I'm a globalist. How about you?

[tod evans]

You CHOOSE not to; you LIKE and SUPPORT globalism because doing so is a rational economic action. .

Fuck you presence!

Don't tell me what I like, asshole.

 

[presence]

You're telling me you have no choice?

The state mandates you buy spark plugs and mandates they come from china?

No.

You like the low prices.

At the very least, virtually every electronic device you own contains tantalum and every bit of that tantalum is obtained in nefarious ways.

You have a choice right now.

Log off, quit paying your electric bill, and give up the internet.

Else you are CHOOSING to support globalism; and the most nefarious forms... because sure as hell you're not coming up with any tantalum from your fellow man in the Ozarks.

 

[William Tell]

You could go out of your way to shop for american computers and spark plugs.

You CHOOSE not to; you LIKE and SUPPORT globalism because doing so is a rational economic action.

You know what? You're right. Don't listen to what tod says about himself. He's a globalist.

Just like how you are a statist. You CHOOSE to buy that stuff at stores that charge sales tax etc. You LIKE and SUPPORT your state and local cops, and your government. You love SWAT teams man. You pay for that shit every day. Why don't you eat wildflowers and buy everything you want tax free at a flea market, garage sale, or farmers market?

 

[Suzanimal]

You know what? You're right. Don't listen to what tod says about himself. He's a globalist.

Just like how you are a statist. You CHOOSE to buy that stuff at stores that charge sales tax etc. You LIKE and SUPPORT your state and local cops, and your government. You love SWAT teams man. You pay for that shit every day. Why don't you eat wildflowers and buy everything you want tax free at a flea market, garage sale, or farmers market?

LOL, I'd be surprised if presence didn't. He probably has some guy in China selling him spark plugs on the down low.

 

[tod evans]

Else you are CHOOSING to support globalism; and the most nefarious forms... because sure as hell you're not coming up with any tantalum from your fellow man in the Ozarks.

Are you nuts?

Because you trade with FRN's you wholeheartedly support, and advocate for, the bombing of other countries, the murder of children and the rape of little boys and girls...

Because you pay taxes you wholeheartedly support, and advocate for, public schools and welfare, kops-n-courts, prisons and wars on the citizenry.

You have a choice man, and you choose to support this government, the one that removed my choice without my consent.

Up there on your mountain-top you insist that all of us productive members of society, the ones who actually make things, subsidize your family because you are unable to.........And you would have your government continue with their taxes and edicts so that you can suck the tit and patronize the low bidder with my fucking money....

 

[presence]

Why don't you eat wildflowers and buy everything you want tax free at a flea market, garage sale, or farmers market?

I'd refrain from detailing my agorist endeavours for security reasons.
Rest assured I haven't cashed a check in over a decade and I don't leave the farm more often than once a month.



My biggest personal tie to the state is the patent entitled, corporate supply chain managed drugs my kid is take or die dependant upon;
the cognitive dissonance of which makes my teeth hurt; sign the forms... yessir massa, my name is toby.

 

[Anti Federalist]

Global "free trade" only works because of two things: cheap and readily available oil and the ships that burn it.

Take those out of the equation, and there would be no such thing as buying broccoli grown 10,000 miles away cheaper than what the farmer a mile down the road can sell it for.

EPA fatwas directed at truck emissions have substantially raised the cost of trucked goods.

IMO fatwas directed at ship emissions over the next ten years are going to be much, much more restrictive and costly, even with "drone ships" coming online in the next ten years as well.

 

[tod evans]

Global "free trade" only works because of one thing: cheap and readily available oil.

Take that out of the equation, and there would be no such thing as buying broccoli grown 10,000 miles away cheaper than what the farmer a mile down the road can sell it for.

Don't forget 50 some years of bureaucracy hampering domestic production of everything from eggs to egg-beaters....

The people profiting have no part in production.

 

[William Tell]

You're telling me you have no choice?

The state mandates you buy spark plugs and mandates they come from china?

No.

You like the low prices.

At the very least, virtually every electronic device you own contains tantalum and every bit of that tantalum is obtained in nefarious ways.

You have a choice right now.

Log off, quit paying your electric bill, and give up the internet.

Else you are CHOOSING to support globalism; and the most nefarious forms... because sure as hell you're not coming up with any tantalum from your fellow man in the Ozarks.

And you choose to support the police state by paying gas taxes and your electric bill with its fees. Log off and quit yourself you statist if you want to have a moral high ground over the rest of us.

I'd refrain from detailing my agorist endeavours for security reasons.
Rest assured I haven't cashed a check in over a decade and I don't leave the farm more often than once a month.



My biggest personal tie to the state is the patent entitled, corporate supply chain managed drugs my kid is take or die dependant upon;
the cognitive dissonance of which makes my teeth hurt; sign the forms... yessir massa, my name is toby.

You won't disclose them because they would prove you are full of shit. It is literally impossible to avoid all taxes and fees if you run a gasoline engine or have an internet connection. You are in the same boat as the rest of us on supporting things you don't believe in. If buying a foreign product makes tod a globalist then you are a communist copsucker.

 

[William Tell]

LOL, I'd be surprised if presence didn't. He probably has some guy in China selling him spark plugs on the down low.

He's a good guy. But he's a commie. Everyone who pays gas tax is a commie. That's why I drive a chariot pulled by 80 Dachshunds and have #BoycotttheState tattooed on my butt.

 

[ifthenwouldi]

Govern locally; trade globally. Capt's Motto. Share with permission.

 

[MallsRGood]

Indeed, the case for international free trade in unassailable, as is the case for intranational free trade.

I know a LOT of business owners that would NOT be in business right now if it wasn't for inexpensive production in China, China, China, Chyyynnaa...

Indeed, people seem to forget that China also produces capital goods that are input for US based production.

It seems to have been written a few years back by a guy named Andrew Puhanic with a very infrequent blog called the Globalist Report whose website isn't live anymore.

He wrote it to replace another definition he culled up - "the Globalist movement is an alliance based on self-interests of the private international financiers and the royal, dynastic and hereditary land owning families of Britain, Europe and America which over the years have intermarried to create a self regenerating power structure that through lies and deception seeks to control everything and everyone"

Both are probably true, but neither seem to be universally accepted.

In other words globalism is like pornography, you know it when you see it.

Webster's definition by the way seems to be "a national policy of treating the whole world as a proper sphere for political influence — compare imperialism, internationalism." By that definition, trump, McCain, Cheney, McMaster et al are political globalists.

"Globalist" in the pejorative sense is basically a catch-all boogeyman term, like "establishment."

It consists of whatever a person is afraid of.

For stormfronters it's Jews; for fanatical anti-Catholics, Jesuits; for lunatics, aliens, etc.

 

[undergroundrr]

How so? Are you literally unaware that many of the countries we get our plastic crap from have forced labor?

yes, plus coffee, chocolate, jewelry...

I have heard that. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make mentioning it here though.

It's just interesting. Are they coming here to escape slavery or for some other reason?

See, I didn't ask if you were a labor mercantilist. I didn't ask if you supported regulation I'm trying to understand what you believe about supply and demand.

I asked if you actually truly believe that the marketplace in a wealthy country of over 300 million people literally would not produce cell phones if there was a demand for them. Because if you do, that's really a religious devotion to globalism that transcends logic. We all know where there is a demand the goods will appear if physically possible. The prices may be high on some things but you said the phones would never be available for even $20,000. That's absurd, the government is not God but neither is cheap Chinese plastic.

Would an American spatula cost $15 instead of $5?

Maybe. But you can bet if the $5 one was not available (for whatever reason) one of your neighbors would start a company from scratch if need be and produce a $15 one.

I'm not sure what your confusion is about supply and demand. It is what it is. No market ever completely meets demand for everything all the people want at the price they want to pay. There are always unfulfilled desires. Mercantilism would make it impossible to enjoy the quality of goods we enjoy for the low prices we pay. Electronics are an easy target because almost none of them are made here. It would be a nearly insurmountable obstacle with mammoth probably unrecoupable investment to create that capacity virtually from scratch here. And your coffee, chocolate and jewelry selections would be greatly diminished as well.

Anyhow, you're making my point for me. Goods at three times the price is not prosperity. It's price inflation, in your case due to government interference in the market. It's diminished prosperity. Do people honestly want that just so they won't have to admit to being icky stinky economic GLOOOOObalists?

 

[tod evans]

Anyhow, you're making my point for me. Goods at three times the price is not prosperity. It's price inflation, in your case due to government interference in the market. It's diminished prosperity. Do people honestly want that just so they won't have to admit to being icky stinky economic GLOOOOObalists?

Get government out of the mix and we'll see what the markets bear...

Regulations on manufacturing and protection of importers and vendors of foreign goods are government constructs that create false markets, same with false money, another government construct.

This global market place many of you clamor for has been brought about with dollars from American labor over the last several decades, now the world is starting to see an American service industry that can't afford a socialist utopia and it's going to get ugly.

At first the simple minded will blame the foreigners then they'll try to separate them, we're seeing that now...........When that doesn't work and daddy government can no longer provide food and plastic trinkets, medicine and housing to the burgeoning service community the simple-minded will look deeper and they'll focus on the institution of government itself..........At this point the shit'll hit the proverbial fan and it won't matter which faction comes out "winner".....

Those who profited from "global markets" will gather up their tidy profits and burrow down and wait for the herd to thin itself..................And it'll be portrayed as the fault of the domestic capitalist in the USA when the history books are written..

 

[William Tell]

yes, plus coffee, chocolate, jewelry...

Yes, a lot of things that we get cheap is unfortunately because of enslaved kids in government labor camps in other countries such as the Laogai in China. I'm kind of surprised it doesn't bother you, given your user name.



It's just interesting. Are they coming here to escape slavery or for some other reason?

I'm not sure what your confusion is about supply and demand. It is what it is.

It is what it is but you don't seem to understand the concept at all. I'm just baffled that you believe no one in America would try to make a cell phone if there was a demand for American made cell phones.

No market ever completely meets demand for everything all the people want at the price they want to pay. There are always unfulfilled desires.

Well, of course. I want to be able to buy a castle for a nickel but its not going to happen. But that's not what I'm talking about. You think the world would essentially stop turning without trade with Asia. That's not the case.

Mercantilism would make it impossible to enjoy the quality of goods we enjoy for the low prices we pay.

Yeah, you want cheap stuff. I get it, but rather than just saying you want cheap stuff you insist lots of stuff would not exist without our current trade policies.

Electronics are an easy target because almost none of them are made here. It would be a nearly insurmountable obstacle with mammoth probably unrecoupable investment to create that capacity virtually from scratch here.

No it wouldn't. A lot of the Asian Tech companies have American offices that do the engineering. They just pour the plastic and metals into the molds in China because life and labor is cheap to free there.

Anyhow, you're making my point for me. Goods at three times the price is not prosperity.

Living in a Chinese prison camp isn't prosperity either. You would be horrified if slavery was practiced in America.

It's price inflation, in your case due to government interference in the market.

In my case? Where am I interfering in the market? The Chinese government is interfering in the market making money off their prisoners, if you think those people gaining freedom and actually making a wage is "price inflation" than I don't know what to say.

It's diminished prosperity. Do people honestly want that just so they won't have to admit to being icky stinky economic GLOOOOObalists?

Yeah, well the Chinese government does save you a few bucks by having slave camps. I'm sure they're glad you appreciate them as you enjoy "prosperity". Just don't confuse saving some money with personal liberty.

 

[William Tell]

Hey, here's some of that great libertarian "Free Trade" some of you guys love so much.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/06/world/asia/china-labor-camp-halloween-sos/

 

[Dr.3D]

Hey, here's some of that great libertarian "Free Trade" some of you guys love so much.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/06/world/asia/china-labor-camp-halloween-sos/

Yep, and they don't have the EPA making it even harder to compete in the world market.

 

[William Tell]

Hey, maybe if our prisoners in Guantanamo Bay made plastic shit y'all would support it? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masanjia_Labor_Camp

 

[undergroundrr]

Yes, a lot of things that we get cheap is unfortunately because of enslaved kids in government labor camps in other countries such as the Laogai in China. I'm kind of surprised it doesn't bother you, given your user name.

It is what it is but you don't seem to understand the concept at all. I'm just baffled that you believe no one in America would try to make a cell phone if there was a demand for American made cell phones.

Well, of course. I want to be able to buy a castle for a nickel but its not going to happen. But that's not what I'm talking about. You think the world would essentially stop turning without trade with Asia. That's not the case.

Yeah, you want cheap stuff. I get it, but rather than just saying you want cheap stuff you insist lots of stuff would not exist without our current trade policies.

No it wouldn't. A lot of the Asian Tech companies have American offices that do the engineering. They just pour the plastic and metals into the molds in China because life and labor is cheap to free there.

Living in a Chinese prison camp isn't prosperity either. You would be horrified if slavery was practiced in America.

I don't disagree with your concern about slave labor conditions. It's a great personal cause to take up. But you sound as if your suggested solution is for the American government to cut off trade with entire nations just to be safe. Should we set up a bureaucracy, a Department of Product Provenance that makes American citizens' purchase of certain products illegal if a determined code of humane labor is violated? Who is to police this? What's the impact on the US budget and how many FRN's do we need to print? It sounds like another telephone book added to the US code.

In my case? Where am I interfering in the market? The Chinese government is interfering in the market making money off their prisoners, if you think those people gaining freedom and actually making a wage is "price inflation" than I don't know what to say.

Yeah, well the Chinese government does save you a few bucks by having slave camps. I'm sure they're glad you appreciate them as you enjoy "prosperity". Just don't confuse saving some money with personal liberty.

I agree it's a problem. I guess I'm just not sure what your prescribed solution is. You sound like you're ready to cut off the supply of all goods from overseas just in case there's a company that treated somebody wrong. Well, there are many American citizens who say they're working under unjust conditions. That females don't get paid what they should relative to males for instance. Should we somehow police these situations and advance legislation? Yes, I realize this might just be SJW whining and some of the Chinese are real slaves, but when it comes to policy, you have to decide where the line is drawn. Where are you going with this?

I'm all for a privately funded awareness campaign by concerned citizens to boycott Hershey. I guess I'd like to hear your real world solutions before going further with the discussion.

 

[undergroundrr]

I'll just put this here. It was written by one of the cruelest slave labor promoters I know.

The Case for Free Trade

09/01/1981

Ron Paul

The Free Market 1, no. 1 (Fall 1983)

In 1981 the Federal Register published a declaration from President Reagan: "I determine that it is in the national interest for the Export-Import Bank of the United States to extend a credit in the amount of $120.7 million to the Socialist Republic of Romania (for) the purchase of two nuclear steam turbine generators."

This loan carried an interest rate of 7¾% for ten years, but the first payment wasn't due until July, 1989.

Not too long before this announcement, the administration had made public its "voluntary" restraints on the number of cars Japan can export to the United States.

These two items—subsidization of trade and its restriction—are all too typical of our present trade policy.

Although we think of ourselves as a free-trading nation, it takes more than 700 pages just to list all the tariffs on imported goods, and another 400 to inventory all the non-tariff restraints, such as quotas and "orderly marketing agreements."

A tariff is a tax levied on a foreign good, to help a special interest at the expense of American consumers.

A trade restraint or marketing agreement—on the number of inexpensive Taiwanese sneakers that Americans can buy, for example—achieves the same goal, at the same cost, in a less forthright manner.

And all the trends are towards more subsidies for U.S. exporters, and more prohibitions and taxes on imports.

Trade is to be subsidized or restrained, not left to the voluntary actions of consumers and producers.

In 1930, Congress passed the Smoot-Hawley tariff bill, imposing heavy tariffs on imports, with the avowed motive of "protecting" U.S. companies and jobs. Within one year, our 25 major trading partners had retaliated with their own tariffs on American goods. World trade declined sharply, and the depression was made world-wide and longer-lasting.

Today the policy of protectionism is again gaining favor in Congress, and in other countries. But it must be fought with all our strength.

Not only does protectionism make everyone poorer—except certain special interests—but it also increases international tensions, and can lead to war.

"If a foreign country can supply us with a commodity cheaper than we ourselves can make it," wrote Adam Smith in 1776, "better buy it of them with some part of the pro duce of our own industry, employed in a way in which we have some advantage. The general industry of the country will not therefore be diminished... but only left to find out the way in which it can be employed to the greater advantage."

An important economic principle is called the division of labor. It states that economic efficiency, and therefore growth, is enhanced by everyone doing what he does best.

If I had to grow my own food, make my own clothes, build my own house, and teach my own children, our family's living standard would plummet to a subsistence, or below-subsistence, level.

But if I practice medicine, and allow others with more talent as farmers, builders or tailors to do what they do best, we are all better oft: Precious capital and labor are directed to the areas of most productivity, and through voluntary trading, we all benefit.

This principle works just as effectively on a national and world-wide scale, as Adam Smith pointed out.

It may be that Japan can make cars more efficiently than Detroit, at least certain kinds of cars, and that the capital and labor in parts of the u.S. auto industry could be better employed in other areas. With quotas, however, we will never find out We will only increase the price of those Japanese cars that do get through, and of U.S. cars as well, since competitive pressures will be taken off General Motors and Ford.

Free trade at all levels makes for more prosperity, as the Founding Fathers knew. That's why they gave Congress power to remove barriers to interstate commerce.

During the period of the Confederation—after our independence but before the adoption of the Constitution—some of the states erected tariff barriers against imports from their neighbors. The resulting economic stagnation and antagonism threatened the unity of our country, and led to the adoption of the interstate commerce clause by the Constitutional convention. The removal of all trade barriers—and not meddling in the economy—was the purpose of the clause.

As a result, we, as Americans, are free to trade with all other Americans, so that resources are put to their most efficient use in our giant domestic market This happy consequence is no small contributor to our wealth.

Without this Constitutional prohibition, state legislatures would listen to lobbyists for special interests, and enact protection against "unfair" out-of-state competition.

Knowing how similar situations come about, we could bet that someone in Minnesota, with idle greenhouses, would lobby the state legislature, pointing out that farmers in Florida, California, and Texas have too easy a time growing oranges. To protect Minnesota farmers, and create jobs, they would call for a heavy tax on out-of-state citrus, so greenhouse growing of oranges would become economic in Minneapolis.

As a result, oranges would drastically increase in price, and the quality would be lower. Minnesotans who like orange juice would be able to afford less, and what they could get would not be as good. But some would reap windfall profits, at the expense of the consumer. And pressure in orange-growing states would grow to retaliate against Minnesota products, to the detriment of everyone in the country. And we could bet that interstate antagonisms would increase as well. International trade barriers work no differently.

But because our Constitution forbids such domestic barriers, a company in Laredo, Texas, can trade freely, easily, and profitably with a firm in Oregon, thousands of miles away. (It's important to remember that both parties to a non-coerced, non-fraudulent trade benefit from the exchange, or hope to benefit, or the exchange would not take place.)

But let that Laredo firm seek to trade with a Mexican company only a mile away, and tremendous impediments spring up, thanks to government regulations on both sides. "The motive of all these regulations," wrote Adam Smith, "is to extend our own manufactures, not by their own improvements, but by putting an end, as much as possible, to the troublesome competition of such disagreeable rivals."

No one worries about the balance of trade between Oregon and Texas. That between Mexico and Texas should be of no consequence either. It is a problem only to government planners.

Dr. Murray Rothbard, who lives in New York City, has said that he's delighted the federal government doesn't keep interborough trade statistics. "We'd have the Bronx and Brooklyn worried about balance of trade!"

"Nations," notes Dr. Rothbard, "may be important politically and culturally, but economically they appear only as a consequence of government intervention."

But doesn't protection save U.S. jobs? Yes, it can save the jobs of some, but it costs jobs overall, and harms consumers.

Limiting Japanese car imports, for example, does protect the. jobs of high-seniority members of the United Auto Workers, who earn twice the average U.S. industrial wage. But it takes away any incentive to correct government-caused productivity problems.

But diverting resources into uneconomic uses takes them away from other, more productive, areas and costs jobs. Some jobs are lost; others are never created. The uneconomic effects of protectionism benefit a few- usually well-to-do—at the expense of the great majority, including the poor.

Protectionism cannot be justified on economic or moral grounds. As Frederic Bastiat wrote, tariffs are "legalized plunder." The law is used to steal.

By what right does the U.S. government tell an American citizen he cannot buy a foreign product? Such action is reprehensible on every ground imaginable, and is totally incompatible with individual freedom. Also inexcusable on any ground is the vast network of U.S. trade subsidies.

The taxpayers subsidize companies through the Export-Import Bank, the Department of Commerce, and the Overseas Private Investment Corporation, to name only three.

Such programs contribute to inflation, high taxes, "crowding out" in the capital markets, higher prices, and misallocation of resources.

Exports are only useful economically when they are profitable. Otherwise they represent a net loss.

But don't we need our own subsidies because other countries have theirs? If the government of France wishes to help impoverish their own citizens to send us cheap products, why should we impoverish ours as well? We can, and should, oppose those policies for France as well as the United States, but we have no right to take away buying opportunities from our own consumers.

Notes the Council for a Competitive Economy: we should consider what would happen if a foreign country decided to give us free cars, TVs, steel, and other products. Would this hurt the American people? To ask the question is to answer it.

Every economic intervention in trade, domestic or foreign, should be abolished, for practical and moral reasons.

Even if other countries maintain tariffs or subsidies, we would be helped, not hurt, by unilaterally ending ours.

We would improve our productivity, shift resources to those areas where we 'have an advantage, grow more pros-perous, and make a greater variety of less-expensive goods available to our people.

And we would serve the cause of peace and set a good example for the world to emulate.

"When people and goods cross borders," Ludwig von Mises used to quote, "armies do not." Free and extensive trade, unsubsidized, between the peoples of the Earth lowers tensions and makes us all better off It is, morally and economically, the only proper policy.

https://mises.org/library/case-free-trade