Founders Not Really for Free Trade!

[NMCB3]

The founders system sucked, tarrifs were just one bad part of a bad system, it didn`t even last a generation. The idea of a limited government that protects your rights!...pass me whatever they were smoking.

 

[Truth Warrior]

What year did Adam Smith write "Wealth of Nations"?

An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations is the magnum opus of the Scottish economist Adam Smith. It is a clearly written account of economics at the dawn of the Industrial Revolution, as well as a rhetorical piece written for the generally educated individual of the 18th century - advocating a free market economy as more productive and more beneficial to society.

The Wealth of Nations was published in 1776, during the Age of Enlightenment. It influenced not only authors and economists, but governments and organizations. For example, Alexander Hamilton was influenced in part by The Wealth of Nations to write his Report on Manufactures, in which he argued against many of Smith's policies. Interestingly, Hamilton based much of this report on the ideas of Jean-Baptiste Colbert, and it was, in part, to Colbert's ideas that Smith wished to respond with The Wealth of Nations

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wealth_of_Nations

 

[Bossobass]

McKinley was an extremely focused and dedicated leader who truly wanted to follow what the founding fathers had set and what he knew was best for the country. When McKinley became President, he soon realized that America was starting towards a path of excellence. The world envied America and McKinley needed to lead America in the right direction. President McKinley was perfect for this job. He had an extreme devotion that showed easily. When he came into the presidency, America had recently suffered an economic depression, but McKinley quickly lead the rest of government in helping the economy back up. A tariff was quickly passed, and McKinley lead the way for a new America. His leadership skills would make him one of the most loved presidents yet.

McKinley's presidency was noted for the Dingley Tariff Act, which raised duties on imported goods even higher than the tariff of 1890 had. The McKinley years also saw the passage of the Gold Standard Act of 1900. The nation had come out of its severe depression and started to prosper once again. Confidence in business was high. Since the Republicans were credited with the nation's return to prosperity, they remained the dominant party until the 1930's.

Although often not thought of as one of the better presidents, McKinley was surely a successful president that would have served two terms had he not been assassinated. Unfortunately, it seems that yet again, the presidents who could actually do good were always kept away from helping the United States even more. Because of McKinley’s success at strengthening the economy and his handling of foreign issues, he recieves an 8 out of 10 rating as president. This higher score is also due to the fact that he was regarded as the most popular president up until then and the people of the United States fully supported him and his beliefs.

McKinley's VP, Garret Hobart died while in office. Teddy Roosevelt, whose friendship with King Edward VII 'shaped the course of the 20th century', took his place. McKinley was assassinated, TR took over and the rest is history.

Poor immigrants like Andrew Carnegie built industrial giants through innovation. Banksters like JP Morgan bought them and their descendants moved them off shore after having the most favored nation status of China reinstated and approved by Congress in 1980.

I'm originally from Pittsburgh, born and raised, and both of my grandfathers worked for Carnegie (US Steel after JP Morgan purchased it, and now USX). I grew up seeing the steel capital of the world in constant action in the barge traffic on the rivers and the mills jamming.

In 1980, the plug was abruptly pulled as the banksters moved to Asia. They employed their best quality control and other engineers for the next decade and a half by sending them to China to teach her all of our tricks. My father-in-law was one of them, and has related many, many stories.

I believe that 'Free Trade' is nothing more than, as RP has said, 'Managed Trade'.

They've moved steel, auto making, textiles, furniture, computers, consumer electronics, etc., off shore to these MFNs, got Free Trade agreements in place and proceeded to flood the American markets with foreign goods.

The remaining American small businesses began to quickly die as there was no chance of competing. As they closed up shop, one by one, their ex-employees faced tens of millions of illegal immigrants competing for the remaining jobs.

I am a strong believer that tariffs are necessary if America is to maintain a reasonable standard of living and have any sort of real economy.

75% consumer spending that's based on credit card debt and home equity loans is no economy.

Our infrastructure is devastated. Crumbling bridges, no refineries, energy deficiency, inadequate air traffic control, 911 air defense, lack of modern manufacturing plants, abandoned plants, etc.

Would that the 2 trillion for the Iraq war and additional 2 trillion in bailouts were spent via zero interest US Notes to rebuild American infrastructure and capitalization for investment starved US entrepreneurs, I believe America would be working overtime.

We invented everything cool the world wants to buy. Scroll through the mind-boggling array of COOL INVENTIONS we just don't build any of anymore.

We need to bring our troops home, balance the budget, cut income taxes and deregulate, but IMHO, we need tariffs to stick it to the banksters' off shore, most favored nation, Free Trade endowed, exploitative monopolies and level the playing field.

Just my opinion.

Bosso

 

[Conza88]

The alternative to the flat tariff is that that same money is raised internally by taxing something else, and could be said to be artificially driving commerce out of the country, as we can plainly see has happened here.

The alternative to the flat tariff should be no tariff.

"What would you replace the IRS with? - NOTHING" Ron Paul....

 

[Danke]

McKinley's VP, Garret Hobart died while in office. Teddy Roosevelt, whose friendship with King Edward VII 'shaped the course of the 20th century', took his place. McKinley was assassinated, TR took over and the rest is history.

Poor immigrants like Andrew Carnegie built industrial giants through innovation. Banksters like JP Morgan bought them and their descendants moved them off shore after having the most favored nation status of China reinstated and approved by Congress in 1980.

I'm originally from Pittsburgh, born and raised, and both of my grandfathers worked for Carnegie (US Steel after JP Morgan purchased it, and now USX). I grew up seeing the steel capital of the world in constant action in the barge traffic on the rivers and the mills jamming.

In 1980, the plug was abruptly pulled as the banksters moved to Asia. They employed their best quality control and other engineers for the next decade and a half by sending them to China to teach her all of our tricks. My father-in-law was one of them, and has related many, many stories.

I believe that 'Free Trade' is nothing more than, as RP has said, 'Managed Trade'.

They've moved steel, auto making, textiles, furniture, computers, consumer electronics, etc., off shore to these MFNs, got Free Trade agreements in place and proceeded to flood the American markets with foreign goods.

The remaining American small businesses began to quickly die as there was no chance of competing. As they closed up shop, one by one, their ex-employees faced tens of millions of illegal immigrants competing for the remaining jobs.

I am a strong believer that tariffs are necessary if America is to maintain a reasonable standard of living and have any sort of real economy.

75% consumer spending that's based on credit card debt and home equity loans is no economy.

Our infrastructure is devastated. Crumbling bridges, no refineries, energy deficiency, inadequate air traffic control, 911 air defense, lack of modern manufacturing plants, abandoned plants, etc.

Would that the 2 trillion for the Iraq war and additional 2 trillion in bailouts were spent via zero interest US Notes to rebuild American infrastructure and capitalization for investment starved US entrepreneurs, I believe America would be working overtime.

We invented everything cool the world wants to buy. Scroll through the mind-boggling array of COOL INVENTIONS we just don't build any of anymore.

We need to bring our troops home, balance the budget, cut income taxes and deregulate, but IMHO, we need tariffs to stick it to the banksters' off shore, most favored nation, Free Trade endowed, exploitative monopolies and level the playing field.

Just my opinion.

Bosso

+1

 

[nate895]

Ahhh - the states. I was directing my comments only to the federal level.

At the state level, I would have to reconsider my position. You do have the option of choosing which of 50 to live in. And the politics at the state level is more directly under the control of the citizens.

The smaller the political unit, the more control which is allowed, because your options are increased. For example, if you wanted to build a proprietary community based around communism, you have the right to do so, so long as no one was forced to live there.

I haven't given much thought to what form of taxation I'd prefer at the state level, but generally, about the only expense I see at this level would be law enforcement and courts. A fee system might be used to some degree. Roads should be funded through a usage fee, either a "gasoline tax" or a toll system. A "gasoline tax" would impose a small overhead cost on retailers, to collect this fee. I have also always been intrigued by the use of a yearly, week long "fund raiser". You have the problem of "free riders", but I imagine this would be acceptable. Beyond this, I haven't given much thought to state funding.

I agree. There will have to be more taxes, at least in the interim, because states will have to take over many Federal welfare programs in order to phase them out, and some states might desire to go on a socialist system afterward, and they'll need more taxes, but I don't plan on living in one of them.

 

[Vote Waterman 2028]

We are all out of democracy to spread, not to mention we were never a democracy. And many people around the world have never envied us and would be better off if we never existed. Many more would be better off if the British empire never existed. We don't need economic leverage over other countries. What area, besides phony money are we the most advanced?

First off, you make a horrible argument. Second, although we are not a "democracy" we still have democratic values, and we used to value democracy as the means to and end, to avoid war. It's people who think like you, who believe we never had a democracy type government, that allows our government to get away with the things they have done militarily, because you dont see it as if anything has changed. I said in my original statement that we would have to right our wrongs first, and although we have done bad things, the world would not be better off without us. If you really think that than you can get the fuck out of America because we don't need people like you. And yes we do need economic leverage but we have to have humility when we do. We have to be fair, and allow other democracies/republics economies to flourish as well. But to have the ability to spread our influence once it is correct again, we will need economic advantages, so your incorrect. We are advanced in many areas in the economy, technology, education. Even if the tech. isn't invented here, most of the inventors come to the US to make there inventions a possibility. I agree we do have a currency issue, but those are all things that we have done wrong that need to be righted, as i have stated again and again. You sir need to read some history books, take some more classes, and not spend most of your time on a forum telling people how bad our country is.

 

[TastyWheat]

Free trade is not the problem, but coupled with high taxes and regulation it slowly diminishes our manufacturing base. I would favor an across the board tariff, excluding goods we just can't produce ourselves (rice, bananas?). I think a low rate would fund necessary govt activities with little affect to consumers.

 

[Number19]

...All that a tariff can achieve is to divert production from those locations in which the output per unit of input is higher to locations in which it is lower. It does not increase production; it curtails it. ~ Human Action, p. 737

Possibly accurate, but not always. This presupposes that there was no factory to begin with and an American went into that particular location because of a low production cost for the sole purpose of making a product for the American trade. Naturally he will locate his factory where production cost is lowest.

But a second set of circumstances would exist for a viable foreign business based around local trade. An American trader sees the profit in importing this product into the US, with the import fees as nothing more than part of the cost.

This would be a net increase in production and sales for the production company.

...The imposition of a duty on the importation of a commodity burdens the consumers. ~ Human Action, p. 742

Again, only partly true. This short statement implies that the consumer has a "right" to lower prices.

If an item is made in the US and has a retail cost of $10, but the same item can be imported, without a tariff, and sold for $9, then the consumer has a "right" to that item at the $9 price. If a tariff is imposed, raising the cost to $10, then the consumer is "burdened".

But if this item is not made in the US, then it can be brought in for $9 without a tariff or at $10 with a tariff. The fact that this item would not be available at any price without importation, relieves the "burden" from the equation - it becomes a clean choice of whether the product is worth the cost as presented.

Pricing in the market place is simply that - pricing. The consumer decides whether he benefits from making the trade, or whether it is to his benefit to not make the trade.

It is not a matter of "rights" but rather a matter of "free choice" and "personal decision".

Many people look upon tariff protection as if it were a privilege accorded to their nation’s wage earners, procuring them, for the full duration of its existence, a higher standard of living than they would enjoy under free trade. ~ Human Action, p. 745

The purpose of this thread was the discussion of a tariff as a "revenue raiser" for the nation and not its use as a "price protector". The comments have been mostly directed at a low "flat" across the board rate of about 2% or 3%.

 

[Teenforpaul08]

Obviously the founders are protectionists. They impose heavy taxes on import. This is their way of keeping jobs here. Problem is we need other countries and they need us. We are all inter-connected living in a single organism we call earth.

 

[Number19]

Obviously the founders are protectionists. They impose heavy taxes on import. This is their way of keeping jobs here. Problem is we need other countries and they need us. We are all inter-connected living in a single organism we call earth.

Globalism...communalism.

I disagree. Intercourse with other nations may be advantages to special interests, but as a society we are not inter-connected or inter-dependant. Governments push this world view as a means of gaining power.

Now, there are some small nations without any resources except human resource that this is probably true, but it does not apply to the United States.

 

[Teenforpaul08]

Globalism...communalism.

I disagree. Intercourse with other nations may be advantages to special interests, but as a society we are not inter-connected or inter-dependant. Governments push this world view as a means of gaining power.

Now, there are some small nations without any resources except human resource that this is probably true, but it does not apply to the United States.

God you're closed-minded. People like you don't give a crap about anything until it happens to you. Say if china pours nuclear waste into the ocean should we just not care? Since we are not inter connected? The world is one organism. Everything that everyone else does affects us. We are connected to everything and everyone. Do you realize that, without china, we could not meet our material needs at a reasonal price? We need eachother. We are all human beings so why can't we see that? What wrong with working together? If oxygen dissapeared one day we would all die. How are we independent? We are all connected. We need to realize that.

 

[AoiMasamune]

If your neighbor's dog pooped in your yard, what would you do?

I would start by asking them to not let their dog do that anymore.
If it happens again, I'd angrily ask them to stop.
If it continues to happen, I might consider declaring war.

What makes countries any different?

For the nuclear waste being dumped into the ocean thing, I'd say the states are our homes, and the ocean is our yard.

Ask them to stop. Tell them to stop. Threaten to nuke them to hell and back.

Problem solved.

 

[freelance]

God you're closed-minded. People like you don't give a crap about anything until it happens to you. Say if china pours nuclear waste into the ocean should we just not care? Since we are not inter connected? The world is one organism. Everything that everyone else does affects us. We are connected to everything and everyone. Do you realize that, without china, we could not meet our material needs at a reasonal price? We need eachother. We are all human beings so why can't we see that? What wrong with working together? If oxygen dissapeared one day we would all die. How are we independent? We are all connected. We need to realize that.

We did just fine without China for two+ centuries, but that was before your time.

Honestly, Teenforpaul08, I've seen your posts in another thread (robots rule), and you're just so stereotypical. We were all teenagers once, and at one time we knew it all too. You can enter adulthood kicking and screaming and make all the same mistakes that most of us made, or you can draw on the wealth of knowledge presented in these forums and learn life's lessons a little easier than most.

Personally, I don't give a flip.

In the meantime, I'm guessing that your high school has a debate team. Why not go pick on someone your own size? You won't get bloodied quite so badly.

 

[JosephTheLibertarian]

Protectionism is evil

Protectionism and the Destruction of Prosperity

 

[Conza88]

Possibly accurate, but not always. This presupposes that there was no factory to begin with and an American went into that particular location because of a low production cost for the sole purpose of making a product for the American trade. Naturally he will locate his factory where production cost is lowest.

But a second set of circumstances would exist for a viable foreign business based around local trade. An American trader sees the profit in importing this product into the US, with the import fees as nothing more than part of the cost.

This would be a net increase in production and sales for the production company.

Here is some more context for you... really is hard to grasp just from a quote I guess

1. The Nature of Restriction

WE shall deal in this chapter with those measures which are directly
and primarily intended to divert production (in the broadest meaning
of the word, including commerce and transportation) from the ways it would
take in the unhampered market economy. Each authoritarian interference
with business diverts production, of course, from the lines it would take if
it were only directed by the demand of the consumers as manifested on the
market. The characteristic mark of restrictive interference with production
is that the diversion of production is not merely an unavoidable and unintentional
secondary effect, but precisely what the authority wants to bring
about.

Like any other act of intervention, such restrictive measures affect
consumption also. But this again, in the case of the restrictive measures we
are dealing with in this chapter, is not the primary end the authority aims at.
The government wants to interfere with production. The fact that its measure
influences the ways of consumption also is, from its point of view, either
altogether contrary to its intentions or at least an unwelcome consequence
with which it puts up because it is unavoidable and is considered as a minor
evil when compared with the consequences of nonintervention.

Restriction of production means that the government either forbids or
makes more difficult or more expensive the production, transportation, or
distribution of definite articles, or the application of definite modes of
production, transportation, or distribution. The authority thus eliminates
some of the means available for the satisfaction of human wants. The effect
of its interference is that people are prevented from using their knowledge
and abilities, their labor and their material means of production in the way
in which they would earn the highest returns and satisfy their needs as much
as possible. Such interference makes people poorer and less satisfied.

This is the crux of the matter. All the subtlety and hair-splitting wasted in the
effort to invalidate this fundamental thesis are vain. On the unhampered market
there prevails an irresistible tendency to employ every factor of production for
the best possible satisfaction of the most urgent needs of the consumers. If
the government interferes with this process, it can only impair satisfaction;
it can never improve it.

The correctness of this thesis has been proved in an excellent and irrefutable
manner with regard to the historically most important class of government
interference with production, the barriers to international trade. In this field the
teaching of the classical economists, especially those of Ricardo, are final and
settle the issue forever. All that a tariff can achieve is to divert production from
those locations in which the output per unit of input is higher to locations in
which it is lower. It does not increase production; it curtails it.

Again, only partly true. This short statement implies that the consumer has a "right" to lower prices.

If an item is made in the US and has a retail cost of $10, but the same item can be imported, without a tariff, and sold for $9, then the consumer has a "right" to that item at the $9 price. If a tariff is imposed, raising the cost to $10, then the consumer is "burdened".

But if this item is not made in the US, then it can be brought in for $9 without a tariff or at $10 with a tariff. The fact that this item would not be available at any price without importation, relieves the "burden" from the equation - it becomes a clean choice of whether the product is worth the cost as presented.

Pricing in the market place is simply that - pricing. The consumer decides whether he benefits from making the trade, or whether it is to his benefit to not make the trade.

It is not a matter of "rights" but rather a matter of "free choice" and "personal decision".

No.... as a privilege... But that's ok, hard to get it from such context.

3. Restriction as a Privilege

Every disarrangement of the market data affects various individuals and
groups of individuals in a different way. For some people it is a boon, for
others a blow. Only after a while, when production is adjusted to the
emergence of the new datum, are these effects exhausted. Thus a restrictive
measure, while placing the immense majority at a disadvantage, may temporarily
improve some people’s position. For those favored the measure is
tantamount to the acquisition of a privilege. They are asking for such
measures because they want to be privileged.

Here again the most striking example is provided by protectionism. The
imposition of a duty on the importation of a commodity burdens the consumers.
But to the domestic producers it is a boon. From their point of view decreeing
new tariffs and raising already existing tariffs is an excellent thing.
The same is valid with regard to many other restrictive measures. If the
government restricts—either by direct restriction or by fiscal discrimination—
big business and corporations, the competitive position of small-size
enterprises is strengthened. If it restricts the operation of big stores and chain
stores, the small shopkeepers rejoice.

It is important to realize that what those benefitted by these measures consider
an advantage for themselves lasts only for a limited time. In the long run the
privilege accorded to a definite class of producers loses its power to create
specific gains. The privileged branch attracts newcomers, and their competition
tends to eliminate the specific gains derived from the privilege. Thus the
eagerness of the law’s pet children to acquire privileges is insatiable. They
continue to ask for new privileges because the old ones lose their power."

The purpose of this thread was the discussion of a tariff as a "revenue raiser" for the nation and not its use as a "price protector". The comments have been mostly directed at a low "flat" across the board rate of about 2% or 3%.

I know what the point of the thread was. Thing is I reject it's premise. Am I allowed to do that?

 

[pacelli]

God you're closed-minded. **We are all connected. We need to realize that.

Try to make it less obvious that you've just seen Zeitgeist.

 

[angelatc]

the free market is the smartest way to keep the economic leverage we have on other countries, for good (and sometimes bad unfortunately). T\

Free markets and socialism are alike, in that they paint a wonderful Utopian picture, but don't work.

Maybe they will someday. Right now they don't.

There are a myriad of reasons for it. Right now they don't work.

I say jack the tariffs up and bring back jobs.

 

[angelatc]

Protectionism is evil

Protectionism and the Destruction of Prosperity

Unicorns are beautiful.

 

[angelatc]

The alternative to the flat tariff should be no tariff.

"What would you replace the IRS with? - NOTHING" Ron Paul....

Ron Paul believes in tariffs.