This whole free trade/ free market thing

[MS0453]

My economic policy would not be to get the cheapest goods possible to the US at any means necessary. I want to beef up the middle class and make the lower class as small as possible. Socialist policies obviously fail, and there needs to be a free market, within the US. But I don't think allowing the rest of the world to undercut our workers will lead to much prosperity. We'd just continue to run a massive trade deficit

You intend to decrease poverty by making goods more expensive?

 

[majinkoola]

You intend to decrease poverty by making goods more expensive?

Nice quip. Maybe you could make a more detailed response instead of being a smart ass.

I plan to reduce poverty by bringing back manufacturing jobs to the country. That would be more possible if slave labor goods didn't flood the market.

If companies were compelled to hire low level workers in this country, competition for those workers would go up. So wages would go up. Prices of those goods would go up proportionally, but would health care costs? Would doctor bills? No. So they would be better off.

 

[user]

It's just incredible to me that protectionism is still taken seriously. Does anyone know how long people were still saying the world is flat, after it was proven to be round?

 

[majinkoola]

It's just incredible to me that protectionism is still taken seriously. Does anyone know how long people were still saying the world is flat, after it was proven to be round?

Yeah, it really doesn't work. Japan is really struggling right now, aren't they? Even with massive unions.

Your comment is similar to: I can't believe that the gold standard is still taken seriously. It really brings a lot to the debate.

 

[user]

Yeah, it really doesn't work. Japan is really struggling right now, aren't they? Even with massive unions.

Your comment is similar to: I can't believe that the gold standard is still taken seriously. It really brings a lot to the debate.

First of all, protectionism and mandatory fiat currency are both violations of individual liberty.

There isn't much of a reason for me to go into economic reasons for free trade because the best economists in the world have already done that far better than I could. So either you haven't read these works, in which case you should, or you've already read them and disagree for some reason. In that case, I doubt anything I could say would change your mind.

 

[majinkoola]

First of all, protectionism and mandatory fiat currency are both violations of individual liberty.

I agree that mandatory fiat currency is a violation of individual liberty.

I disagree about protectionism, though. That's your opinion. I don't believe that foreigners or foreign companies have the same rights as Americans or American companies. The Constitution was written to give all Americans the same rights, not everyone in the world.

And you probably haven't read about protectionism. Read The Great Betrayal.

You still haven't provided a reason against protectionism, so I'll assume you don't have any good ones.

 

[RedRaiderForRonPaul]

You still haven't provided a reason against protectionism, so I'll assume you don't have any good ones.

How about the two World Wars? The current protectionist backlash in this country frightens me to the very core.

 

[kalami]

Economic sanctions are used to punish a country by restricting its ability to trade. Protectionist policies are used to help a country by restricting its ability to trade. Can you protectionist acknowledge that inconsistency? Trade is good. It raises our standard of living. Losses in manufacturing are transitional as those people generally end up in other sectors of the economy which will experience growth because of the capital that was freed up by what was saved from trading.

 

[majinkoola]

Regarding the World Wars comment, that's one theory. A wrong one at that, at least for II. The Germans allowed Hitler to come to power because of tariffs...I don't think so.

Regarding comparing economic sanctions to protectionist policies: protectionist policies prevents a country's ability to import. Whenever there is a giant trade deficit, which is due to the fact that many countries you trade with do have high tariffs, they might be necessary.

We have to actually produce something, as a country. Countries will stop taking worthless dollars in exchange for goods very soon.

 

[user]

I agree that mandatory fiat currency is a violation of individual liberty.

I disagree about protectionism, though. That's your opinion. I don't believe that foreigners or foreign companies have the same rights as Americans or American companies. The Constitution was written to give all Americans the same rights, not everyone in the world.

You're showing a fundamental misunderstanding of both free trade and the Constitution. Typical protectionism requires that Americans would be forced to pay tariffs when they import goods. So we're talking about the liberty of Americans here, not foreigners. Tariffs are a violation of individual liberty.

As for the Constitution, I've already pointed out that we're talking about Americans' rights here, but the Constitution was not written to, and does not, "give" anyone rights. The founders believed in natural rights.

And you probably haven't read about protectionism. Read The Great Betrayal.

I have read about protectionism, but not The Great Betrayal.

You still haven't provided a reason against protectionism, so I'll assume you don't have any good ones.

Or you could read my earlier post.

 

[majinkoola]

You're showing a fundamental misunderstanding of both free trade and the Constitution. Typical protectionism requires that Americans would be forced to pay tariffs when they import goods. So we're talking about the liberty of Americans here, not foreigners. Tariffs are a violation of individual liberty.

As for the Constitution, I've already pointed out that we're talking about Americans' rights here, but the Constitution was not written to, and does not, "give" anyone rights. The founders believed in natural rights.

The "they" who import goods are companies who produce that good outside of the US. I don't consider it a natural right for companies to produce goods outside of the country, in a market that undercuts Americans, and import them without taxation. You might, I don't, and it doesn't say that's a natural right in the constitution.

American companies don't have the ability to sell their goods in foreign markets without tariffs. So is that a breach of their individual liberty?

And you mentioned earlier how the best economists in the world believe in free trade. Many of them also agree on the redistribution of wealth. So according to your logic, they must be right. Socialism here we come!

 

[user]

The "they" who import goods are companies who produce that good outside of the US. I don't consider it a natural right for companies to produce goods outside of the country, in a market that undercuts Americans, and import them without taxation. You might, I don't, and it doesn't say that's a natural right in the constitution.

So you agree that tariffs on individual Americans violate our liberties?

American companies don't have the ability to sell their goods in foreign markets without tariffs. So is that a breach of their individual liberty?

Who's paying the tariffs?

And you mentioned earlier how the best economists in the world believe in free trade. Many of them also agree on the redistribution of wealth. So according to your logic, they must be right. Socialism here we come!

The fallacy here should be obvious to everyone. If you think many economists who agree on redistribution of wealth are among the best in the world, does that mean I do, too? No.

 

[majinkoola]

So you agree that tariffs on individual Americans violate our liberties?

Wow, reading comprehension would be cool. How did I say that?

Who's paying the tariffs?

This is where we'll just have to disagree. Companies in America, under the current policy, are not given the freedom to compete. The tariff walls of other countries keep them out of foreign markets, the taxes, regulations, and lack of tariff walls keep them from competing at home. Companies no longer have the ability to invest in the country.

The fallacy here should be obvious to everyone. If you think many economists who agree on redistribution of wealth are among the best in the world, does that mean I do, too? No.

If you think many economists who agree on free trade are among the best in the world, does that mean I do, too? No. Hypocritical there.

 

[majinkoola]

You're trying to turn this into an ideological debate about the rights of the federal government, when it isn't one. Regulating trade is actually part of the federal government's responsibility. RP has said that. And by your logic, any tax is encroaches on liberty. Including excise taxes, which RP is OK with.

 

[user]

Wow, reading comprehension would be cool. How did I say that?

I'm asking you, because you only mentioned companies in your response, not individuals. So yes, better reading comprehension on your part would be nice.

If you think many economists who agree on free trade are among the best in the world, does that mean I do, too? No. Hypocritical there.

I would urge you to read our posts again. You accused me of considering pro-redistribution economists as among the best in the world, when I never said such a thing. I never suggested you consider pro-free trade economists as among the best in the world. So, where is the hypocrisy?

 

[user]

And by your logic, any tax is encroaches on liberty.

That's correct.

 

[majinkoola]

What I was trying to say was, just because a majority of economists agree on something certainly does not make it true. A majority of economists agree about redistribution of wealth, but that still doesn't make it right. Same goes for free trade. I wasn't accusing you of agreeing with redistribution, but pointing out the fallacy of that argument.

I believe that a world with free trade would be ideal. But that isn't how it is. Many other first world nations have much higher tariffs than us, which is the main cause of the giant trade deficit.

 

[majinkoola]

That's correct.

Well, I don't believe that, so we'll just have to agree to disagree. I do believe in a very small role for the government, regarding protecting the liberty of individuals, and I think the founding fathers agreed with me. Even Washington signed a tariff into law.

 

[Brutus]

_Low_ tariffs are a relatively painless way to fund the Federal government. That doesn't mean that they aren't economically harmful.

Personally, I want ALL taxes to be as obvious as possible. Ideally, everyone would have to write a check to the Treasury every year to fund the entire amount that the Federal government spends. And none of this proportional class warfare business. Everyone writes a check for the same amount. Then we'd really be aware of how little we are getting for our money (and yes, in many cases it is good that we get a lot less than we pay for, but we'd be completely aware of it and there'd be no lying about "make the rich pay" -- everyone who isn't receiving a government check pays all taxes, just some less directly than others).

 

[user]

What I was trying to say was, just because a majority of economists agree on something certainly does not make it true. A majority of economists agree about redistribution of wealth, but that still doesn't make it right. Same goes for free trade. I wasn't accusing you of agreeing with redistribution, but pointing out the fallacy of that argument.

But that was not my argument. I never said anything about the majority. It's kind of ironic that you started complaining about my reading comprehension when, apparently, this all started with you misreading my post completely. The only "argument" in my statement was that the economists who I consider to be among the best that have written in favor of free trade have done a better job of it than I could.

I believe that a world with free trade would be ideal. But that isn't how it is. Many other first world nations have much higher tariffs than us, which is the main cause of the giant trade deficit.

http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2002/cr031302.htm