Do you support the removal of all trade barriers with other nations?

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

After reading Bastiat and Donald Boudreaux I don't know how anyone can be anti-Free Trade, unless they do so out of blind Nationalism as if GE or the Mom & Pop Store has more rights than individuals, or that producers are more important than consumers. The whole point of Capitalism is the benefit to consumers, not to producers. If you want to benefit producers in lieu of consumers then you should advocate Statism, Mercantilism, Cartelization, and the whole regime which follows. It's why Paleo-Cons are a walking contradiction -- professing economic literacy, but being economically illiterate. As for funding a Government....the least damaging is the most transparent, but make no bones all taxation is hideously damaging. I think the original tax appropriation envisioned was the best. The taxing authorities are only invested in the most local authorities, and taxation is appropriated per State on the basis of population. So, say the Federal Government spent 50 million. That would be apportioned among the States and then the local authorities (not the State or the Fed) would levy the tax to accrue the payment. Basically, the tax would last as long as it would take to fund the Government for a year. That's probably the best way to go about taxing, but it's not something that should be supported since taxation is the negation of individual liberty and self-ownership.

In other words -- the Federal Government and the State Government would not have any taxing authority and I would go as far as saying any legislator in either body advocating a tax should be given a trial and the justice upon conviction would be life imprisonment (or something along those lines). Perhaps even bring back the stockades

 

[enoch150]

Just the basic operating costs of a limited federal government. Most of our government excesses are unconstitutional anyway. Anything beyond the basics could be done at the state level.

I wouldn't mind funding federal courts with tariffs as long as the scope of their power is diminished. Maintaining free trade among the states should be a main priority.

Basics like national defense and federal courts. I'm not sure why someone who buys a toy made in China should be forced to subsidize the federal court system even if they never use the federal courts for their entire lives. But, I imagine, more importantly to you...

Aren't you at all concerned that foreigners have total control over the budgets for the federal courts and national defense? If they're willing to bite the bullet, any kind of significant boycott and the whole thing shuts down.

Or what if the "buy American" campaign catches on and federal revenue dries up. Would the government then need to promote a "buy imported" campaign?

 

[Southron]

Or what if the "buy American" campaign catches on and federal revenue dries up. Would the government then need to promote a "buy imported" campaign?

I doubt Americans will embrace "buy American" but I already do. We buy mostly foreign products and wonder where the jobs have gone. Most have embraced your "free trade" as always good, so you don't have anything to worry about.

No one believes in tariffs anymore and we are headed for one-world government.

 

[giskard]

Yes, you should look at how many H1-B visas those companies have lobbied for just to drive the wages down and get them their indentured servants.

The contracts between the H1B hires and the company are voluntary on both sides. The new hires prefer to be working in the USA for x wages with a 2 year contract, than to stay in their home countries. Why is that immoral?

 

[giskard]

How would you fund a limited government without tariffs?

Personally I think a head tax is the most equitable tax, in addition to the pay-for-service fee mentioned earlier.

 

[giskard]

Actually, a high percentage of the once high-paying programming jobs have been moved overseas.

And why is this a bad thing? Foreign workers now compete with local ones. Laws that disrupt this process are a net economic negative. Such laws would favor the tiny % of programmers, to the detriment of the consumers.

I believe it was Bastiat that explained that favoring a small group of producers to the detriment of the consumers is folly.

 

[krhedwards]

Whoever voted conditionally or no needs to read more Ron Paul and Austrian Economics. Start with Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt.

 

[mczerone]

I oppose the continuation of govt-mandated trade restrictions, but I do think that voluntary boycotts should be allowed.

Trade barriers might be effective at influencing foreign govts to behave well, but why not let the individual consumer decide what restrictions he wants to follow? Enforcing national trade barriers by a monopoly of force does not put the measures to the true test of the marketplace, and often do more harm than good, or do less good than another solution could have done. Why do you want to tell me I can't trade with China, or must do so at a premium? And why must this premium be paid to an irresponsible and unaccountable middle-man?

 

[LibertyEagle]

And why is this a bad thing? Foreign workers now compete with local ones. Laws that disrupt this process are a net economic negative. Such laws would favor the tiny % of programmers, to the detriment of the consumers.

I believe it was Bastiat that explained that favoring a small group of producers to the detriment of the consumers is folly.

Whole industries have been moved overseas. A great deal of it due to governmental regulations and managed trade agreements. If you think this isn't a big deal, then I highly recommend you have a conversation with some of the 15-20% of Americans who are now unemployed.

 

[LibertyEagle]

After reading Bastiat and Donald Boudreaux I don't know how anyone can be anti-Free Trade, unless they do so out of blind Nationalism as if GE or the Mom & Pop Store has more rights than individuals, or that producers are more important than consumers. The whole point of Capitalism is the benefit to consumers, not to producers. If you want to benefit producers in lieu of consumers then you should advocate Statism, Mercantilism, Cartelization, and the whole regime which follows. It's why Paleo-Cons are a walking contradiction -- professing economic literacy, but being economically illiterate. As for funding a Government....the least damaging is the most transparent, but make no bones all taxation is hideously damaging. I think the original tax appropriation envisioned was the best. The taxing authorities are only invested in the most local authorities, and taxation is appropriated per State on the basis of population. So, say the Federal Government spent 50 million. That would be apportioned among the States and then the local authorities (not the State or the Fed) would levy the tax to accrue the payment. Basically, the tax would last as long as it would take to fund the Government for a year. That's probably the best way to go about taxing, but it's not something that should be supported since taxation is the negation of individual liberty and self-ownership.

In other words -- the Federal Government and the State Government would not have any taxing authority and I would go as far as saying any legislator in either body advocating a tax should be given a trial and the justice upon conviction would be life imprisonment (or something along those lines). Perhaps even bring back the stockades

That's the way to win over the traditional conservatives. Insult the hell out of them.

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

That's the way to win over the traditional conservatives. Insult the hell out of them.

Well attempting to explain the irrationality of tariffs and trade restrictions hasn't worked, so I figured why bother. So now, I just state the plain facts. No Free-Trader defends NAFTA, CAFTA, etc. as they are basically enlargements of Nationalist protectionism. I'm still waiting on the Protectionists to come out in favor of tariffs among the States and other such trade restrictions to keep jobs from going from Michigan to Alabama, or Florida to New York, etc. I mean, employment opportunities arising out of the most conducive environment is bad -- we have to keep these unprofitable ventures in horrible business environment for the sake of...protectionism! That's the way. Protectionism destroys economic opportunities and growth. It's ironic that the Protectionists seem to be against the AMA, FDA, and the other protectionist rackets, while at the same time advocating an even more draconian protectionism upon the whole US! It's insane.

If I have to hear the non-sense about 'fair-trade' anymore, I shudder to think what I will do. Yeah, it's so bad to buy and trade goods and services cheaper than artificial high prices which are a product of protectionism. Let's stop trading with Vietnam and China and invade them instead. I don't know if you noticed or not, but when goods do not cross borders, soldiers do.

 

[Sola_Fide]

Milton Friedman refutes protectionism:

 

[ProIndividual]

This is an issue of nationalism, not economic benefits, for too many of these folks...no amount of logical and rational proof will convince them...it's about in-group/out-group mentality. Since it will never be resolved with them, I suggest we let them wallow in their nonsense flag waving BS.

I love my country and my flag, but it represents the people, not the government...and what benefits the govrnment most is control of industry, i.e. protectionism. What benefits the people most is what maximizes their standard of living and overall "wealth". Although wealth is subjective, the decision to pursue protectionism for "wealth" building purposes is based in economic fallacy.

Sure...most people would vote for protectionism if given the choice...but they'd also fail an economics exam. This is the failure of democracy...the crowd means well, but is fickle and stupid.

The masses would have more subjective value in free trade if they had perfect information; Adam Smith knew without perfect information the free market would never exist, as the people will vote AGAINST their own economic self-interests, while thinking they are voting for their self-interests. Ignorance causes protectionism to be favored...nothing more.

And according to the poll results, libertarians are smarter than the average member of the mob...as the mob would usually majority vote for protectionism. I'm proud to be a libertarian, because we become libertarian through reading, not a lack thereof. Libertarianism largely denotes intelligence...and I've love to see a study on it to prove it.

 

[Southron]

Sure...most people would vote for protectionism if given the choice...but they'd also fail an economics exam. This is the failure of democracy...the crowd means well, but is fickle and stupid.
The masses would have more subjective value in free trade if they had perfect information; Adam Smith knew without perfect information the free market would never exist, as the people will vote AGAINST their own economic self-interests, while thinking they are voting for their self-interests. Ignorance causes protectionism to be favored...nothing more.

I'm pretty sure that people have swallowed your "free trade", hook, line, and sinker. Democrats and Republicans alike champion it. Meanwhile, our manufacturing base has been eroding.

You, Woodrow Wilson, Bill Clinton, and George Bush have won the debate. I freely admit it. Now we live with the consequences.

 

[josh b]

After reading Bastiat and Donald Boudreaux I don't know how anyone can be anti-Free Trade, unless they do so out of blind Nationalism as if GE or the Mom & Pop Store has more rights than individuals, or that producers are more important than consumers. The whole point of Capitalism is the benefit to consumers, not to producers. If you want to benefit producers in lieu of consumers then you should advocate Statism, Mercantilism, Cartelization, and the whole regime which follows.

Yes, that is absolutely right. We can't stress this enough. Economic science has debunked protectionism as ultimately self defeating.

I'm pretty sure that people have swallowed your "free trade", hook, line, and sinker. Democrats and Republicans alike champion it. Meanwhile, our manufacturing base has been eroding.

You, Woodrow Wilson, Bill Clinton, and George Bush have won the debate. I freely admit it. Now we live with the consequences.

What? Nobody supports free trade anymore. These so called 'consequences' are a product of interventionism. You can't solve it with even more interventionism. Protectionism does not work.

 

[johnrocks]

yes

 

[Southron]

What? Nobody supports free trade anymore. These so called 'consequences' are a product of interventionism. You can't solve it with even more interventionism. Protectionism does not work.

Tariffs are at an all-time low with most countries. Where is utopia?

 

[ProIndividual]

You, Woodrow Wilson, Bill Clinton, and George Bush have won the debate. I freely admit it. Now we live with the consequences.

This is exactly what I'm talking about.

First of all, none of the people you mentioned are free market capitalists, and do NOT support free trade. They support the words "free trade", as in "free trade" agreements...like NAFTA and CAFTA, for example.

ANYONE WHO CALLS THEMSELVES A FREE MARKET CAPITALIST AND A FREE TRADER, ARE EXPLICATELY AGAINST ALL "FREE TRADE" AGREEMENTS.

So, stop making an argument that only makes sense to those who do not BOTHER to read about the subjects they discuss.

Murray Rothbard said it best when he said "you don't need a treaty for free trade." Any voluntary trade that the government doesn't control is a free trade...not a trade sanctioned by some treaty, obviously designed as a neo-mercantilistic control for industry and government to exploit for their mutual gain at the consumers' expense.

SECONDLY, you cannot show any data to support the nonsense that protectionism is GOOD for the economy longterm, in any way, in employment rates, growth, GDP, total average compensation for workers, Gini household income, productivity nationally, etc., etc.

So, this nonsense that we need to return to John Jay and Hamilton's BS economic style is based on ignorance of the facts. Hamilton thought the more we taxed people the better, as it would spur production...he was, in short, not very smart. He most likely didn't even read Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations (the most important economic treatise of the time). You're suggesting somehow protectionism benefits the economy...many Keynesians and leftists also make this claim (just google it), but can you prove it? I can show clear data that draw clear correlations to the contrary...as can any of us here on this side of the argument. I'd love to see you try, as it would guarantee you facing down the facts.

I will say it again...ignorance causes protectionism to be favored...nothing more.

And you do not have to like me, or my opinions, for me to be correct. I would gladly have you dislike me enough to look up the data, and come around to the reality of free market economics. When we suffer under economic fallacies our philosophical conclusions will be conjured in a void, with no basis in reality....and that IS utopian, while grounding philosophy in economic reality is NOT utopian.

You'll wise up, you're probably a very smart guy. Just take the time to explore our information, it will become abundantly clear...we are right.

 

[josh b]

Tariffs are at an all-time low with most countries. Where is utopia?

Who said anything about utopia? We have provided abundant sources to explain why it doesn't work. Could you please explain to us why violently interfering with the price system and the distribution of capital will bring us prosperity? I would be very curious to here it.

 

[Southron]

This is exactly what I'm talking about.

First of all, none of the people you mentioned are free market capitalists, and do NOT support free trade. They support the words "free trade", as in "free trade" agreements...like NAFTA and CAFTA, for example.

Look, NAFTA lowered/ended most tariffs between the U.S., Canada(except dairy products ),and Mexico.

Do you prefer the U.S. completely opens our markets and allow our neighbors to maintain high tariffs on our goods? It seems to me that NAFTA accomplished what you desire in opening markets.