John Stossel: The Stupidity of "Buy American"

[Anti Federalist]

How do you know they would be at 110 pts?

You're using a baseline that is not at all established as fact, to prove your point.

This is the most ignorant post I've seen on RPF in months. Incredibly lacking in logic...

How do you know China isn't hurt?

Virtually all tariffs hurt the countries that impose them.

What you are saying is "tariffs decrease your score by 10 pts, but China has 100 pts, therefore tariffs dont decrease your score by 10 pts"

No, what that means is, China would be at 110 pts if it wasn't for tariffs. If this is the logic you're gonna be using, then this conversation is over. How can I expect you to go take an economics class when you can't even grasp 2nd grade logic?

As for the rest of you, I encourage you all to take economics classes or study it online.

 

[Anti Federalist]

As for the rest of you, I encourage you all to take economics classes or study it online.

Where the professors would fail Ron Paul and call his ideas "dangerous"?

 

[specsaregood]

Where the professors would fail Ron Paul and call his ideas "dangerous"?

LOL, full of win.

 

[nobody's_hero]

No, what that means is, China would be at 110 pts if it wasn't for tariffs. If this is the logic you're gonna be using, then this conversation is over. How can I expect you to go take an economics class when you can't even grasp 2nd grade logic?

.

And how do you know that?? You have about as much evidence to support that as I do to support my claim. So who can say the other is ignorant?

I do know that you're playing right into the hands of the international bankers who've been trying to find a way to siphon wealth from the U.S. for at least a century or more. [1913/Progressive movement is a good starting point]

What better way to do that than punish Americans for trying to sell their goods and making it so that they essentially must purchase the goods from other countries? That's what we have going on here. If you don't see it yet, you will.

By then, maybe you'll be ready to admit that we don't have "free trade", and that trying to apply "free trade" to just one side of the transaction is like saying you're doing the right thing by driving on the right side of the road on your scooter, while everyone else is driving on their left side, coming straight towards you in buses.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Real wealth is produced by making.

Real wealth is not made by deficit spending, lawyering, and printing money.

We're sitting around selling off 200 years of innovation and hard work, for pennies on the dollar and thinking we're rich.

It's like somebody's who has lost their job, on the brink of foreclosure, thinking they have found a bunch of wealth by selling all their shit on e-bay.

THIS!! ^^ The pro-IP crowd needs to learn this lesson badly.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Where the professors would fail Ron Paul and call his ideas "dangerous"?

some nice pwnage, right there.

 

[specsaregood]

THIS!! ^^ The pro-IP crowd needs to learn this lesson badly.

funny, it seems to be the people that make stuff that are generally pro-IP.

 

[Cutlerzzz]

School and reality disconnect again.

Mainstream Economists: Ron Paul Is 'Dangerous'

Posted by Bill Anderson on November 9, 2011 11:20 AM

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/98471.html

To get a sense of just how intellectually and morally bankrupt mainstream academic economics has become, this article tells all, however unknowingly, since the author believes the quoted economists are correct:



All in all, the economists quote the Keynesian line as though it were Absolute Truth. One professor, for example, actually believes that Obama's "green energy" proposals are sound (although he admits they won't make for a good "jobs program.")

As one who has taught college economics for nearly 25 years, I can say that the mainstream approach is so preposterous and so skewed that it is unsalvageable. The college texts so revered in this article teach that competition is based upon homogeneity and any time there are similar but somewhat heterogeneous goods sold, that situation is a "market failure" that needs to be "corrected" by government. Furthermore, we are supposed to believe that there is no need for entrepreneurs, as government regulators are blessed with perfect information and always can arrive at "optimal solutions," as long as they seek the help of academic economists.

And notice the absolute reverence these people have for the Federal Reserve System. Yeah, it is quite rich to see clueless academic economists accusing Ron Paul of being "dangerous" because he wants sound money.

John Maynard Keynes was a protectionist and Lew Rockwell supports Free Trade.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

funny, it seems to be the people that make stuff that are generally pro-IP.

True, and that's a sad thing. Fortunately, the trend in creative industries like software and music is moving away from that and towards open-source, collaborative, and various other forms like that. I used to be pro-IP too (music/art/literature business professors pound IP nonsense into students' heads), but looking at it now that I have more experience and knowledge, I realize the folly of it.

 

[Anti Federalist]

John Maynard Keynes was a protectionist and Lew Rockwell supports Free Trade.

Yes, but the point is that there is no consensus, as if it all been settled, some final text written on the matter and that's it, world without end.

'I sympathize, therefore, with those who would minimize, rather than with those who would maximize, economic entanglement among nations. Ideas, knowledge, science, hospitality, travel – these are the things which should of their nature be international. But let goods be homespun whenever it is reasonably and conveniently possible, and, above all, let finance be primarily national. Yet, at the same time, those who seek to disembarrass a country of its entanglements should be very slow and wary. It should not be a matter of tearing up roots but of slowly training a plant to grow in a different direction.

'For these strong reasons, therefore, I am inclined to the belief that, after the transition is accomplished, a greater measure of national self-sufficiency and economic isolation among countries than existed in 1914 may tend to serve the cause of peace, rather than otherwise. At any rate, the age of economic internationalism was not particularly successful in avoiding war; and if its friends retort, that the imperfection of its success never gave it a fair chance, it is reasonable to point out that a greater success is scarcely probable in the coming years.' (Keynes 1933/1972).

A broken clock is right twice a day.

 

[Kregisen]

Where the professors would fail Ron Paul and call his ideas "dangerous"?

Many economists call turning back to a gold standard dangerous. Ron has given different positions on this...if I'm correct I believe he wants competing currencies, not a gold standard. A gold standard fixes exchange rates, which encourages borrowing when a foreign currency should be worth more than the fixed rate is. Ron needs to explain his position better. There are pros and cons to going back to a gold standard, but there are many cons most of us, including myself, don't really understand.

That being said, you can keep throwing out your one-liners AF, but I'm gonna stop replying to them when you don't have the economics knowledge to back it. You're like Herman Cain and his 9-9-9. No substance on this issue. If I say go study economics you say basically flat out say "and trust the professors who call Ron Paul's ideas dangerous"? That's a ridiculous ab hominem to get out of studying an issue.

You're very vocal about your views on every issue but to me seems ignorant to be that vocal on an issue you've admitted you haven't taken a single class on.

That being said, I'm done with this thead. It's not worth my time to argue with people who won't go try to learn.

 

[Krugerrand]

Many economists call turning back to a gold standard dangerous. Ron has given different positions on this...if I'm correct I believe he wants competing currencies, not a gold standard. A gold standard fixes exchange rates, which encourages borrowing when a foreign currency should be worth more than the fixed rate is. Ron needs to explain his position better. There are pros and cons to going back to a gold standard, but there are many cons most of us, including myself, don't really understand.

That being said, you can keep throwing out your one-liners AF, but I'm gonna stop replying to them when you don't have the economics knowledge to back it. You're like Herman Cain and his 9-9-9. No substance on this issue. If I say go study economics you say basically flat out say "and trust the professors who call Ron Paul's ideas dangerous"? That's a ridiculous ab hominem to get out of studying an issue.

You're very vocal about your views on every issue but to me seems ignorant to be that vocal on an issue you've admitted you haven't taken a single class on.

That being said, I'm done with this thead. It's not worth my time to argue with people who won't go try to learn.

Fine. Take your marbles and go home. You really weren't adding to the conversation, anyway. You busted in on this thread throwing around insults and never addressed any of the points that people were making.

You assign way too much value to your course learning. It reminds me of friends I had who spent a few years living off of a military base in Europe thinking they were then authorities on international affairs.

This is the most ignorant post I've seen on RPF in months. Incredibly lacking in logic...

How do you know China isn't hurt?

Virtually all tariffs hurt the countries that impose them.

What you are saying is "tariffs decrease your score by 10 pts, but China has 100 pts, therefore tariffs dont decrease your score by 10 pts"

No, what that means is, China would be at 110 pts if it wasn't for tariffs. If this is the logic you're gonna be using, then this conversation is over. How can I expect you to go take an economics class when you can't even grasp 2nd grade logic?

As for the rest of you, I encourage you all to take economics classes or study it online.

 

[Anti Federalist]

Many economists call turning back to a gold standard dangerous.

That's just my point.

"Many" economists, "some" economists, there is no consensus because nobody really knows for sure.

The study of economics is the study of how billions of people make quadrillions of decisions every minute of every day.

It's entirely too complex and full of variables to say, "I have taken an economics course, and now all is clear and there is nothing left to know."

I have studied economics on my own, read the various schools of thought and have a modest understanding of them.

And no school of thought fully covers all the variables and permutations that I just mentioned.

That said, my fallback position is policy that infringes least on people's lives, and promotes the maximum amount of prosperity.

And in my experience tariffs are the form of taxation (if there is going to be such a thing) that accomplish that job

It is then that I rely on what I see, the simple cause and effect of government action, applied to real people's real economic situations.

 

[Kregisen]

That's just my point.

"Many" economists, "some" economists, there is no consensus because nobody really knows for sure.

The study of economics is the study of how billions of people make quadrillions of decisions every minute of every day.

It's entirely too complex and full of variables to say, "I have taken an economics course, and now all is clear and there is nothing left to know."

I have studied economics on my own, read the various schools of thought and have a modest understanding of them.

And no school of thought fully covers all the variables and permutations that I just mentioned.

That said, my fallback position is policy that infringes least on people's lives, and promotes the maximum amount of prosperity.

And in my experience tariffs are the form of taxation (if there is going to be such a thing) that accomplish that job

It is then that I rely on what I see, the simple cause and effect of government action, applied to real people's real economic situations.

Macro theories such as whether or not the gold standard is better than what we have now is not proven either way, nobody here said that. But how tariffs work isn't debated because it's as simple as whether or not quantity demanded goes down when price goes up. You trying to argue that tariffs don't destroy wealth is just ignorance of how it works. It has nothing to do with running businesses or with how gold standards work. It's basic economic principle, and it holds true. The fact that you keep adding in comments about how "professors think the gold standard is crazy" has nothing to do with tariffs.


It's as ignorant as saying just because scientists don't know exactly how we got here means that means that they also aren't sure of us containing dna and rna. That's utter ridiculousness and with that I'm done here. You can go through life debating people but if you refuse to study it over the course of the last year or 2, NOBODY is gonna want to talk to you about any important issues. It also makes Ron Paul look bad since this is on RPF. Just sain.

Later all have fun.

 

[Krugerrand]

Macro theories such as whether or not the gold standard is better than what we have now is not proven either way, nobody here said that. But how tariffs work isn't debated because it's as simple as whether or not quantity demanded goes down when price goes up. You trying to argue that tariffs don't destroy wealth is just ignorance of how it works. It has nothing to do with running businesses or with how gold standards work. It's basic economic principle, and it holds true. The fact that you keep adding in comments about how "professors think the gold standard is crazy" has nothing to do with tariffs.


It's as ignorant as saying just because scientists don't know exactly how we got here means that means that they also aren't sure of us containing dna and rna. That's utter ridiculousness and with that I'm done here. You can go through life debating people but if you refuse to study it over the course of the last year or 2, NOBODY is gonna want to talk to you about any important issues. It also makes Ron Paul look bad since this is on RPF. Just sain.

Later all have fun.

That's a promise already broken once.

Many economists call turning back to a gold standard dangerous. Ron has given different positions on this...if I'm correct I believe he wants competing currencies, not a gold standard. A gold standard fixes exchange rates, which encourages borrowing when a foreign currency should be worth more than the fixed rate is. Ron needs to explain his position better. There are pros and cons to going back to a gold standard, but there are many cons most of us, including myself, don't really understand.

That being said, you can keep throwing out your one-liners AF, but I'm gonna stop replying to them when you don't have the economics knowledge to back it. You're like Herman Cain and his 9-9-9. No substance on this issue. If I say go study economics you say basically flat out say "and trust the professors who call Ron Paul's ideas dangerous"? That's a ridiculous ab hominem to get out of studying an issue.

You're very vocal about your views on every issue but to me seems ignorant to be that vocal on an issue you've admitted you haven't taken a single class on.

That being said, I'm done with this thead. It's not worth my time to argue with people who won't go try to learn.

 

[Krugerrand]

I'll take this -rep as a badge of honor.

You came into this thread 18 pages late declaring that you have no intention of reading the first 18 pages. In your 17 posts in this thread you have been either rude or insulting in at least half of them. You've repeated your arguments without addressing the arguments against your position. You even suggested a possible legitimate argument for 'protectionism' that "wasn't made" even though it had been. Then, twice now you've trumpeted that you would not return to the thread as if we should all spend some time in silence mourning your absence.

Obviously you broke that promise a second time to read that I called you out on your melodramatics.

Go head - neg rep me again. Hopefully it will help you feel good about yourself, which appears to be a desparate need of yours.

I suggest you buy an anti-glare monitor, as what you are objecting to may be your own reflection.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

And rest assured, living in a mud hut and subsisting on 500 calories a day of cold rice and rat meat is most assuredly our future, if the powers that be continue to sell out the middle class, gut the economy and persist in this globalized "free trade" nonsense.

I'm sorry, Anti-Federalist, to have to disagree with you on this, I really am. It is one of the very, very, very few things I disagree with you on, and I admire you a great deal for your passion and uncompromising integrity. Here is a video that I just found that explains my view on free trade pretty well. Can you tell me why you think it's wrong?

 

[Cutlerzzz]

legitimate argument for 'protectionism'

LOL!

 

[Bossobass]

Tariffs with reciprocity is free trade.

"Free Trade" is just part of the latest "world domination" scheme in a long list of such schemes that dates back to the Pharaohs.

Has anyone ever explained in these silly trade debate threads why it is that every country in the history of civilization that had world class industrial capacity has been prosperous, regardless of what government that country labors under?

Whether it was a Pharaoh, an emperor, a Democracy, Republic, Monarchy, Nazi dictator, Military dictator, Communist or Constitutional Republic, every successive world power achieved that status through industrial scale production of innovative hardware. Egyptian, Mayan, Assyrian, Babylonian, Medo-Persian, Chinese, Greek, Roman, Anglo-American... all had possession of world class industrial production.

If a productive country engages in the barter system, you have free trade. That is, as long as 2 parties each have something of value to and desired by the other, there is no need for tariffs.

If a country decides to steal your goods by force or by fraud or by other devious means intends to destroy your innovation and industrial capacity, tariffs it is. The only alternatives are a) go ahead, we don't care as long as the shit we buy is cheap, or b) we have a military force and will use it to repel your hurtful machinations.

That is the History of the World.

Governments are irrelevant. When the merchants and/or the military force disagreed with the government, assassinations or worse immediately ensued. There was no debate. The resultant "change" in government was only ever to appease the taxpayers.

Then came the eighth wonder of the world; fiat paper currency with compound interest.

He who controls the currency wins. He who controls the military force can oust the currency controllers by force, but when the currency controllers also control the military force, it's game over, regardless of what type of government feigns control.

The wild card is a revolutionary force. The reason the Japanese scrapped plans of a ground invasion of the US in WWII: "There will be a gun behind every blade of grass".

In any event, when the currency controllers had bought up enough of US industrial capacity and purposely moved it off shore, it wasn't for money. They controlled all of that already. It was to continue to hide their wanton inflation of the currency, the total destruction of the worlds reserve currency, backed by the mightiest, most productive and most innovative industrial capacity the world had ever known.

Westinghouse, Carnegie, Ford, Tesla, Edison, etc., all eventually lost control of or sold their companies to the bankers. When the Free Market and Competition flags were pulled down and the "Free Trade" flags were run up instead on the ship of state, had "WE" been smart we would have used tariffs to destroy the plan and the planners.

The bankers hide history from the masses through government-controlled schools. They, on the other hand, know history well. Well enough to have included buying the government and the military force before making their final moves against the only and biggest threat to their latest "world domination" scheme.

So, here we sit, after the fact, arguing against each other some empty BS over who's epitaph is the correct one to carve into the headstone.

Bosso

 

[LibertyEagle]

This is one of the best threads on here that I remember.