United States? WHO? *THE TARIFFERS* like Lincoln & the Whigs/Republicans.

So all of you tariffers here, who don't respect property-rights & believe in STEALING others' money/property are more in line with central-bankers than free traders here because just like central-bankers you people think that STEALING from others is ok




> And the people have lost. I wonder how well anarchy is doing in places like Somalia...lol


No, SOCIALIST people have lost as usual because they've no sound economic facts on their side, & there can be no fair justification for STEALING & ROBBERY either.

And insinuating that all free traders here are anarchists is another straw man argument. While others may be anarchists, I'm a minarchist but one thing we free traders are NOT, is that we're NOT THIEVES like protectionists & tariffers.

Why won't you people leave your "Founders are infallible" DOGMA aside for a moment & go to mises.org & learn some god damn sound economics? Founders DECEIVED the American people by telling them that tariffs are "external tax" when in fact it's a tax on AMERICAN PEOPLE & it's an INEQUITABLE form of taxation. YES, Founders were right about a lot of things BUT they were NOT impeccable nor infallible; they were MEN, NOT gods nor angels so don't PRETEND that they were, they were NOT right about everything & facts on hand prove so beyond doubt for anyone who's willng to put emotional dogma aside & look for themselves.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> Why won't you people leave your "Founders are infallible" DOGMA aside for a moment & go to mises.org & learn some god damn sound economics?


Lol! the good ole "go to mises.org and learn something" rebuttal. Is that where you get your dogma?

----------


## Fox McCloud

> Lol! the good ole "go to mises.org and learn something" rebuttal. Is that where you get your dogma?


I love how you're equating economic theory with dogma--while most Austrians _are_ libertarians, this derives from the fact that most want to see mankind move forward and upward---that said, economics is value free meaning a totalitarian could be an Austrian economist...he'll just have to go directly against what he knows to be true to act as a true totalitarian.

While throwing out general "you should read this site or that site", I agree, is a bit of a weak argument, Paul or Nothing II and a few others here have demonstrated through argument and through other sources of information (other than Mises.org) that free trade is viable, logically consistent, and does, in fact, raise the standard of living...singling out this single comment out of all he's said comes across as being nothing more than an _ad hominem_ attack. If you insist on opposing free trade despite all the arguments and evidence that clearly point to it raising the standard of living....who's really the one that's stuck in dogma?

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> While throwing out general "you should read this site or that site", I agree, is a bit of a weak argument,...singling out this single comment out


It stands out because it's been used thousands of times, always with Mises.org as the destination. Who's to say I haven't been reading Lew Rockwell and others since before some of the people using that line were in diapers? Who's to say I didn't debate Lew himself over this issue in personal emails more than 15 years ago?

Back to the subject at hand, it is simply that I would prefer flat, across the board, untargeted tariffs as opposed to income taxes. Assuming that the Federal government exists and that it will take revenue one way or another, that is a preference. But we've had this debate about 100 times, so you already knew that.

And when it comes to dogma, the "free trade is good argument", as used by most people in the *general* public, is based on a marketing campaign by global merchants, not on Austrian or in-depth economics.

----------


## Travlyr

> For a time, the Founding Fathers imposed tariffs on all imported goods from other Countries to encourage "American made" .   The U.S. had become overly dependent on foreign goods, and they knew we would never be free of England until we were free of our dependance on their products. We did experience high inflation after the American Revolution, but we also gained our independence.
> 
>   Gandhi understood this in his fight for freedom form the British as well. That is why he encouraged his people to continue their own production of salt from the sea in spite of beatings from the British.  It is also why he encouraged them to wear their own traditional attire, and produce their own cotton fabric.
> 
>    I do not think it is accidental that we once fed the world, and are now dependent on them to feed us contaminated foods.
> 
> The IMF and One World Governance


This ^^^^

+ rep

----------


## Paul Or Nothing II

> Lol! the good ole "go to mises.org and learn something" rebuttal. Is that where you get your dogma?


That's the best argument you've got? 

I've ALREADY made arguments based on SOUND ECONOMICS which you obviously haven't been able to refute & those are FACTUAL arguments; WAY BETTER than your argument ie ".....because Founders said so" 

And seriously, the reason you understand any bit of Federal Reserve & its workings is due to Austrian Economics & then you turn around & call it dogma? Seriously, if it wasn't for Austrian Economics you'd be like those people out there who've no clue what Fed is about & think that it's some benevolent government institution created to "protect" people. 




> I love how you're equating economic theory with dogma--while most Austrians _are_ libertarians, this derives from the fact that most want to see mankind move forward and upward---that said, economics is value free meaning a totalitarian could be an Austrian economist...he'll just have to go directly against what he knows to be true to act as a true totalitarian.
> 
> While throwing out general "you should read this site or that site", I agree, is a bit of a weak argument, Paul or Nothing II and a few others here have demonstrated through argument and through other sources of information (other than Mises.org) that free trade is viable, logically consistent, and does, in fact, raise the standard of living...singling out this single comment out of all he's said comes across as being nothing more than an _ad hominem_ attack. If you insist on opposing free trade despite all the arguments and evidence that clearly point to it raising the standard of living....who's really the one that's stuck in dogma?


+1

I usually don't go around telling people to go to mises.org but there's no doubt these people wouldn't know $#@! about Fed if it wasn't for Austrian Economics so I thought it was only fair that they'd at least look up more literature about Austrian Economics that introduced them to sound economics & it's not like they've made any actual economic arguments so they might as well learn a bit of economics, without Austrian Economics, they wouldn't know $#@! about why what Fed is doing is so bad.




> It stands out because it's been used thousands of times, always with Mises.org as the destination. Who's to say I haven't been reading Lew Rockwell and others since before some of the people using that line were in diapers? Who's to say I didn't debate Lew himself over this issue in personal emails more than 15 years ago?


No, it stands out because that's probably the only part of my post you can actually understand because obviously, you don't know much about economics if you think tariffs are so great. And "debating Lew" or exchanging a couple of emails with him doesn't mean anything; I'm sure he gets mails from socialists, communists & all sorts of people but them having exchanged letters with him does NOT mean that they actually understand economics 




> Back to the subject at hand, it is simply that I would prefer flat, across the board, untargeted tariffs as opposed to income taxes. Assuming that the Federal government exists and that it will take revenue one way or another, that is a preference. But we've had this debate about 100 times, so you already knew that.


It does NOT matter whether tariffs are flat-rate or not, as I've said many a times before, they're a TAX on AMERICAN PEOPLE & because NOT all Americans will be buying imported goods to the same extent, it results in people paying the tax INEQUITABLY as some Americans pay more than others, just like income-tax & that is against the principle that government should treat all its citizens EQUALLY.

Further, why FORCE people to pay taxes? If people want a government then they should be charitable enough to donate money.

And I'm GUESSING you're for deregulation (although I wouldn't be surpised if you aren't) so what makes you think that tariffs won't be used to confer favors by politicians to benefit their corporate buddies or to get votes from misguided souls like some here who think that raising prices & reducing goods/services creates prosperity? I mean in an unregulated market, as early American history clearly shows, tariffs are usually used by politicians to further corporatism at the expense of American people so keeping in mind that almost all politicians everywhere tend to be corrupt, why do you think they won't misuse tariffs? There's no guarantee of that.




> And when it comes to dogma, the "free trade is good argument", as used by most people in the *general* public, is based on a marketing campaign by global merchants, not on Austrian or in-depth economics.


It has been mentioned OVER & OVER again that those "global merchants" want a REGULATED CORPORATIZED form of trade that benefits them, not the REAL free trade that benefits the people that we're arguing for here so I don't see the point of you bringing it up on this thread. We've made cogent arguments for REAL free trade based on sound economics, NOT based on some dogma.




> This ^^^^
> 
> + rep


As I've said, Founders were right about a lot of things but they were men & hence NOT infallible, they LIED to American people by telling them that tariffs were an "external tax" in order to FOOL people into believing that they weren't being taxed for it but as has been already established, tariffs are a tax on AMERICANS & further, it's an INEQUITABLE form of taxation just like income-tax because NOT all Americans will buy imported goods to the same extent which means some Americans will be paying more tariffs-tax than others & that violates the principle that government should treat ALL Americans EQUALLY.

As for Gandhi, he never had power to tariff, he just encouraged Indians to "buy Indian" WITHOUT use of FORCE which is COMPLETELY different from FORCING people to pay tariff-tax. Further, after his death & after India gained independence, the government continued Gandhi's legacy of "buying Indian" & it had been extremely protectionist for protecting local industries & workers by blocking cheaper foreign goods which subjected the country & its masses to destitute poverty for more than 4 decades UNTIL they significantly opened up their economy in the early 90s & after that it has seen a tremendous amount of growth & millions of its people have been raised out of poverty. So India's example actually makes a case AGAINST protectionism.

Please care to read the following link, putting tariffs actually INCREASES unemployment due to displacement of capital, LESS goods/services are produced & hence their prices are HIGHER & thereby people have LOWER living standards.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post3431667

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> As for Gandhi, he never had power to tariff, he just encouraged Indians to "buy Indian" WITHOUT use of FORCE which is COMPLETELY different from FORCING people to pay tariff-tax. Further, after his death & after India gained independence, the government continued Gandhi's legacy of "buying Indian" & it had been extremely protectionist for protecting local industries & workers by blocking cheaper foreign goods which subjected the country & its masses to destitute poverty for more than 4 decades UNTIL they significantly opened up their economy in the early 90s & after that it has seen a tremendous amount of growth & millions of its people have been raised out of poverty. So India's example actually makes a case AGAINST protectionism.


India has improved their economy by selling services (and some goods) to the US, and also by leaving their country, earning money, and sending it back to India or returning with it. Technology, for the most part, has allowed them to export "service" directly from India. It really has nothing to do with Indian import tariffs. Perhaps you can give us your source for this recent change in their rates for import taxes, tariffs or fees?

A quick look brings up two main Import related laws from India, one in 1962, and a revised one in 1975:




> In India, the basic law for levy and collection of customs duty is Customs Act, 1962. It provides for levy and collection of duty on imports and exports, import/export procedures, prohibitions on importation and exportation of goods, penalties, offences, etc. 
> 
> http://business.gov.in/taxation/custom_duty.php


and




> THE CUSTOMS TARIFF ACT, 1975
> http://cbec.gov.in/customs/cst-0809/...es-interpt.pdf

----------


## Jace

..

----------


## Cutlerzzz

> Interesting interpretation. 
> 
> It sounds like you are rationalizing the slaughter of Chinese people in the Opium Wars because their government was protectionist when it outlawed British opium in their ports. The Chinese government was protectionist so that's what caused the British to send in their gunboats to kill Chinese people and seize land in China for ports for their ships. They killed Chinese people to put an end to protectionism so they could continue to sell opium for silver. I guess those Brits felt strongly about the principle of free trade because they were willing to kill for it to end the protectionism that was preventing them from making a buck off opium sales.
> 
> I guess we Americans did a lot of that in Central America whenever the Banana Republics got tired of gringos owning everything. Just send in the Marines to kill to protect the principles of private property and free trade. The United Fruit Company needs its profits, and if people have to die to keep the ports open, so be it.
> 
> The Chinese today aren't followers of free trade theory. They are still protectionists, as you spelled out in your previous post. They have strong opinions about the Opium Wars. I can tell you that from personal experience.
> 
> I would love to hear a Chinese person respond to your interpretation of the Opium Wars.


You cited William McKinnley in your defense of protectionism, who killed far more people in a war of imperial agression than any American involved in the Banana Wars ever did. lol.

----------


## Paul Or Nothing II

> India has improved their economy by selling services (and some goods) to the US, and also by leaving their country, earning money, and sending it back to India or returning with it. Technology, for the most part, has allowed them to export "service" directly from India. It really has nothing to do with Indian import tariffs. Perhaps you can give us your source for this recent change in their rates for import taxes, tariffs or fees?
> 
> A quick look brings up two main Import related laws from India, one in 1962, and a revised one in 1975:
> 
> and


Do you think protectionism only includes tariffs?  It includes many other things like import-quotas, import-substitution, restrictions on foreign direct investment, restrictions on setting up of foreign companies in the country & other regulatory barriers, etc. India really took to Gandhi's "buy Indian" message & may be it was a good way to revolt WHILE they were under the British Rule to overthrow them BUT after independence, it was stupidity all the way. Government wanted to protect their traditional textile industries & workers from Western much more cheaper cloth produced with superior technology, even though people were using ineffective methods like spinning wheel & handlooms, etc because that'd been a significant part of their culture; Gandhi used to spend hours spinning on the wheel & that's why they've that on their flag too. 1991 is considered the most significant year in India's economic transformation, they call it "economic liberation of India" or something, google it for yourself. Before that the changes were very minimal, it was 1991 & the later period that protectionist measures significantly reduced that ushered in an era of prosperity for them & *100s of millions* have been raised out of destitute, grinding poverty since 1991.

And if one wants to talk about tariffs alone pre-1991 then -
http://www.adb.org/Documents/EDRC/Po...iefs/PB002.pdf



> Imports were also subject to excessively high tariffs. The top rate was 400 percent. As much as 60 percent of tariff lines were subject to rates ranging from 110 to 150 percent and only 4 percent of the tariff rates were below 60 percent.


This link has more numerical data - http://www.icrier.org/pdf/WP172.pdf

And your belief that "India grew because of US" is fallacious. India's GDP is ~1.5 trillion so their exports to US are pretty insignificant, more so when one considers their imports from US as well.
http://www.ustr.gov/countries-region...ral-asia/india



> Exports totaled $26 billion; Imports totaled $34 billion. The U.S. goods and services trade deficit with India was $7 billion in 2009.





> Services exports were $9.9 billion; Services imports were $12.4 billion.


Seriously, stop drinking the Kool-aid & start learning economics, it's NOT true that the world will die out without US or something; with this attitude pervading among Americans, it's no surprise that people around the world think that Americans act like the world revolves around them.  China & India have their huge populations & thereby huge domestic markets, believing that they wouldn't grow without US is sort of narcissistic. As I've said over & over again, US's toilet-paper-money is NOT wealth, goods & services are REAL WEALTH & without their cheaper goods, prices would soar in the United States & living standards would plummet faster than they're plummeting right now & that's why it'd be a very stupid move on our part to erect tariff-barriers.




> Interesting interpretation. 
> 
> It sounds like you are rationalizing the slaughter of Chinese people in the Opium Wars because their government was protectionist when it outlawed British opium in their ports. The Chinese government was protectionist so that's what caused the British to send in their gunboats to kill Chinese people and seize land in China for ports for their ships. They killed Chinese people to put an end to protectionism so they could continue to sell opium for silver. I guess those Brits felt strongly about the principle of free trade because they were willing to kill for it to end the protectionism that was preventing them from making a buck off opium sales.
> 
> I guess we Americans did a lot of that in Central America whenever the Banana Republics got tired of gringos owning everything. Just send in the Marines to kill to protect the principles of private property and free trade. The United Fruit Company needs its profits, and if people have to die to keep the ports open, so be it.
> 
> The Chinese today aren't followers of free trade theory. They are still protectionists, as you spelled out in your previous post. They have strong opinions about the Opium Wars. I can tell you that from personal experience.
> 
> I would love to hear a Chinese person respond to your interpretation of the Opium Wars.


Another pathetic attempt at diverting the main subject & another disingenuous straw man argument 

As I've already said, British were no saints so there's no question of "rationalizing" what they did; the point is that the war would NOT have happened had Chinese government not been so idiotically protectionist. Free trade would've helped suck out their inflation & bring more goods into the country & lower prices & increase their living standards but obviously, like you & others here, they didn't understand economics too well & thought that "money" (silver) is wealth when the fact is that goods/services are the real wealth.

Your whole argument is that "free trade is bad because some nations have caused violence in the name of free trade". Well, by the same token, is FREEDOM bad just because US government goes around waging wars & killing people in the name of spreading freedom?  Really naive arguments.

And what any Chinese person thinks about opium war or free trade is IRRELEVANT in the face of facts & the economic facts are on the side of free trade, & most of their opinions are largely dictated by their government anyway; I'm sure many of them like communism/socialism too so are going to buy into that as well "because they think so"? In the same way, plenty of people in America deem Fed to be "essential" to US economy but does that really matter in the face of facts? I don't think so.

*Where are your arguments based on sound economics?*
I've already established through sound economics that tariffs cause MORE unemployment, LESS goods/services, HIGHER prices & LOWER living standards.



> *CURRENT AMERICA-CHINA SITUATION*
> 
> Generally, people find it easier to understand the link between import-export, currencies, free trade & prosperity when we look at how these things work under a "commodity-standard" so I'll try to explain these things in the context of current America-China situation. When we're on a paper-money-standard, NOTHING amongst these variables & how they lead to prosperity changes but understanding the underlying relationship may get difficult to understand due to added factors like government manipulation of currency but the underlying effects do NOT change.
> 
> Now, under a paper-currency, WITHOUT any manipulation, when US keeps buying alot of Chinese goods, it'd cause Yuan to rise against dollar & over time, Chinese would find US products cheaper & US would find Chinese products costlier & then market equilibrium will go back & forth like that.
> 
> But in real life, China either buys dollars or devalues their currency in order to NOT allow it to rise against the dollar. But this does NOT have any negative effect on US. WHY? Well, when US buys from China, it gets cheap goods which enhance Americans' living standards while it gets US dollars in return. Of course, it doesn't allow its currency to rise but that only hurts the purchasing-power of Chinese people BUT those dollars get reinvested in US one way or another which helps create jobs & goods/services in US & the additional income that is generated out of it is what allows Americans to buy more Chinese goods so it's essentially a win-win situation for BOTH countries (except the Chinese people, of course but they too benefit to a degree anyway) so they're essentially keeping their people poor through tariffs & currency-manipulation to provide US with cheaper goods, not a bad situation to be in for the US.
> 
> Now, what'll happen if we adopt protectionism & put up tariffs? Well, it'll obviously mean an end to cheaper goods as well as MORE of our capital will be used up for LESS goods because our workers will've to be paid much higher wages because of minium-wage laws & everything so MORE of our capital will be engaged in production of LESS goods which obviously means much higher prices AND it also means that that ADDITIONAL CAPITAL that'll be needed will be sucked out from other areas of the economy which means you'll've MORE job-losses & drop in production & higher prices in those areas.
> ...





> You cited William McKinnley in your defense of protectionism, who killed far more people in a war of imperial agression than any American involved in the Banana Wars ever did. lol.


+1

Good one

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> 1991 is considered the most significant year in India's economic transformation, they call it "economic liberation of India" or something, google it for yourself.


Interesting stuff.

Have you read Confessions of an Economic Hitman?

So will India be the next Indonesia or Saudi Arabia? In other words, will they be totally destroyed by sleeping with the international oligarchy like Indonesia has been, or will they be savvy enough to maintain a Saudi Arabian style mutual hostage situation?




> In 1991, after India faced a balance of payments crisis, it had to sell 67 tons of gold to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) as part of a bailout deal, and promise economic restructuring.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economi...ation_in_India

----------


## Brian4Liberty

Another interesting link, as told by an Indian. Consistent with the MO of the international corporatists.




> India, after all these years of economic reforms, is at the crossroads. While one road leads India to economic prosperity and glory, the other road leads it to social inequality. Presently, as India is one of the fastest growing economies in the world, the social aspects have been ridden roughshod by the economic benefits. What has been conveniently forgotten or suppressed till date have been the disparities, mainly the socio-economical issues. This has led to growing discontent among the population and it has gathered momentum since the reforms began 15 years ago. It will very soon reach a critical point wherein the very purpose for which the reforms were started, will start to lose their significance rapidly and throw the country back into the ‘license raj’ and ‘unionist’ era.
> 
> The chasm between the rich and the poor has increased so vastly that the rich are just getting richer and the poor are just getting poorer. The real benefits of the economic reforms have rarely percolated to the lowest strata of society. Just to illustrate the same with an example, most of the states today vie with one another to grab a project of any significance, be it chemical, auto or even IT. In doing so, the benefits they are offering, right from free land to tax sops are being given on a platter. But the benefits or savings that a company gains from this does not affect the lower strata of management, but remains in the hands of the top management, thus depriving the former of the economic benefits. Also, most of the labor laws in the country are outdated and have not kept pace with economic reforms. Thus, the exploitation of the working class becomes much easier. A classic example is the BPO industry in our country. While most of them work in the nights, the pressure each employee faces to deliver results and the working conditions are appalling, to say the least.
> 
> http://www.chillibreeze.com/articles...ralization.asp

----------


## showpan

> Resorting to guilt by association and subject changing, yet again, I see.
> 
> Also, Somalia is a misnomer, for the most part---people don't claim that perfection will arise out of anarchy--it's merely suggested that anarchy is _better off_ than under a statist regime--and things have, as a matter of fact, improved there: http://mises.org/daily/5418/Anarchy-in-Somalia
> 
> It also has the lowest telecom rates in all of Africa--that's fairly impressive for a country that has no government at all.


Somalia has been in a constant state of turmoil, fighting and anarchy since the collapse of Siad Barres regime in 1991. It remains one of the worst humanitarian situations in the world, with 3.2 million people in need of assistance and 1 in 7 Somalis having fled their homes. In 2009, over 1 MILLION refugees had been displaced due to infighting between various clans and Islamist extremists.

Anarchy is slowly being replaced starting with a truce in 2009 that saw the formation of a Somalia coalition government who would eventually lose control of over 80% of disputed territories to Islamist insurgents. A new Transitional Federal Government has emerged from that coalition with the backing of the U.S., the U.N. and African Union and has been investing in infrastructure, economic and social programs. The Transitional Federal Government continues to reach out to both Somali and international stakeholders to help grow the administrative capacity of the Transitional Federal Institutions and to work toward eventual national elections in 2011, when the interim government's mandate expires. Whoever did that article for Mises seems to have left this info out...lol

Backed by China, Korea and Europe, multinational corporations such as Sprint, ITT and Telenor, now offer the cheapest service in Africa as they try to gain a foothold in new territories. Prominent Somali telecommunications companies now include Golis Telecom Group, Hormuud Telecom, Somafone, Nationlink, Netco, Telcom and Somali Telecom Group. Hormuud Telecom alone grosses about $40 million a year. Despite their rivalry, several of these companies signed an interconnectivity deal in 2005 that allows them to set prices, maintain and expand their networks, and ensure that competition does not get out of control. So, in retrospect, the telecom industry is not thriving under "free market" conditions...it is thriving under regulations and price controls....lol....Mises seems to have also left this info out too.

A few stats about Somalia since we are on the subject.

GDP PER CAPITA: $590.76 per capita
Physicians 0.04 per 1,000 people (106th of 148)
Life expectancy at birth, years > Total population	44		 (174th of 186)
Major infectious diseases > Food or waterborne diseases
bacterial and protozoal diarrhea, hepatitis A and E, and typhoid fever
Major infectious diseases > Water contact disease	schistosomiasis
Economic activity > Both sexes aged 10-14	31.3%		 (20th of 89) 
Fixed line and mobile phone subscribers > per 1,000 people	 72.92 per 1,000 people		 (123rd of 193)
Households with television > %	 8.45 %		 (126th of 160)
Televisions	135,000		 (125th of 215)
Personal computers	 50,000		 (116th of 164)
Adjusted savings: education expenditure > % of GNI	 1.05 % of GNI		 (137th of 168)
aptitude results	54.986		 (187th of 191)
Scientific and technical journal articles	 1		 (165th of 175)

http://www.nationmaster.com/country/so-somalia

43% of the population live on less than 1 US dollar a day

Somalia is ranked #1 on a list of the 60 worst countries in the world by news-world.us

Somalia is ranked first in percentage of girls out of school: 94%
Mostly due to high levels of prostitution and sex trafficking, only 6% of girls are in primary school. 

A consequence of the collapse of governmental authority that accompanied the civil war has been the emergence of a significant problem with piracy in the waters off of the coast of Somalia in territories that are still under Islamist control.

Note 
Due to heightened tension in the region, travel to Somalia is not currently recommended. For further information visitors should seek official advice

----------


## ProIndividual

I see some are still in favor of theft. Nice...still don't trust the free market? Still don't think willing traders can individually make better decisions on their own as to how to make themselves wealthy, than their government can for them?

Disappointing.

Taxes, tariffs, regulations beyond restrictions to harm and fraud, and protectionism are all theft...a violent act against individual property rights. This is a property rights debate.

Why do you advocate theft? Leave aside for a moment it is ACTUALLY economic suicide...just pretend you're not delusional for a moment...assuming it's GOOD for the economy, why would you advocate theft to IMPROVE anything? Even if theft makes me richer longterm, I still don't see how that stops it from being theft (a violent coercive act against my property rights).

*So at best you're advocating theft for the sake of prosperity. Quite an immoral, if not amoral, stance.

At worst you're advocating theft for the sake of not admitting you're wrong (which leads to economic suicide).

I like the morally consistant and possibly (factually) economically successful one; free trade.
*

FTW.

----------


## showpan

> Another interesting link, as told by an Indian. Consistent with the MO of the international corporatists.


I watched a special on how the India government had taken land from 1000's of small villages in order to create waterways to irrigate large tracts of dry lands they had leased to Del Monte and others. It was horrible as the water rose behind the Dams and the subsequent release of the water. It flooded out valleys where these people had lived for generations. Many of them refused to be displaced and stood there as the water rose around them...1000's had drowned as the Army tried to force them out. It effected up to 1 MILLION people and was financed by the World Bank.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> I watched a special on how the India government had taken land from 100's of small villages in order to create waterways to irrigate large tracts of dry lands they had leased to Del Monte and others.


Most Indians will tell you that corruption, bribery, bureaucracy and cronyism in the US is child's play when compared to India. No doubt the oligarchs of India have fit right in with the global corporatists.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> India's GDP is ~1.5 trillion so their exports to US are pretty insignificant, more so when one considers their imports from US as well.


Yes, tens of billions of dollars in trade deficit do pale while Obama is throwing around trillions like toilet paper. On the other hand, any corporation still cares very deeply about a billion dollars in revenue.

You can dig into government statistics all day, but how much faith can you really put into them?




> A major problem I see with your analyst is the emphasis on GDP, as if it is a dependable measure. Simon Kuznets, who invented GDP, had this to say about it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 			
> 				The statistician who supposes that he can make a purely objective estimate of national income, not influenced by preconceptions concerning the "facts," is deluding himself; for whenever he includes one item or excludes another he is implicitly accepting some standard of judgement, his own or that of the compiler of the data. There is no escaping this subjective element.
> 			
> ...

----------


## Paul Or Nothing II

> Interesting stuff.
> 
> Have you read Confessions of an Economic Hitman?
> 
> So will India be the next Indonesia or Saudi Arabia? In other words, will they be totally destroyed by sleeping with the international oligarchy like Indonesia has been, or will they be savvy enough to maintain a Saudi Arabian style mutual hostage situation?


Straw man argument.

I'm NOT arguing for oligarchy, corporatism, etc; I'm arguing for free markets & free trade. And guess where the oligarchs & corporatists get their powers from? THE GOVERNMENT & POLITICIANS. And that's why, they should NOT be allowed to meddle in the markets & trade because then they use it to benefit those that bribe & fund them.




> In 1991, after India faced a balance of payments crisis, it had to sell 67 tons of gold to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) as part of a bailout deal, and promise economic restructuring.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economi...ation_in_India


Is this a joke or something?  India faced balance of payments crisis BECAUSE of PROTECTIONISM they'd had until 1991 & after they significantly freed up their economy & reduced protectionism, it has IMPROVED their world-standing so in spite of IMF bailout & losing a little gold, they're starting WAY BETTER after opening up their economy than before & NOW they've been BUYING huge amounts of gold from IMF lol So unknowingly, you're arguing FOR free trade, NOT protectionism lmao

Their economy was in $#@!ters when they were hardcore protectionists Because their protectionism was CHOKING their economy, they were protecting inefficient production methods & producers so there were NOT PRODUCING ENOUGH to get anything in return from other countries & that's why they'd balance of payments crisis.

The problem is that most people, like some here, don't understand sound economics, they don't realize that when a country is engaging in free trade, even the cheaper GOOD/SERVICES imports are ESSENTIALLY capital coming in, "money" is NOT capital all by itself but just a representation of REAL capital ie goods/services & the economies invest goods/services into the economy & produce more goods/services & that's how economies grow. So when India was being protectionist, it was REDUCING capital by blocking cheaper goods/services & they were producing LESS goods/services due to their use of inefficient methods so obviously their domestic production was NOT ENOUGH to meet the local demands to curb enough imports OR export enough to other countries to receive enough in foreign exchange, that's why they'd the balance of payments crisis, because they'd protectionist fixed exchange rates & they weren't allowing foreigners to invest their currency back into Indian market either so foreigners didn't want their currency thereby they ran into shortages on foreign exchange. Significantly cutting down on protectionism allowed more capital (goods-services/money) to come in which was in essence invested into the economy to produce MORE goods/services & that's what's allowed them to prosper afterwards.




> Another interesting link, as told by an Indian. Consistent with the MO of the international corporatists.


Well, typical socialist/communist propaganda. They always talk "income inequality", well, it's a very natural consequence of the fact that NOT ALL PEOPLE are equally talented, some are smarter others not that much, some do certain things better than others, etc etc so communists/socialists essentially are oppoesed to the HUMAN CONDITION itself.

If we DON'T have a system where people earn according to their skill & work then such a system means EVERYONE is much poorer than they otherwise would be if they were in a system where people were rewarded according to their skills. So talking about "income inequality" like the communists/socialist do is POINTLESS, it'd be inevitable even in the freest of societies simply because some people are naturally more talented than others & using their talents benefit the society as a whole.

As Margaret Thatcher had said, *"(people talking about 'income inequality') would rather the poor were poorer provided the rich were less rich"*, that's what communism/socialism argument for "equality" comes down to ie *they'd rather have everyone EQUALLY MISERABLE than be INEQUALLY PROSPEROUS.*




(Ok, I'll say it in advance, don't come to me saying Thatcher did this & that wrong or whatever, her argument would STILL stand to reason anyway)

As for the corporatism & corruption & all, that's BECAUSE of government & politicians misusing their power BUT I'm NOT arguing for corporatism & corruption, I'm arguing for FREE TRADE & it's blatently obvious after significantly freeing up their economy, the people of India a whole & it has raised 100s of MILLIONS of people out of destitute poverty caused by their "benevolent" protectionist government for over 4 decades. The problems of corruption & corporatism only make a case FOR free markets & FOR free trade.




> I watched a special on how the India government had taken land from 1000's of small villages in order to create waterways to irrigate large tracts of dry lands they had leased to Del Monte and others. It was horrible as the water rose behind the Dams and the subsequent release of the water. It flooded out valleys where these people had lived for generations. Many of them refused to be displaced and stood there as the water rose around them...1000's had drowned as the Army tried to force them out. It effected up to 1 MILLION people and was financed by the World Bank.





> Most Indians will tell you that corruption, bribery, bureaucracy and cronyism in the US is child's play when compared to India. No doubt the oligarchs of India have fit right in with the global corporatists.


You people are NOT making any arguments against free trade but against corruption & corporatism & that's alright but again, the question has to be asked, what facilitates this corruption & corporatism & the CLEAR ANSWER is GOVERNMENT & POLITICIANS & that's why they should NOT be allowed to meddle in the markets & trade because they're allowed to do that then they merely benefit those who bribe & fund them.

*The bottomline is that vast majority of Indians were living in destitute poverty due to the government's protectionist attitude BUT after it was significantly freed up, it has essentially turned itself around quite bit & 100s of millions of Indians were raised out starvation & poverty & are BETTER OFF NOW than they were under government-led protectionism.*




> Yes, tens of billions of dollars in trade deficit do pale while Obama is throwing around trillions like toilet paper. On the other hand, any corporation still cares very deeply about a billion dollars in revenue.


*Why don't you read my earlier posts rather than raising the same baseless fallacies that have ALREADY been refuted?*

It has already been demonstrated that trade deficits are NOT NECESSARILY a bad thing, it merely means more REAL WEALTH is coming in ie goods/services & prices are lower & living standards are higher than they would be otherwise; and trade surplus means more REAL WEALTH is GOING OUT & as I've already explained in detail, there's a natural market mechanism which always moves towards equilibrium.




> Generally, people find it easier to understand the link between import-export, currencies, free trade & prosperity when we look at how these things work under a "commodity-standard" so I'll try to explain these things in the context of current America-China situation. When we're on a paper-money-standard, NOTHING amongst these variables & how they lead to prosperity changes but understanding the underlying relationship may get difficult to understand due to added factors like government manipulation of currency but the underlying effects do NOT change.
> 
> Now, it is important to understand how "commodity-standard" (in this case "silver-standard") works. When country C exports to country E, goods go out & silver (money) comes in while silver (money) goes out of country E & goods come in. Because there'd been a gap in the living standards of Europe & China, China for a fair number of years had been exporting to Europe which caused Chinese silver-reserves to increase & lowered European silver-reserves BUT what does it mean? It means that China's "money-supply" (or "silver-supply" if you will) increased while Europe's silver-supply decreased which meant that an ounce of silver in China had LOWER purchasing-power while an ounce of silver in Europe had HIGHER purchasing-power.
> 
> Now, under normal circumstances, if free markets are allowed work, it'd just mean that Chinese will find cheaper European goods attractive & Europeans will find Chinese costlier goods less attractive which means European imports into China will increase & silver will go back into Europe as a result & this is how the markets keep moving back & forth towards equilibrium.





> Now, under a paper-currency, WITHOUT any manipulation, when US keeps buying alot of Chinese goods, it'd cause Yuan to rise against dollar & over time, Chinese would find US products cheaper & US would find Chinese products costlier & then market equilibrium will go back & forth like that.
> 
> But in real life, China either buys dollars or devalues their currency in order to NOT allow it to rise against the dollar. But this does NOT have any negative effect on US. WHY? Well, when US buys from China, it gets cheap goods which enhance Americans' living standards while it gets US dollars in return. Of course, it doesn't allow its currency to rise but that only hurts the purchasing-power of Chinese people BUT those dollars get reinvested in US one way or another which helps create jobs & goods/services in US & the additional income that is generated out of it is what allows Americans to buy more Chinese goods so it's essentially a win-win situation for BOTH countries (except the Chinese people, of course but they too benefit to a degree anyway) so they're essentially keeping their people poor through tariffs & currency-manipulation to provide US with cheaper goods, not a bad situation to be in for the US.
> 
> Now, what'll happen if we adopt protectionism & put up tariffs? Well, it'll obviously mean an end to cheaper goods as well as MORE of our capital will be used up for LESS goods because our workers will've to be paid much higher wages because of minium-wage laws & everything so MORE of our capital will be engaged in production of LESS goods which obviously means much higher prices AND it also means that that ADDITIONAL CAPITAL that'll be needed will be sucked out from other areas of the economy which means you'll've MORE job-losses & drop in production & higher prices in those areas.
> 
> Now, interventionists mostly see the economy as a static model & that's why they think that they can meddle in one area of the economy & not affect others but that's not how the real-world economies work; in fact, they're very dynamic so every time you meddle in one area, it causes all others to re-adjust accordingly & that's why central-planning is so difficult to engage in because of the dynamic nature of economies.
> 
>  So because of economy's dynamic nature, even if prices increase in one area, it causes all the other prices to re-adjust according their new supply/demand factors. Because as prices initially rise even in an area of the economy, people bearing those high prices demand higher incomes to ensure their prosperity & higher-skilled people have the most bargaining power because their skills are in shorter supply than lower-skilled people & in order to free up more capital to accommodate higher incomes of higher-skilled people, businesses have to lay off more lower-skilled people which causes more unemployment among the poor low-skilled workers, decrease in production of goods/services AND higher prices of goods/services that the business is producing & so on & so on it causes a "domino effect" throughout the economy. Therefore, prices & unemployment throughout the economy keep having upward pressure, the production keeps having downward pressure UNTIL the market is put back in charge; if not then the economy keeps eating itself. This is how socialism destroys economies & countries, the more socialist the country, the faster it degenerates.





> You can dig into government statistics all day, but how much faith can you really put into them?


So you don't want to base economic arguments on government statistics (of course I'm not denying that they may or mayn't be right), not on sound economics, not on real-world examples so what do you think the economic arguments should be based on? Hearsay? Dogma? Or the favorite one for the tariffers ie "......because Founders said so" 

Look, there's nothing wrong with having a different opinion at all but you guys are NOT making any economic arguments at all, your whole argument is based on "I THINK this is how it is..." or ".....because Founders said so"; these are NOT real arguments. You MUST understand sound economics if you want to argue economics, otherwise you've no case against those who do know it. As I've said, if it wasn't for Austrian Economics, you people wouldn't know $#@! about Fed & how it works & would've bought into the meme that it is some benevolent thing needed to "rescue us" from financial disasters & to "ensure our prosperity" so it is only fair that you AT LEAST look into Austrian arguments that introduced you to Fed & sound economics & if you don't agree then you MUST make sound ECONOMIC ARGUMENTS against it & if you can't then leave it to those who DO understand economics.

*TRADE DEFICIT MYTH*




*Make economic arguments to make your case, if you can't then learn sound economics, if you can't even do that then leave it to those DO understand it ie people who introduced you to the reality of central-banking ie Austrian Economists*




> I see some are still in favor of theft. Nice...still don't trust the free market? Still don't think willing traders can individually make better decisions on their own as to how to make themselves wealthy, than their government can for them?
> 
> Disappointing.
> 
> Taxes, tariffs, regulations beyond restrictions to harm and fraud, and protectionism are all theft...a violent act against individual property rights. This is a property rights debate.
> 
> Why do you advocate theft? Leave aside for a moment it is ACTUALLY economic suicide...just pretend you're not delusional for a moment...assuming it's GOOD for the economy, why would you advocate theft to IMPROVE anything? Even if theft makes me richer longterm, I still don't see how that stops it from being theft (a violent coercive act against my property rights).
> 
> *So at best you're advocating theft for the sake of prosperity. Quite an immoral, if not amoral, stance.
> ...


The thing is that communists/socialists are ok with theft AS LONG AS they get to rob others BUT NOT when others get to rob them  The whole premise of socialism/communism & the "income inequality" they like to talk about so much is the naive belief that everyone can get by at the expense of everyone else & that such THIEVERY will create prosperity  But in reality, that only leads to collusion between government & plutocrats which turns countries into socialist-corporatist countries that are dime a dozen in the world, including US, but obviously, like people here, most people don't understand enough of sound economics or the nature of politics to realize this truth.

----------


## Jace

..

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> You people are NOT making any arguments against free trade but against corruption & corporatism & that's alright


Now you are making some progress. You are on the road to recovery.

Tariffs are the lesser of multiple evils, to fund a government that is not going away, with some benefits over other options like income taxes.




> *Why don't you read my earlier posts rather than raising the same baseless fallacies that have ALREADY been refuted?*


As much as we would all like to ponder every bit of your enlightened, meaningful and superior words (or tomes), it does become a bit repetitive.

Also, you may want to run some anti-virus software. You seem to have some kind of computer virus that causes your cap-lock to go on and off randomly.

----------


## Cutlerzzz

> President McKinley opposed war with Spain. McKinley, Speaker of the House Thomas Reed, and the Republican newspapers of the day strongly opposed rising public sentiment for intervention in Cuba. The yellow journalism of the Democratic newspapers were whipping the public into a frenzy over Spanish atrocities there.
> 
> When the USS Maine exploded in Havana harbor, Congress declared war on Spain. McKinley went along with it, but Speaker Reed resigned on principle. 
> 
> Interestingly, George W. Bush was elected in 2000 on a non-interventionist foreign policy platform similar to that of McKinley before the Spanish American War. But after 9/11, Bush became an interventionist, just like McKinley did after the explosion of the USS Maine. These sneak attacks seem to be a theme in American history, breaking us from our non-interventionist tendencies and plunging us into wars overseas.
> 
> McKinley was for limited government, tariffs and the gold standard.
> 
> McKinley's backer Mark Hanna told him that his most important duty in office was to stay alive so that Vice President Theodore Roosevelt--an uber interventionist and the neoconservative of his day--would not become president. Hanna thought Roosevelt was a madman.
> ...


lol

It's really hard to take you seriously when the basis of your post is "McKinnley opposed the War with Spain, but went to war with them anyways. After the war ended, he annexed and permanently occupied multiple countries, where we put their citizens into concentration camps and starved hundreds of thousands of their people to death. But he was against it on princinple".

----------


## Cutlerzzz

> Now you are making some progress. You are on the road to recovery.
> 
> Tariffs are the lesser of multiple evils, to fund a government that is not going away, with some benefits over other options like income taxes.
> 
> 
> 
> As much as we would all like to ponder every bit of your enlightened, meaningful and superior words (or tomes), it does become a bit repetitive.
> 
> Also, you may want to run some anti-virus software. You seem to have some kind of computer virus that causes your cap-lock to go on and off randomly.


When the US previously raised revenue from tariffs, revenue was generally less than 2% of GDP. Why do we need taxes to pay for less than 2%?

----------


## Travlyr

> Straw man argument.
> 
> I'm NOT arguing for oligarchy, corporatism, etc; I'm arguing for free markets & free trade. *And guess where the oligarchs & corporatists get their powers from? THE GOVERNMENT & POLITICIANS.*


No they don't. They are the mafia. I disagree with your premise.

I seems to me that the oligarchs and corporatists get their power from counterfeiting. Counterfeiting fiat currency is not moral or based on the rule of law. Then they hire _"politicians"_, military & police, public schooling, media, and continuing education (Hollywood) to fulfill their agenda. 

They certainly do not derive any of their power from the Constitution.

----------


## showpan

He also thinks that a trade deficit equals wealth coming in and a surplus means wealth is leaving....lol 
When the amount of people living in despair get's to a certain point, the bubble will certainly burst here. I suspect it will happen around January when the federal unemployment benefit extension runs out and the neocons refuse to extend it. My guess is that they are just as much unprepared as they were for Iraq. They only know what they are being told by those "think tanks" who have also sold them on the idea of a global market and currency. They are betting that the vast majority here will just lay down and beg them to help change this country into the corporate fascist state they envision.

----------


## Jace

..

----------


## Jace

..

----------


## showpan

> Let's see if I can summarize their arguments.
> 
> 
> A trade deficit means more wealth coming in.
> 
> American manufacturing jobs moving to China means higher-paying jobs for Americans.
> 
> American service sector and technology jobs moving to India means higher-paying jobs for Americans.
> 
> ...



You forgot to add socialism....moving all of our jobs overseas means that there will be less socialism because less people will be collecting welfare, food stamps, unemployment and medicaid and more immigration will not add to that either....lol

----------


## jmdrake

> I think we must identify the purpose of the economy.
> 
> It's entire purpose is consumption.  It comes down to trading a surplus of what we have for a deficit of what we need.  Imagine a world without government.  Only those who are productive survive, which encourages competition, downward pressure on prices, and increased quality.
> 
> With trade barriers, it's harder to trade what you have for what you need.  Maybe someone in another country makes something way better than a domestic producer.  When there's trade barriers, it is harder for the consumer to obtain what he needs.  Thus we see, trade barriers not only affect the consumer, but bereft the innovative producer of incentives - i.e. profits.  This is counter-productive.
> 
> Therefore, tarrifs impede people's ability to thrive.
> 
> Again, the purpose of the economy is not to employ people for the sake of employment.  If that were so, people would be paid to dig holes and fill them up again.  The purpose is always to meet demand.  Also, seeing the need to prop up domestic producers is also counter-intuitive to libertarian philosophy.  We are all created with equal claims to life, liberty, and property no matter the place of birth.  Tarrifs result in indirect theft from foreign producers since they rob them of potential profits.
> ...


Whenever someone claims his logic is infallible that's a sure sign that it isn't.  In fact it's probably not even logic.  This is no exception.

The immediate problem with your logic is the belief that the purpose of the economy is consumption.  That fallacy is part of the reason that we are in the mess that we are in now.  Almost all our economy does is consume.  So if your argument was correct our economy would be in a good shape.  It's not. 

Also the idea that in a world without government only those who are productive would survive is fallacious.  Is a pirate "productive"?  Even in nature there are parasites.  As long as they don't kill off their host they can survive quite well actually.

Also this is what happens when you just trade your "surplus" with no thought for the future.

http://www1.american.edu/ted/NAURU.htm
_The mining of phosphate on the island of Nauru, located in a remote corner of the Pacific Ocean, has devastated the island environmentally and has created financial, legal, and cultural problems for the islanders. The phosphate is used as a fertilizer around the world and the majority of it has been exported to Australia. The mineral is located among the ancient coral reefs found underground. Mining the phosphate, however, destroys the vegetation and soil of the island. Phosphate is the primary basis for the economy, and with the depletion of the mineral, Nauru is left with nothing to trade. Thus, the island faces virtual economic collapse. Today, Nauru's problems are becoming increasingly acute, as the phosphate on the island has been exhausted, and mining has virtually ceased. As such, the government of Nauru is looking into the question of responsibility for the ecological disaster raging on the island, and is looking into ways to rehabilitate the island._

----------


## Cutlerzzz

> But McKinley did oppose the war. Is that a subject of question? Congress declared war. McKinley was the Commander and Chief, not a dictator. That's the way the Republic is set up. 
> 
> There were comics from the newspapers back then of McKinley and Speaker Reed trying to hold down the top of the Capitol building as all the steam coming out of a boiling Congress threatened to explode. When the USS Maine exploded, the newspapers riled up the public and Congress declared war.
> 
> McKinley became an interventionist once the war began, and I agree with you that it was a bad thing. Once we took over the Philippines from Spain, McKinley thought it was his Christian duty to civilize the Filipinos. Whenever you go down that road, evil things happen. We agree on that. Like all historical figures, and human beings in general, McKinley was a mixed bag. I will say that it was a shame that an anarchist murdered him. He was not an avowed imperialist like Teddy Roosevelt, and he was opposed to a central bank. 
> 
> I would suspect that you agree with McKinley's support of the gold standard and his opposition to the Greenbackers.
> 
> I wonder what Ron Paul would do if he were president and Congress declared war. He would be Commander in Chief. If Ron is elected president, it will mean a return to our non-interventionist roots, but I wouldn't be surprised if a Pearl Harbor-type event soon followed, like what happened to McKinley and Bush. There would some on this board arguing for Ron to attack the attackers, while the rest of us conspiracy theorists would be wondering, cui bono?
> ...


Your defense of Mckinley is lol. He opposed the war before he supported it? He turned a blind eye to a war hungry congress? He only annexed a few countries? McKinnley did support the war, and killed hundreds of thousands of civilians in the process.

----------


## Paul Or Nothing II

> Now you are making some progress. You are on the road to recovery.
> 
> Tariffs are the lesser of multiple evils, to fund a government that is not going away, with some benefits over other options like income taxes.


You're NOT making any progress I guess.

I've ALREADY explained this many times but still....

1) We don't have tariffs because we've big government & REGULATED markets so corporatists control the markets through government "regulations" including "trade agreements" so RIGHT NOW, they don't need tariffs to benefit themselves because they're making all the rules with big government under their control to eliminate competition & dictate international trade through government "regulations" & this is why, RIGHT NOW, vast majority of politicians aren't willing to raise tariffs because it's neither beneficial nor needed for the corporatists.

As for "funding the government", government is already EXTREMELY WELL-FUNDED, they're sucking out nearly 40% of the economy every year (see link below) & WASTING it; only if, most of this spending was left untaxed & left the private sector then we'd've had more jobs, goods/services, lower prices & higher living standards.
http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/d...olor=c&local=s

Putting tariffs will only suck MORE out of the economy & cause MORE unemployment, LESS goods/services, HIGHER prices & LOWER living standards.

And it is extremely disingenuous of you to insinuate that just because we're against tariff-tax that we're for income-tax. NO, it's already been said many a times that we're for NEITHER tariff-tax NOR income-tax & BOTH are INEQUITABLE forms of taxation anyway.

And if you happen to believe that putting tariff-tax is going to make government lower income-taxes then that's laughable. NO, the more they have, the more they'll spend & less will be left in private sector & that'll cause more unemploment,.......

2) IF we ever reach a point where government is small & therefore the markets are UNREGULATED then there's no point in leaving tariffs in the hands of politicians anyways because in the absence of government "regulations", corporatists will've lost their "regulatory" tool to profiteer so IN SUCH AN ENVIRONMENT, they'll turn to tariffs as that'll be the only tool that they could use for their benefit & they'll buy out politicians as usual & enact tariffs in a way that'll protect them & allow them to profiteer at the cost of American people just as was witnessed in the early American history & the "tariff-war" between the South & the North. Northern politicians wanted high tariffs to protect Northern corporatists businesses & to subsidize the Northern businesses with the tariff-money coming in.




> As much as we would all like to ponder every bit of your enlightened, meaningful and superior words (or tomes), it does become a bit repetitive.


*I'm having to repeat myself because you people don't understand economics.

Refute my explanation WITH SOUND ECONOMICS or you're just making baseless assertions.*




> Also, you may want to run some anti-virus software. You seem to have some kind of computer virus that causes your cap-lock to go on and off randomly.


Not surprising at all that you don't understand the reason I'm capitalizing certain words, this again proves that you don't understand sound economics because if you did then you'd've realized why I've been doing that.

And may be you should run an anti-dogma, anti-socialism, anti-thievery software on yourself, may be then you'll actually be in a position to understand sound economics. 




> lol
> 
> It's really hard to take you seriously when the basis of your post is "McKinnley opposed the War with Spain, but went to war with them anyways. After the war ended, he annexed and permanently occupied multiple countries, where we put their citizens into concentration camps and starved hundreds of thousands of their people to death. But he was against it on princinple".





> When the US previously raised revenue from tariffs, revenue was generally less than 2% of GDP. Why do we need taxes to pay for less than 2%?


+1




> No they don't. They are the mafia. I disagree with your premise.
> 
> I seems to me that the oligarchs and corporatists get their power from counterfeiting. Counterfeiting fiat currency is not moral or based on the rule of law. Then they hire _"politicians"_, military & police, public schooling, media, and continuing education (Hollywood) to fulfill their agenda. 
> 
> They certainly do not derive any of their power from the Constitution.


Oh, oh, and who created the Fed? Who has the direct power to revoke Fed's authority? Who makes all the "regulations" that allow corporatists to eliminate competitors & profiteer at the expense of American people? Who runs supports the Military-Industrial-Complex? Who runs propaganda machine called public schools? Who stopped following the Constitution even though they should NOT have?

Here's the answer - THE GOVERNMENT & POLITICIANS

They've all the power with them to undo all those things but the problem is that almost all politicians & governments are always bought, that's the whole reason for limiting their power & size so saying that oligarchs & corporatists don't get their power from government & politicians is ridiculous, of course, they do. The whole purpose of limiting government is to limit the power of the plutocrats because whether government is big or small, for the most part, it almost always is run by the plutocrats; that's how it was during early American history too, even though the government was small, the rich farmers controlled the Southern politics while rich industrialists & bankers controlled the Northern politics, this is exactly how the plutocrats get their power ie THROUGH THE GOVERNMENT & POLITICIANS




> When the USS Maine exploded in Havana harbor, Congress declared war on Spain. McKinley went along with it, but Speaker Reed resigned on principle. 
> 
> Interestingly, George W. Bush was elected in 2000 on a non-interventionist foreign policy platform similar to that of McKinley before the Spanish American War. But after 9/11, Bush became an interventionist, just like McKinley did after the explosion of the USS Maine. These sneak attacks seem to be a theme in American history, breaking us from our non-interventionist tendencies and plunging us into wars overseas.


Funny as hell  By recognizing the parallels between Bush Jr. & McKinley you're actually ADMITTING the fact that he was also a scumbag like Bush who PRETENDED to be anti-war because that was politically palatable at the time before he took office; I wonder how did the USS Maine *MYSTERIOUSLY* exploded all of a sudden anyway 

Even Obama was anti-war BEFORE he became pro-war lmao




> McKinley was for limited government, tariffs and the gold standard.


Have you ever heard about McKinley Tariff? He was in the House then & he massively increased tariffs to protect his corporatist buddies which resulted in massive rise in prices which forced poor farmers to take huge loans from the banks which they couldn't afford to pay & that was why they supported Free Silver movement as they'd wanted to devalue the money so they could pay off their debts with cheap money ie silver.

Have you ever heard of the Sherman Silver Purchase Act? It was drafted by Sherman AND McKinley. It forced government to back more money with silver but there was too much silver in relation to gold which resulted in disastrous depletion of government's gold-reserves, this along with farmers defaulting on loans they couldn't pay led to the Panic of 1893 but fortunately Cleveland repealed the Act after he took office but the damage was already done & the economy suffered another shock with the Panic of 1896.

All of this because of the stupid McKiney Tariff Act & Sherman Silver Purchase Act, both of which McKinley supported, it cost him his seat in the House but luckily, with the support of big corporatist money behind him, he was able to get elected as Governor of his state & was thrown into limelight when he ran for president in 1896, & voila, now he was the "gold-standard guy" , the guy who supported inflationary measures like McKinley Tariff & Sherman Silver Purchase Act that caued two Panics & destroyed many a lives due to his stupidity & corporatism.

Clearly, a typical scumbag flip-flopping politician, he flipped on his position on money-standard as well as his position on war issue; he was a strong supporter of high tariffs for a long time in order to protect his corporatist buddies as usual.




> McKinley's backer Mark Hanna told him that his most important duty in office was to stay alive so that Vice President Theodore Roosevelt--an uber interventionist and the neoconservative of his day--would not become president. Hanna thought Roosevelt was a madman.


So what? So he went on a war-mongering killing spree? NO, McKinley was a FLIP-FLOPPER, that's how he was, he changed his position because it was politically expedient as was supporting the gold-standard when he diid support it.




> McKinley was assassinated by an anarchist follower of Emma Goldman. The murder of McKinley put the progressive interventionist Theodore Roosevelt into the White House.


Just because he got killed all of a sudden, does NOT mean he was a "good guy" or anything  Even Lincoln got killed & as I've explained many a times, he was a life-long corporatist who supported central-banking & accordingly signed National Banking Acts, supported corporatist tariffs & subsidization of favored businesses, introduced the first income-tax of US, the first unbacked toilet-paper-money of US & fought a war to centralize power of the federal government.

Not to mention, irrespective of the motivations of the assassins, governments are always trying to brainwash people into thinking that anyone that is anti-government (be it minarchists or anarchists) is the "bad guy"; just like Ron Paul & Tea-Party are now being equated to terrorists, it's always a tactic by the government & those who run it from behind the curtains to garner support for big government & McKinley clearly was an imperialist war-monger, he did JUSTIFY the war so saying that he went along with the Congress doesn't do it. A typical politician with no integrity & a flip-flopper all the way.

----------


## Paul Or Nothing II

> He also thinks that a trade deficit equals wealth coming in and a surplus means wealth is leaving....lol


You don't understand the basic concept of what a trade deficit, just like many who get scared of it just because of the word "deficit" 

When a country has a deficit, it's importing more than it's exporting but what does it mean? It means dollars are competing for Yuan which causes Yuan to increase in purchasing-power against the dollar. But because China doesn't want this to happen, it either buys more dollars with Yuan or it invests in US (debt for example) & inflates its currency to reduce the purchasing-power of its currency which essentially means that China keeps providing US with cheap goods/services for mostly worthless confetti that US is producing like anything. Goods/services ie REAL WEALTH for confetti? Not a bad deal at all for the moment.

If this is stopped by raising tariffs then that's going to raise the prices & REDUCE the goods/services in the US economy which means US as a whole becomes POORER as prices rise & people can't buy as many goods/services as they could otherwise & as that happens, more capital is displaced & more unemployment is caused. This is not difficult to understand at all if you keep your tariff-cult aside for a moment & use reason.

And as I've said before, the unemployment problem has to do with over-regulation, over-taxation, minimum-wage laws & Fed's boom-bust cycle. Why can't you see that the government is DESTROYING nearly 40% of the capital in the economy every year? How's that not going to affect the economy & unemployment? Adding the tariff-tax just means EVEN LESS capital in the economy, that's NOT going to help.




> Let's see if I can summarize their arguments.


*Why can't you argue against my arguments with SOUND ECONOMICS? Why do you have to resort BLATENT LYING? That says a hell of a lot about you & your arguments* 




> A trade deficit means more wealth coming in.


It means more GOODS/SERVICES coming in & that's true, read the above explanation or try to dispute it with sound economics. If you think paper is prosperity & not goods/services then that says a lot about your knowledge of economics 




> American manufacturing jobs moving to China means higher-paying jobs for Americans.


I've never said that, I've said, it means cheaper goods/services for Americans, & the American labor & capital can move to other areas of the economy.

And why do you have this elitist view that Americans are chosen people or something who deserve higher wages. No, everyone deserves what their skills fetch them, they shouldn't be allowed to ROB others & as I've sufficiently demonstrated, that kind robbery doesn't really bring prosperity to the country in the long-run.




> American service sector and technology jobs moving to India means higher-paying jobs for Americans.


Another straw man 

Read the above.




> More immigration means a bigger population, more labor, and more consumers so that means a bigger economy, just like China and India.


BLATENT LIE. Don't generalize, if you can't read other people's posts.

I've never expressed any support for massive immigration, I only believe in limited high-skilled-workers' immigration.




> American wages falling to compete with Third World wages means there will be more money to go around and a higher standard of living for all.


And what's your suggestion? Why not raise the minimum-wage to $1000 or something? That'd be great, right? Because money (ie toilet-paper) is prosperity, right? Just raise the wages of everyone & we'll've prosperity! 

Come back when you understand the concepts of NOMINAL wage & REAL wage.

If there are more cheaper goods/services in America then that means every $ is worth MORE but I guess that's not important because toilet-paper is money, right? 




> War is Peace.
> 
> Freedom is slavery.


And raising prices increases prosperity,right? 




> You forgot to add socialism....moving all of our jobs overseas means that there will be less socialism because less people will be collecting welfare, food stamps, unemployment and medicaid and more immigration will not add to that either....lol


More BLATENT LYING. How surprising! 

I've said none of that & the fact that you've to lie & you can't make an argument based on sound economics makes you look childish.

*Refute my explanation with SOUND ECONOMICS or you people are NOT making any point anyway.*




> Now, under a paper-currency, WITHOUT any manipulation, when US keeps buying a lot of Chinese goods, it'd cause Yuan to rise against dollar & over time, Chinese would find US products cheaper & US would find Chinese products costlier & then market equilibrium will go back & forth like that.
> 
> But in real life, China either buys dollars or devalues their currency in order to NOT allow it to rise against the dollar. But this does NOT have any negative effect on US. WHY? Well, when US buys from China, it gets cheap goods which enhance Americans' living standards while it gets US dollars in return. Of course, it doesn't allow its currency to rise but that only hurts the purchasing-power of Chinese people BUT those dollars get reinvested in US one way or another which helps create jobs & goods/services in US & the additional income that is generated out of it is what allows Americans to buy more Chinese goods so it's essentially a win-win situation for BOTH countries (except the Chinese people, of course but they too benefit to a degree anyway) so they're essentially keeping their people poor through tariffs & currency-manipulation to provide US with cheaper goods, not a bad situation to be in for the US.
> 
> Now, what'll happen if we adopt protectionism & put up tariffs? Well, it'll obviously mean an end to cheaper goods as well as MORE of our capital will be used up for LESS goods because our workers will've to be paid much higher wages because of minium-wage laws & everything so MORE of our capital will be engaged in production of LESS goods which obviously means much higher prices AND it also means that that ADDITIONAL CAPITAL that'll be needed will be sucked out from other areas of the economy which means you'll've MORE job-losses & drop in production & higher prices in those areas.
> 
> Now, interventionists mostly see the economy as a static model & that's why they think that they can meddle in one area of the economy & not affect others but that's not how the real-world economies work; in fact, they're very dynamic so every time you meddle in one area, it causes all others to re-adjust accordingly & that's why central-planning is so difficult to engage in because of the dynamic nature of economies.
> 
> So because of economy's dynamic nature, even if prices increase in one area, it causes all the other prices to re-adjust according their new supply/demand factors. Because as prices initially rise even in an area of the economy, people bearing those high prices demand higher incomes to ensure their prosperity & higher-skilled people have the most bargaining power because their skills are in shorter supply than lower-skilled people & in order to free up more capital to accommodate higher incomes of higher-skilled people, businesses have to lay off more lower-skilled people which causes more unemployment among the poor low-skilled workers, decrease in production of goods/services AND higher prices of goods/services that the business is producing & so on & so on it causes a "domino effect" throughout the economy. Therefore, prices & unemployment throughout the economy keep having upward pressure, the production keeps having downward pressure *UNTIL the market is put back in charge*; if not then the economy keeps eating itself. This is how socialism destroys economies & countries, the more socialist the country, the faster it degenerates.
> ...

----------


## Paul Or Nothing II

It has to be understood that Founders were NOT economists, they borrowed most of their economic thoughts from British & European thinkers & Adam Smith influenced them greatly including their views on tariffs & while he had good ideas, he supported "retaliatory tariffs" without recognizing that he was making the same folly that he was arguing against on the other side but this just shows the lack of comprehensive understanding of economics at the time. BUT Founders as well Smith fully understood that tariffs are a TAX on CITIZENS, NOT on outsiders & YET, Founders chose to LIE to American people by telling them that it was an "external tax" as if to say that Americans weren't paying it, even though the fact sis that tariff-tax was a tax on AMERICAN PEOPLE. This just demonstrates the disingenuousness of the Founders, they could've been honest but they chose NOT to, they chose to LIE to the American people & there are no two ways about that.

Again, the Founders didn't know that much about economics, yes, they realized that there was something wrong with the way banks created money but they didn't understand the whole process in detail otherwise they would've banned Fractional-Reserve-Banking in the Constitution but they didn't because people back then did NOT understand economics that well. They also had the stupid fixed-bimetalism (Coinage Act of 1792) that created problems as supply of gold & silver fluctuated (which has been referred to in my recent posts relating to McKinley & Sherman Silver Purchase Act & the Panics of 1893 & 1896) so following them blindly is NOT the answer. They were human afterall & thus, fallible so saying that we should've tariffs _"because Founders said so"_ just doesn't suffice.

We have to base our understanding of things on the knowledge that IS available to us, which was NOT available to the Founders. Even Ron Paul agrees that we ought to IMPROVE as much as we can on what Founders had to offer; he opposes the part of the 5th Amendment which allows for Eminent Domain ie government seizing people's property against their will, he's against bimetalism that Founders supported, he's against slavery while Founders supported it, he opposes the fact that non-propertied white men & women & non-whites weren't allowed to vote. Even Jefferson had believed that every generation must think on its own, that's what he did, he didn't follow a path because somebody hundreds of years ago said something; he was right about some things, wrong about others but to err is human so most importantly, he thought for himself & tried to rely on reason as much as he could to arrive at his positions & that's what free thinking individuals must base their views ie on reason.

----------


## Jace

..

----------


## showpan

*History will NOT be rewritten here.*
There are a number of factors that led to those panics and how the Tariff and Silver Purchase Act came to be. 
J.P. Morgan was at the head of the table and there is a lot of information that can be researched.

*Sherman Anti-Trust Act:*
Drafted by Senator John Sherman of Ohio, the Sherman Anti-Trust Act passed Congress in June 1890 with only one dissenting vote and was quickly signed into law by President Benjamin Harrison.  Its sweeping but vague language banned any restraint on trade, and subjected violators to fines or prison. 
ThThe Sherman Anti-Trust Act passed the Senate by a vote of 511 on April 8, 1890, and the House by a unanimous vote of 2420 on June 20, 1890. President Benjamin Harrison signed the bill into law on July 2, 1890. 
The Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 was the first measure passed by the U.S. Congress to prohibit trusts. It was named for Senator John Sherman of Ohio, who was a chairman of the Senate finance committee and the Secretary of the Treasury under President Hayes. Several states had passed similar laws, but they were limited to intrastate businesses. The Sherman Antitrust Act was based on the constitutional power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce. (For more background, see previous milestone documents: the Constitution, Gibbons v. Ogden, and the Interstate Commerce Act.) The Sherman Anti-Trust Act passed the Senate by a vote of 511 on April 8, 1890, and the House by a unanimous vote of 2420 on June 20, 1890. President Benjamin Harrison signed the bill into law on July 2, 1890.
A trust was an arrangement by which stockholders in several companies transferred their shares to a single set of trustees. In exchange, the stockholders received a certificate entitling them to a specified share of the consolidated earnings of the jointly managed companies. The trusts came to dominate a number of major industries, destroying competition. For example, on January 2, 1882, the Standard Oil Trust was formed. Attorney Samuel Dodd of Standard Oil first had the idea of a trust. A board of trustees was set up, and all the Standard properties were placed in its hands. Every stockholder received 20 trust certificates for each share of Standard Oil stock. All the profits of the component companies were sent to the nine trustees, who determined the dividends. The nine trustees elected the directors and officers of all the component companies. This allowed the Standard Oil to function as a monopoly since the nine trustees ran all the component companies.
Sherman Act was designed to restore competition but was loosely worded and failed to define such critical terms as trust, combination, conspiracy, and monopoly. Five years later, the Supreme Court dismantled the Sherman Act in United States v. E. C. Knight Company (1895). The Court ruled that the American Sugar Refining Company, one of the other defendants in the case, had not violated the law even though the company controlled about 98 percent of all sugar refining in the United States. The Court opinion reasoned that the companys control of manufacture did not constitute a control of trade.


*Sherman Silver Purchase Act:*
Agitation for action on the silver question was intense by 1890. Farmers were straining under growing debt and sharply falling prices. Western mining interests were anxious for a ready market for their silver and exerted pressure on Congress. Western voices were much stronger with the recent addition of Idaho, Montana, Washington, Wyoming and the Dakotas to the Union.
The Sherman Silver Purchase Act was part of a broader compromise. The Democrats gave their support to the highly protective McKinley Tariff in return for Republican votes for silver.
The Sherman Silver Purchase Act provided for the following:

The Treasury would purchase 4.5 million ounces (or 281,250 pounds) of silver each month at market rates

The Treasury would issue notes redeemable in either gold or silver.

The planned government purchases amounted to almost the total monthly output from the mines. However, the increased supply of silver drove down the price. Many mine operators in the West tried to reduce expenses by cutting the miners' wages. Labor unrest and sporadic violence followed.
As the price of silver continued to decline, holders of the government notes understandably redeemed them for gold rather than silver. The result of the growing disparity between the two metals was the depletion of the U.S. gold reserves. A financial crisis in Argentina led to the failure of the British banking house of Baring Brothers and Company, which in turn eventually forced an exportation of gold from the United States to Great Britain. This exodus, coupled with an extraordinarily tight money market, created a situation bordering on panic in the latter part of 1890.
President Grover Cleveland oversaw the repeal of the Act in 1893 to prevent the depletion of the country's gold reserves.* Banker J. P. Morgan stepped in to form a syndicate that saved the U.S. with a massive gold loan, for which he received a commission.*  
Morgan also took control of the railroads as they became available through bankruptcies.

*Panic of 1893*
The opportunity, referred to later by historians as the Panic of 1893, had its roots in Argentina. In the early 1890s, British investors *(particularly Junius Morgan's son, John Pierpont Morgan)* became enamored over investment prospects in Argentina and began to invest heavily there with the encouragement of the Argentinean agent bank, Baring Brothers. A failure of the wheat crop and a coup in Buenos Aires, however, abruptly ended any enthusiasm for continued foreign investing of any kind, even for investments in the United States. And thus began a run on gold in the U.S. Treasury as investors liquidated their holdings.

*The silver crash of 1893*
The effects of repealing the "Sherman Silver Purchase Act" in 1893 left deep scars in the economy for many years to come.
To shed some light on what led to severe Depression in the 1890's the currency system of the United States must be examined.
The US, since the days of George Washington, had based it's system on "bimetallism"...use of both gold and silver in legal coinage.
The Gold Rush to California in 1849 resulted in such large quantities of gold found that the value of gold became less. Previous to this, gold was 16 times more valuable (16x more silver in a silver dollar than gold in a gold dollar).
People began melting down silver dollars and using the silver for other purpose, such as jewelry. In 1873 Congress terminated the making of silver coins and placed the country on a "gold standard".
The great silver strikes of the 80's in the San Juan mountains and in places like Leadville made silver prices fall even further, but the mining of silver continued to be a profitable venture.
In 1890, President Benjamin Harrison agreed to purchase $4.5 million ounces of silver a month. The "Sherman Silver Purchase Act" was passed by Congress and the price of silver shot up from .84 cents to $1.50 an ounce, but it's market value would drop from this high.
This created fear among eastern republican business men and foreign investors that the gold dollar would be replaced by a less valuable silver dollar. Stores and banks began to go out of business and gold became a commodity to be hoarded.
The pay for mine workers continued to decrease and the hours of work became longer. The unrest of miners resulted in strikes that impacted the economy of the state as well as the mining industry.
1893 spelled the end of an era of silver by the repeal of the "Sherman Silver Act". Almost immediately mines and smelters began to shut down in Colorado. Silver prices dropped from .83 cents to .62 cents an ounce in one 4 day period. Banks closed their doors and real estate values plummeted.
The repel of the silver act was felt around the country but not as severely as it was in Colorado. Colorado was producing almost 60% of the nations silver. Thousands of out-of-work miners flooded into Denver swelling its ranks of the unemployed.
Denver was in an economic crisis, and could not continue taking care of the jobless. Railroad offered reduced, and in some cases free, fares out of Denver. Denver's population in 1890 dropped from 106,000 to 90,000 in 1895.

*McKinley Tariff Act:*
The Bill provided that whenever the President should be satisfied that the government of any country was imposing unequal or excessive duties on American products introduced into that country, the United States government should have the power to retaliate in kind.
The purpose of the bill was clearly stated:
"It is framed in the interest of the people of the United States. It is for the better defense of American homes and American industries. While securing the needed revenue, its provisions look to the occupations of our own people, their comfort and their welfare ; to the successful prosecution of industrial enterprises already started, and to the opening of new lines of production where our conditions and resources will admit. Ample revenues for the wants of the Government are provided by this bill, and every reasonable encouragement is given to productive enterprises and to the labor employed therein. The aim has been to impose duties upon such foreign products as compete with our own, whether of the soil or the shop, and to enlarge the free list wherever this can be done without injury to any American industry, or wherever an existing home industry can be helped without detriment to another industry which is equally worthy of the protecting care of the Government.
"The committee believe that, inasmuch as nearly $300,000,000 are annually required to meet the expenses of the Government, it is wiser to tax those foreign products which seek a market here in competition with our own than to tax our domestic products or the non-competing foreign products. The committee, responding as it believes to the sentiment of the country and the recommendations of the President, submit what they consider to be a just and equitable revision of the Tariff, which, while preserving that measure of protection which is required for our industrial independence, will secure a reduction of the revenue both from customs and internal revenue sources. We have not looked alone to a reduction of the revenue, but have kept steadily in view the interest of our producing classes, and have been ever mindful of that which is due to our political conditions, our labor and the character of our citizenship. We have realized that a reduction of duties below the difference between the cost of labor and production in competing countries and our own would result either in the abandonment of much of our manufacturing here or in the depression of our labor. Either result would bring disaster, the extent of which no one can measure. We have recommended no duty above the point of difference between the normal cost of production here, including labor, and the cost of like production in the countries which seek our markets, nor have we hesitated to give this measure of duty even though it involved an increase over present rates and showed an advance of percentages and 'ad-valorem' equivalents. . . . We have sought to look at the conditions of each industry at home and its relations to foreign competition, and provide for that duty which would be adequate in each case."
The committee estimated that its recommendations, if adopted, would reduce the revenue from imports at least $60,936,536, and from internal revenue $10,327,878, an aggregate of $71,264,414. By far the greatest part of this reduction was to be obtained by remitting the duties on sugar and molasses, which in 1889 yielded $55,975,610. It was stated as a reason for this radical change that the duty on sugar was really a tax, because so large a portion of the amount consumed was necessarily imported. In this respect it differed materially from duties laid on articles produced or manufactured in the United States in sufficient quantity to meet the needs of our people. But protection was not to be denied the producers of sugar in this country and therefore a bounty of two cents a pound was to be paid on all sugars produced in the United States for fifteen years. The estimated cost of this bounty was $7,000,000.
The Republican Party in its platforms of 1884 and of 1888 had specifically demanded protection for the wool-growing industry. McKinley proposed a small increase of one cent a pound in the duties of wool of the first class, nothing on the second class, and an advance from five to eight cents per pound on the third class. This encouragement and defensive legislation would, in his judgment, enable the United States to produce all the wool it consumed, about 600,000,000 pounds.
There is no doubt that the section of the McKinley Bill which attracted the greatest amount of attention was the proposition to increase the duty on tin plate.
It had been taken for granted for many years that tin plate could not be made in the United States. In 1873-75 attempts were made to manufacture it, but before the effort could be fairly started the foreign makers crushed the threatened competition by reducing the price from $12 a box to $4.50. When the American mills were put out of existence the price was advanced to $9 and $10 a box. From that time until 1890 the Welsh manufacturers enjoyed a monopoly and fixed their own prices.
In the Committee of the Whole the duty was fixed at 2.2 cents a pound instead of one cent as provided by the Act of 1883.
Thus, by the operation of a wise piece of legislation, a great industry was transferred from Wales to this country.
For anyone interested in antiques and collecting:
McKinley Tariff Act of 1891 which states that anything imported into the Unites States after 1891 must have the name of the country of origin on it in English. Thus it must say Made in Germany not Gemacht in Deutschland and Japan not Nippon.
The irony in this is that the Act really says that the container must be marked, that is the box, or container which held the goods. Foreign manufacturers, however, read the word container to mean cup, saucer, teapot, decanter, et cetera. Their mistake has been a boon for museum and collectors. Of course this helps us because it shows that objects in our collections which are so marked were made after 1891 

*Ocala Demands:*
In December, the national convention of the Farmers Alliance in Ocala, Florida, passed resolutions that became the basis for the Peoples (or Populist) Party.  The document called for a federal warehouse-loan system (called sub-treasury), the free coinage of silver, an end to trade protectionism, a progressive income tax, and other reforms.

----------


## Jace

..

----------


## Paul Or Nothing II

> And yet, in the 19th Century when the British were following a free trade policy and we followed the tariff policies of the Founders, our economy surpassed theirs in GDP and standard of living. Go figure.


*I've ALREADY answered this MANY times but ignorance is immune to reason I guess* 



> Nope, America grew IN SPITE of politicians & corporations raping Americans with higher costs & tariffs, NOT because of it. America grew because it was a largely unregulated, untaxed market which allowed enterpreneurial spirit to prosper & allowed labor & capital to be go into productive areas AND America & Americans would've been BETTER OFF without politicians & corporatist businesses looting American people with tariffs & higher prices for goods/services.





> Further, America didn't surpass Britain because of tariffs, tariffs only raised prices on American people while benefitting the corporatist businesses; America surpassed Britain because it was extremely free as well as it'd many more resources & people than Britain.





> *America rose IN SPITE of tariffs, NOT because of it, it surpassed Britain, naturally because it was a much much bigger country with more natural & human resources & largely unregulated, untaxed environment allowed it prosper like no other nation ever had but that was INSPITE of tariffs, NOT because of them.*
> 
> In fact, tariffs had been one of the main tools of favoritism & corporatism within America until the early 20th century because that's the only power politicians had of sucking money out of the Americans, tariffs were regularly used to favor local businesses that bribed politicians & they were a source of enormous corporatism, & they even played a significant role in the Civil War as corporatist Northern politicians had for decades used tariffs on Southern imports in order to make Northern manufacturing goods more competitive as well as to gather government revenue in order to subsidize Northern businesses.
> 
> Again, the problems of America stem from Fed, unsound currency, over-regulation, over-taxation, destruction of capital through socialism & corporatism, unless these issues are resolved, you're going to get America to rise again, & making goods costlier & thereby lowering Americans' living standards by putting tariffs is NOT going to do that.


It has to be understood that the TOTAL (federal, state, local) taxes were *5-10% of the economy* which meant that after government ROBBERY, the private sector still had a huge chunk of the capital with them which along largely unregulated markets allowed the country to prosper IN SPITE of the fact that they were being ROBBED through tariffs.

*Surpassing of Britain by United States was no different than surpassing of Netherlands by Britain at an earlier time; if a country has more resources & people then there's a good chance that the countries that don't have them will lag behind, & MORE SO, if the economy is significantly freer.*

On the other hand, now, nearly *40% of the economy* is being absorbed by the government through taxation (see link) & ADDING the tariff-tax to that will mean EVEN LESS capital in the private sector & that combined with higher prices will mean MORE unemployment, LESS goods/services, HIGHER prices & LOWER living standards.
http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/d...olor=c&local=s

*IF tariffs created prosperity then why didn't all those countries were protectionist prospered through history? Many many countries throughout history had adopted protectionism with the idiotic belief that "money" (be it silver, gold, paper or whatever) is prosperity when the fact is that goods/services are the REAL WEALTH but they did NOT prosper because there's NO DIRECT LINK between protectionism & prosperity, there are ALWAYS other factors involved that involved which lead prosperity IN SPITE of protectionism, NOT because of it*

As I've already explained (see link), protectionism is what impoverished China in the early 19th century (even before the opium-war had begun) by causing inflation, higher prices, less goods/services & lower living standards.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post3431667

I've also explained that it was India's protectionist policies with ultra-high tarifffs that subjected its people to destitute poverty for over 4 decades & it wasn't until they significantly freed up their economy that it actually started to prosper & even though they still use protectionist policies it is still due to the lack of understanding of economics in mainstream economists that goods/services are the REAL WEALTH & NOT "money".
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post3433948
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post3434601

EVEN CHINA was extremely protectionist until 1978, after which they significantly freed up their economy which is what brought it prosperity & again, like India, the belief among mainstream economists is still strong that "money" is wealth as opposed to goods/services & that's why there's so much emphasis in many countries around the world on centrally-planning the economy & money through central-banks.




> Now China is the protectionist economy and we are the free traders. They are rising and we are falling. Go figure.


*As has been pointed out OVER & OVER & OVER & OVER & OVER that US is NOT a "free trader", it's the home of CORPORATISM & CORPORATIZED TRADE, NOT free trade.*

The basic problem is that you're mistaking the REASONS why China is rising & US is falling.

China has NOT been rising because they're protectionist, on the contrary, they were destitute when they were ultra-protectionist until 1980 or so BUT the REASON they've risen is because they'd resources & a HUGE labor-market that was UNTAPPED so it was only natural that once that labor-market was unleashed for production of goods/services (ie REAL WEALTH) by freeing up of the Chinese economy, they were always going to prosper. And the FACT is that WITHOUT protectionism, Chinese PEOPLE would be EVEN BETTER OFF as they'll be able to buy MORE goods/services at LOWER prices & WITHOUT currency-manipulation by their corporatist government, the Chinese people's purchasing-power will be MUCH HIGHER so Chinese protectionism is NOT for the sake of the Chinese people BUT for the benefit of its government & its corporatist buddies who get to make HUGE PROFITS at the cost of Chinese people.

On the other hand, America's problem is NOT that its a "free trader" (it's NOT, its corporatist trade) but that not only is it the corporatist-hub but that its government is chewing off *40%* of the economy every year & if only that were significantly reduced then leaving that capital in the private sector in itself will produce many more jobs, goods/services, lower & prices & higher living standards. ADDING a TARIFF-TAX will suck EVEN MORE out of the economy & America will be WORSE OFF than it is.




> Something is amiss with your analysis.


So let me guess, if I'm giving you goods/services for your pieces of paper (or numbers on a computer for that matter) then you're the one losing out on the transaction?  How's that even supposed to be a rational argument? It just means that not only do you get to have the produce of YOUR capital & labor BUT ALSO mine & that means you've MORE REAL WEALTH than you'd've had OTHERWISE if I hadn't given you those goods/services for your pieces of paper.

*And if there's something "amiss" in my analysis then why don't YOU point it out? EXPLAIN how raising prices & thereby sucking capital out of the economy will help? EXPLAIN how availability of LESS capital will create jobs? EXPLAIN how LESS production of goods/services will help? EXPLAIN how LESS goods/services in the economy will bring prosperity to the people?

AND if you can't then admit that you don't understand economics & stop making baseless arguments.

As I've said, it's the height hypocrisy when one considers the fact that you people found out about the biggest economic scam in history (ie central-banking) through Austrian Economics & you're saying Austrian Economics is wrong where it doesn't fall in line with your ".....Founders said so" DOGMA, EVEN THOUGH you've no ECONOMIC ARGUMENTS against it? How hypocritical can you people be?*

----------


## Paul Or Nothing II

> *History will NOT be rewritten here.*
> There are a number of factors that led to those panics and how the Tariff and Silver Purchase Act came to be. 
> J.P. Morgan was at the head of the table and there is a lot of information that can be researched.


*YOU are posting RE-WRITTEN mainstream history. If you're going to cite mainstream history then realize this, the mainstream history also says that Fed was set up for the well-being of the American economy & people  So watch the ground you're standing on. The highly manipulated mainstream history always wants to show how good the government is & all as it does in case of Fed & FDR & many of the wars & a lot of the things that government & its controllers benefit from*

My original point was that McKinley was a typical corporatist scumbag who changed his position according to political expediency & there are no two ways about that, he changed his stance on money & he changed his stance on war.




> *Sherman Anti-Trust Act:*


This was NEVER meant to ensure more competition, in fact, this gave government a dictatorial power to seize & break up any company at will so it was created to serve the interest of corporatists in case other honest companies start absorbing their market-share/profits so that corporatists can use it to eliminate their stronger competitors, & at times such laws were used to pacify public to show that the government was doing something to protect them as was done in the early 20th century when Standard Oil was SUPPOSEDLY "broken up" into many pieces 

*You mention that Dodd, the Standard Oil's lawyer, formed the trusts but what you DON'T KNOW is that John Sherman was a lawyer himself & was close to Standard Oil head-honcho ROCKEFELLER*

Of course, the demand for silver-money already existed before the Silver Purchase Act was passed, of course, usually if a legislation is passed then there's always a time before that where people push for it but what that stupid legislation did do is no secret, *it was the height of stupidity & shows lack of understanding of economics on the part of McKinley (as well as the Founders who'd had the Coinage Act of 1792)* & it also shows that McKinley was NOT a man of integrity but just a panderer. IF he was indeed a "gold-standard guy" then he'd've NEVER got along with such an atrocious legislation.

And there's no doubt that in the scarcity of "government regulations" that allow corporatists gain an advantage meant that corporatists pushed for higher tariffs in order to eliminate competition & earn higher profits at the expense of American people. McKinley was strongly corporatist, he'd been so for a long time, that's why even after he was kicked out of the House after passing the crappy McKinley Tariff & Silver Purchase Act, he was STILL able to get elected as governor & then thrown into national limelight for 1897 presidential elections on the backs of the powerful moneyed corporatist interests behind him.

As I've said, no question, the public demand for more silver-coinage ALREADY existed since the passing of *Bland-Allison Act which had re-monetized silver in 1878* (which you obviously didn't know ) which'd already been causing problems during the 80s but Sherman Silver Purchase Act aggravated the situation further & put a huge pressure on government's gold-reserves as people started exchanging gold from government for the cheap silver as it was over-valued due to fixed-bimetalism (similar to 1971 when foreigners started exchanging overvalued dollars for gold from the US government & Gresham's Law took over).

And when you add to that the rises in prices caused by the stupid corporatist McKinley Tariff which forced the poor farmers to take on huge loans which they defaulted on & then that wiped out some of the money-supply & the bank-runs ensued as they do as fractional-reserve-pyramid shrinks when a certain amount loans are defaulted on just like it started doing in the recent housing crisis where many unsound borrowers defaulted.

So in effect, the reasons why JP Morgan was able to put himself in such a messianic position & get paid for it was because of the stupid McKinley Tariff as well as Sherman Silver Purchase Act & when one considers the relationship between Sherman & Rockefellers, people should be able to easily put 2 and 2 together  & obviously later, after Panic of 1907, Morgan again "came to the rescue" & the rhetoric for a "lender of last resort" was strengthened further.

*Just copying & pasting a bunch of stuff from other websites does NOT mean you understand economics, there's more to economics than just copying & pasting 

Again, it really is hypocritical that the reason you people know anything about the Fed & sound economics is because of Austrian Economics & YET you people don't want to learn other aspects of it & keep hiding behind your DOGMA, EVEN THOUGH you've no ECONOMIC ARGUMENTS to substantiate your positions.

It's really funny that you people oppose central-planning in money but still you do want central-planning in goods/services*

----------


## Paul Or Nothing II

*RON PAUL ON TARIFFS AND FREE TRADE*

http://www.24hgold.com/english/contr...butor=Ron+Paul



> *It’s easy for some lawmakers to make emotional arguments that tariffs are needed to protect the jobs of American steelworkers, but we never hear about the jobs that will be lost or never created when the cost of steel rises 30 percent.* Tariffs are taxes, and imposing new tariffs means raising taxes. Apparently no one in the administration has read Henry Hazlitt’s classic economics text, Economics in one Lesson. Professor Hazlitt’s fundamental lesson was simple: *We must examine economic policy by considering the long-term effects of any proposal on all groups.* The administration instead chose to focus only on the immediate effects of steel tariffs on one group, the domestic steel industry. This has nothing to do with fairness, and everything to do with political favors. The free market is fair; it alone justly rewards the worthiest competitors. Tariffs reward the strongest Washington lobbies.


(In the first sentence, he's clearly referring to the argument I've made that the the displacement of ADDITIONAL CAPITAL that's caused by imposing ADDITIONAL COSTS which suck out capital from OTHER AREAS of the economy, which means MORE JOBS ARE LOST than the ones created due to tariffs & thereby LOWER production & good/services, HIGHER prices & LOWER living standards for the country as a whole)

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul254.html



> *We don't need government agreements to have free trade.* We merely need to lower or eliminate taxes on the American people, without regard to what other nations do. Remember, *tariffs are simply taxes on consumers*. Americans have always bought goods from abroad; the only question is how much our government taxes us for doing so. As economist Henry Hazlitt explained, *tariffs simply protect politically-favored special interests at the expense of consumers, while lowering wages across the economy* as a whole. Hazlitt, Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich Hayek, Murray Rothbard, and countless other economists have demolished every fallacy concerning tariffs, proving conclusively that *unilateral elimination of tariffs benefits the American people*. *We don't need CAFTA or any other international agreement* to reap the economic benefits promised by CAFTA supporters, we only need to change our own harmful economic and tax policies. *Let the rest of the world hurt their citizens with tariffs; if we simply reduce tariffs and taxes at home, we will attract capital and see our economy flourish.*


http://www.24hgold.com/english/contr...butor=Ron+Paul



> *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.*

----------


## The Grinning Maniac

The question I have is what profit margins were steel companies making before offshoring and what are they making now? If they are higher now, does the steel price necessarily have to increase?

I guess that's something else that has to do with the irrational stock market mentality. Profit margins must always increase and never go down, for any reason, even if it's perfectly rational. SELL! SELL!

*roll eyes*

----------


## Travlyr

> Originally Posted by Travlyr 
> No they don't. They are the mafia. I disagree with your premise.
> 
> I seems to me that the oligarchs and corporatists get their power from counterfeiting. Counterfeiting fiat currency is not moral or based on the rule of law. Then they hire "politicians", military & police, public schooling, media, and continuing education (Hollywood) to fulfill their agenda.
> 
> They certainly do not derive any of their power from the Constitution.





> Oh, oh, and who created the Fed.


The Federal Reserve System was created by an illegal conspiracy of international bankers. It is unconstitutional. They have operated without legitimate authority for nearly 100 years. The creators would have hung from ropes if the people had known about the nine day conspiracy to take-over the American government concocted at Jekyll Island in November 1910. International banker Paul Warburg came to America in 1902 to subvert the American form of government. He and his gang were successful with their coup d'état when Wilson symbolically signed the Federal Reserve Act on December 23, 1913 and the New York Times pretended it was legitimate. It had no constitutional authority then, and it has no constitutional authority now. Just because the media says it does does not make it true. We are being ruled by an illegitimate mob of thieves. It only sounds legitimate because _The Washington Post_ tells you it is.




> Who has the direct power to revoke Fed's authority?





> Definition of REPUBLIC
> 1
> a (1) : a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president (2) : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government b (1) : a government in which *supreme power resides in a body of citizens* entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law (2) : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government


The only legitimate legislators are the ones who bind themselves to Constitutional principles. They swear an Oath to do. Anything they do outside of the their sworn duty is not legitimate. They are not acting within the bounds of any constitution. They are an illegal member of the mafia. They have no legal authority. They have guns, a printing press, media shills, and an indoctrinated populace. It is not a legitimate government. They SWEAR an OATH to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States of America. Legislators who fail to live up to their sworn duties are acting without authority.




> Who makes all the "regulations" that allow corporatists to eliminate competitors & profiteer at the expense of American people? Who runs supports the Military-Industrial-Complex? Who runs propaganda machine called public schools? Who stopped following the Constitution even though they should NOT have?
> 
> Here's the answer - THE GOVERNMENT & POLITICIANS


 That is what the media tells you. Don't believe it. Here's the answer - The Mafia




> They've all the power with them to undo all those things but the problem is that almost all politicians & governments are always bought, that's the whole reason for limiting their power & size so saying that oligarchs & corporatists don't get their power from government & politicians is ridiculous, of course, they do. The whole purpose of limiting government is to limit the power of the plutocrats because whether government is big or small, for the most part, it almost always is run by the plutocrats; that's how it was during early American history too, even though the government was small, the rich farmers controlled the Southern politics while rich industrialists & bankers controlled the Northern politics, this is exactly how the plutocrats get their power ie THROUGH THE GOVERNMENT & POLITICIANS


Where do they get their authority to rule? Unlimited money out-of-nothing pays for military, police, media, and indoctrination to subvert the rule of law. Their power comes from the primal urge to control others not rule of law. They have been the enemy of liberty since the times of Babylon.

----------


## showpan

> The question I have is what profit margins were steel companies making before offshoring and what are they making now? If they are higher now, does the steel price necessarily have to increase?
> 
> I guess that's something else that has to do with the irrational stock market mentality. Profit margins must always increase and never go down, for any reason, even if it's perfectly rational. SELL! SELL!
> 
> *roll eyes*


I have been working with steel for over 30 yrs. The price has doubled. 
Bethlehem Steel did themselves in, first by hiring a GE exec as CEO who then restructured the company in 1980 to include 5 CEO's....lol
During the 1980s and 1990s, Bethlehem raised nearly $1 billion with equity offerings just to keep up with management benefits and annuitize a large portion of the supplemental retirement benefits scheduled to go to top company executives. 
At the same time, their main competitor, US Steel owned by JP Morgan was consolidating the industry and moving overseas to flood the market with cheaper steel. JP Morgan was a large advocate of NAFTA that allowed for cheaper imports and Bethlehem Steel with their behemoth management and exuberant pay couldn't keep up.
Prior to Bethlehem Steel's management giveaway, they made huge profits and their CEO's were the highest payed in US history.
JP Morgan has always made a profit and after consolidating the industry through acquisitions and getting NAFTA passed, they flooded the market with cheaper steel and then jacked up their price once they eliminated the competition.
Most of the steel produced now comes from China through Canada and Mexico.
You can see who is currently manipulating the market here

----------


## ProIndividual

> I have been working with steel for over 30 yrs. The price has doubled.


So it's only doubled in 30 years? So it's cheaper then, accounting for inflation. 

LOL.

Protectionists hate individual property rights, and are essentially collectivst statists.

Goodnight Irene.

----------


## showpan

> So it's only doubled in 30 years? So it's cheaper then, accounting for inflation. 
> 
> LOL.
> 
> Protectionists hate individual property rights, and are essentially collectivst statists.
> 
> Goodnight Irene.


No, the biggest increase came in 2001 and has steadily increased since. Prior to then, it pretty much stayed the same for a long time except when it was briefly lowered to kill any competition. This has happened to almost all materials. Once the manufacturers moved, they lowered their prices to kill the competition and then substantially raised them. PVC is another example that was made here. When Bush invaded Afghanistan after the Taliban kicked Chevron out, the pipeline from the Caspian sea had already been built through Tajikistan and a few miles into Afghanistan. When war broke out, PVC manufacturers quickly moved to Tajikistan since they could now obtain a cheap supply of oil and not worry about pollution. As soon as American manufacturers (competition) closed down, the price almost doubled just like steel.

Again, you fail to grasp the basic concept that your world does not exist and never will. Brazil went from almost dead last economically to the #5 spot in the world in less than 10 years. I watched Eike Batista being interviewed on Charlie Rose not too long ago and he was laughing at us for chopping our own foot off with NAFTA. He didn't understand how Americans were being so passive about corporate greed shipping their jobs away. They have policy of anything made or built must use at least 85% Bazillion materials and labor. The tax rate after that is huge and it has payed off tremendously. Brazilians now boasts the 3rd highest number of millionaires in the world, behind China and India. They have been building a huge port city and opened up their own steel mills and manufacturing plants so they don't have to rely on Chinese materials and goods. They are also drilling for their own oil. Brazil is booming under protectionist measures, just like this country used to do. you're arguments are baseless.

----------


## Cutlerzzz

> No, the biggest increase came in 2001 and has steadily increased since. Prior to then, it pretty much stayed the same for a long time except when it was briefly lowered to kill any competition. This has happened to almost all materials. Once the manufacturers moved, they lowered their prices to kill the competition and then substantially raised them. PVC is another example that was made here. When Bush invaded Afghanistan after the Taliban kicked Chevron out, the pipeline from the Caspian sea had already been built through Tajikistan and a few miles into Afghanistan. When war broke out, PVC manufacturers quickly moved to Tajikistan since they could now obtain a cheap supply of oil and not worry about pollution. As soon as American manufacturers (competition) closed down, the price almost doubled just like steel.
> 
> Again, you fail to grasp the basic concept that your world does not exist and never will. Brazil went from almost dead last economically to the #5 spot in the world in less than 10 years. I watched Eike Batista being interviewed on Charlie Rose not too long ago and he was laughing at us for chopping our own foot off with NAFTA. He didn't understand how Americans were being so passive about corporate greed shipping their jobs away. They have policy of anything made or built must use at least 85% Bazillion materials and labor. The tax rate after that is huge and it has payed off tremendously. Brazilians now boasts the 3rd highest number of millionaires in the world, behind China and India. They have been building a huge port city and opened up their own steel mills and manufacturing plants so they don't have to rely on Chinese materials and goods. They are also drilling for their own oil. Brazil is booming under protectionist measures, just like this country used to do. you're arguments are baseless.


You didn't even address his point. The fact is, the inflation adjusted price of steel has fallen in the time frame you gave.

----------


## showpan

> You didn't even address his point. The fact is, the inflation adjusted price of steel has fallen in the time frame you gave.


*First sentence, last post:*
"No, the biggest increase came in 2001 and has steadily increased since. 

*Previous post, first sentence:*
I have been working with steel for over 30 yrs.

*Separate sentence:*
The price has doubled.

"JP Morgan has always made a profit and after consolidating the industry through acquisitions and getting NAFTA passed, they flooded the market with cheaper steel and then jacked up their price once they eliminated the competition."

*Now what about this time frame did you and ProIndividual not understand?*
hint:
*When was NAFTA passed and expanded to include China?*

----------


## Cutlerzzz

> *First sentence, last post:*
> "No, the biggest increase came in 2001 and has steadily increased since. 
> 
> *Previous post, first sentence:*
> I have been working with steel for over 30 yrs.
> 
> *Separate sentence:*
> The price has doubled.
> 
> ...


Why do you always debunk your own arguments? Your quotes prove that I'm right.

----------


## showpan

> Why do you always debunk your own arguments? Your quotes prove that I'm right.


Your translator isn't working correctly, if you payed for it, you should get your money back.

----------


## Cutlerzzz

> The question I have is what profit margins were steel companies making before offshoring and what are they making now? If they are higher now, does the steel price necessarily have to increase?
> 
> I guess that's something else that has to do with the irrational stock market mentality. Profit margins must always increase and never go down, for any reason, even if it's perfectly rational. SELL! SELL!
> 
> *roll eyes*


He's curious about profit margins and their role in steel prices.




> I have been working with steel for over 30 yrs. The price has doubled. 
> Bethlehem Steel did themselves in, first by hiring a GE exec as CEO who then restructured the company in 1980 to include 5 CEO's....lol
> During the 1980s and 1990s, Bethlehem raised nearly $1 billion with equity offerings just to keep up with management benefits and annuitize a large portion of the supplemental retirement benefits scheduled to go to top company executives. 
> At the same time, their main competitor, US Steel owned by JP Morgan was consolidating the industry and moving overseas to flood the market with cheaper steel. JP Morgan was a large advocate of NAFTA that allowed for cheaper imports and Bethlehem Steel with their behemoth management and exuberant pay couldn't keep up.
> Prior to Bethlehem Steel's management giveaway, they made huge profits and their CEO's were the highest payed in US history.
> JP Morgan has always made a profit and after consolidating the industry through acquisitions and getting NAFTA passed, they flooded the market with cheaper steel and then jacked up their price once they eliminated the competition.
> Most of the steel produced now comes from China through Canada and Mexico.
> You can see who is currently manipulating the market here


You state that steel has doubled, and that it means they are in on a conspiracy to raise prices. 




> So it's only doubled in 30 years? So it's cheaper then, accounting for inflation. 
> 
> LOL.
> 
> Protectionists hate individual property rights, and are essentially collectivst statists.
> 
> Goodnight Irene.


He points out that the price of steel doubling in dollars since 1981 means that it actually fell when adjusted for inflation. 





> No, the biggest increase came in 2001 and has steadily increased since. Prior to then, it pretty much stayed the same for a long time except when it was briefly lowered to kill any competition. This has happened to almost all materials. Once the manufacturers moved, they lowered their prices to kill the competition and then substantially raised them. PVC is another example that was made here. When Bush invaded Afghanistan after the Taliban kicked Chevron out, the pipeline from the Caspian sea had already been built through Tajikistan and a few miles into Afghanistan. When war broke out, PVC manufacturers quickly moved to Tajikistan since they could now obtain a cheap supply of oil and not worry about pollution. As soon as American manufacturers (competition) closed down, the price almost doubled just like steel.
> 
> Again, you fail to grasp the basic concept that your world does not exist and never will. Brazil went from almost dead last economically to the #5 spot in the world in less than 10 years. I watched Eike Batista being interviewed on Charlie Rose not too long ago and he was laughing at us for chopping our own foot off with NAFTA. He didn't understand how Americans were being so passive about corporate greed shipping their jobs away. They have policy of anything made or built must use at least 85% Bazillion materials and labor. The tax rate after that is huge and it has payed off tremendously. Brazilians now boasts the 3rd highest number of millionaires in the world, behind China and India. They have been building a huge port city and opened up their own steel mills and manufacturing plants so they don't have to rely on Chinese materials and goods. They are also drilling for their own oil. Brazil is booming under protectionist measures, just like this country used to do. you're arguments are baseless.


Your response states that the price of steel remained flat(which means it fell sharply when adjusted for inflation) for 20 years. It did not raise until there was a war, and supply shortages in the United States. The price of steel fell for the first 20 years, and then doubled during the next 10 year period. The dollar has lost nearly half its value since 2001, meaning that the price still did not increase by much at all from 2001-2011. Your timeframe also means that the price fell during the first five years of NAFTA. 


LOL

----------


## showpan

> He's curious about profit margins and their role in steel prices.


I addressed that






> You state that steel has doubled, and that it means they are in on a conspiracy to raise prices.


I addressed who did it






> He points out that the price of steel doubling in dollars since 1981 means that it actually fell when adjusted for inflation.


Nobody ever stated it doubled since 1981....again...I have been working with steel for over 30 yrs, your conclusion is baseless and you obviously do not buy steel. You are twisting words around and getting it wrong again. Please share....lol







> Your response states that the price of steel remained flat(which means it fell sharply when adjusted for inflation) for 20 years. It did not raise until there was a war, and supply shortages in the United States. The price of steel fell for the first 20 years, and then doubled during the next 10 year period. The dollar has lost nearly half its value since 2001, meaning that the price still did not increase by much at all from 2001-2011. Your timeframe also means that the price fell during the first five years of NAFTA.


First, the price did not fall. You are simply twisting things around that you have no understanding of. When was the last time you bought a few tons of steel?

Second, the war has nothing at all to do with the price of steel and there was no such shortage...you pulled that out of your....?

Thirdly, the price doubled shortly after JP Morgan's NAFTA and once the competition was eliminated which is exactly what would happen to everything and anything under your free trade utopia. 

I notice that you never really offer anything to these posts. Only your opinions and copy/paste someone else argument for your own use and then twisting words around while never really grasping what was being stated. It's quite annoying, I am trying to be as polite as possible when I say this in the hope that in the future, you will actually do research on your own and maybe read what somebody else posted a little more carefully, rather than breezing over it, spinning the words and trying to trap people into one of the stupid debate tactics that are being used by people without any real leg to stand on. Please, do us all a favor and post something that you have actually done research on. I actually like reading links that I might not have seen before.....and please, we all can see what's on the first pages of google.

----------


## Cutlerzzz

> I addressed that
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I addressed who did it
> 
> 
> ...


Anybody who reads my post is going to laugh at you, again, as they have done during your first 294 posts. 294 posts that have been filled with nothing but links to other peoples arguments(frequently unions), ancedotal evidence, the rejection of all axioms and empirical evidence, graphs and terminology that you don't understand, blatant contradictions, childish insults, the confession that you work for a union(which probably benefits from tariffs), and claims about how Austrian economists are in on an international conspiracy theory(which is ironic given that Unions tend to benefit from tariffs). 

Here is a prime example.




> Nobody ever stated it doubled since 1981





> I have been working with steel for over 30 yrs. The price has doubled.


From your own mouth. You can't even look back 4 posts, or read where I quoted you the post before. 

Anyone reading this will see that this doesn't make sense. You said yourself that the price remained about the same for 20 years, which does not fit with the argument that NAFTA would raise steel prices, as that means it did not rise for years until after NAFTA was passed. 

Your entire post makes no sense, as usual.

----------


## showpan

> Anybody who reads my post is going to laugh at you, again, as they have done during your first 294 posts. 294 posts that have been filled with nothing but links to other peoples arguments(frequently unions), ancedotal evidence, the rejection of all axioms and empirical evidence, graphs and terminology that you don't understand, blatant contradictions, childish insults, the confession that you work for a union(which probably benefits from tariffs), and claims about how Austrian economists are in on an international conspiracy theory(which is ironic given that Unions tend to benefit from tariffs). 
> 
> Here is a prime example.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From your own mouth. You can't even look back 4 posts, or read where I quoted you the post before. 
> ...


Your lack of comprehension and stupid debate tactics will not work here so stop putting words in my posts that do not exist. You are doing nothing but stirring up $#@! so please go $#@! with somebody else from behind your keyboard. Ignore my posts and I'll ignore yours. Have a great day.

----------


## Paul Or Nothing II

> Anybody who reads my post is going to laugh at you, again, as they have done during your first 294 posts. 294 posts that have been filled with nothing but links to other peoples arguments(frequently unions), ancedotal evidence, the rejection of all axioms and empirical evidence, graphs and terminology that you don't understand, blatant contradictions, childish insults, the confession that you work for a union(which probably benefits from tariffs), and claims about how Austrian economists are in on an international conspiracy theory(which is ironic given that Unions tend to benefit from tariffs). 
> 
> Here is a prime example.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From your own mouth. You can't even look back 4 posts, or read where I quoted you the post before. 
> ...


Just goes to show that these people are not only ignorant of economics but just OUTRIGHT LIARS. They can't even stand firm on their own words lol

They repeatedly keep bringing NAFTA in the same breath as free trade EVEN THOUGH it's been pointed out a million times that NAFTA is NOT free trade, & just calling it "free trade agreement" does NOT make it free trade in the same sense that Patriot Act is NOT about patriotism & America is NOT capitalist even though people say so.

These people are anti-property rights, anti-free trade, anti-free markets, anti-capitalism & pro-government intervention, pro-tariffs, pro-socialism & corporatism, & these people are supposed to be Ron Paul supporters? LMAO

Not to mention, they're YET to produce any cogent argument based on sound economics, they can't refute the economic arguments put forth to support free trade, hell, they don't even understand the basic laws of supply & demand which are on view in every-day life

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> Just goes to show that these people are not only ignorant of economics but just OUTRIGHT LIARS. They can't even stand firm on their own words lol
> 
> They repeatedly keep bringing NAFTA in the same breath as free trade EVEN THOUGH it's been pointed out a million times that NAFTA is NOT free trade, & just calling it "free trade agreement" does NOT make it free trade in the same sense that Patriot Act is NOT about patriotism & America is NOT capitalist even though people say so.
> 
> These people are anti-property rights, anti-free trade, anti-free markets, anti-capitalism & pro-government intervention, pro-tariffs, pro-socialism & corporatism, & these people are supposed to be Ron Paul supporters? LMAO
> 
> Not to mention, they're YET to produce any cogent argument based on sound economics, they can't refute the economic arguments put forth to support free trade, hell, they don't even understand the basic laws of supply & demand which are on view in every-day life


Cutlerzzz has a response to that:




> childish insults
> 
> Your entire post makes no sense, as usual.

----------


## Paul Or Nothing II

> Cutlerzzz has a response to that:


Ironically enough, yours is possibly the most childish post here LMAO

Where's your economic argument to refute my explanation? Oh, you don't have any as usual because you people have never studied economics. It's an interesting question, would you argue over anatomy WITHOUT studying anatomy first, would you argue over engineering WITHOUT having studied engineering, would you argue over psychology WITHOUT having studied psychology first? Well, the kind of people you've shown to be, you might but no such BASELESS arguments would hold water & you wouldn't be taken seriously. So why you people delude yourself into thinking that you can argue over economics WITHOUT studying economics & without offering any ECONOMIC ARGUMENTS? No reason for anyone to take your childish BASELESS arguments seriously.

*Seriously, it is REALLY hypocritical of you people to say that Austrian Economics is wrong even though you CAN'T provide cogent ECONOMIC ARGUMENT against it & tha is even though it was Austrian Economics that introduced you to the whole Fed, central-banking & fractional-reserve-banking thing otherwise you'd be begging Bernanke like most people out there to "rescue the economy". You people won't have ANY argument against Fed without Austrian Economics. You people are really really intellectually dishonest.*

*Again, refute my argument with sound economics or admit the obvious fact that you people don't know $#@! about economics.*



> Generally, people find it easier to understand the link between import-export, currencies, free trade & prosperity when we look at how these things work under a "commodity-standard" so I'll try to explain these things in the context of current America-China situation. When we're on a paper-money-standard, NOTHING amongst these variables & how they lead to prosperity changes but understanding the underlying relationship may get difficult to understand due to added factors like government manipulation of currency but the underlying effects do NOT change.
> 
> At the time, most of Britain & most of Europe had been leaping ahead of all the other countries including China due to Industrial Revolution which'd caused them have much higher level of prosperity than China so China was in a pretty similar position that it is today in the sense that it'd huge land & labor to produce things & export them, tea & silk were their main exports to Europe which meant that goods were going out of China & silver (money) was coming in.
> 
> Now, it is important to understand how "commodity-standard" (in this case "silver-standard") works. When country C exports to country E, goods go out & silver (money) comes in while silver (money) goes out of country E & goods come in. Because there'd been a gap in the living standards of Europe & China, China for a fair number of years had been exporting to Europe which caused Chinese silver-reserves to increase & lowered European silver-reserves BUT what does it mean? It means that China's "money-supply" (or "silver-supply" if you will) increased while Europe's silver-supply decreased which meant that an ounce of silver in China had LOWER purchasing-power while an ounce of silver in Europe had HIGHER purchasing-power.
> 
> Now, under normal circumstances, if free markets are allowed work, it'd just mean that Chinese will find cheaper European goods attractive & Europeans will find Chinese costlier goods less attractive which means European imports into China will increase & silver will go back into Europe as a result & this is how the markets keep moving back & forth towards equilibrium.





> Now, under a paper-currency, WITHOUT any manipulation, when US keeps buying alot of Chinese goods, it'd cause Yuan to rise against dollar & over time, Chinese would find US products cheaper & US would find Chinese products costlier & then market equilibrium will go back & forth like that.
> 
> But in real life, China either buys dollars or devalues their currency in order to NOT allow it to rise against the dollar. But this does NOT have any negative effect on US. WHY? Well, when US buys from China, it gets cheap goods which enhance Americans' living standards while it gets US dollars in return. Of course, it doesn't allow its currency to rise but that only hurts the purchasing-power of Chinese people BUT those dollars get reinvested in US one way or another which helps create jobs & goods/services in US & the additional income that is generated out of it is what allows Americans to buy more Chinese goods so it's essentially a win-win situation for BOTH countries (except the Chinese people, of course but they too benefit to a degree anyway) so they're essentially keeping their people poor through tariffs & currency-manipulation to provide US with cheaper goods, not a bad situation to be in for the US.
> 
> Now, what'll happen if we adopt protectionism & put up tariffs? Well, it'll obviously mean an end to cheaper goods as well as MORE of our capital will be used up for LESS goods because our workers will've to be paid much higher wages because of minium-wage laws & everything so MORE of our capital will be engaged in production of LESS goods which obviously means much higher prices AND it also means that that ADDITIONAL CAPITAL that'll be needed will be sucked out from other areas of the economy which means you'll've MORE job-losses & drop in production & higher prices in those areas.
> 
> Now, interventionists mostly see the economy as a static model & that's why they think that they can meddle in one area of the economy & not affect others but that's not how the real-world economies work; in fact, they're very dynamic so every time you meddle in one area, it causes all others to re-adjust accordingly & that's why central-planning is so difficult to engage in because of the dynamic nature of economies.
> 
> So because of economy's dynamic nature, even if prices increase in one area, it causes all the other prices to re-adjust according their new supply/demand factors. Because as prices initially rise even in an area of the economy, people bearing those high prices demand higher incomes to ensure their prosperity & higher-skilled people have the most bargaining power because their skills are in shorter supply than lower-skilled people & in order to free up more capital to accommodate higher incomes of higher-skilled people, businesses have to lay off more lower-skilled people which causes more unemployment among the poor low-skilled workers, decrease in production of goods/services AND higher prices of goods/services that the business is producing & so on & so on it causes a "domino effect" throughout the economy. Therefore, prices & unemployment throughout the economy keep having upward pressure, the production keeps having downward pressure *UNTIL the market is put back in charge*; if not then the economy keeps eating itself. This is how socialism destroys economies & countries, the more socialist the country, the faster it degenerates.
> ...

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> Ironically enough, yours is possibly the most childish post here LMAO


No, you've cornered the market on childish insults. Did you do that with or without the help of the government?

----------


## Paul Or Nothing II

> No, you've cornered the market on childish insults. Did you do that with or without the help of the government?


*Still no arguments based on sound economics to refute my explanation*, that in itself shows who's being childish & whose baseless arguments don't have a leg to stand on LMAO

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> *Still no arguments based on sound economics to refute my explanation*, that in itself shows who's being childish & whose baseless arguments don't have a leg to stand on LMAO


There is nothing left to debate. And you will find few people who will want to debate you considering your debate STYLE. Perhaps you might try HuffPo or Redstate for a change of pace? Please don't tell them you are a Ron Paul supporter.

----------


## Paul Or Nothing II

> There is nothing left to debate. And you will find few people who will want to debate you considering your debate STYLE. Perhaps you might try HuffPo or Redstate for a change of pace? Please don't tell them you are a Ron Paul supporter.


Again, *still no refutation of my arguments based on sound economics* lol, now you're just embarrassing yourself LMAO YOU don't tell anyone that you're a "Ron Paul supporter" because Ron Paul is the biggest advocate of REAL free-trade & he's FOR property-rights & NOT socialist-corporatist THIEF like you people. May be you should support Obama, as has been seen, he doesn't mind retaliatory tariffs 

*RON PAUL ON TARIFFS AND FREE TRADE*

http://www.24hgold.com/english/contr...butor=Ron+Paul



> *Its easy for some lawmakers to make emotional arguments that tariffs are needed to protect the jobs of American steelworkers, but we never hear about the jobs that will be lost or never created when the cost of steel rises 30 percent.* Tariffs are taxes, and imposing new tariffs means raising taxes. Apparently no one in the administration has read Henry Hazlitts classic economics text, Economics in one Lesson. Professor Hazlitts fundamental lesson was simple: *We must examine economic policy by considering the long-term effects of any proposal on all groups.* The administration instead chose to focus only on the immediate effects of steel tariffs on one group, the domestic steel industry. This has nothing to do with fairness, and everything to do with political favors. The free market is fair; it alone justly rewards the worthiest competitors. Tariffs reward the strongest Washington lobbies.


(In the first sentence, he's clearly referring to the argument I've made that the the displacement of ADDITIONAL CAPITAL that's caused by imposing ADDITIONAL COSTS which suck out capital from OTHER AREAS of the economy, which means MORE JOBS ARE LOST than the ones created due to tariffs & thereby LOWER production & good/services, HIGHER prices & LOWER living standards for the country as a whole)

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul254.html



> *We don't need government agreements to have free trade.* We merely need to lower or eliminate taxes on the American people, without regard to what other nations do. Remember, *tariffs are simply taxes on consumers*. Americans have always bought goods from abroad; the only question is how much our government taxes us for doing so. As economist Henry Hazlitt explained, *tariffs simply protect politically-favored special interests at the expense of consumers, while lowering wages across the economy* as a whole. Hazlitt, Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich Hayek, Murray Rothbard, and countless other economists have demolished every fallacy concerning tariffs, proving conclusively that *unilateral elimination of tariffs benefits the American people*. *We don't need CAFTA or any other international agreement* to reap the economic benefits promised by CAFTA supporters, we only need to change our own harmful economic and tax policies. *Let the rest of the world hurt their citizens with tariffs; if we simply reduce tariffs and taxes at home, we will attract capital and see our economy flourish.*


http://www.24hgold.com/english/contr...butor=Ron+Paul



> *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.*

----------


## Seraphim

Winner.

Ron Paul is AGAINST tariffs, on a fundemental level. A good step for the USA would be to end all other Federal taxes on a domestic level and fund itself through import tarrifs...FOR NOW.

That does not mean that tariffs should be the end game, or that they are actually a good idea.

They aren't a good idea. They are just WAY better than a Federal income tax.

I thought the whole point of the RP movement was to NOT fall for false dichotomy's and to REFUSE to choose betweem the lesser of evils.

Tariffs are just less offensive forms of taxation...but it is still taxation.

I'm definately not against charging foreign exporters to USE local facilities - that's just a balanced and reasonable SERVICE CHARGE.

But slapping arbitrary tax/tariff costs is not condusive to raising living standards, peace or prosperity. 

Goods coming across Nation State lines is a far greater scenario than armies.







> Again, *still no refutation of my arguments based on sound economics* lol, now you're just embarrassing yourself LMAO YOU don't tell anyone that you're a "Ron Paul supporter" because Ron Paul is the biggest advocate of REAL free-trade & he's FOR property-rights & NOT socialist-corporatist THIEF like you people. May be you should support Obama, as has been seen, he doesn't mind retaliatory tariffs 
> 
> *RON PAUL ON TARIFFS AND FREE TRADE*
> 
> http://www.24hgold.com/english/contr...butor=Ron+Paul
> 
> (In the first sentence, he's clearly referring to the argument I've made that the the displacement of ADDITIONAL CAPITAL that's caused by imposing ADDITIONAL COSTS which suck out capital from OTHER AREAS of the economy, which means MORE JOBS ARE LOST than the ones created due to tariffs & thereby LOWER production & good/services, HIGHER prices & LOWER living standards for the country as a whole)
> 
> http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul254.html
> ...

----------


## Paul Or Nothing II

> Winner.
> 
> Ron Paul is AGAINST tariffs, on a fundemental level. A good step for the USA would be to end all other Federal taxes on a domestic level and fund itself through import tarrifs...FOR NOW.
> 
> That does not mean that tariffs should be the end game, or that they are actually a good idea.
> 
> They aren't a good idea. They are just WAY better than a Federal income tax.
> 
> I thought the whole point of the RP movement was to NOT fall for false dichotomy's and to REFUSE to choose betweem the lesser of evils.
> ...


+1

Yes, that's the point. That Ron Paul FUNDAMENTALLY against tariffs because he understands economics & that tariffs actually destroy more jobs than they create & reduce real wealth in the economy.

Of course, neither I nor I presume any other free trader here would mind a NOMINAL, NON-RETALIATORY tariff FOR NOW nor would we even mind a NOMINAL income-tax FOR NOW or any other tax for that matter as long as they're considerably reduced & this is UNTIL the debt is paid off ASAP (by possibly passing a legislation banning issuance of debt for the moment) BUT the point is that EVENTUALLY we want to be free of ALL taxes because they're THEFT & violation of people's property-rights & if people want a government then they should be charitable enough to donate for it.

The point of this whole argument is to make it crystal-clear that tariffs DON'T confer ANY benefits to the country, they just displace capital & create more unemployment while lowering living standards for the country as a whole. Too many people here, like in the mainstream, don't understand economics in its entirety & therefore, support tariffs as a violent measure against their own fellow citizens as well as against people in other countries, this sort of behavior is no different that socialists/communists who want to use FORCE against others "to do good".

A lot of people here like to talk about the Constitution but I believe the Declaration of Independence was the real thing, that's what declared that we were free from the fetters of government & its THIEVERY of taxation & that's why it did NOT contain any powers to tax, people were TRULY FREE & that's what we must aim for EVENTUALLY & it's important set the tone for that RIGHT NOW by opposing oppression & theft at every level irrespective of how small or big it may be.

----------


## libertyjam

> I'm definately not against charging foreign exporters to USE local facilities - that's just a balanced and reasonable SERVICE CHARGE.


#1 The only point PONII has is the one on the top of his head. 

#2 I did not post here to say that, it just slipped out.  Rather, what about not just using local facilities, but Foreign States building entire cities on US soil?  

China Wants to Build a 50 Square Mile City in the US
also 
http://endoftheamericandream.com/arc...of-boise-idaho
http://www.idahostatesman.com/2010/1...yes-boise.html
Note the best jobs won't be going to Americans.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> Ron Paul is AGAINST tariffs, on a fundemental level. A good step for the USA would be to end all other Federal taxes on a domestic level and fund itself through import tarrifs...FOR NOW.
> 
> That does not mean that tariffs should be the end game, or that they are actually a good idea.
> 
> They aren't a good idea. They are just WAY better than a Federal income tax.
> ...
> Tariffs are just less offensive forms of taxation...but it is still taxation.
> 
> I'm definately not against charging foreign exporters to USE local facilities - that's just a balanced and reasonable SERVICE CHARGE.


Very good, we are all in agreement then. I wish that other people would enthusiastically join me in opposition to income taxes.




> Back to the subject at hand, it is simply that I would prefer flat, across the board, untargeted tariffs as opposed to income taxes. Assuming that the Federal government exists and that it will take revenue one way or another, that is a preference.





> Tariffs are the lesser of multiple evils, to fund a government that is not going away, with some benefits over other options like income taxes.

----------


## Paul Or Nothing II

> #1 The only point PONII has is the one on the top of his head. 
> 
> #2 I did not post here to say that, it just slipped out.  Rather, what about not just using local facilities, but Foreign States building entire cities on US soil?  
> 
> China Wants to Build a 50 Square Mile City in the US
> also 
> http://endoftheamericandream.com/arc...of-boise-idaho
> http://www.idahostatesman.com/2010/1...yes-boise.html
> Note the best jobs won't be going to Americans.


More childish insults from THIEVES who can't refute my arguments based on economics. That's all you people've got anyway, no facts to back up your conjecture. 




> Very good, we are all in agreement then. I wish that other people would enthusiastically join me in opposition to income taxes.


No, we're NOT all in agreement. He said he's AGAINST tariffs & so is Ron Paul because it's NOT beneficial to anyone & I'm guessing you're still protectionist tariffer who believes "tariffs create jobs" 

And it's really pathetic to bring in income-tax every time to show tariffs to be the "lesser evil". Who gives a $#@!, it's evil nonetheless. It's like saying, hey, let's settle for Romney over Obama or vice versa, we're saying NO to BOTH, we're saying we don't want the "lesser evil", we want Ron Paul.

The is an issue of principles & where each one of us stands on the ideas of freedom & people's rights to life, liberty & PROPERTY.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> More childish insults from THIEVES who can't refute my arguments based on economics. That's all you people've got anyway, no facts to back up your conjecture.


Calling us thieves and liars will not convince us of anything other than the fact that you are immature and intellectually dishonest.

----------


## therepublic

> Just goes to show that these people are not only ignorant of economics but just OUTRIGHT LIARS. They can't even stand firm on their own words lol
> 
> They repeatedly keep bringing NAFTA in the same breath as free trade EVEN THOUGH it's been pointed out a million times that NAFTA is NOT free trade, & just calling it "free trade agreement" does NOT make it free trade in the same sense that Patriot Act is NOT about patriotism & America is NOT capitalist even though people say so.
> 
> These people are anti-property rights, anti-free trade, anti-free markets, anti-capitalism & pro-government intervention, pro-tariffs, pro-socialism & corporatism, & these people are supposed to be Ron Paul supporters? LMAO
> 
> Not to mention, they're YET to produce any cogent argument based on sound economics, they can't refute the economic arguments put forth to support free trade, hell, they don't even understand the basic laws of supply & demand which are on view in every-day life


If you can't kill the message, kill the messenger...Exactly the same tactics used  by the establishment against Ron Paul.

----------


## Cutlerzzz

> Calling us thieves and liars will not convince us of anything other than the fact that you are immature and intellectually dishonest.


Spending 27 pages claiming that everyone who disagrees with you is in on an international conspiracy theory, throwing insults, and failing to address the actual topic is SO mature, and worth discussing anything with.

----------


## Paul Or Nothing II

> Calling us thieves and liars will not convince us of anything other than the fact that you are immature and intellectually dishonest.


Well, it's OBVIOUS that you don't want to admit the truth & its OBVIOUS that you support thievery for the PURPORTED benefits which you can't even argue for based on sound economics so YOU are being intellectually dishonest by NOT admitting the fact that you don't understand economics. YOU are being dishonest by NOT admitting that tariff-tax is just as much THIEVERY as any other tax.




> If you can't kill the message, kill the messenger...Exactly the same tactics used  by the establishment against Ron Paul.


What message? That STEALING is good? I've quoted Ron Paul himself & even he does NOT agree with you so throwing his name in doesn't lend any credibility to you anyway.

Let me ask again, *where's the refutation to my explanation based on sound economics?* You've no "message", just gossip, conjecture & hearsay, NO FACTUAL ECONOMIC ARGUMENTS.

As I've said earlier, would it be fair for someone to argue over anatomy even though they can't come up with actual argument based on that science? Would it fair for someone to argue over engineering even though they can't come up with arguments based on engineering itself? Well, I hope not. So how can you people hope to argue economics without basing your arguments on sound economics? You shouldn't expect to be taken seriously until you make your case with sound economic arguments, NOT on gossip, conjecture or ".......because Founders said so" arguments.

And as I've said many a times, Founders LIED to American people by calling tariff-tax an "external tax" as if to say that they weren't being taxed when in fact they were, Founders didn't know about fractional-reserve-banking, they couldn't even understand the basic economic laws of supply & demand that well otherwise they wouldn't've had fixed-bimetalism under the Coinage Act of 1792; they were good philosophers no doubt BUT they were NOT ECONOMISTS so it's preposterous to reject, WITHOUT cogent proof, the Austrian Economics to which we all owe so much our knowledge regarding Fed & central-banking, for people who didn't even have the comprehensive understanding of economics.




> Spending 27 pages claiming that everyone who disagrees with you is in on an international conspiracy theory, throwing insults, and failing to address the actual topic is SO mature, and worth discussing anything with.


^^

----------


## ProIndividual

We won...protectionism is a failure, tariffs like all taxes hurt the economy, and all tax is essentially theft in any consistant moral theory. 

Free trade and free markets (can't have one without the other) win again.

But I have to say...even as all the economic evidence was ignored...how can you trample Constitutional property rights so whimsicly? I mean, not many people understand economics, so I can forgive that easily enough...but you seemingly gloss over the fact there is no way for a government to enforce such thefts and coercions in trade without absolutely, unequivocally, trampling individual property rights. The fact this wasn't the MAIN focus of the debate for those in favor of protectionism says quite a bit...given that they were failing so badly at the economic arguments. I mean, why get pummeled on the data, when you are soooo sure of the morality of this approach? 

Because you knew full well what you were arguing for trampled individual rights...

...and you didn't care.

All for "the good of the collective", right?

And as we showed, it isn't even good for the collective economically.

PWNED.

----------


## showpan

Who won? The 17 MILLION people who are out of work in this country with no hope of ever getting a job again under the current policies, or the CEO's of a few multinational corporations and the millionairess politicians who they have brought and promised jobs.

----------


## Paul Or Nothing II

> Who won? The 17 MILLION people who are out of work in this country with no hope of ever getting a job again under the current policies, or the CEO's of a few multinational corporations and the millionairess politicians who they have brought and promised jobs.


No, the other 34 MILLION that'll be losing there jobs because of displacement of capital to meet ADDITIONAL COSTS of tariffs & higher incomes as well as rest of the populace who'll be FORCED to pay HIGHER prices & LOWER living standard, they won.

Typical communist/socialist propaganda, "Oh, we must kill the bourgeois & then we'll all be rich because "money" is wealth, NOT goods/services"  That's all communists/socialists have, an APPEAL TO EMOTIONS but NO ECONOMIC ARGUMENTS to back up their stance.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul254.html



> Tariffs simply protect politically-favored special interests at the expense of consumers, *while lowering wages across the economy* as a whole.


http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul254.html



> Let the rest of the world hurt their citizens with tariffs; if we simply reduce tariffs and taxes at home, we will attract capital and see our economy flourish.


As for the 17 million, government needs to repeal minimum-wage laws, cut taxes & stop issuing new debt, & as that capital is left in the private sector, it'll will automatically create jobs for them; it's the government that's keeping them unemployed so creating more unemployment by merely displacing capital & raising prices through tariffs will only make things WORSE.

----------


## Jace

..

----------


## Bossobass

Jace,

The free traders don't want to hear about reality. They'd rather tell you what Ron Paul believes and rant on about some wet dream that's never gonna happen while their standard of living slowly sinks into oblivion.

You know, no government, no monetary system, no taxes, no national defense, etc. But, lots and lots of property rights, you know, like the gangs of New York.

For the record, Ron Paul is not an ignorant ranter. He vehemently opposes "Free Trade" but supports free trade. He opposes tariffs, but he supports tariffs. He wants small government but supports strong national defense. He wants to get rid of TSA and CIA and all of the Departments, but he's not an anarchist who wants to rewrite the Constitution, as the Free Traders do.





> *Lower taxes*
> Paul's campaign slogan for 2004 was "The Taxpayers' Best Friend!" He would completely eliminate the income tax by shrinking the size and scope of government to what he considers its Constitutional limits, noting that he has never voted to approve an unbalanced budget; he has observed that even scaling back spending to 2000 levels eliminates the need for the 42% of the budget accounted for by individual income tax receipts. He has asserted that Congress had no power to impose a direct income tax and supports the repeal of the sixteenth amendment. Rather than taxing personal income, which he says assumes that the government owns individuals' lives and labor, *he prefers the federal government to be funded through excise taxes and/or uniform, non-protectionist tariffs.*





> Could America exist without an income tax? The idea seems radical, yet in truth *America did just fine without a federal income tax for the first 126 years of its history. Prior to 1913, the government operated with revenues raised through tariffs, excise taxes, and property taxes, without ever touching a worker’s paycheck.* In the late 1800s, when Congress first attempted to impose an income tax, the notion of taxing a citizen’s hard work was considered radical! Public outcry ensued; more importantly, the Supreme Court ruled the income tax unconstitutional. Only with passage of the 16th Amendment did Congress gain the ability to tax the productive endeavors of its citizens.


For the Free Trader ranting lunatics, if you're going to resort to quoting Ron Paul to "win" your pointless argument, please try to get it right. RP is against protectionist tariffs, but he isn't completely devoid of the ability to think. Government needs revenue to operate. Excise taxes for infrastructure and tariffs are what Ron Paul would rely on to fund government, assuming he would be able to accomplish the mammoth task of whittling down the current size of government to get it to the point where those funds would be adequate without deficit borrowing and income taxes.

Free Trade; yeah, thank god you still have your credit cards, can lease an SUV and move into a house with zero down and a net worth of minus $15,000. Enjoy it while it lasts.




> *"The U.S. government has to come to terms with the painful fact that the good old days when it could just borrow its way out of messes of its own making are finally gone," China's official Xinhua news agency said in a commentary.*


Free Trade with MFN China = EPIK FAIL.  Anyone out there disputing that?

While they've skinned you alive you spout some babble about property rights and the Anarchist Mo Different Free Trade Organization Of Utopian What-Ifs.

But... of course, you somehow win in the forums of ideas, far, far from reality. Congratulations.

Bosso

----------


## Paul Or Nothing II

> What the Welsh tin plate manufacturers did in the 1800s has been happening in industry after industry in the United States, from textiles, to furniture, to ship building, to steel, to electronics.
> 
> A foreign government targets an industry and subsidizes it while protecting it from foreign competition at home. Subsidies allow the foreign companies to export into the American market and sell below cost. This drives efficient American producers from the market as consumers buy the cheaper foreign goods. Once the American competition is eliminated, the foreign companies raise prices.


Our free trade policy has allowed foreign manufacturers to stifle or eliminate American industry and weaken our free enterprise system, which had provided us with one of the highest standards of living in the world.[/QUOTE]

*We don't have free trade, NAFTA, CAFTA, etc is NOT free trade, get that through your thick skulls. It's corporatized regulated trade & if you don't believe that then you're essentially saying that Ron Paul is a liar*




And let's say for a moment that other countries are _"conspiring against us to steal our industries"_, so if they're selling cheap then that's good for Americans, that allows Americans to have better living standards as well as SAVE MORE which means there's MORE CAPITAL to create jobs WITHIN America. If foreigners raise prices then American industries would be back in business again because that's what businesses do they follow higher profits but what's stopping them? *THE GOVERNMENT, that enacts "regulations" & trade agreements allows big corps to corporatize the system so it's the problem of government NOT the policy of free trade,  and guess what, who administers tariffs? THE SAME CURRUPT GOVERNMENT. So your basic argument is that government is destroying America so we need to give EVEN MORE POWER to the government, what kind of ridiculous argument is that?*

Further, *why are people so blind to facts that those countries that put import-tariffs & devalue their currency to raise exports are essentially ROBBING their people, keeping their living standards low for the benefit of the government & its corporatist buddies & you want US government to engage in such corporatism too?* Again, a ridiculous argument.

Further, *where does the ADDITIONAL CAPITAL comes from? WHY DON'T YOU ASK YOURSELF THAT or is baseless arguments is all you've got & no brain to think for yourself.*



> And one fundamental economic question that you people always tend to sidestep is that let's say Chinese workers are producing something at $5 & Americans produce the same for $10 & let's say tariffs are raised to offer protection to the extent needed then that ADDITIONAL COST of $5 produces NOTHING, it just goes into the pockets of those employees & then they bid up the prices of EXISTING goods/services. On the other hand, if there are no import-barriers then that $5 of capital goes in OTHER AREAS of the economy & helps produce jobs, goods/services there & thereby helps reduce prices there as well as the fact that prices are lower due to cheaper imports so there are generally MORE goods/services in the economy & LOWER prices than they otherwise would be & therefore every $ buys MORE stuff in general than it OTHERWISE would've.

----------


## Paul Or Nothing II

> Jace,
> 
> The free traders don't want to hear about reality. They'd rather tell you what Ron Paul believes and rant on about some wet dream that's never gonna happen while their standard of living slowly sinks into oblivion.


*Oh! I've heard this before! Where? From socialist & Democrats who keep saying, "oh, the REALITY is very different, free markets don't work, freedom doesn't work, that's why need government to STEAL money from some people & give it to others"* 




> You know, no government, no monetary system, no taxes, no national defense, etc. But, lots and lots of property rights, you know, like the gangs of New York.


Stop rambling & generalizing, I'm a minarchist so I've NEVER said about no government or no national defense.

And you want the Fed & government to have "monetary system", right? Typical socialist/communist. That was the 5th plank on *Communist Manifesto* lol

And you want taxes, right? Well you've plenty of them right now? So I hope you're enjoying every bit of that LMAO

Oh, so you don't like property-rights, right? Again, it's typical communist/socialist thinking. Being anti-property-rights really exposes you people for the *commies* that you are.




> For the record, Ron Paul is not an ignorant ranter. He vehemently opposes "Free Trade" but supports free trade. He opposes tariffs, but he supports tariffs. He wants small government but supports strong national defense. He wants to get rid of TSA and CIA and all of the Departments, but he's not an anarchist who wants to rewrite the Constitution, as the Free Traders do.


YOU PEOPLE are ignorant ranters & so deluded that you can't even read the fact that Ron Paul opposes the "free trade agreements" like NAFTA, CAFTA & SO DO FREE TRADERS HERE & he opposes tariffs too & there are no two ways about that.

*Ron Paul does NOT believe in the infallibility of the Founders or the Constitution, he's made that clear. He's against the part of 5th Amendment which allows for Eminent Domain BECAUSE he belives in property-rights & he does NOT support tariffs. READ IF YOU CAN.*

http://www.24hgold.com/english/contr...butor=Ron+Paul



> *The same free-market principles that compel me to oppose subsidies apply to tariffs as well.*


*He believes in free market & you commies don't & it's that simple*




> *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.*


He believes in a FREE SOCIETY, not Constitutionalized society.

And guess what, there's a things called *Amendment* in the Constitution. Founders put that in because they wanted future generations to make changes in the Constitution as they see fit, *BASED ON REASON like Founders did* to the best of their ability & knowledge of the time; they'll be appalled by seeing you *cultists* drones who can't use their brains or reason.




> For the Free Trader ranting lunatics, if you're going to resort to quoting Ron Paul to "win" your pointless argument, please try to get it right. RP is against protectionist tariffs, but he isn't completely devoid of the ability to think. Government needs revenue to operate. Excise taxes for infrastructure and tariffs are what Ron Paul would rely on to fund government, assuming he would be able to accomplish the mammoth task of whittling down the current size of government to get it to the point where those funds would be adequate without deficit borrowing and income taxes.


May be lunatic commies should LEARN TO READ others' posts before posting & realize that it's ALREADY been acknowledged that Ron Paul simply can't get rid of all the taxes immediately & that we'll be fine FOR THE MOMENT with NON-RATALIATORY tariffs but the point is that Ron Paul is NOT an idiot like illiterate commies here who believe that tariffs "create jobs", NO, he's smart enough to understand that tariffs KILL JOBS MORE JOBS in other industries than they create in the protected industries & that they're an economic stupidity nonetheless.

You don't realize that government such out nearly 40% of the US economy (link) & if you put tariffs & raise prices then that's going to EVEN MORE capital out of private sector, meaning the reduced capital merely moves from OTHER AREAS of the economy into the protected areas so it merely causes MORE UNEMPLOYMENT.

It's a question of PRINCIPLES which commies obviously have NONE or the ability to think for themselves, they just follow like mindless drones by making *cultist* arguments on the lines of ".......because Founders said so", ".......Founders were omniscient deities who can't be wrong" 




> Free Trade; yeah, thank god you still have your credit cards, can lease an SUV and move into a house with zero down and a net worth of minus $15,000. Enjoy it while it lasts.


I know you live on the street but try NOT to put EVEN MORE Americans on the street with your baseless support for tariff-tax




> Free Trade with MFN China = EPIK FAIL.  Anyone out there disputing that?


You don't even have the commonsense to understand that producing those same goods in America will massively raise prices & reduce goods/services & make America POORER quicker than it already is getting due to commies like you & your socialism.




> While they've skinned you alive you spout some babble about property rights and the Anarchist Mo Different Free Trade Organization Of Utopian What-Ifs.


Again, I know commies hate property-rights, that's only too obvious lol And there's no such thing as "free trade organization" needed for free trade, *you don't even understand what you're arguing against lol*

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul254.html



> *We don't need government agreements to have free trade.*





> But... of course, you somehow win in the forums of ideas, far, far from reality. Congratulations.
> 
> Bosso


Again, that's exactly what commies always say that "reality is different" so we must "help people" by allowing the government to STEAL. But it's funny that you commies keep whining about banks ROBBING us dry but you don't mind it when YOU get to ROB others. What hypocrites!

----------


## The Grinning Maniac

> And let's say for a moment that other countries are "conspiring against us to steal our industries", so if they're selling cheap then that's good for Americans, that allows Americans to have better living standards as well as SAVE MORE which means there's MORE CAPITAL to create jobs WITHIN America.


So the person who used to have a middle class manufacturing or white collar job, who now works at a service job with a substantially reduced salary....can save up more money than he could before. 

Got it. 

One last question. This Wal-Mart employee who is making so much money now; when he starts his new business with his glut of savings, how does he stay in business and produce jobs if low-wage countries can undercut him and drive him out of the market?

Also please stop calling people names.

----------


## Paul Or Nothing II

> So the person who used to have a middle class manufacturing or white collar job, who now works at a service job with a substantially reduced salary....can save up more money than he could before. 
> 
> Got it.
> 
> One last question. This Wal-Mart employee who is making so much money now; when he starts his new business with his glut of savings, how does he stay in business and produce jobs if low-wage countries can undercut him and drive him out of the market?


So let me guess, so because wal-mart employee is $#@! worker with no skill so his skill gets him a low salary so he should get to STEAL from others? Wonderful! What is NOT communist/socialist about that? This is the whole basis of it that people are "entitled" to ROB others because they're poor or they don't've skills, such philosophy only brings misery for the whole of the society in the end as can be seen in the United Socialist States of America & rest of the socialist Western countries.

And you know WITHOUT that capital being saved due to cheaper imports, you know where that "wal-mart employee" would be right now? ON THE STREETS. Because as the prices rise due to tariffs & higher costs, people bearing those costs will compete for higher incomes & since higher-skilled workers have more bargainign-power than lower-skilled ones, MORE LOWER-SKILLED WORKERS will be laid off to accommodate for the higher salaries & there'll MORE misery but that's what socialists/communists never care to notice & learn about, they think they can dictate the markets & engage in central-planning, no different than central-bankers.

And I've said over & over, government needs to stop sucking out so much out of the economy & markets need to be deregulated & allow the capital to remain in the private sector, that'll allow for goods/services & thereby make them cheaper so even if NOMINAL wages drop, REAL wages will be going up as every $ will buy more goods/services than it otherwise would've. You can't solve the problems caused by over-regulation & over-taxation & destruction of capital with more regulation & more taxation & more destruction of capital, you're liable to make things MUCH WORSE than they already are.




> Also please stop calling people names.


START READING others' comments, others haven't been that polite, have they?

----------


## showpan

> So let me guess, so because wal-mart employee is $#@! worker with no skill so his skill gets him a low salary so he should get to STEAL from others?


My wife had to take a $#@!ing job at Walmart, they are the only ones who are hiring due to their high turnover rate. She was one of those 17 million just as I am and at least we completed school, unlike you, drop out loser. If it weren't for unemployment, I would probably be working there too. My Aunt is a real estate agent with a BA who had no choice to take one of their low paying part time $#@! jobs because some greedy investors decided to create a bubble and destroy the housing market. I have been to Birthday parties and outings with other Walmart employees and a lot of them had decent paying jobs and more skills than you will ever hope to have with your $#@!ing attitude, kid. Many of them were retired and had to return to work because they couldn't afford retirement. Now I know why you are online so much running your mouth. Talk like that gets your ass kicked around other people who have to do what ever it takes to put food on the table. Why don't you go on down to Walmart and tell them what you think.

----------


## Cutlerzzz

> My wife had to take a $#@!ing job at Walmart, they are the only ones who are hiring due to their high turnover rate. She was one of those 17 million just as I am and at least we completed school, unlike you, drop out loser. If it weren't for unemployment, I would probably be working there too. My Aunt is a real estate agent with a BA who had no choice to take one of their low paying part time $#@! jobs because some greedy investors decided to create a bubble and destroy the housing market. I have been to Birthday parties and outings with other Walmart employees and a lot of them had decent paying jobs and more skills than you will ever hope to have with your $#@!ing attitude, kid. Many of them were retired and had to return to work because they couldn't afford retirement. Now I know why you are online so much running your mouth. Talk like that gets your ass kicked around other people who have to do what ever it takes to put food on the table. Why don't you go on down to Walmart and tell them what you think.


LOL!

I literally lol'd. This is bookmark worthy.

----------


## showpan

And just what do you find so amusing about people with higher educations having no choice but to take the only employment available to provide food for their children and a roof over their head? Do you even realize how many families are being torn apart while you literally LOL at them. How many kids are sleeping in the back seats of cars or had to move in with relatives while Mom and Dad sleep in their car. 
I normally make over $100k per year, and will soon be withdrawing my 401k in order to relocate to another job that is waiting for me. I will also be paying cash for an older home that needs work but it will be all mine and not the banks. At least I have that to fall back on and the upside is that I won't be supporting greedy investing free market $#@!s who are only trying to bilk me out of my savings that probably wouldn't be there for my retirement anyway.

----------


## The Grinning Maniac

I thought he was laughing at PON II getting spanked after looking like a bit of a elitist dick by talking about the "useless" Wal-Mart workers. Could be wrong.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> Talk like that gets your ass kicked around other people who have to do what ever it takes to put food on the table.


LOL.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WDgq-K2oYLo

----------


## Cutlerzzz

> And just what do you find so amusing about people with higher educations having no choice but to take the only employment available to provide food for their children and a roof over their head? Do you even realize how many families are being torn apart while you literally LOL at them. How many kids are sleeping in the back seats of cars or had to move in with relatives while Mom and Dad sleep in their car. 
> I normally make over $100k per year, and will soon be withdrawing my 401k in order to relocate to another job that is waiting for me. I will also be paying cash for an older home that needs work but it will be all mine and not the banks. At least I have that to fall back on and the upside is that I won't be supporting greedy investing free market $#@!s who are only trying to bilk me out of my savings that probably wouldn't be there for my retirement anyway.


Internet meltdowns are always funny. Sorry.

----------


## showpan

> Internet meltdowns are always funny. Sorry.


Meltdown? I took most of the cussing out....lol... a meltdown wouldn't include type written words anyway, read my sig.

----------

