The Old Right Opposed Tariffs

[TheTexan]

To go off on somewhat of a tangent -

One thing I would note is that "central planning" is not necessarily bad. The free market is almost entirely reliant on central planning - the central planning done by CEO's, executives, and even the central planning done by your local family owned restaurant. (It's owned by the "family" but the patriarch is usually making the decisions)

There in fact cannot be much "planning" at all, without it being "central". To oppose "central planning" as an universal evil, is to oppose "planning" in general. Because nearly all "planning" is "centralized" to some degree or another.

So when people oppose "central planning", what they are really opposing, (or should be), is either 1) too much central planning, and/or 2) bad forms of central planning.

What we have in this country right now is certainly both "too much" and "bad form". And by "bad form", I mean a statist government that is enslaving your participation by rejecting your right to secede and thus has no right to be planning anything.

But, central planning, done in moderation, under a voluntary system (A.K.A. - the free market), is a good thing.

Companies make the decision whether to build or buy all the time. And that "build or buy" decision is not entirely based on what's cheapest at that moment in time. They make that decision based on their strategic plans or goals.

There is no reason why nations could not benefit from similar "build or buy" decisions, even if it is considered to be (OMG!!!) "central planning".

(If it's not clear above, the "build or buy" decision is intended to be a comparison to the "build domestic vs buy via free trade" decision)

 

[TheTexan]

To put it differently, I think people tend to put a lot of misplaced blame onto central planning. I don't think the problem is central planning per se, but rather central planning of enslaved populations.

Clearly the problem there is the "enslavement", and not the "planning".

There isn't anything wrong with "planning", whether it's "central" or otherwise.

If part of that planning, is hey, maybe we shouldn't buy cheap disposable shit from China and instead invest into our own infrastructure so we can build better products at a similar price, then maybe that's a good thing.

 

[Swordsmyth]

It was not a deliberate deception. The OP was quoting from an article by Lew Rockwell in which Rockwell used the term "Old Right" with its normal meaning, intended for an audience who were assumed to know exactly what group of people he was talking about. Nobody was supposed to infer anything about the history of the vocabulary of right versus left in politics.

Whoever created the label was being deceptive, with the intent of enabling the kind of false history being presented.
And the author of the article is being deceptive to claim that the group it refers to were for free trade when only the progressive insurgents were and the mainstream of the group was pro-tariff.

 

[Swordsmyth]

Trump Wants To "Beat China" By Taxing Americans?

By Chris Rossini
1/19/2016


Today's Liberty Report focused on free trade vs. protectionism and how the latter has historically been a segue into war. Ron Paul and Daniel McAdams also discussed the heroic Richard Cobden and the political movement called the Anti-Corn Law League that was formed in 1838. See here for more on Cobden.

It's very easy to look at foreign trade on a superficial level. Those big American corporations go to China to exploit cheap labor, thus destroying "our jobs". That's about as far as most people are willing to contemplate the situation. Sadly that's a very naive perspective to hold.

Moving a company's operations (especially for a giant multi-national) is a big deal. It goes way beyond the "cheap labor" argument. Just imagine the legal implications of moving overseas. Now you have to deal with another set of laws in a totally different nation. There are foreign customs and language barriers that must be factored in as well. Then the foreign government itself must be considered. Will your assets be safe? Will the foreign government someday nationalize your business and take it all away from you? Will they strangle you with bureaucracy and red tape?

Amazingly enough, even with a laundry list of things to consider before moving your operations overseas, many American companies conclude that the pros outweigh the cons. If anything, it's not a testament to "exploiting cheap labor," as your average American will conclude, but that the U.S. business environment is so messed up that it's worth the move for many businesses.

Yet, how many Americans consider that they live under the largest government in the history of the world? How many consider that about 1,000 new regulations are created each day? America is swimming in oceans of red tape and bureaucracy. There are laws for everything. Who can you hire? How can you fire? Will you get sued if you fire? Are you discriminating? Are you "socially responsible"? Are you "green"? Are you following the edicts of more government agencies than you can keep track of?

Many business owners throw their hands up and say: "Forget it!"

They find greener pastures and governments that will welcome their businesses. Yet, the average American is well-trained to conclude only one thing: "cheap labor".

Unfortunately, American politicians that run for president don't look to roll back the biggest government in history. They perpetually campaign to take a bad situation and make it even worse.

Donald Trump is a prime example.

Trump likes to talk about trade as a zero sum game, as if there are "winners" and "losers". That's a fundamental misunderstanding of trade and exchange, but it works on the campaign trail, so he sticks with it. Trump boasts about how "we're" going to "beat China" and how he's going to slap tariffs on them.

Unfortunately, his audiences don't understand that when they cheer for tariffs, they're cheering for Trump to tax them! Yes, you read that correctly. Trump plans on "beating China" by taxing Americans!

Trump, as president, would have no power to tax the Chinese. But he can tax Americans, and that's what a tariff is. American consumers would be forced to pay higher prices for Chinese goods. The tariff would also raise revenues for the U.S. government. In other words, money out of your pocket and into the largest government pockets on earth. Trump, instead of shrinking the gargantuan U.S. government would, with tariffs, bloat it further.

In keeping with government tradition, Trump is essentially promising us "Always Higher Prices". Perhaps he can trademark that along with "Make America Great Again".

Protectionism is very dangerous. When governments get started in trade wars, they all too often lead to actual hot wars.

Trump's ideas must be thoroughly rejected.



http://www.ronpaullibertyreport.com/archives/trump-wants-to-beat-china-by-taxing-americans


​

Regurgitating false dogma.

 

[Swordsmyth]

The best source for funding the government are user fees.

Garbage, user fees create feudalism of the rich, they are the flip side of fine based justice.

 

[Swordsmyth]

Yes, supply chains need redundancy, and Just In Time can be problematic in times of crisis as COVID proved. But that's a different issue entirely.

What you're advocating is this:

- We should all buy from our own country because closer to home is better

then...

- We should all buy from our own state becuase closer to home is better

then...

- We should all buy from our own town because closer to home is better

then...

- We should all buy from our own neighborhood because closer to home is better

then..

- We should only buy stuff from our own family....



Follow that line of thinking and it's economic ignorance and nonsense.

First off people should be free to buy from whomever they choose, as long as it is voluntary. And secondly, the best thing to do is to buy from whoever produces what you want at the lowest price.

If we all did as much of that as possible we would all be stronger and better off.
It's not possible to do it absolutely and there are benefits to trade, but self reliance and in group preference is strength.

There is a balance to be maintained between efficiency and stability, but erring on the side of stability is better than erring on the side of efficiency, and far better than forgetting about balance and maxing out efficiency as free trade attempts to do.

Buying from your neighbors instead of family is perfectly good if there is a reasonable gain to be made.
Buying from the next county over is still pretty good, but the amount of gain needs to be a little bigger.
The same change in cost/benefit applies for the next state and the next region, at least they are supposed to share the same Constitution and general culture.
Buying from friendly foreigners should have a rather high benefit in order to do so, neutrals even larger, and hostiles should only be traded with when no other option is possible and you simply can't do without whatever it is you are buying.

 

[TheTexan]

Microchips is just one of many things we no longer produce in any meaningful way domestically, that is both critical to our national security, and economic future, in terms of keeping technological advancement and innovation here in America, rather than letting other countries lead the way:

https://nstxl.org/how-computer-chip... of FPGAs,chips for its military applications

While it's not practical for every "family" or a "neighborhood" to have its own microchip factory, its nothing short of irresponsible for a country the size of America to not have factories that are on the leading edge of this technology.

 

[Invisible Man]

Whoever created the label was being deceptive, with the intent of enabling the kind of false history being presented.

Given that you didn't know the first thing about the label until a couple days ago, I'd say your judgement on this matter is not very well informed.

 

[acptulsa]

So you want a tax to force people to pay more money for goods and services? That is the very definition of statism and central-planning.

You're obviously right. Of course it is. And yet he thinks...

Total inversion, Camela is the bringer of communism

It's the exact same alibi liberals try to use. "Oh, but it's only totalitarianism when somebody else does it."

 

[Matt Collins]

But at the same time it's not exactly reasonable to have huge couches and other shit built & shipped from 6,000 miles away. It's not a sustainable practice.

Well if the cost disparity is big enough, then it is indeed reasonable.

 

[TheTexan]

Well if the cost disparity is big enough, then it is indeed reasonable.

What's reasonable for an individual making their own purchase decisions, is not always what's best for the nation as a whole. As mentioned previously, I have proven this in a separate thread and I welcome any rebuttals. (here)

 

[Matt Collins]

What's reasonable for an individual making their own purchase decisions, is not always what's best for the nation as a whole.

Yes comrade, we must all submit our individual needs for the collective good of the government.

 

[TheTexan]

Yes comrade, we must all submit our individual needs for the collective good of the government.

Honestly, if full-on fascism is what it took to prevent one world government, it'd be worth it.

I'm open to reasonable ideas here to prevent it. "Ending free trade" seems like a reasonable idea to me. Historically, it's been done before - and with success. It's straight forward to implement. And all else considered, the costs are pretty low.

I get you like free trade. I like free trade too. But this idea that free trade is universally good is based on fanaticism and not science or logic.

I like freedom. I like the freedom to buy cheap shit from China.

But what I really like, is not having a one world government.

We are so fast headed in that direction it's not even funny. Cutting off free trade is such a small price to pay until we figure out a better solution.

And by better solution I mean one that has a chance of working in the short term. Ideological purity is great but we need a short term fix soon because once we get a one world government there is no going back.

 

[Matt Collins]

Honestly, if full-on fascism is what it took to prevent one world government, it'd be worth it.

Glad to know you openly hate freedom and are freely willing to admit it.

Lame.

 

[TheTexan]

Glad to know you openly hate freedom and are freely willing to admit it.

Lame.

Glad to know you're incapable of reading comprehension or critical thinking skills.

Lame.

 

[CCTelander]

Glad to know you're incapable of reading comprehension or critical thinking skills.

Lame.

Sorry, brother, but it’s hilarious to see you accusing others of lacking “critical thinking skills” when it’s patently obvious from your last post (#93) that your own position is based quite firmly in fear, and not at all the result of reason or “critical thinking.” It would probably be best to keep your accusations to yourself until you get that fear under control. Just a friendly suggestion.

 

[TheTexan]

Sorry, brother, but it’s hilarious to see you accusing others of lacking “critical thinking skills” when it’s patently obvious from your last post (#93) that your own position is based quite firmly in fear, and not at all the result of reason or “critical thinking.” It would probably be best to keep your accusations to yourself until you get that fear under control. Just a friendly suggestion.

Still got nothing but insults.

I used to expect better from you.

And get a thesaurus. You don't need to use "patently" in every post.

 

[CCTelander]

Still got nothing but insults.

I used to expect better from you.

And get a thesaurus. You don't need to use "patently" in every post.

Oh spare me.


‘Honestly, if full-on fascism is what it took to prevent one world government, it'd be worth it.” - [MENTION=40901]The[/MENTION]%exan

‘Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety" - Benjamin Franklin

Nut up or shut up, please.
“

 

[TheTexan]

Sorry, brother, but it’s hilarious to see you accusing others of lacking “critical thinking skills” when it’s patently obvious from your last post (#93) that your own position is based quite firmly in fear, and not at all the result of reason or “critical thinking.” It would probably be best to keep your accusations to yourself until you get that fear under control. Just a friendly suggestion.

And for the record, my position is not based on fear.

I would hold the same position even if globalism wasn't an immediate impending threat.

Isolationism can be about love, as much as it can be about fear. When you love what you have, and you have everything you need, it's not "fearful" to close yourself off to other people or nations. It's simply a recognition that what they are offering to you is not something that you want or need.

There's nothing fearful about isolationism. That's globalist propaganda, and they spread the same lies about sovereignty and secession. There's a reason they want people to think "sovereign individuals" are whack jobs. There's a reason they want people to think secessionists are racists. There's a reason they want people to think isolationism is fearful or xenophobic.

Be smarter than that.

 

[TheTexan]

Oh spare me.


‘Honestly, if full-on fascism is what it took to prevent one world government, it'd be worth it.” - [MENTION=40901]The[/MENTION]%exan

‘Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety" - Benjamin Franklin

Nut up or shut up, please.
“

If we assume that these are the only two outcomes possible, the first is definitely more preferable:

1) A full-on fascist regional government
2) A full-on fascist one world government

It is what it is. Play your high horse cards all you want, but it doesn't change the answer to the above question.

You can call it a false dichotomy if you want - and it certainly is. It absolutely is. But that's not the point. Between those 2 options, the preferred answer should be obvious.