Smoote-Hawley Tarriff

[Brian4Liberty]

Goldman Sachs and The Federal Reserve won the debate.

 

[showpan]

Goldman Sachs and The Federal Reserve won the debate.

And the people have lost. I wonder how well anarchy is doing in places like Somalia...lol

 

[Fox McCloud]

Goldman Sachs and The Federal Reserve won the debate.

And the people have lost. I wonder how well anarchy is doing in places like Somalia...lol

Resorting to guilt by association and subject changing, yet again, I see.

Also, Somalia is a misnomer, for the most part---people don't claim that perfection will arise out of anarchy--it's merely suggested that anarchy is better off than under a statist regime--and things have, as a matter of fact, improved there: http://mises.org/daily/5418/Anarchy-in-Somalia

It also has the lowest telecom rates in all of Africa--that's fairly impressive for a country that has no government at all.

 

[Paul Or Nothing II]

+1 to Paul or Nothing.

You have further obliterated their arguments. Anyone who was on the fence before this thread that took the time to read it will know who won the debate. There is no need to continue wasting your time at this point, IMO.

Thanks. I know what has been said by many in this thread should be more than enough for any rational person to come out on the side of free trade but it's just that I find it annoying when socialists PRETEND to be pro-liberty & I just can't resist the temptation

Goldman Sachs and The Federal Reserve won the debate.

Another straw man argument!

Again, not surprising at all. None of the proponents of REAL free trade here support central-banking because that's anti-free market capitalism so your argument is very childish to say the least.

And guess what, who supported central-banking during early American history? Who cartelized the banking-industry through National Banking Acts? Who introduced the first unbacked fiat-paper-money in the United States? Who introduced the first income-tax in the United States? WHO? THE TARIFFERS like Lincoln & the Whigs/Republicans.

So all of you tariffers here, who don't respect property-rights & believe in STEALING others' money/property are more in line with central-bankers than free traders here because just like central-bankers you people think that STEALING from others is ok

And the people have lost. I wonder how well anarchy is doing in places like Somalia...lol

No, SOCIALIST people have lost as usual because they've no sound economic facts on their side, & there can be no fair justification for STEALING & ROBBERY either.

And insinuating that all free traders here are anarchists is another straw man argument. While others may be anarchists, I'm a minarchist but one thing we free traders are NOT, is that we're NOT THIEVES like protectionists & tariffers.

Why won't you people leave your "Founders are infallible" DOGMA aside for a moment & go to mises.org & learn some god damn sound economics? Founders DECEIVED the American people by telling them that tariffs are "external tax" when in fact it's a tax on AMERICAN PEOPLE & it's an INEQUITABLE form of taxation. YES, Founders were right about a lot of things BUT they were NOT impeccable nor infallible; they were MEN, NOT gods nor angels so don't PRETEND that they were, they were NOT right about everything & facts on hand prove so beyond doubt for anyone who's willng to put emotional dogma aside & look for themselves.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Why won't you people leave your "Founders are infallible" DOGMA aside for a moment & go to mises.org & learn some god damn sound economics?

Lol! the good ole "go to mises.org and learn something" rebuttal. Is that where you get your dogma?

 

[Fox McCloud]

Lol! the good ole "go to mises.org and learn something" rebuttal. Is that where you get your dogma?

I love how you're equating economic theory with dogma--while most Austrians are libertarians, this derives from the fact that most want to see mankind move forward and upward---that said, economics is value free meaning a totalitarian could be an Austrian economist...he'll just have to go directly against what he knows to be true to act as a true totalitarian.

While throwing out general "you should read this site or that site", I agree, is a bit of a weak argument, Paul or Nothing II and a few others here have demonstrated through argument and through other sources of information (other than Mises.org) that free trade is viable, logically consistent, and does, in fact, raise the standard of living...singling out this single comment out of all he's said comes across as being nothing more than an ad hominem attack. If you insist on opposing free trade despite all the arguments and evidence that clearly point to it raising the standard of living....who's really the one that's stuck in dogma?

 

[Brian4Liberty]

While throwing out general "you should read this site or that site", I agree, is a bit of a weak argument,...singling out this single comment out

It stands out because it's been used thousands of times, always with Mises.org as the destination. Who's to say I haven't been reading Lew Rockwell and others since before some of the people using that line were in diapers? Who's to say I didn't debate Lew himself over this issue in personal emails more than 15 years ago?

Back to the subject at hand, it is simply that I would prefer flat, across the board, untargeted tariffs as opposed to income taxes. Assuming that the Federal government exists and that it will take revenue one way or another, that is a preference. But we've had this debate about 100 times, so you already knew that.

And when it comes to dogma, the "free trade is good argument", as used by most people in the general public, is based on a marketing campaign by global merchants, not on Austrian or in-depth economics.

 

[Travlyr]

For a time, the Founding Fathers imposed tariffs on all imported goods from other Countries to encourage "American made" . The U.S. had become overly dependent on foreign goods, and they knew we would never be free of England until we were free of our dependance on their products. We did experience high inflation after the American Revolution, but we also gained our independence.

Gandhi understood this in his fight for freedom form the British as well. That is why he encouraged his people to continue their own production of salt from the sea in spite of beatings from the British. It is also why he encouraged them to wear their own traditional attire, and produce their own cotton fabric.

I do not think it is accidental that we once fed the world, and are now dependent on them to feed us contaminated foods.

The IMF and One World Governance

This ^^^^

+ rep

 

[Paul Or Nothing II]

Lol! the good ole "go to mises.org and learn something" rebuttal. Is that where you get your dogma?

That's the best argument you've got?

I've ALREADY made arguments based on SOUND ECONOMICS which you obviously haven't been able to refute & those are FACTUAL arguments; WAY BETTER than your argument ie ".....because Founders said so"

And seriously, the reason you understand any bit of Federal Reserve & its workings is due to Austrian Economics & then you turn around & call it dogma? Seriously, if it wasn't for Austrian Economics you'd be like those people out there who've no clue what Fed is about & think that it's some benevolent government institution created to "protect" people.

I love how you're equating economic theory with dogma--while most Austrians are libertarians, this derives from the fact that most want to see mankind move forward and upward---that said, economics is value free meaning a totalitarian could be an Austrian economist...he'll just have to go directly against what he knows to be true to act as a true totalitarian.

While throwing out general "you should read this site or that site", I agree, is a bit of a weak argument, Paul or Nothing II and a few others here have demonstrated through argument and through other sources of information (other than Mises.org) that free trade is viable, logically consistent, and does, in fact, raise the standard of living...singling out this single comment out of all he's said comes across as being nothing more than an ad hominem attack. If you insist on opposing free trade despite all the arguments and evidence that clearly point to it raising the standard of living....who's really the one that's stuck in dogma?

+1

I usually don't go around telling people to go to mises.org but there's no doubt these people wouldn't know shit about Fed if it wasn't for Austrian Economics so I thought it was only fair that they'd at least look up more literature about Austrian Economics that introduced them to sound economics & it's not like they've made any actual economic arguments so they might as well learn a bit of economics, without Austrian Economics, they wouldn't know shit about why what Fed is doing is so bad.

It stands out because it's been used thousands of times, always with Mises.org as the destination. Who's to say I haven't been reading Lew Rockwell and others since before some of the people using that line were in diapers? Who's to say I didn't debate Lew himself over this issue in personal emails more than 15 years ago?

No, it stands out because that's probably the only part of my post you can actually understand because obviously, you don't know much about economics if you think tariffs are so great. And "debating Lew" or exchanging a couple of emails with him doesn't mean anything; I'm sure he gets mails from socialists, communists & all sorts of people but them having exchanged letters with him does NOT mean that they actually understand economics

Back to the subject at hand, it is simply that I would prefer flat, across the board, untargeted tariffs as opposed to income taxes. Assuming that the Federal government exists and that it will take revenue one way or another, that is a preference. But we've had this debate about 100 times, so you already knew that.

It does NOT matter whether tariffs are flat-rate or not, as I've said many a times before, they're a TAX on AMERICAN PEOPLE & because NOT all Americans will be buying imported goods to the same extent, it results in people paying the tax INEQUITABLY as some Americans pay more than others, just like income-tax & that is against the principle that government should treat all its citizens EQUALLY.

Further, why FORCE people to pay taxes? If people want a government then they should be charitable enough to donate money.

And I'm GUESSING you're for deregulation (although I wouldn't be surpised if you aren't) so what makes you think that tariffs won't be used to confer favors by politicians to benefit their corporate buddies or to get votes from misguided souls like some here who think that raising prices & reducing goods/services creates prosperity? I mean in an unregulated market, as early American history clearly shows, tariffs are usually used by politicians to further corporatism at the expense of American people so keeping in mind that almost all politicians everywhere tend to be corrupt, why do you think they won't misuse tariffs? There's no guarantee of that.

And when it comes to dogma, the "free trade is good argument", as used by most people in the general public, is based on a marketing campaign by global merchants, not on Austrian or in-depth economics.

It has been mentioned OVER & OVER again that those "global merchants" want a REGULATED CORPORATIZED form of trade that benefits them, not the REAL free trade that benefits the people that we're arguing for here so I don't see the point of you bringing it up on this thread. We've made cogent arguments for REAL free trade based on sound economics, NOT based on some dogma.

This ^^^^

+ rep

As I've said, Founders were right about a lot of things but they were men & hence NOT infallible, they LIED to American people by telling them that tariffs were an "external tax" in order to FOOL people into believing that they weren't being taxed for it but as has been already established, tariffs are a tax on AMERICANS & further, it's an INEQUITABLE form of taxation just like income-tax because NOT all Americans will buy imported goods to the same extent which means some Americans will be paying more tariffs-tax than others & that violates the principle that government should treat ALL Americans EQUALLY.

As for Gandhi, he never had power to tariff, he just encouraged Indians to "buy Indian" WITHOUT use of FORCE which is COMPLETELY different from FORCING people to pay tariff-tax. Further, after his death & after India gained independence, the government continued Gandhi's legacy of "buying Indian" & it had been extremely protectionist for protecting local industries & workers by blocking cheaper foreign goods which subjected the country & its masses to destitute poverty for more than 4 decades UNTIL they significantly opened up their economy in the early 90s & after that it has seen a tremendous amount of growth & millions of its people have been raised out of poverty. So India's example actually makes a case AGAINST protectionism.

Please care to read the following link, putting tariffs actually INCREASES unemployment due to displacement of capital, LESS goods/services are produced & hence their prices are HIGHER & thereby people have LOWER living standards.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...wley-Tarriff&p=3431667&viewfull=1#post3431667

 

[Brian4Liberty]

As for Gandhi, he never had power to tariff, he just encouraged Indians to "buy Indian" WITHOUT use of FORCE which is COMPLETELY different from FORCING people to pay tariff-tax. Further, after his death & after India gained independence, the government continued Gandhi's legacy of "buying Indian" & it had been extremely protectionist for protecting local industries & workers by blocking cheaper foreign goods which subjected the country & its masses to destitute poverty for more than 4 decades UNTIL they significantly opened up their economy in the early 90s & after that it has seen a tremendous amount of growth & millions of its people have been raised out of poverty. So India's example actually makes a case AGAINST protectionism.

India has improved their economy by selling services (and some goods) to the US, and also by leaving their country, earning money, and sending it back to India or returning with it. Technology, for the most part, has allowed them to export "service" directly from India. It really has nothing to do with Indian import tariffs. Perhaps you can give us your source for this recent change in their rates for import taxes, tariffs or fees?

A quick look brings up two main Import related laws from India, one in 1962, and a revised one in 1975:

In India, the basic law for levy and collection of customs duty is Customs Act, 1962. It provides for levy and collection of duty on imports and exports, import/export procedures, prohibitions on importation and exportation of goods, penalties, offences, etc.

http://business.gov.in/taxation/custom_duty.php

and

THE CUSTOMS TARIFF ACT, 1975
http://cbec.gov.in/customs/cst-0809/cst-act-rules-interpt.pdf

 

[Jace]

..

 

[Cutlerzzz]

Interesting interpretation.

It sounds like you are rationalizing the slaughter of Chinese people in the Opium Wars because their government was protectionist when it outlawed British opium in their ports. The Chinese government was protectionist so that's what caused the British to send in their gunboats to kill Chinese people and seize land in China for ports for their ships. They killed Chinese people to put an end to protectionism so they could continue to sell opium for silver. I guess those Brits felt strongly about the principle of free trade because they were willing to kill for it to end the protectionism that was preventing them from making a buck off opium sales.

I guess we Americans did a lot of that in Central America whenever the Banana Republics got tired of gringos owning everything. Just send in the Marines to kill to protect the principles of private property and free trade. The United Fruit Company needs its profits, and if people have to die to keep the ports open, so be it.

The Chinese today aren't followers of free trade theory. They are still protectionists, as you spelled out in your previous post. They have strong opinions about the Opium Wars. I can tell you that from personal experience.

I would love to hear a Chinese person respond to your interpretation of the Opium Wars.

You cited William McKinnley in your defense of protectionism, who killed far more people in a war of imperial agression than any American involved in the Banana Wars ever did. lol.

 

[Paul Or Nothing II]

India has improved their economy by selling services (and some goods) to the US, and also by leaving their country, earning money, and sending it back to India or returning with it. Technology, for the most part, has allowed them to export "service" directly from India. It really has nothing to do with Indian import tariffs. Perhaps you can give us your source for this recent change in their rates for import taxes, tariffs or fees?

A quick look brings up two main Import related laws from India, one in 1962, and a revised one in 1975:

and

Do you think protectionism only includes tariffs? It includes many other things like import-quotas, import-substitution, restrictions on foreign direct investment, restrictions on setting up of foreign companies in the country & other regulatory barriers, etc. India really took to Gandhi's "buy Indian" message & may be it was a good way to revolt WHILE they were under the British Rule to overthrow them BUT after independence, it was stupidity all the way. Government wanted to protect their traditional textile industries & workers from Western much more cheaper cloth produced with superior technology, even though people were using ineffective methods like spinning wheel & handlooms, etc because that'd been a significant part of their culture; Gandhi used to spend hours spinning on the wheel & that's why they've that on their flag too. 1991 is considered the most significant year in India's economic transformation, they call it "economic liberation of India" or something, google it for yourself. Before that the changes were very minimal, it was 1991 & the later period that protectionist measures significantly reduced that ushered in an era of prosperity for them & 100s of millions have been raised out of destitute, grinding poverty since 1991.

And if one wants to talk about tariffs alone pre-1991 then -
http://www.adb.org/Documents/EDRC/Policy_Briefs/PB002.pdf

Imports were also subject to excessively high tariffs. The top rate was 400 percent. As much as 60 percent of tariff lines were subject to rates ranging from 110 to 150 percent and only 4 percent of the tariff rates were below 60 percent.

This link has more numerical data - http://www.icrier.org/pdf/WP172.pdf

And your belief that "India grew because of US" is fallacious. India's GDP is ~1.5 trillion so their exports to US are pretty insignificant, more so when one considers their imports from US as well.
http://www.ustr.gov/countries-regions/south-central-asia/india

Exports totaled $26 billion; Imports totaled $34 billion. The U.S. goods and services trade deficit with India was $7 billion in 2009.

Services exports were $9.9 billion; Services imports were $12.4 billion.

Seriously, stop drinking the Kool-aid & start learning economics, it's NOT true that the world will die out without US or something; with this attitude pervading among Americans, it's no surprise that people around the world think that Americans act like the world revolves around them. China & India have their huge populations & thereby huge domestic markets, believing that they wouldn't grow without US is sort of narcissistic. As I've said over & over again, US's toilet-paper-money is NOT wealth, goods & services are REAL WEALTH & without their cheaper goods, prices would soar in the United States & living standards would plummet faster than they're plummeting right now & that's why it'd be a very stupid move on our part to erect tariff-barriers.

Interesting interpretation.

It sounds like you are rationalizing the slaughter of Chinese people in the Opium Wars because their government was protectionist when it outlawed British opium in their ports. The Chinese government was protectionist so that's what caused the British to send in their gunboats to kill Chinese people and seize land in China for ports for their ships. They killed Chinese people to put an end to protectionism so they could continue to sell opium for silver. I guess those Brits felt strongly about the principle of free trade because they were willing to kill for it to end the protectionism that was preventing them from making a buck off opium sales.

I guess we Americans did a lot of that in Central America whenever the Banana Republics got tired of gringos owning everything. Just send in the Marines to kill to protect the principles of private property and free trade. The United Fruit Company needs its profits, and if people have to die to keep the ports open, so be it.

The Chinese today aren't followers of free trade theory. They are still protectionists, as you spelled out in your previous post. They have strong opinions about the Opium Wars. I can tell you that from personal experience.

I would love to hear a Chinese person respond to your interpretation of the Opium Wars.

Another pathetic attempt at diverting the main subject & another disingenuous straw man argument

As I've already said, British were no saints so there's no question of "rationalizing" what they did; the point is that the war would NOT have happened had Chinese government not been so idiotically protectionist. Free trade would've helped suck out their inflation & bring more goods into the country & lower prices & increase their living standards but obviously, like you & others here, they didn't understand economics too well & thought that "money" (silver) is wealth when the fact is that goods/services are the real wealth.

Your whole argument is that "free trade is bad because some nations have caused violence in the name of free trade". Well, by the same token, is FREEDOM bad just because US government goes around waging wars & killing people in the name of spreading freedom? Really naive arguments.

And what any Chinese person thinks about opium war or free trade is IRRELEVANT in the face of facts & the economic facts are on the side of free trade, & most of their opinions are largely dictated by their government anyway; I'm sure many of them like communism/socialism too so are going to buy into that as well "because they think so"? In the same way, plenty of people in America deem Fed to be "essential" to US economy but does that really matter in the face of facts? I don't think so.

Where are your arguments based on sound economics?
I've already established through sound economics that tariffs cause MORE unemployment, LESS goods/services, HIGHER prices & LOWER living standards.

CURRENT AMERICA-CHINA SITUATION

Generally, people find it easier to understand the link between import-export, currencies, free trade & prosperity when we look at how these things work under a "commodity-standard" so I'll try to explain these things in the context of current America-China situation. When we're on a paper-money-standard, NOTHING amongst these variables & how they lead to prosperity changes but understanding the underlying relationship may get difficult to understand due to added factors like government manipulation of currency but the underlying effects do NOT change.

Now, under a paper-currency, WITHOUT any manipulation, when US keeps buying alot of Chinese goods, it'd cause Yuan to rise against dollar & over time, Chinese would find US products cheaper & US would find Chinese products costlier & then market equilibrium will go back & forth like that.

But in real life, China either buys dollars or devalues their currency in order to NOT allow it to rise against the dollar. But this does NOT have any negative effect on US. WHY? Well, when US buys from China, it gets cheap goods which enhance Americans' living standards while it gets US dollars in return. Of course, it doesn't allow its currency to rise but that only hurts the purchasing-power of Chinese people BUT those dollars get reinvested in US one way or another which helps create jobs & goods/services in US & the additional income that is generated out of it is what allows Americans to buy more Chinese goods so it's essentially a win-win situation for BOTH countries (except the Chinese people, of course but they too benefit to a degree anyway) so they're essentially keeping their people poor through tariffs & currency-manipulation to provide US with cheaper goods, not a bad situation to be in for the US.

Now, what'll happen if we adopt protectionism & put up tariffs? Well, it'll obviously mean an end to cheaper goods as well as MORE of our capital will be used up for LESS goods because our workers will've to be paid much higher wages because of minium-wage laws & everything so MORE of our capital will be engaged in production of LESS goods which obviously means much higher prices AND it also means that that ADDITIONAL CAPITAL that'll be needed will be sucked out from other areas of the economy which means you'll've MORE job-losses & drop in production & higher prices in those areas.

Now, interventionists mostly see the economy as a static model & that's why they think that they can meddle in one area of the economy & not affect others but that's not how the real-world economies work; in fact, they're very dynamic so every time you meddle in one area, it causes all others to re-adjust accordingly & that's why central-planning is so difficult to engage in because of the dynamic nature of economies.

So because of economy's dynamic nature, even if prices increase in one area, it causes all the other prices to re-adjust according to their new supply/demand factors. Because as prices initially rise even in an area of the economy, people bearing those high prices demand higher incomes to ensure their prosperity & higher-skilled people have the most bargaining power because their skills are in shorter supply than lower-skilled people & in order to free up more capital to accommodate higher incomes of higher-skilled people, businesses have to lay off more lower-skilled people which causes more unemployment among the poor low-skilled workers, decrease in production of goods/services AND higher prices of goods/services that the business is producing & so on & so on it causes a "domino effect" throughout the economy. Therefore, prices & unemployment throughout the economy keep having upward pressure, the production keeps having downward pressure UNTIL the market is put back in charge; if not then the economy keeps eating itself. This is how socialism destroys economies & countries, the more socialist the country, the faster it degenerates.

So again, when one raises questions over US unemployment & drop in living standards (reduction in REAL WEALTH ie goods/services) then one must realize that 40% of the US economy is being sucked out every year, plus, there are minimum-wage laws, over-regulation, etc etc & obviously Fed's boom-bust & inflation cycles don't help the economy & unemployment either which are further choking enterpreneurship in the US & that is why US is suffering so unless these resolved or at least significantly ameliorated, US & its economy is likely to continue to spiral downwards, in terms of prosperity, for some time to come. Putting tariffs to "save jobs" is like treating the symptom rather than treating the underlying diseases which is over-regulation, over-taxation, Fed, etc; tariffs WON'T help, they'll cause EVEN MORE unemployment as they'll displace capital & workers in other areas of the economy & cause a "domino effect" of lower goods/services & higher prices & higher unemployment.

The bottomline is that NOBODY can circumvent the markets & in the long-run, it always causes more harm than good.

You cited William McKinnley in your defense of protectionism, who killed far more people in a war of imperial agression than any American involved in the Banana Wars ever did. lol.

+1

Good one

 

[Brian4Liberty]

1991 is considered the most significant year in India's economic transformation, they call it "economic liberation of India" or something, google it for yourself.

Interesting stuff.

Have you read Confessions of an Economic Hitman?

So will India be the next Indonesia or Saudi Arabia? In other words, will they be totally destroyed by sleeping with the international oligarchy like Indonesia has been, or will they be savvy enough to maintain a Saudi Arabian style mutual hostage situation?

In 1991, after India faced a balance of payments crisis, it had to sell 67 tons of gold to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) as part of a bailout deal, and promise economic restructuring.

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

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Another interesting link, as told by an Indian. Consistent with the MO of the international corporatists.

India, after all these years of economic reforms, is at the crossroads. While one road leads India to economic prosperity and glory, the other road leads it to social inequality. Presently, as India is one of the fastest growing economies in the world, the social aspects have been ridden roughshod by the economic benefits. What has been conveniently forgotten or suppressed till date have been the disparities, mainly the socio-economical issues. This has led to growing discontent among the population and it has gathered momentum since the reforms began 15 years ago. It will very soon reach a critical point wherein the very purpose for which the reforms were started, will start to lose their significance rapidly and throw the country back into the ‘license raj’ and ‘unionist’ era.

The chasm between the rich and the poor has increased so vastly that the rich are just getting richer and the poor are just getting poorer. The real benefits of the economic reforms have rarely percolated to the lowest strata of society. Just to illustrate the same with an example, most of the states today vie with one another to grab a project of any significance, be it chemical, auto or even IT. In doing so, the benefits they are offering, right from free land to tax sops are being given on a platter. But the benefits or savings that a company gains from this does not affect the lower strata of management, but remains in the hands of the top management, thus depriving the former of the economic benefits. Also, most of the labor laws in the country are outdated and have not kept pace with economic reforms. Thus, the exploitation of the working class becomes much easier. A classic example is the BPO industry in our country. While most of them work in the nights, the pressure each employee faces to deliver results and the working conditions are appalling, to say the least.

http://www.chillibreeze.com/articles/India-liberalization.asp

 

[showpan]

Resorting to guilt by association and subject changing, yet again, I see.

Also, Somalia is a misnomer, for the most part---people don't claim that perfection will arise out of anarchy--it's merely suggested that anarchy is better off than under a statist regime--and things have, as a matter of fact, improved there: http://mises.org/daily/5418/Anarchy-in-Somalia

It also has the lowest telecom rates in all of Africa--that's fairly impressive for a country that has no government at all.

Somalia has been in a constant state of turmoil, fighting and anarchy since the collapse of Siad Barre’s regime in 1991. It remains one of the worst humanitarian situations in the world, with 3.2 million people in need of assistance and 1 in 7 Somalis having fled their homes. In 2009, over 1 MILLION refugees had been displaced due to infighting between various clans and Islamist extremists.

Anarchy is slowly being replaced starting with a truce in 2009 that saw the formation of a Somalia coalition government who would eventually lose control of over 80% of disputed territories to Islamist insurgents. A new Transitional Federal Government has emerged from that coalition with the backing of the U.S., the U.N. and African Union and has been investing in infrastructure, economic and social programs. The Transitional Federal Government continues to reach out to both Somali and international stakeholders to help grow the administrative capacity of the Transitional Federal Institutions and to work toward eventual national elections in 2011, when the interim government's mandate expires. Whoever did that article for Mises seems to have left this info out...lol

Backed by China, Korea and Europe, multinational corporations such as Sprint, ITT and Telenor, now offer the cheapest service in Africa as they try to gain a foothold in new territories. Prominent Somali telecommunications companies now include Golis Telecom Group, Hormuud Telecom, Somafone, Nationlink, Netco, Telcom and Somali Telecom Group. Hormuud Telecom alone grosses about $40 million a year. Despite their rivalry, several of these companies signed an interconnectivity deal in 2005 that allows them to set prices, maintain and expand their networks, and ensure that competition does not get out of control. So, in retrospect, the telecom industry is not thriving under "free market" conditions...it is thriving under regulations and price controls....lol....Mises seems to have also left this info out too.

A few stats about Somalia since we are on the subject.

GDP PER CAPITA: $590.76 per capita
Physicians 0.04 per 1,000 people (106th of 148)
Life expectancy at birth, years > Total population 44 (174th of 186)
Major infectious diseases > Food or waterborne diseases
bacterial and protozoal diarrhea, hepatitis A and E, and typhoid fever
Major infectious diseases > Water contact disease schistosomiasis
Economic activity > Both sexes aged 10-14 31.3% (20th of 89)
Fixed line and mobile phone subscribers > per 1,000 people 72.92 per 1,000 people (123rd of 193)
Households with television > % 8.45 % (126th of 160)
Televisions 135,000 (125th of 215)
Personal computers 50,000 (116th of 164)
Adjusted savings: education expenditure > % of GNI 1.05 % of GNI (137th of 168)
aptitude results 54.986 (187th of 191)
Scientific and technical journal articles 1 (165th of 175)

http://www.nationmaster.com/country/so-somalia

43% of the population live on less than 1 US dollar a day

Somalia is ranked #1 on a list of the 60 worst countries in the world by news-world.us

Somalia is ranked first in percentage of girls out of school: 94%
Mostly due to high levels of prostitution and sex trafficking, only 6% of girls are in primary school.

A consequence of the collapse of governmental authority that accompanied the civil war has been the emergence of a significant problem with piracy in the waters off of the coast of Somalia in territories that are still under Islamist control.

Note
Due to heightened tension in the region, travel to Somalia is not currently recommended. For further information visitors should seek official advice

 

[ProIndividual]

I see some are still in favor of theft. Nice...still don't trust the free market? Still don't think willing traders can individually make better decisions on their own as to how to make themselves wealthy, than their government can for them?

Disappointing.

Taxes, tariffs, regulations beyond restrictions to harm and fraud, and protectionism are all theft...a violent act against individual property rights. This is a property rights debate.

Why do you advocate theft? Leave aside for a moment it is ACTUALLY economic suicide...just pretend you're not delusional for a moment...assuming it's GOOD for the economy, why would you advocate theft to IMPROVE anything? Even if theft makes me richer longterm, I still don't see how that stops it from being theft (a violent coercive act against my property rights).

So at best you're advocating theft for the sake of prosperity. Quite an immoral, if not amoral, stance.

At worst you're advocating theft for the sake of not admitting you're wrong (which leads to economic suicide).

I like the morally consistant and possibly (factually) economically successful one; free trade.


FTW.

 

[showpan]

Another interesting link, as told by an Indian. Consistent with the MO of the international corporatists.

I watched a special on how the India government had taken land from 1000's of small villages in order to create waterways to irrigate large tracts of dry lands they had leased to Del Monte and others. It was horrible as the water rose behind the Dams and the subsequent release of the water. It flooded out valleys where these people had lived for generations. Many of them refused to be displaced and stood there as the water rose around them...1000's had drowned as the Army tried to force them out. It effected up to 1 MILLION people and was financed by the World Bank.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

I watched a special on how the India government had taken land from 100's of small villages in order to create waterways to irrigate large tracts of dry lands they had leased to Del Monte and others.

Most Indians will tell you that corruption, bribery, bureaucracy and cronyism in the US is child's play when compared to India. No doubt the oligarchs of India have fit right in with the global corporatists.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

India's GDP is ~1.5 trillion so their exports to US are pretty insignificant, more so when one considers their imports from US as well.

Yes, tens of billions of dollars in trade deficit do pale while Obama is throwing around trillions like toilet paper. On the other hand, any corporation still cares very deeply about a billion dollars in revenue.

You can dig into government statistics all day, but how much faith can you really put into them?

A major problem I see with your analyst is the emphasis on GDP, as if it is a dependable measure. Simon Kuznets, who invented GDP, had this to say about it

The statistician who supposes that he can make a purely objective estimate of national income, not influenced by preconceptions concerning the "facts," is deluding himself; for whenever he includes one item or excludes another he is implicitly accepting some standard of judgement, his own or that of the compiler of the data. There is no escaping this subjective element.

Not even it's inventor supported using it.