Ron Paul: The Case For Free Trade

[Swordsmyth]

Let me guess: "Ron is Wrong", again?

Not again, this is one of things he has been established to be wrong on long ago.

 

[Swordsmyth]

Nice appeal to authority though.
Too bad it's negated by all the other "authorities" who agree.

 

[familydog]

Are you a Bush-era neoconservative?

"You're either with me or you're a Bush-era neoconservative" is a new one.

Let me guess, Pat Buchanan, Sam Francis and Paul Gottfried are also neoncons.

 

[PAF]

"You're either with me or you're a Bush-era neoconservative" is a new one.

Let me guess, Pat Buchanan, Sam Francis and Paul Gottfried are also neoncons.

C

'TOLD YOU SO! - Trump Voting Libertarians with Larken Rose and Patrick Smith'

Apr 8, 2025

An excellent video for anyone who's actually willing to invest the time.

• CCTelander
• Replies: 29
• Forum: U.S. Political News

• 

 

[familydog]

C

'TOLD YOU SO! - Trump Voting Libertarians with Larken Rose and Patrick Smith'

Apr 8, 2025

An excellent video for anyone who's actually willing to invest the time.

• CCTelander
• Replies: 29
• Forum: U.S. Political News

• 

Lol. I haven't seen or heard the name Larken Rose since he was wrecked by Lauren Southern like 8 years ago. And that's saying something considering how much of a lolcow grifter she is.

Anyway, I'm not a Libertarian. I'm also not a libertarian. So I genuinely don't care about libertarian purity spiraling.

 

[Madison320]

Cool. Ron Paul is an American hero, but heroes aren't perfect.

If you're a Millennial or Zoomer living in the rural rust belt, then you've seen first hand how free trade and unfettered free markets have hallowed out your lives and culture.

Out of a million possible variables you pick free trade and free markets as the reason for a lower standard of living?

What about government spending? Confiscatory taxation? Massive regulations? Inflation of the money supply? Artificially low interest rates?

 

[Madison320]

Not again, this is one of things he has been established to be wrong on long ago.

I'm actually going to give you credit for this response. Usually if someone disagrees with Ron Paul's stance they try to claim Ron Paul really meant the opposite of what he wrote.

 

[familydog]

What about government spending? Confiscatory taxation? Massive regulations? Inflation of the money supply? Artificially low interest rates?

Sure, they all contribute in their own way, but these factors you highlighted existed prior to deindustrialization. Free trade created the wound, unfettered capitalism dug the knife in and the domestic policies you mentioned just added salt.

 

[Anti Federalist]

I'll tell you who was right in the 80's and 90's...

Pat Buchanan and Ross Perot.

I've come full circle, after over 35 years now, back to a Pat Buchanan "America First" nativist, nationalist, populist.

 

[Anti Federalist]

I'm actually going to give you credit for this response. Usually if someone disagrees with Ron Paul's stance they try to claim Ron Paul really meant the opposite of what he wrote.

I agree. I have also been opposed to this position of libertarian thought.

I've made the case for America First trade and tariff policy for years now, on here.

 

[Voluntarist]

The 2nd one. "Maintaining the US industrial base".

The American economy is stagnating/dying because it is no longer capable of producing wealth. A country that cannot produce wealth is neither sovereign nor sustainable.

Our economy is in death throes, and what little economy that sustains us is built entirely off debt.

If this is what the "free market" looks like, then I don't want it.

I've got to clarify here, what do you mean by "industrial base". I include in "industrial base" all the things that economists track for it: not merely the manufacturing predicated on the bending and assembly of metal. AF earlier quoted someone from CATO saying:

He says a focus on domestic manufacturing is simply a fetish for keeping white males with low education in the powerful positions they are in"

While I disagree with that statement as written, there is an element of truth behind it that I would agree with. And that is that a focus on domestic manufacturing is a rationale for maintaining the livelihoods of blue collar workers with low education. Yes, there's a reason to maintain a manufacturing base, but it's not to maintain the livelihoods of blue collar workers with low education. Pragmatically, it's to maintain the infrastructure necessary to defend and sustain the country in time of military invasion by a foreign entity. And in that respect, the US has greater production capabilities than the next eight countries combined - six of which are allies (at least before Trump engaged in this trade war). And in that area also, the US exports more than the next nine countries combined.

Like I said above, when I talk about the industrial base, I include all the things that economists track for it: things like Technology and Innovation, Aerospace and Defense, Pharmaceuticals and Biotechnology, Mining and Minerals, Energy Production, Entertainment and Media, Agriculture and Food Production, as well as Finance and Banking. From that vantage, the US is not stagnating industrially. The US has the 7th highest GDP per capital on the planet, outpaced by countries that have greater footprints with things like Finance and Banking.

What's more, when it comes strictly to manufacturing, the only country that outpaces the US is China (which produces roughly twice what the US does). But do you really think we have to match China in producing the things that China does (and which can be produced by pre-teenagers)? Outside of that the nearest competitor to the US is Japan, and they only manufacture about 40% of what the US does. The US excels in manufacturing, it's just that what it excels at is advanced manufacturing, and that's not something that blue collar works with low education are going to fit into. Most of advanced manufacturing is not what Roger Waters described in one of his songs

Not now John I've got to get on with this
I don’t know what it is, but it fits on here like this

Instead, it has to do with testing of interim and finished product, as well as diagnosing and resolving problems.

 

[nikcers]

Is "this" a pronoun for Trump? Gotta ask, because I'm not very good with these new age pronouns that you Texans are famous for. ... Sorry, I try, but I'll never reach the professional levels of facetiousness that has come to be defined as a synonym for TheTexan.

"The solution" requires a problem to be defined, and I just couldn't tell what the problem you perceived was from what you wrote. It's a thread on Ron Paul's case for "Free Markets". Maybe you're defining "Free Markets" as the problem. I just couldn't tell from your inquiry. Going back through all these tariff threads, I see a number of things that posters seem to classify as problems:
- Inequitable trade between countries (can you believe that conservatives are describing "lack of equity" as a problem?)
- Maintaining the US industrial base
- Maintaining the income level of blue collar workers in the US.
- The perception, by consumers, that products made in the US aren't worth what's being charged for them
- Competing against "slave labor"

I suppose there's others. What do you define the problem as?

The problem is that other countries dump their products and steal our intellectual property and they put up trade barriers and don't buy anything from us because of trade barriers.

If we were ever in a long sustained war-one that lasted more than a couple years we would run out of stocks of weapons and especially air defense in just as little as 3 days.

We found that out in the Ukraine war.

We also learned that during the pandemic part of the reason why we had major economic problems were that we ran out of essential things like medicines and microchips because China and Taiwan stopped sending them.

Without microchips we had to stop the assembly of essential things like modern cars and redirected all of our chips for defense systems.

So it's insane not to change the balance of trade. Either to a system where the other countries buy more stuff from us because they lowered trade barriers or a system where we can defend our people from a war if we have to because we have the manufacturing capability.

 

[PAF]

We also learned that during the pandemic part of the reason why we had major economic problems were that we ran out of essential things like medicines and microchips because China and Taiwan stopped sending them.

Without microchips we had to stop the assembly of essential things like modern cars and redirected all of our chips for defense systems.

So it's insane not to change the balance of trade. Either to a system where the other countries buy more stuff from us because they lowered trade barriers or a system where we can defend our people from a war if we have to because we have the manufacturing capability.

Just think, if Trump didn't initiate Operation Warp Speed, invoke travel and other bans, and didn't sign the "Cares Act" after threatening Tom Massie, how many trillions and trillions we would have saved, and we wouldn't be where we are today, in order for Trump to create/invoke even more havoc in the world today.

And you still don't see that he is working for the corporate-conglomerate-globalists.

 

[nikcers]

Just think, if Trump didn't initiate Operation Warp Speed, invoke travel and other bans, and didn't sign the "Cares Act" after threatening Tom Massie, how many trillions and trillions we would have saved, and we wouldn't be where we are today, in order for Trump to create/invoke even more havoc in the world today.

And you still don't see that he is working for the corporate-conglomerate-globalists.

No I'm talking about when China threatened to stop sending antibiotics and did so the state government decided that you driving to work isn't safe because if you get in an accident and have a gut wound you will die of sepsis or if your leg is damaged you will have to have it amputated

 

[Madison320]

Sure, they all contribute in their own way, but these factors you highlighted existed prior to deindustrialization. Free trade created the wound, unfettered capitalism dug the knife in and the domestic policies you mentioned just added salt.

What dates are you referring to when you say that "free trade created the wound" and "capitalism dug the knife in"?

A more accurate way to determine cause and effect is to look at a greater sample size. If you look at all the countries in the world you'll see that the ones with more capitalism and free trade are more prosperous.

 

[TheTexan]

I've got to clarify here, what do you mean by "industrial base". I include in "industrial base" all the things that economists track for it: not merely the manufacturing predicated on the bending and assembly of metal. AF earlier quoted someone from CATO saying:

I define the industrial base, as having the means of being able to produce a broad spectrum of physical items with lasting and tradeable value.

If an American company wants to start building toasters, they shouldn't be forced to build that factory in China because China is the only country that has whatever random component they need.

While I disagree with that statement as written, there is an element of truth behind it that I would agree with. And that is that a focus on domestic manufacturing is a rationale for maintaining the livelihoods of blue collar workers with low education. Yes, there's a reason to maintain a manufacturing base, but it's not to maintain the livelihoods of blue collar workers with low education.

I agree. Any "jobs" that manufacturing provides is a cost, and not a benefit. The benefit is the wealth that is created from these jobs, and not the jobs themselves.

Pragmatically, it's to maintain the infrastructure necessary to defend and sustain the country in time of military invasion by a foreign entity.

That's one benefit, certainly, and an important one.

And in that respect, the US has greater production capabilities than the next eight countries combined - six of which are allies (at least before Trump engaged in this trade war).

Source? I know any time statistics are given they usually include assembly plants as "manufacturing"... that's no more "manufacturing" than you or me assembling Ikea furniture in our living room.

Like I said above, when I talk about the industrial base, I include all the things that economists track for it: things like Technology and Innovation, Aerospace and Defense, Pharmaceuticals and Biotechnology, Mining and Minerals, Energy Production, Entertainment and Media, Agriculture and Food Production, as well as Finance and Banking. From that vantage, the US is not stagnating industrially. The US has the 7th highest GDP per capital on the planet, outpaced by countries that have greater footprints with things like Finance and Banking.

And every one of those industries relies on a strong manufacturing base. Without it, they are all weaker than they should be.

Manufacturing is the cornerstone of any strong economy. You sure as shit can't base an economy off Twitter and Instagram.

Additionally, most of the above industries have a heavy reliance on China, which is itself a national security risk both in terms of sovereignty and natural disaster risk. (e.g., what was seen during Covid)

 

[Voluntarist]

The problem is that other countries dump their products ...

As I stated earlier, that's not the problem. The problem is that individuals within that collective of "your fellow US citizens" are buying those dumped products because you've failed to convince them that doing so is "bad". You haven't made your case with them. Instead you're getting your government to coerce your fellow citizens by hitting them over the head (with tariffs) until they come to their senses and recognize that those in positions of power know what's better for them than they do. The very definition of elitism.

 

[spudea]

The problem is that individuals within that collective of "your fellow US citizens" are buying those dumped products because you've failed to convince them that doing so is "bad".

Wrong, everyone knows it's bad. Everyone wants to buy locally because it's common sense that way the wealth stays here in our communities instead of going overseas and not coming back.

Our industrial base has been desimated by design of the Communist Chinese government resulting in no local alternatives being available, so we are forced to buy products from them even if we agree it's bad.

 

[Voluntarist]

The problem is that other countries ...steal our intellectual property

That illustrates the fallacy of intellectual property (IP), doesn't it - you can only enforce US IP laws within the boundaries of the US. In reality, IP ceases to be your property as soon as you allow it leave your skull. A patent or copyright is government granting you a exclusive license to profit from your intellectual creation for a limited amount of time. If it was really your "property" it would be yours until you relinquished it.

But pragmatically, that situation's not going to change; governments are going to use their oppressive powers to enforce those IP edicts (at least on their own citizenry). However they can only do so within the boundaries of their own borders - and perhaps by treaty with other countries. Putting general tariffs on all the products a country exports to the US doesn't address the real problem there - it doesn't distinguish the products with "stolen" IP from those without it. What's more, the funds collected from the tariffs goes into the coffers of US government rather than the holder of the patent/copyright. There's a case to be made that a product containing IP (protected by the US government) ought to be assessed a licensing fee (one which is paid to the holder of the IP grant) before it can be sold within the US. What that doesn't solve (and neither do Tariffs BTW) is that the products containing US IP can be sold to other non-US countries without the licensing fee being paid to the holder of the IP grant - that's something you need a treaty with those countries to resolve. Tariffs don't solve that "problem"

Oooo, here's a thought though. If you want IP laws that apply planet wide, maybe you need to consider a one-world government that could enforce them.

 

[nikcers]

That illustrates the fallacy of intellectual property (IP), doesn't it - you can only enforce US IP laws within the boundaries of the US. In reality, IP ceases to be your property as soon as you allow it leave your skull. A patent or copyright is government granting you a exclusive license to profit from your intellectual creation for a limited amount of time. If it was really your "property" it would be yours until you relinquished it.

But pragmatically, that situation's not going to change; governments are going to use their oppressive powers to enforce those IP edicts (at least on their own citizenry). However they can only do so within the boundaries of their own borders - and perhaps by treaty with other countries. Putting general tariffs on all the products a country exports to the US doesn't address the real problem there - it doesn't distinguish the products with "stolen" IP from those without it. What's more, the funds collected from the tariffs goes into the coffers of US government rather than the holder of the patent/copyright. There's a case to be made that a product containing IP (protected by the US government) ought to be assessed a licensing fee (one which is paid to the holder of the IP grant) before it can be sold within the US. What that doesn't solve (and neither do Tariffs BTW) is that the products containing US IP can be sold to other non-US countries without the licensing fee being paid to the holder of the IP grant - that's something you need a treaty with those countries to resolve. Tariffs don't solve that "problem"

Information is the most valuable thing in the world.

Intellectual property is an objectively real thing that we created to preserve the value in spending your resources to invent technologies.

Look at Nikola Tesla for example. He created AC electricity because he wanted to change the world and it ended up being the most profitable invention in modern history that has saved billions of lives.

When he couldnt make any money from his inventions he had to resort to digging ditches.

Just because we can't enforce the law doesn't mean it's not harming our civilization.