# Think Tank > Austrian Economics / Economic Theory >  Shaming Paul Krugman into debating Austrian economics.

## Anti Federalist

This is interesting.

I'd love to be "on board" but I'm still hung up on globalized "free trade".

The Austrians are just plain wrong on that, at least when it comes to "free trade" with murderous communist regimes.

Still, I'd be willing to contribute.



*Why Paul Krugman WILL Debate an Austrian* 
Posted by Thomas Woods on October 22, 2010 08:14 AM 

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewr...ves/67683.html

Many Austrians have tried to get Krugman to debate business cycle theory.  Hes too busy and too sophisticated to debate an Austrian, of course.  Until now.

Economist Robert Murphy has come up with a clever way to make this happen.  Through a website called The Point, people can pledge an amount of money to make the debate happen.  Not one cent is charged to them until it does happen.  The money will go to a charity for the hungry in New York.  So if it hits, say, $100,000, Krugman will have to explain why getting $100,000 to New Yorks hungry isnt worth one hour of his time.  Brilliant.  Ive already pledged.  Bob is up to around $5,000 already. (UPDATE: up to $10,000!)

Donation site:

http://www.thepoint.com/campaigns/campaign-0-1240

----------


## HOLLYWOOD

As Jim Rogers said, "Krugman is an Idiot" 

Paul Krugman is a Marxist Communist Politician, not an Economist

----------


## MRoCkEd

lol. I bet he still won't do it. Good idea though.

----------


## osan

> This is interesting.
> 
> I'd love to be "on board" but I'm still hung up on globalized "free trade".
> 
> The Austrians are just plain wrong on that, at least when it comes to "free trade" with murderous communist regimes.


Please elaborate.




> Economist Robert Murphy has come up with a clever way to make this happen.  Through a website called The Point, people can pledge an amount of money to make the debate happen.  Not one cent is charged to them until it does happen.  The money will go to a charity for the hungry in New York.  So if it hits, say, $100,000, Krugman will have to explain why getting $100,000 to New York’s hungry isn’t worth one hour of his time.  Brilliant.  I’ve already pledged.  Bob is up to around $5,000 already. (UPDATE: up to $10,000!)


Very clever indeed.  Rather than putting the gun to Krugman's head directly, he puts it to that of an innocent third party.  I wonder whether it will work.  Were I the target of this sort of trick, it would fail catastrophically.  The result will say something of the fabric from which Krugman is cut.

----------


## ClayTrainor

> Please elaborate.


This thread will go off the rails if he does, mark my words.

----------


## bunklocoempire

Update:  Up to $17,660.00

Even minus 5%, that's still a good bit of food.


Bunkloco

----------


## MozoVote

Thye should send a letter every week to the Food Bank telling them how much money would be available if Krugman would get off his a$$.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Please elaborate.


http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=265068

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=257022

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=262243

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=251768

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=235581

A very quick summation of my position.

"Free Trade" with a nation like China is national suicide. You cannot compete, no business model can compete, with a government run prison state, built on the backs of 50 million dead Chinese peasants.

*No* nation can remain free and independent if it does nothing for itself, especially when it goes off in search of empire on top of it.

To sell off our entire industrial base and go into massive debt to a nation like China goes beyond foolhardy, beyond insane, it is, quite frankly, treason.

"Free Trade" as it's understood right now, is a globalist sham, a tool to destroy one of the last thorns in the side of the global governance crowd and assimilate us, the American people, the American middle class, into a Borg hive nightmare of third world globalism.




> This thread will go off the rails if he does, mark my words.


The reason for the links.

----------


## low preference guy

> "Free Trade" with a nation like China is national suicide. You cannot compete, no business model can compete, with a government run prison state, built on the backs of 50 million dead Chinese peasants.
> 
> *No* nation can remain free and independent if it does nothing for itself, especially when it goes off in search of empire on top of it.


It's the opposite. Formation of capital that allows increased productivity only occurs in an environment where people are free and have opportunities to profit. Forced labor doesn't encourage creativity. 

Your argument shows complete lack of understanding of how comparative advantages between two different economies tend to benefit both parties. I'm not going to give the explanation as anyone can easily read a well-developed presentation  on Mises. But I do offer the following thought experiment:

Suppose the chinese were not communists or oppressive. Suppose however that one chinese inventor created something that allowed goods to be produced much cheaper, at the same price that they would be produced if they produced "on the backs of 50 million dead Chinese peasants". The effects as seen from the United States would be the same, because we would just see cheaper products. The details of how they achieved that have no effect whatsoever on whether Americans can compete. All that matters is the final product and the price. So in this example you wouldn't oppose importing those goods, as they were not built "on the backs of 50 million dead Chinese peasants", yet the effects on local producers are the same.

----------


## Austrian Econ Disciple

It seems AF erroneously believes that trade deficit implies debt. The problem with our current situation is government monopoly and Government imposed additional costs to business (Vis a vis regulation, taxation, mandates, etc.), not because we allow individuals to purchase goods from China if they wish. No one is forcing anyone to buy Chinese products. Why would you want to force them to buy American AF? It seems you are not against coercive force if you believe it is better for "them". 

I have all ready debunked all the claims AF has thrown out. It is up to the reader to decide if actual economics trumps Nationalism, but it should be obvious to anyone. 

AF you should stop erroneously attributing America's problems to China. For someone who proclaims himself to be against corporatism, it seems the only option you want available to American's is exactly that. Once you erect trade barriers the reciprocal effect is ghastly, not to mention now since you can only buy products made within the US territories, that is a de facto subsidy to every single business in America, which currently they all ready receive massive subsidies, laws in their favor, etc. The only thing you would do is drive up the cost of everything and increase the power of corporations. 

Yes, I agree with you that the 60+ million dead under Mao is horrible, but after Mao's death is when they started to capitalize their economy. In many areas today China is far more free-market than America. You seem to be under the assumption China's current capacity came about because of Mao. It didn't.

http://www.econlib.org/library/Bastiat/basEss10.html

A great satirical essay by Bastiat which delves into this matter.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> I have all ready debunked all the claims AF has thrown out. It is up to the reader to decide if actual economics trumps Nationalism, but it should be obvious to anyone.


No, you have not "debunked" anything.

We, meaning I, you and others have argued our points.

I remain unconvinced, firmly, with no equivocation.

Selling off our industry, and financing our insane foreign policy through debt (not trade deficits but hard debt in the form of US Treasuries) sold to the Chinese will be the country's undoing.

My children will not have the opportunities you and I have had.

We will become a broken, failed, third world state, incapable of producing anything and lacking any form of self determination.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Your argument shows complete lack of understanding of how comparative advantages between two different economies tend to benefit both parties.


Ricardo's law does not apply when one side is a government prison.

----------


## low preference guy

> My children will not have the opportunities you and I have had.
> 
> We will become a broken, failed, third world state, incapable of producing anything and lacking any form of self determination.


that's probably correct, and one reason for that is that your anti-trade mentality is shared by the majority of people who have any clout

----------


## low preference guy

> Ricardo's law does not apply when one side is a government prison.


*facepalm*

----------


## Austrian Econ Disciple

> No, you have not "debunked" anything.
> 
> We, meaning I, you and others have argued our points.
> 
> I remain unconvinced, firmly, with no equivocation.
> 
> Selling off our industry,* and financing our insane foreign policy through debt (not trade deficits but hard debt in the form of US Treasuries) sold to the Chinese will be the country's undoing.*
> 
> My children will not have the opportunities you and I have had.
> ...


This has nothing whatsoever to do with Free-Trade. The reason our children will not have the same opportunities is because of Government imposed restriction on the freedom and liberty of commerce. That is the sole reason. 

You seem to be attributing the entirity of the problem, not on the correct source (Local Governments to State Governments to the Federal Government), but to China for some mystifiable reason I cannot discern. I suppose to Nationalists it is easy to blame everyone, but their own country. It is one of the only reasons I can fathom for such a belief. 

AF, would you please read through this:

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/16106...-h/16106-h.htm

It is Bastiats greatest work when it comes to free-trade. 




> Our adversaries have adopted a system of tactics, which embarrasses us not a little. Do we prove our doctrine? They admit the truth of it in the most respectful manner. Do we attack their principles? They abandon them with the best possible grace. They only ask that our doctrine, which they acknowledge to be true, should be confined to books; and that their principles, which they allow to be false, should be established in practice. If we will give up to them the regulation of our tariffs, they will leave us triumphant in the domain of literature.
> 
> It is constantly alleged in opposition to our principles, that they are good only in theory. But, gentlemen, do you believe that merchants' books are good in practice? It does appear to me, if there is anything which can have a practical authority, when the object is to prove profit and loss, that this must be commercial accounts. We cannot suppose that all the merchants of the world, for centuries back, should have so little understood their own affairs, as to have kept their books in such a manner as to represent gains as losses, and losses as gains. Truly it would be easier to believe that our legislators are bad political economists. [56] A merchant, one of my friends, having had two business transactions, with very different results, I have been curious to compare on this subject the accounts of the counter with those of the custom-house, interpreted by our legislators.
> 
> Mr. T dispatched from New Orleans a vessel freighted for France with cotton valued at $200,000. Such was the amount entered at the custom-house. The cargo, on its arrival at Havre, had paid ten per cent. expenses, and was liable to thirty per cent. duties, which raised its value to $280,000. It was sold at twenty per cent. profit on its original value, which equalled $40,000, and the price of sale was $320,000, which the consignee converted into merchandise, principally Parisian goods. These goods, again, had to pay for transportation to the sea-board, insurance, commissions, &c., ten per cent.; so that when the return cargo arrived at New Orleans, its value had risen to $352,000, and it was thus entered at the custom-house. Finally, Mr. T realized again on this return cargo twenty per cent. profits, amounting to $70,400. The goods thus sold for the sum of $422,400.
> 
> If our legislators require it, I will send them an extract from the books of Mr. T. They will there see, credited to the account of profit and loss, that is to say, set down as gained, two sums; the one of $40,000, the other of $70,400, and Mr. T feels perfectly certain that, as regards these, there is no mistake in his accounts.
> 
> Now what conclusion do our Congressmen draw from the sums entered into the custom-house, in this operation? They thence learn that the United States have [57] exported $200,000, and imported $352,000; from whence they conclude "that she has spent, dissipated, the profits of her previous savings; that she is impoverishing herself and progressing to her ruin; and that she has squandered on a foreign nation $152,000 of her capital."
> ...

----------


## MozoVote

Pledges have moved up to $18000 now....

----------


## Anti Federalist

> that's probably correct, and one reason for that is that your anti-trade mentality is shared by the majority of people who have any clout


No, you are wrong, "my side" has *no* clout in this debate.

"Your side" has clearly won the field.

My side gets buried in a flood of globalist regulations that I deal with every single day, as middle class wages stagnate, real unemployment runs about 16-17%, more productive work gets outsourced to cheap sources overseas as we're told to "enjoy it, shut up and get to Wal Marx and consume damnit".

NAFTA, CAFTA, GATT, IMO, WTO, and all the rest of the alphabet soup agencies and agreements that now run our country.

Tell me, who is my representative there?

----------


## low preference guy

> NAFTA, CAFTA, GATT, IMO, WTO, and all the rest of the alphabet soup agencies and agreements that now run our country.
> 
> Tell me, who is my representative there?


"Managed trade is not free trade"
-Ron Paul

----------


## ClayTrainor

> The reason for the links.


Those links did not prevent the inevitable.

----------


## Austrian Econ Disciple

Let me illustrate what AF is advocating in practice:

Imagine Y country who has a taxation rate of 50% (taking into account all such taxes), regulations which mandate increased pay to employees (Through either benefits or minimum wage), and laws which only those who make over a certain amount can afford. 

Your typical socialistic economy. As these businesses come into contact and competition with other entities residing in countries with more favorable commercial policies they will obviously be unable to compete. In this, they petition and influence their legislature to enact tarriffs for their own benefit, pushing it off as a benefit to laborers and citizens alike. In actuality, the only benefit is to the producer, to the business who currently resides within the territory of country Y at the expense of all the non-producers, non-businesses (E.g. employees), in the entire country. With competition reduced, they can now go back to their aforementioned ways. Now instead of having the option to purchase cheaper goods from more commercial palatable territories you are forced to shoulder the burden of the entire tax structure instead of getting the benefit of the commercial policies of other countries who are more favorable to the liberty and freedoms of commerce. 

You may have businesses that do very well, but at the expense of the body of the people. A tariff is a subsidy to internal businesses. The alarming picture here one should ask is -- 

Why is it cheaper to produce a good in China, ship it halfway across the world, and sell it cheaper? 

China has no minimum wage laws, no child labor laws, has far less regulations, etc. China actually has a more favorable commercial policy than America has. That is a sad state of affairs. Instead of correctly attributing the problems AF instead says -- look they can produce a good cheaper than we can and thus they are a problem, not our own policies which artificially raise the barrier of market entry and price production! 

I could go on much more, but AF seems to believe that China is still a slave economy. They aren't. They have atrocious civil liberty record, but their economy policy is actually more market oriented than ours is. If you want production to return to America, then we must correct our socialistic and fascistic economy and turn it into one of laissez-faire.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> This has nothing whatsoever to do with Free-Trade. The reason our children will not have the same opportunities is because of Government imposed restriction on the freedom and liberty of commerce. *That is the sole reason*.


If that is the sole reason, then why was this nation a mighty engine of innovation, industry and commerce, the likes of which the world had never seen before, under a system of tariffs that paid for a *limited* fedgov?

And why is this nation now, under a system of essentially no tariffs or sense of national well being with regard to a trade policy, a broke, indebted, hollowed out hull of it's former self on the verge of bankruptcy and collapse?

If that's the *sole* reason, of course.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Those links did not prevent the inevitable.


Nope, didn't think it would.

----------


## low preference guy

> I could go on much more, but AF seems to believe that China is still a slave economy. They aren't.


AF would hilariously keep arguing about the evil chinese government while Bernanke prints his own country into oblivion.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> "Managed trade is not free trade"
> -Ron Paul


So I can assume you are for the immediate withdrawal from said agencies?

----------


## low preference guy

> So I can assume you are for the immediate withdrawal from said agencies?


obviously. they shouldn't have ever existed.

----------


## ClayTrainor

BTW, the pledge count is at $18,000 for this debate.  Pretty dam good so far.  Im gonna throw in $25 either tonight or tomorrow.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> I could go on much more, but AF seems to believe that China is still a slave economy. They aren't. They have atrocious civil liberty record, but their economy policy is actually more market oriented than ours is. If you want production to return to America, then we must correct our socialistic and fascistic economy and turn it into one of laissez-faire.


You do understand that I want to do that *as well*, don't you?

----------


## Anti Federalist

> obviously. they shouldn't have ever existed.


Excellent.

You've taken the first step toward approaching foreign trade from a nationalistic pov.

----------


## Austrian Econ Disciple

> If that is the sole reason, then why was this nation a mighty engine of innovation, industry and commerce, the likes of which the world had never seen before, under a system of tariffs that paid for a *limited* fedgov?
> 
> And why is this nation now, under a system of essentially no tariffs or sense of national well being with regard a trade policy, a broke, indebted, hollowed out hull of it's former self on the verge of bankruptcy and collapse?
> 
> If that's the *sole* reason, of course.


I answered this question before and you ignored it. 

I know...it certainly can't be that we had 1% the amount of the current regulations, that we had tax burdens of <1% and that private property rights were strictly enforced had nothing whatsoever to do with why our economy flourished, but it was only because we had higher tarriffs that our economy flourished!! You want to see the destruction tariffs caused even with those conditions? Go read some diaries and notes in the South during the time the North enacted massive tariffs on them. It wasn't all swell and dandy roses and sunshine. Why? Because no territory can produce all the goods in abundance that they will ever need. Trade is essential to the increase in standard of living and the Southerners knew this because they had to live through a time where the needed goods were priced out of range because of tariffs. It is why they expressely forbid tariffs in the CSA Constitution. 

The reason we have such a horrible economy today is the exact opposite. We have tax rates and burdens > 60%, regulations 10000% amount we had in the 1800s, and all sorts of anti-commerce policies. We are doing as well as we are now because we can trade with other nations. *To argue it would be all roses and sunshine if we just enacted trade barriers against other Nations is ridiculously stupid because it defies all economic theory. It is abstractly absurd.*

----------


## specsaregood

> Selling off our industry, and financing our insane foreign policy through debt (not trade deficits but hard debt in the form of US Treasuries) sold to the Chinese will be the country's undoing.
> 
> My children will not have the opportunities you and I have had.
> 
> We will become a broken, failed, third world state, incapable of producing anything and lacking any form of self determination.


Ya know, I might compare it to the old saying:
_"Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime"_

We are being given "fish" every day on credit.  As a result we have forgotten how to fish, our children are never learning to fish and our fishing poles no longer exist.    One day the rest of the world will stop giving us fish on credit and we won't have the tools or skills to feed ourselves.

----------


## low preference guy

> Excellent.
> 
> You've taken the first step toward approaching foreign trade from a nationalistic pov.


please go to the democratic underground

----------


## specsaregood

> AF would hilariously keep arguing about the evil chinese government while Bernanke prints his own country into oblivion.


And that is the root.  "Free trade" doesn't work when you have the ability to print the world's currency at will......

----------


## low preference guy

> And that is the root.  "Free trade" doesn't work when you have the ability to print the world's currency at will......


enacting trade barriers makes the situation even worse

----------


## specsaregood

> enacting trade barriers makes the situation even worse


maybe so, I pondered about that in another thread but never got any responses.  I'm not convinced, and think it might slow the bleeding.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> please go to the democratic underground


No need to get $#@!ty.

-rep.

----------


## Austrian Econ Disciple

> Excellent.
> 
> You've taken the first step toward approaching foreign trade from a nationalistic pov.


Yeah, it is better to examine trade policies in a nationalist view, not an economic one. Japan before contact with other nations were far better off. Their standard of living was greater in the 16th Century than it is today...

You know those small Italian-City States with free-trade who flourished? They would have been better off with tariffs. You know Minneapolis? They would be better off if they restricted trade to Florida. On and on and on.

----------


## low preference guy

> maybe so, I pondered about that in another thread but never got any responses.  I'm not convinced, and think it might slow the bleeding.


i think it just encourages escalation of the trade war and trade barriers by other parties, making your the development of your own industry even harder (even though the main reason that the local industries don't develop is that we can export dollars instead of goods).

trade barriers now would just mean that most things will be more expensive. this will force the gov. to print even more money, so the only positive i can think is the dollar collapse occurring sooner, and i'm not sure that is a positive.

----------


## low preference guy

> No need to get $#@!ty.
> 
> -rep.


your post i responded to was 4x more condescending.

-rep

----------


## Anti Federalist

> I answered this question before and you ignored it. 
> 
> I know...it certainly can't be that we had 1% the amount of the current regulations, that we had tax burdens of <1% and that private property rights were strictly enforced had nothing whatsoever to do with why our economy flourished, but it was only because we had higher tarriffs that our economy flourished!! You want to see the destruction tariffs caused even with those conditions? Go read some diaries and notes in the South during the time the North enacted massive tariffs on them. It wasn't all swell and dandy roses and sunshine. Why? Because no territory can produce all the goods in abundance that they will ever need. Trade is essential to the increase in standard of living and the Southerners knew this because they had to live through a time where the needed goods were priced out of range because of tariffs. It is why they expressely forbid tariffs in the CSA Constitution. 
> 
> The reason we have such a horrible economy today is the exact opposite. We have tax rates and burdens > 60%, regulations 10000% amount we had in the 1800s, and all sorts of anti-commerce policies. We are doing as well as we are now because we can trade with other nations. *To argue it would be all roses and sunshine if we just enacted trade barriers against other Nations is ridiculously stupid because it defies all economic theory. It is abstractly absurd.*


I agree.

What you just stated indicates how tariffs work and what they can do. Look at what they did to the South is right.

So why should we lay down and die as the rest of the world enacts trade policies that benefit *them*?

I understand your position, I really do, as an anacap you don't believe in the nation state.

I wish I could envision a way in which that could be possible.

But I've been around the world, more than once. I'm much more cynical and jaded about the reality of that prospect and again, I deal with the global aspects of "free trade" every single day. As a direct result of those policies, I am taxed without representation, I am regulated without representation, my time is taken without representation and my liberty is infringed with no due process or redress.

That is every working person's future under the banner of global "free trade".

I remain unconvinced.

----------


## low preference guy

For those who have the energy, you might want to explain how lowering trade barriers _unilaterally_ benefits the country that does it.

----------


## specsaregood

> trade barriers now would just mean that most things will be more expensive. this will force the gov. to print even more money, so the only positive i can think is the dollar collapse occurring sooner, and i'm not sure that is a positive.


Yes, that is almost exactly what I surmised as a result instead of slowing the bleeding; rather speeding it up.

As far as whether the collapse occurring sooner is a positive....well I'm the kinda guy that rips the bandage right off and doing the hard work first.   I'm not one that likes to slowly waste away.....  If the end result is inevitable, then bring it on.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> your post i responded to was 4x more condescending.
> 
> -rep


+rep for the LoLZ

ETA - well, when the system lets me anyway.

----------


## low preference guy

> Yes, that is almost exactly what I surmised as a result instead of slowing the bleeding; rather speeding it up.
> 
> As far as whether the collapse occurring sooner is a positive....well I'm the kinda guy that rips the bandage right off and doing the hard work first.   I'm not one that likes to slowly waste away.....  If the end result is inevitable, then bring it on.


i'd prefer to postpone it and this is the reason:

it matters what ideas are popular and who is in charge the moment the collapse occurs. if the wrong ideas have taken hold, most people will blame freedom for the collapse. if the right ideas are in place, most people will rightly blame the monetary system.

so if the collapse occurs when statism dominates the debate, the US will stay a third world country for the foreseeable future. and i think our ideas are gaining ground like never before, so in a few years, the senate and the house could have more liberty people than right now, and the country might be more educated to be able to put the blame where it belongs.

that's why if i'd prefer the collapse to be postponed. if ron paul wasn't around and our ideas getting more popular, i wouldn't care when it occurred.

----------


## mport1

This is an incredibly idea and I have chipped in for the cause.  Murphy will demolish Krugman.  If this works we should replicate it for other things as well.

----------


## LDA

I can't go along with the anti-global free trade. If, after all the regulations and tariffs, the thing you desire still costs more than buying it from somewhere else, then you won't buy it. We can't control what other countries do, nor should we try. They will stifle growth in their own countries.

----------


## Austrian Econ Disciple

> I can't go along with the anti-global free trade. If, after all the regulations and tariffs, the thing you desire still costs more than buying it from somewhere else, then you won't buy it. We can't control what other countries do, nor should we try. They will stifle growth in their own countries.


What I find funny is that proponents would say to Maine, you can import goods from California (And if you have a trade deficit with Cali it isn't bad), but you are foribidden (And or massive tariffs) to trade with Canada. It is asinine to be honest. Lest you forget people, Maine and Cali have vastly different commercial climates, just like NH is the most market friendly state in the country compared to Massachussets who is heavily socialist. 

In any event, those on the anti-trade side have no economic merits to bring for such an argument because there is none, as evidenced by AF as to why he supports anti-trade policies (Nationalism).

----------


## djdellisanti4

Almost one third of the way there!

----------


## itshappening

Will Krugman the liberal really deny tens of thousands to starving people in New York?

----------


## osan

> China has no minimum wage laws, no child labor laws, has far less regulations, etc. China actually has a more favorable commercial policy than America has. That is a sad state of affairs. Instead of correctly attributing the problems AF instead says -- look they can produce a good cheaper than we can and thus they are a problem, not our own policies which artificially raise the barrier of market entry and price production! 
> 
> I could go on much more, but AF seems to believe that China is still a slave economy. They aren't. They have atrocious civil liberty record, but their economy policy is actually more market oriented than ours is. If you want production to return to America, then we must correct our socialistic and fascistic economy and turn it into one of laissez-faire.


Are you nuts?  Move to CHina.  Become a citizen.  Then attempt to establish a union and see how long you live.  Try to demand wage increases and see how long you live.  Wages are most definitely being artificially depressed by central governing policy.

Hello.

----------


## osan

> This is interesting...


Anything come of this yet?

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Anything come of this yet?


Not that I know of.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> No, you are wrong, "my side" has *no* clout in this debate.
> 
> "Your side" has clearly won the field.
> 
> My side gets buried in a flood of globalist regulations that I deal with every single day, as middle class wages stagnate, real unemployment runs about 16-17%, more productive work gets outsourced to cheap sources overseas as we're told to "enjoy it, shut up and get to Wal Marx and consume damnit".
> 
> NAFTA, CAFTA, GATT, IMO, WTO, and all the rest of the alphabet soup agencies and agreements that now run our country.
> 
> Tell me, who is my representative there?


+rep 

AF v.s "the gang of three" again. Always a good show. Where's Jace?

----------


## Anti Federalist

> +rep 
> 
> AF v.s "the gang of three" again. Always a good show. Where's Jace?


LoL, thanks.

Brother Jace had a little meltdown at our Canadian friends in another thread

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=269463&page=5

 and was given a "time out". 

That has long since expired, but I haven't seen him around since then.

----------


## ivflight

All I have to say about this free trade debate is, Anti Federalist, your big dumb signature is really annoying when scrolling through threads.

----------


## ClayTrainor

I don't think krugman has even addressed the challenge.  What a Pansy.

----------


## ivflight

Can someone fill me in on this "The Point" thing?  I want to post some money, but I prefer to do so anonymously.  It is telling me that my identity will be shared if the campaign succeeds.

----------


## Wesker1982

What Threat, China?
http://mises.org/daily/4858

----------


## emazur

One thing I'd like to see in this debate is Krugman's advocacy of death panels and a VAT.  One minute he's saying that deficits don't matter and we need to be spending even more, and the next minute he's saying there's going to be heavy pain for the debt and deficits
http://www.server.theadvocates.org/l...15-num-19.html



> Paul Krugman, the liberal New York Times columnist and alleged economist revered by the statist left, has long mocked those who said Obamacare would lead to health care rationing for the elderly and "death panels."
> 
> 
> 
> Graph arrow downSo imagine our surprise to hear Krugman himself call for death panels -- by that very name. On national television, no less.
> 
> 
> On ABC's "This Week with Christiane Amanpour," Sunday, November 14, Krugman said:
> 
> ...

----------


## Anti Federalist

> All I have to say about this free trade debate is, Anti Federalist, your big dumb signature is really annoying when scrolling through threads.


Killjoy.

Buy a premium account and then you can have one too.

----------


## awake

> http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=265068
> 
> http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=257022
> 
> http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=262243
> 
> http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=251768
> 
> http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=235581
> ...




I have had a change of heart... AF is absolutely correct. First things first, we need to naval blockade off every country, stop all import and export, make everything ourselves and finally get out of this depression.

The Chinese are coming to get us, they are right next to the terrorists who live under everyone's bed.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> I have had a change of heart... AF is absolutely correct. First things first, we need to naval blockade off every country, stop all import and export, make everything ourselves and finally get out of this depression.
> 
> The Chinese are coming to get us, they are right next to the terrorists who live under everyone's bed.

----------


## awake

> I have had a change of heart... AF is absolutely correct. First things first, we need to naval blockade off every country, stop all import and export, make everything ourselves and finally get out of this depression.
> 
> The Chinese are coming to get us, they are right next to the terrorists who live under everyone's bed.


Oh, wait! I just had a better idea; to speed up prosperity we should place a police officer outside everyone's house to prevent the residents from importing or exporting anything with outsiders, each household should make everything themselves, then the depression will be over way faster.. possibly in a few weeks.

----------


## ivflight

> Killjoy.
> 
> Buy a premium account and then you can have one too.


The unfortunate result is that I'll probably turn off viewing of signatures, so I won't see anybody's sig.  Please consider losing the pic and reducing text size.  What is the point??

----------


## Andrew-Austin

Disappointing this hasn't gone above 60K yet.

----------


## specsaregood

> The unfortunate result is that I'll probably turn off viewing of signatures, so I won't see anybody's sig.  Please consider losing the pic and reducing text size.  What is the point??


You could just put AF on your ignore list and his signature would no longer bother you.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> You could just put AF on your ignore list and his signature would no longer bother you.


Beat me to it.

----------


## ivflight

> You could just put AF on your ignore list and his signature would no longer bother you.


I still want to read what everyone has to say, it is just really irritating that some people want to take up so much space with their sigs.  Seems pretty narcissistic.  

I do look at and click on signature stuff sometimes, but seeing the same big photo and text 3 times every page must be much more annoying to everyone than it is useful.  Useful sig stuff is links to current fundraisers and such (these are the ones I actually click on).  If there were a way to just ignore certain people's signatures, but not their posts, that would be perfect.

AF, why do want to have such a big signature?

----------


## Rael

Economic arguments aside, what gives the government the right to tell me where to buy my goods? If I want to buy something from China to me it's no different than buying something from the next door neighbor, it's a personal decision the government should have no involvement in.

----------


## awake

I like Af's sig.

----------

