The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewPat Buchanan Archive
Why Is the GOP Terrified of Tariffs?
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

From Lincoln to William McKinley to Theodore Roosevelt, and from Warren Harding through Calvin Coolidge, the Republican Party erected the most awesome manufacturing machine the world had ever seen.

And, as the party of high tariffs through those seven decades, the GOP was rewarded by becoming America’s Party.

Thirteen Republican presidents served from 1860 to 1930, and only two Democrats. And Grover Cleveland and Woodrow Wilson were elected only because the Republicans had split.

Why, then, this terror of tariffs that grips the GOP?

Consider. On hearing that President Trump might impose tariffs on aluminum and steel, Sen. Lindsey Graham was beside himself: “Please reconsider,” he implored the president, “you’re making a huge mistake.”

Twenty-four hours earlier, Graham had confidently assured us that war with a nuclear-armed North Korea is “worth it.”

“All the damage that would come from a war would be worth it in terms of long-term stability and national security,” said Graham.

A steel tariff terrifies Graham. A new Korean war does not?

“Trade wars are not won, only lost,” warns Sen. Jeff Flake.

But this is ahistorical nonsense.

The U.S. relied on tariffs to convert from an agricultural economy in 1800 to the mightiest manufacturing power on earth by 1900.

Bismarck’s Germany, born in 1871, followed the U.S. example, and swept past free trade Britain before World War I.

Does Senator Flake think Japan rose to post-war preeminence through free trade, as Tokyo kept U.S. products out, while dumping cars, radios, TVs and motorcycles here to kill the industries of the nation that was defending them. Both Nixon and Reagan had to devalue the dollar to counter the predatory trade policies of Japan.

Since Bush I, we have run $12 trillion in trade deficits, and, in the first decade in this century, we lost 55,000 factories and 6,000,000 manufacturing jobs.

Does Flake see no correlation between America’s decline, China’s rise, and the $4 trillion in trade surpluses Beijing has run up at the expense of his own country?

The hysteria that greeted Trump’s idea of a 25 percent tariff on steel and 10 percent tariff on aluminum suggest that restoring this nation’s economic independence is going to be a rocky road.

In 2017, the U.S. ran a trade deficit in goods of almost $800 billion, $375 billion of that with China, a trade surplus that easily covered Xi Jinping’s entire defense budget.

If we are to turn our $800 billion trade deficit in goods into an $800 billion surplus, and stop the looting of America’s industrial base and the gutting of our cities and towns, sacrifices will have to be made.

But if we are not up to it, we will lose our independence, as the countries of the EU have lost theirs.

Specifically, we need to shift taxes off goods produced in the USA, and impose taxes on goods imported into the USA.

As we import nearly $2.5 trillion in goods, a tariff on imported goods, rising gradually to 20 percent, would initially produce $500 billion in revenue.

All that tariff revenue could be used to eliminate and replace all taxes on production inside the USA.

As the price of foreign goods rose, U.S. products would replace foreign-made products. There’s nothing in the world that we cannot produce here. And if it can be made in America, it should be made in America.

Consider. Assume a Lexus cost $50,000 in the U.S., and a 20 percent tariff were imposed, raising the price to $60,000.

What would the Japanese producers of Lexus do?

They could accept the loss in sales in the world’s greatest market, the USA. They could cut their prices to hold their U.S. market share. Or they could shift production to the United States, building their cars here and keeping their market.

How have EU nations run up endless trade surpluses with America? By imposing a value-added tax, or VAT, on imports from the U.S., while rebating the VAT on exports to the USA. Works just like a tariff.

The principles behind a policy of economic nationalism, to turn our trade deficits, which subtract from GDP, into trade surpluses, which add to GDP, are these:

Production comes before consumption. Who consumes the apples is less important than who owns the orchard. We should depend more upon each other and less upon foreign lands.

We should tax foreign-made goods and use the revenue, dollar for dollar, to cut taxes on domestic production.

The idea is not to keep foreign goods out, but to induce foreign companies to move production here.

We have a strategic asset no one else can match. We control access to the largest richest market on earth, the USA.

And just as states charge higher tuition on out-of state students at their top universities, we should charge a price of admission for foreign producers to get into America’s markets.

And — someone get a hold of Sen. Graham — it’s called a tariff.

Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of a new book, “Nixon’s White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever.”

Copyright 2018 Creators.com.

 
• Category: Economics, Ideology • Tags: Free Trade, Republican Party 
Hide 96 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Anon • Disclaimer says:

    US wants to be an empire, and an empire has to be generous.

    It’s just how it goes.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
    More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  2. Thomm says:

    Tariffs are left-wing socialism.

    Read More
    • Replies: @MEFOBILLS
    Ah, the socialism canard.

    Here is some reading material for you:

    https://www.amazon.com/Americas-Protectionist-Takeoff-1815-1914-Michael/dp/3980846687

    Tariffs = Good when it helps American Industry get on its feet. Tariffs= bad, when monopolists use Tariffs to take unearned income in the form of higher prices.

    In the case of Steel and Aluminum, without that industry you cannot make things, nor can you win a war.

    Everytime INDUSTRIAL CAPITALISM is used, it works. Frederick Lists system in Germany, Peshine Smiths "American System" and Japan's Manchurian Railroad system copied from List.... all of these systems worked.

    Did I say everytime.... yes everytime.

    It gets tiring hearing sheeple bleet out the word "socialism" as if that means something, as if it is an intelligent response.

    Mixed economies with industrial capitalism is the only template that has worked, that is the verdict of history.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  3. Consider. Assume a Lexus cost $50,000 in the U.S., and a 20 percent tariff were imposed, raising the price to $60,000.

    Okay, but a 200 percent tariff would raise the price to $150,000. 2000 percent tariff would raise the price to $1,050,000. That would end sales altogether. Why is Pat so timid with tariffs?

    Embargoes would work even better.

    All that tariff revenue could be used to eliminate and replace all taxes on production inside the USA.

    Now I’m confused. What is it you want, protection or revenue? How can you have both? To have revenue, you have to have purchases to tax. To have protection, you have to eliminate those purchases.

    And just as states charge higher tuition

    Tuition isn’t “charged”, it’s “charged for”. Pat, you of all people…

    Read More
    • Replies: @David
    Tuition is charged according to Webster's 2nd. "The price of, or payment for, instruction." The OED mentions tuition used in an attributive sense as in tuition-fee or tuition-money. Seems likely this is how tuition acquired its now nearly universal meaning of fee.
    , @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    You do know that China and Japan have tariffs on most of their goods that the US trades for. Also, they tend to protect their own jobs. And yet, both nations have first world economies. China in fact is due to surpass the US's economy sometime during the next decade. And it ain't due to free trade policies.

    Notice you don't take issue with the US's loss of millions of manufacturing jobs over the past several decades, as if that's not a big deal at all. It's simply the price we have to pay to "pay any price and bear any burden" to be the world's best hope for global freedom.

    Or something like that.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  4. Dr. Doom says:

    Lispy Lindsey and the Swamp Things are but pawns. Puppets really. They will play any tune their donors pay them to, and ignore the taxpayers that are gutted to pay for it. Like all the traitors, con men and crooks, they imagine the law is merely a policeman that can be controlled or bought off or a court system that can be gamed, corrupted or also bought off. Senators like Lindsey, Cruz or the rest of the Lincoln Party give lip service to God, but actions speak louder than words. Disbelieve the claims of those who thump Bibles and quote passages but do not LIVE the Word of God.
    There is Justice. You either pay here and repent or have a LONG TIME to regret it. It matters not what people believe. Popular Opinion is about as wise as the dumbest fool and as smart as the clown who laughs at everything and cries later. In the end, its not so much about policies as interests. These foul creatures serve not the INTERESTS of Americans. They do not OBEY the laws they pass. They imagine themselves immune these charlatans. They are mortals who are deluded by power.

    WHAT FOOLS THESE MORTALS BE THAT CLAIM TO OVER RULE THE GODS AND PLAY LIKE THEY THEMSELVES ARE LOOKING DOWN AT YOU FROM THE HEAVENS.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  5. Realist says:

    We have a strategic asset no one else can match. We control access to the largest richest market on earth, the USA.

    Not for long.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  6. Renoman says:

    Free trade is easy money, instead of having to build a factory, staff it and run it you just close it down , fuck all your neighbors in the ass, call China, open a box store and sell the stuff. A Monkey could do it and since most politicians are lazy useless corrupt shit heads they are all for it.
    Go Trump!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  7. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    How can tariffs help American workers when the capitalists are free to being in as many aliens as they want, to work cheaply?

    Read More
    • Replies: @freebird
    Actually that is an excellent point --- seems rather simplistic but it is profound.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  8. Pat, I’m sure that the GOP is opposed to your ideas just because they are your ideas. They hate you and they want you to die. Wake up, stop with the battered wife syndrome, and leave the GOP. You have been abused by that horrible spouse for too long.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  9. Rurik says:

    warns Sen. Jeff Flake.

    isn’t’ that POS gone yet?!

    the reason they don’t like tariffs is because it cuts into the profits of the corporations and wealthy who want to insource / outsource the production labor to the cheapest / most desperate.

    American workers cost more than Third World workers, so the 1% want to exploit the Third World’s crushing poverty, and their whores like Lindsey Graham and Jeff Flake, are all too eager to accommodate.

    And accommodate they have! As the income gap looks more and more like pre-revolutionary France.

    (where, the same solution to what ails the ZUS harkens back to ; )

    this is an iconic photo from Ethiopia, where it purports to show a buzzard waiting patiently for its next meal.

    here’s a photo of working class Americans

    in-between those two stark images, there is a lot of wealth to be made by exploiting the people in the first photo until they become equalized with the people in the second.

    Republican Senators are whore$ to the .01%. That’s why the .01% get subsidies while the middle and working classes get the shaft.

    For Trump to finally be a politician who wants to implement tariffs, is a very good sign that someone finally is looking out for the American worker, as opposed to the .01%

    (also since I notice they’ve shown up here, it’s worth pointing out that the anti-white, identity politics orcs are also opposed to tariffs, because they want their own shithole countries like India to profit from the collapse of the American economy and worker). Duh.

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu

    the income gap looks more and more like pre-revolutionary France
     
    Table 3, page 66
    http://www.piketty.pse.ens.fr/files/MorrissonSnyder2000.pdf

    It was not bad at all. It does not explain revolution.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  10. MattinTX says:

    Yes, it would be great if Lexus shifted production to the U.S. Luckily, they already have partially done so. The Lexus ES is produced for the North American market in Toyota’s Georgetown, Kentucky manufacturing facility. In fact, there are six Toyota manufacturing facilities in the U.S., plus two factories of Toyota-subsidiary Hino Motors (commercial trucks).

    Of course, more is better.

    Read More
    • Replies: @MEFOBILLS
    Yes, it would be great if Lexus shifted production to the U.S

    The Japanese moved manufacturing to the U.S. because they had to. American's had become protectionist, and there were even demonstrations where American workers pounded Japanese cars with sledgehammers. The optics of this were bad for Toyota and others.

    During Reagan administration, and especially after the Plaza Accord, Dollar to Yen exchange ratio was altered to make American goods more competitive.

    Japanese factories moved to U.S. to take advantage of this new exchange ratio, and then found out to their surprise that American workers were efficient. The first Toyota plant in Georgetown Ky, soon outstripped its Japanese sister plants. Since then, Japanese keep American manufacturing as a strategic asset and to give more immunity from fluctuations in exchange rates.

    There has to be balanced trade, otherwise it is called Mercantilism. Mercantilism has long been a scourge on humanity.

    The best system ever devised for preventing Mercantilism is the Bancor, which forces trading nations into balance. It signals in advance about trade flows, allowing politicians time to adjust exchange rates, OR PUT UP TARIFFS.

    Tariffs are entirely legitimate when another country is using you as a door-mat.

    Wall Street Finance is happy with China recycling their dollars won in trade imbalance, such that it flows into TBills, putting future American's in debt.

    By buying TBills this holds dollar prices high, and allows more Chinese Steel, or Canadian Steel to be flooded into America. In other words, the dollar exchange rate is gamed by foreign producers, who want to take and hold markets. China gambit also allows the purchase of American Industry as it leaves American shores to find wage arbitrage.

    Oh Yeah, American's can't do it! Or American's are too inefficient. And so on... with the constant drum-beat of hypnosis.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  11. MBlanc46 says:

    Follow the money. Who profits from free trade? Who pays for the campaigns of the Grahams and the Flakes?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  12. nickels says:

    “Tariffs get in the way of my libertarian economic fantasy world :(”

    Tariffs just reflect the natural social costs of buying products from foreigners and thus driving jobs out of America. Imports priced without these tariffs are unnatural and allow foreign companies (and American offshoring scum) undue advantage by ignoring said costs. Lack of tariffs are, in fact, a form of subsidy.

    Read More
    • Replies: @MEFOBILLS

    Tariffs get in the way of my libertarian economic fantasy world :(”
     
    Libertarianism is a fantasy world. Sorry. You've been conned. It is not good to be a dupe.

    There is no such thing as free markets. There are three types of markets: Elastic, Inelastic, and Mixed.

    Also, there are things such as natural monopolies, and predators who want to take rents. Rent seeking is in the form of higher prices, often by grabbing or making monopolies.

    A true "free economy" is free from rents and monopoly, so it delivers the lowest price. Government's natural location in the economy is in inelastic sectors to then drive lowest price.

    Libertarian false economy pretends that everything is market elastic, and that ultimately supply and demand find the lowest prices. Only in some sort of fantasy world at variance with reality can anybody make these sort of absurd statements. It is as if monopoly and rents don't happen, and maybe the sun doesn't come up every day either.

    America got rich behind tariff walls. Deal with it. Any other reading is in abeyance of actual reality and history.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  13. freebird says:
    @Anonymous
    How can tariffs help American workers when the capitalists are free to being in as many aliens as they want, to work cheaply?

    Actually that is an excellent point — seems rather simplistic but it is profound.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  14. David says:

    I think the VAT as tariff argument is bogus. VAT is charged at the retail level. Whether a radio is made in the US or EU, when it’s sold in Europe it gets VAT assessed. If you leave England for the US with your new American or EU made radio, you get your VAT back either way. I can’t see anything discriminatory about it.

    Tangentially, I’ve been thinking that the stock market going down nowadays is symptomatic of the emancipation of the American worker and saver. To the degree that profits are driven by the spread between the sales price and the cost of production, higher wages will crimp profits and stock prices.

    Giving savers a decent return on their savings (enough to incentivize savings) will in turn cost borrowers. Much of American consumption is paid for by borrowing. So for that reason among others (multipliers, etc.), more natural interest rates will lower corporate profits and stock prices.

    Choosing higher wages, and economic nationalism generally, is likely to lead to much lower national consumption, at least until new productivity gains make up the difference. Doesn’t mean it isn’t worth it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anarchyst
    Not true. VATs are charged at EACH stage of production, not just at the retail level. VATs are refunded for those products being exported, while imports are charged VATs.
    There are those who protest Canada being included in steel import tariffs. However, there is a good reason for including Canada, as it does not have much steel producing capacity, but imports almost all of its steel from China. What better way to circumvent trade restrictions on China, than to allow "tariff-free" "Canadian" (actually Chinese) steel into the United States.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  15. David says:
    @Reg Cæsar

    Consider. Assume a Lexus cost $50,000 in the U.S., and a 20 percent tariff were imposed, raising the price to $60,000.

     

    Okay, but a 200 percent tariff would raise the price to $150,000. 2000 percent tariff would raise the price to $1,050,000. That would end sales altogether. Why is Pat so timid with tariffs?

    Embargoes would work even better.

    All that tariff revenue could be used to eliminate and replace all taxes on production inside the USA.

     

    Now I'm confused. What is it you want, protection or revenue? How can you have both? To have revenue, you have to have purchases to tax. To have protection, you have to eliminate those purchases.

    And just as states charge higher tuition
     
    Tuition isn't "charged", it's "charged for". Pat, you of all people...

    Tuition is charged according to Webster’s 2nd. “The price of, or payment for, instruction.” The OED mentions tuition used in an attributive sense as in tuition-fee or tuition-money. Seems likely this is how tuition acquired its now nearly universal meaning of fee.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  16. Seems likely this is how tuition acquired its now nearly universal meaning of fee.

    That says everything you need to know about education today.

    How “universal” is it? Has this rot spread to India, too?

    Read More
    • Replies: @David
    Webster's 2nd was published in 1934.

    There's nothing left in the subcontinent's English that American rot can feed on.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  17. David says:
    @Reg Cæsar

    Seems likely this is how tuition acquired its now nearly universal meaning of fee.
     
    That says everything you need to know about education today.

    How "universal" is it? Has this rot spread to India, too?

    Webster’s 2nd was published in 1934.

    There’s nothing left in the subcontinent’s English that American rot can feed on.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  18. MEFOBILLS says:
    @Thomm
    Tariffs are left-wing socialism.

    Ah, the socialism canard.

    Here is some reading material for you:

    https://www.amazon.com/Americas-Protectionist-Takeoff-1815-1914-Michael/dp/3980846687

    Tariffs = Good when it helps American Industry get on its feet. Tariffs= bad, when monopolists use Tariffs to take unearned income in the form of higher prices.

    In the case of Steel and Aluminum, without that industry you cannot make things, nor can you win a war.

    Everytime INDUSTRIAL CAPITALISM is used, it works. Frederick Lists system in Germany, Peshine Smiths “American System” and Japan’s Manchurian Railroad system copied from List…. all of these systems worked.

    Did I say everytime…. yes everytime.

    It gets tiring hearing sheeple bleet out the word “socialism” as if that means something, as if it is an intelligent response.

    Mixed economies with industrial capitalism is the only template that has worked, that is the verdict of history.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Incidentally, Hudson is a hardcore socialist whose father was a Trotskyite activist in Minnesota.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  19. MEFOBILLS says:
    @nickels
    "Tariffs get in the way of my libertarian economic fantasy world :("

    Tariffs just reflect the natural social costs of buying products from foreigners and thus driving jobs out of America. Imports priced without these tariffs are unnatural and allow foreign companies (and American offshoring scum) undue advantage by ignoring said costs. Lack of tariffs are, in fact, a form of subsidy.

    Tariffs get in the way of my libertarian economic fantasy world :(”

    Libertarianism is a fantasy world. Sorry. You’ve been conned. It is not good to be a dupe.

    There is no such thing as free markets. There are three types of markets: Elastic, Inelastic, and Mixed.

    Also, there are things such as natural monopolies, and predators who want to take rents. Rent seeking is in the form of higher prices, often by grabbing or making monopolies.

    A true “free economy” is free from rents and monopoly, so it delivers the lowest price. Government’s natural location in the economy is in inelastic sectors to then drive lowest price.

    Libertarian false economy pretends that everything is market elastic, and that ultimately supply and demand find the lowest prices. Only in some sort of fantasy world at variance with reality can anybody make these sort of absurd statements. It is as if monopoly and rents don’t happen, and maybe the sun doesn’t come up every day either.

    America got rich behind tariff walls. Deal with it. Any other reading is in abeyance of actual reality and history.

    Read More
    • Replies: @nickels

    Libertarianism is a fantasy world. Sorry. You’ve been conned. It is not good to be a dupe.

     

    Well, many things seem to be a big deal at first, but not when you think about it.
    Take, for instance, the threat of a tsunami , which everyone seem to worry so much about.

    The water comes in, everyone gets upset, but, it goes right back out again. In the end, the WATER DOESN'T MATTER! It ends up right back where it was.
    Same with trade. So the money goes out of the country, but it all equals out in the end.

    Ha.

    Read my original comment more closely, though, seriously. Your arguments are the pertinent ones.
    Libertarians are truly dangerous ideologues-it is easy to forget this sometimes, because they are right there with the truth on some issues, but when they go wrong they go full wrong!

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  20. MEFOBILLS says:
    @MattinTX
    Yes, it would be great if Lexus shifted production to the U.S. Luckily, they already have partially done so. The Lexus ES is produced for the North American market in Toyota's Georgetown, Kentucky manufacturing facility. In fact, there are six Toyota manufacturing facilities in the U.S., plus two factories of Toyota-subsidiary Hino Motors (commercial trucks).

    Of course, more is better.

    Yes, it would be great if Lexus shifted production to the U.S

    The Japanese moved manufacturing to the U.S. because they had to. American’s had become protectionist, and there were even demonstrations where American workers pounded Japanese cars with sledgehammers. The optics of this were bad for Toyota and others.

    During Reagan administration, and especially after the Plaza Accord, Dollar to Yen exchange ratio was altered to make American goods more competitive.

    Japanese factories moved to U.S. to take advantage of this new exchange ratio, and then found out to their surprise that American workers were efficient. The first Toyota plant in Georgetown Ky, soon outstripped its Japanese sister plants. Since then, Japanese keep American manufacturing as a strategic asset and to give more immunity from fluctuations in exchange rates.

    There has to be balanced trade, otherwise it is called Mercantilism. Mercantilism has long been a scourge on humanity.

    The best system ever devised for preventing Mercantilism is the Bancor, which forces trading nations into balance. It signals in advance about trade flows, allowing politicians time to adjust exchange rates, OR PUT UP TARIFFS.

    Tariffs are entirely legitimate when another country is using you as a door-mat.

    Wall Street Finance is happy with China recycling their dollars won in trade imbalance, such that it flows into TBills, putting future American’s in debt.

    By buying TBills this holds dollar prices high, and allows more Chinese Steel, or Canadian Steel to be flooded into America. In other words, the dollar exchange rate is gamed by foreign producers, who want to take and hold markets. China gambit also allows the purchase of American Industry as it leaves American shores to find wage arbitrage.

    Oh Yeah, American’s can’t do it! Or American’s are too inefficient. And so on… with the constant drum-beat of hypnosis.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  21. nickels says:
    @MEFOBILLS

    Tariffs get in the way of my libertarian economic fantasy world :(”
     
    Libertarianism is a fantasy world. Sorry. You've been conned. It is not good to be a dupe.

    There is no such thing as free markets. There are three types of markets: Elastic, Inelastic, and Mixed.

    Also, there are things such as natural monopolies, and predators who want to take rents. Rent seeking is in the form of higher prices, often by grabbing or making monopolies.

    A true "free economy" is free from rents and monopoly, so it delivers the lowest price. Government's natural location in the economy is in inelastic sectors to then drive lowest price.

    Libertarian false economy pretends that everything is market elastic, and that ultimately supply and demand find the lowest prices. Only in some sort of fantasy world at variance with reality can anybody make these sort of absurd statements. It is as if monopoly and rents don't happen, and maybe the sun doesn't come up every day either.

    America got rich behind tariff walls. Deal with it. Any other reading is in abeyance of actual reality and history.

    Libertarianism is a fantasy world. Sorry. You’ve been conned. It is not good to be a dupe.

    Well, many things seem to be a big deal at first, but not when you think about it.
    Take, for instance, the threat of a tsunami , which everyone seem to worry so much about.

    The water comes in, everyone gets upset, but, it goes right back out again. In the end, the WATER DOESN’T MATTER! It ends up right back where it was.
    Same with trade. So the money goes out of the country, but it all equals out in the end.

    Ha.

    Read my original comment more closely, though, seriously. Your arguments are the pertinent ones.
    Libertarians are truly dangerous ideologues-it is easy to forget this sometimes, because they are right there with the truth on some issues, but when they go wrong they go full wrong!

    Read More
    • Replies: @MEFOBILLS
    Nickels,

    OK, I read your comments more closely. Sorry if you took offense.

    Libertarian motives are pure, but the freedom Libertarians desire is a mirage based on malformed economic theory.

    In other words, what libertarians want, they can't have because of self inflicted wounds based on false economy. Sometimes I think Libertarian leaders use purposeful disinfo to snag the unwary and lead them down cul-de-sacs of bad thought. Well meaning people are snagged, duped, and then bedazzled with BS.

    Freedom only exists in a context relative to other things, and it has limits.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  22. MEFOBILLS says:
    @nickels

    Libertarianism is a fantasy world. Sorry. You’ve been conned. It is not good to be a dupe.

     

    Well, many things seem to be a big deal at first, but not when you think about it.
    Take, for instance, the threat of a tsunami , which everyone seem to worry so much about.

    The water comes in, everyone gets upset, but, it goes right back out again. In the end, the WATER DOESN'T MATTER! It ends up right back where it was.
    Same with trade. So the money goes out of the country, but it all equals out in the end.

    Ha.

    Read my original comment more closely, though, seriously. Your arguments are the pertinent ones.
    Libertarians are truly dangerous ideologues-it is easy to forget this sometimes, because they are right there with the truth on some issues, but when they go wrong they go full wrong!

    Nickels,

    OK, I read your comments more closely. Sorry if you took offense.

    Libertarian motives are pure, but the freedom Libertarians desire is a mirage based on malformed economic theory.

    In other words, what libertarians want, they can’t have because of self inflicted wounds based on false economy. Sometimes I think Libertarian leaders use purposeful disinfo to snag the unwary and lead them down cul-de-sacs of bad thought. Well meaning people are snagged, duped, and then bedazzled with BS.

    Freedom only exists in a context relative to other things, and it has limits.

    Read More
    • Replies: @nickels
    I liken libertarian economics to solving differential equations on the infinite domain: everything is simple and elegant, and the fourier transform works like a miracle.
    But such solutions are useless except in the academic sense. Real life is about boundaries and constraints and how those ripple in and affect the solutions.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  23. Pat errs by writing, “the Republican party erected the most awesome manufacturing machine the world had ever seen.”

    Pat’s declaration is not only spectacularly ignorant, it is also a variation of, “you didn’t build that” uttered by that nihilistic negro, the great socialist, Obama. America’s burgeoning prosperity was primarily tied to free enterprise and the ability of visionary entrepreneurs. It was manifestly not tied to the likes of centralizers like Hamilton or mass murderers like Lincoln or FDR or TR or other collectivists.

    There are some commenters here who asseverate that it was the politician who cleared the way for prosperity – the politician who did not build anything or did not make anything and who did not engage in consensual trade, but who championed the American system which featured internal improvements, subsidies for favored corporations, and picking winners and losers – i.e., industrial policy. All of those policies made us poorer as all government intervention results in a misallocation of resources.

    Example: take the construction of the transcontinental railroads. Most high school students, being taught by government teachers in government schools, are taught that the railroads would never have been built without the federal government financing the cost. They are actually spoon fed socialist non-sense that the railroads and canals would never have been built without government money or without tariffs. Of course, the government subsidized construction of the transcontinental railroads was a disaster rife with scandal, inefficiency, and spectacular misallocation of resources. Add the spectre of mass murdering Plains Indians and importing Chinese and Irish workers and squandering the money of millions of Americans forced to pay higher prices for goods produced by protected manufacturers.

    On the other hand, there were railroads that were completely privately financed. One such example was James J. Hill’s Great Northern Railroad which was built without any government aid – even rights of way. He actually paid the Indians for their land and for rights of way. His railroads were built far more economically than the government railroads and they were far better constructed. Hill’s railroads were constructed upon the basis of finding the shortest routes between points A and B whereas the Union Pacific and the Central Pacific tended to be tortuous as the government paid by the mile of track laid.

    Hill also got into the steamship business in order to facilitate exports to the Orient. He succeeded, in part, by reducing his rail rates to make American exports more profitable.

    Later, with the passage of the Interstate Commerce Act and the Hepburn Act, Hill was prevented from being able to charge what he saw fit for rail fares and was forced, like all railroads, to charge the same fares to all comers for the same route. His trade with the Orient was substantially impaired because he was unable to legally offer discounts on exports in order to induce others to join him in entering foreign markets. He eventually got out of the steamship business and as a result untold opportunities were lost for American exporters.

    Do the protectionistas care about the cost of preventing folks like Hill from engaging in a free, and unfettered enterprise?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  24. What do the protectionists have to say about John D. Rockefeller and the rise of Standard Oil?

    Is the wealth of Rockefeller attributable to tariffs?

    Were tariffs responsible for Rockefeller’s incessant and ferocious focus on efficiency?

    Were tariffs responsible for Rockefeller’s thrift and foresight?

    Were tariffs the reason why he was able to parlay $4,000.00 into being the richest man in the world?

    Were tariffs the reason why Rockefeller’s company made the cleanest burning kerosene?

    Were tariffs the reason why Rockefeller’s company was able to profitably dispose of oil residue in the form of lubricating oil, paraffin wax, paint, varnish, and Vaseline?

    Were tariffs the reason why Rockefeller made the oil refining industry substantially more efficient?

    Were tariffs the reason why Rockefeller was able to achieve such efficiencies in the refining of kerosene that it became widely available to the American public in the 1870s?

    Keep in mind that life was revolutionized by the availability of kerosene in the 1870s as after-dark work and reading became widespread.

    Read More
    • Replies: @MarkinLA
    During the phase when somebody is building a monopoly things are usually pretty good for the consumer. The problem is what happens after the monopoly has driven everybody else out of business?
    , @Rurik

    What do the protectionists have to say about John D. Rockefeller and the rise of Standard Oil?

    Is the wealth of Rockefeller attributable to tariffs?

    Were tariffs responsible for Rockefeller’s incessant and ferocious focus on efficiency?

    Were tariffs responsible for Rockefeller’s thrift and foresight?

    Were tariffs the reason why he was able to parlay $4,000.00 into being the richest man in the world?
     
    Hey Mike,

    I couldn't help think of your post when I watched this video

    http://www.brasschecktv.com/videos/energy/the-great-amnesia.html

    sort of a different take on his 'laissez faire' rise to wealth and power

    if true, (and according to the video it's all well-documented) then he didn't just use government and corruption to stifle competition, but he was responsible for all the crimes and deaths that resulted from Prohibition and the subsequent gangsterism. Not to mention the vile and unforgivable impingement of the American people's right to a drink, but also the corruption of our representative government.
    , @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    Hold it, hold it. What do the free traders (who also tend to be open borders and pro-US nation building by the way) tend to think of Haliburton's monopoly over in the middle east? What happened to competition for all in building oil pipelines, etc? The government playing well connected favorites for its defense contracts? That doesn't sound like free trade, where multi companies compete for the contract and are not reliant on inside connections.

    Because monopolies never ever develop under a free trade economy. Suuurrre, they don't.

    Bill Gates anyone? Mark Zuckerberg? Or any of the tech giants?

    Again. China and Japan aren't nearly as free trade as the US in their economies, and yet they aren't in a recession. China's economy is set to overtake the US next decade, in large part due to its trade surpluses with the US.

    Why is it perfectly OK that the US has lost tens of millions of manufacturing jobs over the last few decades due to free trade policies?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  25. Free and civilized people do not go begging for government to take their chestnuts out of the fire.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  26. In short, Pat’s always been wrong on tariffs. His ratiocination suffers from the logical fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc.

    His fallacy applied is: (1) for almost seven decades, the big government party, the party of Lincoln, the party of mass murder, erected tariffs; (2) a lot of wealth created and most folks had some good economic experiences; and (3) therefore, the REpublican party’s tariffs caused the good economic experiences.

    Why does Pat fail to note that during the second half of the 19th century, international trade amounted to less than 10% of the total economy? Obviously, high tariffs could not be the animating force behind the great entrepreneurship, efficiencies, industrialization, and improvisation that characterized the period.

    Strange how silent Pat is with regard to the motivations of Henry Clay and Justin Morrill for getting into the public sector. Both readily acknowledged that they entered public life in order to obtain state sanctioned favors for their enterprises. Morrill was a steel manufacturer who got into politics solely for the purpose of using state power in order to rip off his American customers. Same thing with Clay and his motive for getting into government: he wanted high tariffs on imported hemp so that he could legally plunder his customers.

    Protectionism is for losers.

    Read More
    • Replies: @22pp22
    Protectionism is for losers?!? America's trade deficit proves you wrong.

    Free trade is a policy, not a God. If a policy is not working, change the policy.

    PS. I am not American

    , @Ilyana_Rozumova
    Yes I do agree! But what is your view on 20 trillion debt?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  27. KenH says:

    With the abundance of cheap imported steel and aluminum one would think cars and other items would be cheaper but they aren’t because imports of cheap raw materials and moving production overseas was all about bloating the bottom line and the multimillion dollar bonus checks that come with it.

    Only on planet libertarian is an 800 billion dollar trade deficit a good thing. As we’ve learned since NAFTA, free trade isn’t free and there are definite winners and losers. NAFTA, GATT and other free trade schemes have impoverished the working class and portions of the middle class while destroying cities and towns. The winners are corporate executives and shareholders and the corrupt politicians who deliver policy in exchange for campaign donations and perhaps a spot on a corporate board or as their lobbyist when they retire from public service.

    Update: (((Gary Kohn))) has quit over Trump’s imposition of tariffs. I guess he can’t accept any policy where the goyim might reap some benefit from government policy instead of his fellow wall street Jews.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Liberty Mike
    You want the federal government making your economic decisions for you?

    Do you like the EPA? How about the hundreds of billions of dollars devoted to environmental impact statements, compliance with EPA's regulatory edicts, compensation packages for bureaucrats, including administrative law judges, inspectors, and environmental police, attorneys' fees paid by companies and individuals in connection with compliance and fighting for their economic livelihoods, payments made to environmental consultants, payments made to lobbyists in order to stave off the EPA wolves, and on and on.

    Have you ever stopped to consider the overall impact of the EPA on the economy? Do you think the EPA and its stranglehold on the economy is good for Main street?

    Have you ever stopped to consider the more productive uses to which all of the money squandered on the EPA could have been devoted?

    Have you ever stopped to think about why the cost of making, producing, distributing, marketing, and selling American goods and services is so high?

    How about unionism? Collective bargaining? The NLRB? Do you think that the NLRB is good for Main street?

    How about the thousands and thousands of pages of regulations added each year to the Federal Register? Do you think that these regulations are good for Main street?

    The alt-right / America the great collective mindset resides in fairy-tale land where if we just had the right men in office, all would be fine.

    Socialism, collectivism, progressivism, unionism, central planning, and the like are for LOSERS.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  28. 22pp22 says:
    @Liberty Mike
    In short, Pat's always been wrong on tariffs. His ratiocination suffers from the logical fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc.

    His fallacy applied is: (1) for almost seven decades, the big government party, the party of Lincoln, the party of mass murder, erected tariffs; (2) a lot of wealth created and most folks had some good economic experiences; and (3) therefore, the REpublican party's tariffs caused the good economic experiences.

    Why does Pat fail to note that during the second half of the 19th century, international trade amounted to less than 10% of the total economy? Obviously, high tariffs could not be the animating force behind the great entrepreneurship, efficiencies, industrialization, and improvisation that characterized the period.

    Strange how silent Pat is with regard to the motivations of Henry Clay and Justin Morrill for getting into the public sector. Both readily acknowledged that they entered public life in order to obtain state sanctioned favors for their enterprises. Morrill was a steel manufacturer who got into politics solely for the purpose of using state power in order to rip off his American customers. Same thing with Clay and his motive for getting into government: he wanted high tariffs on imported hemp so that he could legally plunder his customers.

    Protectionism is for losers.

    Protectionism is for losers?!? America’s trade deficit proves you wrong.

    Free trade is a policy, not a God. If a policy is not working, change the policy.

    PS. I am not American

    Read More
    • Replies: @MEFOBILLS
    Actual history and data is what matters.

    Theories that don't match data should be thrown out. Our libertarian-tard free-dumb friends are conveniently ignoring America's protectionist take-off. It doesn't match their a-priori theories.

    If you have a country with nascent industries it must be protected from overseas predators, who have the ability to dump and lower prices. Later foreign predators will resort to monopoly pricing actions, especially after the home-grown industry has been strangled in its crib.

    The U.S. used its own internal credit, behind tariff walls, to build up home grown industry. This industry then provided for jobs and started a beneficial wealth cycle of middle class working to better themselves and their station.

    The American System also included health, infrastructure, and education. The thinkers of those days (Henry Clay, Peshine Smith) clearly understood that American's were different than "Coolie Labor." That innovation and harnessing machine power, and using intelligence were the methods to employ.

    Once industries are established, then special interests will agitate for LOWER TARIFFS. Why? They want to penetrate foreign markets, and desire them to have low tariffs as well. The shoe is now on the other foot.

    Post WW2, with adoption of dollar as reserve, and especially after 1971 gold window closing, America learned it could deficit spend AND have trade deficits. Bretton Woods gold trading standard was broken, then we passed into the TBill/Petro-dollar standard by 1974.

    The TBill economy of the world allows recycled overseas dollars to enter into the buying of TBills instead of purchasing goods from mainstreet. This means LOSS OF JOBS, as American Industry is off shored, especially if wall street finances the move. Then eventually you get a permanent trade deficit as the economy becomes hollowed out.

    The real answer is a Bancor System for international trade, and a Sovereign Money system for internal trade. Tariffs always have to be part of the picture.

    A proper economy has as much autarky as possible. That means high tariffs to jump start goods you should be making at home. That means low tariffs if the home-grown industry is monopolizing and taking rents through prices. The home grown industry is to be punished with low tariffs when they step out of line.

    Too many sophomoric economic students cannot discern when tariffs are good or bad, they simply knee jerk - all tariffs bad.

    Pat is completely correct, economic history teaches us that tariffs were necessary to jump starting the American Economic System, and it lead directly to prosperity.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  29. nickels says:
    @MEFOBILLS
    Nickels,

    OK, I read your comments more closely. Sorry if you took offense.

    Libertarian motives are pure, but the freedom Libertarians desire is a mirage based on malformed economic theory.

    In other words, what libertarians want, they can't have because of self inflicted wounds based on false economy. Sometimes I think Libertarian leaders use purposeful disinfo to snag the unwary and lead them down cul-de-sacs of bad thought. Well meaning people are snagged, duped, and then bedazzled with BS.

    Freedom only exists in a context relative to other things, and it has limits.

    I liken libertarian economics to solving differential equations on the infinite domain: everything is simple and elegant, and the fourier transform works like a miracle.
    But such solutions are useless except in the academic sense. Real life is about boundaries and constraints and how those ripple in and affect the solutions.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  30. J.C. says:

    Child labor:

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  31. MEFOBILLS says:
    @22pp22
    Protectionism is for losers?!? America's trade deficit proves you wrong.

    Free trade is a policy, not a God. If a policy is not working, change the policy.

    PS. I am not American

    Actual history and data is what matters.

    Theories that don’t match data should be thrown out. Our libertarian-tard free-dumb friends are conveniently ignoring America’s protectionist take-off. It doesn’t match their a-priori theories.

    If you have a country with nascent industries it must be protected from overseas predators, who have the ability to dump and lower prices. Later foreign predators will resort to monopoly pricing actions, especially after the home-grown industry has been strangled in its crib.

    The U.S. used its own internal credit, behind tariff walls, to build up home grown industry. This industry then provided for jobs and started a beneficial wealth cycle of middle class working to better themselves and their station.

    The American System also included health, infrastructure, and education. The thinkers of those days (Henry Clay, Peshine Smith) clearly understood that American’s were different than “Coolie Labor.” That innovation and harnessing machine power, and using intelligence were the methods to employ.

    Once industries are established, then special interests will agitate for LOWER TARIFFS. Why? They want to penetrate foreign markets, and desire them to have low tariffs as well. The shoe is now on the other foot.

    Post WW2, with adoption of dollar as reserve, and especially after 1971 gold window closing, America learned it could deficit spend AND have trade deficits. Bretton Woods gold trading standard was broken, then we passed into the TBill/Petro-dollar standard by 1974.

    The TBill economy of the world allows recycled overseas dollars to enter into the buying of TBills instead of purchasing goods from mainstreet. This means LOSS OF JOBS, as American Industry is off shored, especially if wall street finances the move. Then eventually you get a permanent trade deficit as the economy becomes hollowed out.

    The real answer is a Bancor System for international trade, and a Sovereign Money system for internal trade. Tariffs always have to be part of the picture.

    A proper economy has as much autarky as possible. That means high tariffs to jump start goods you should be making at home. That means low tariffs if the home-grown industry is monopolizing and taking rents through prices. The home grown industry is to be punished with low tariffs when they step out of line.

    Too many sophomoric economic students cannot discern when tariffs are good or bad, they simply knee jerk – all tariffs bad.

    Pat is completely correct, economic history teaches us that tariffs were necessary to jump starting the American Economic System, and it lead directly to prosperity.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Liberty Mike
    Don't you understand the logical fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc?

    The great economic achievements in the United States during the 19th century and early 20th century were primarily due to the imagination, inspiration, perspiration, and vision of entrepreneurship. The achievements were not due to tariffs.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  32. bjondo says:

    These tariffs plus more.

    Just read Admiral Tidd said 2 dozen more inmates could be held at Guantanamo.

    If this means 24 cells available, at least 700 more prisoners could be packed in. Repubs, demos, neocons, media mouthers, traitors, Israel Firsters.

    Hell, release current prisoners and pack more warmongers, traitors into Guantanamo.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  33. utu says:
    @Rurik

    warns Sen. Jeff Flake.
     
    isn't' that POS gone yet?!

    the reason they don't like tariffs is because it cuts into the profits of the corporations and wealthy who want to insource / outsource the production labor to the cheapest / most desperate.

    American workers cost more than Third World workers, so the 1% want to exploit the Third World's crushing poverty, and their whores like Lindsey Graham and Jeff Flake, are all too eager to accommodate.

    And accommodate they have! As the income gap looks more and more like pre-revolutionary France.

    (where, the same solution to what ails the ZUS harkens back to ; )

    this is an iconic photo from Ethiopia, where it purports to show a buzzard waiting patiently for its next meal.

    http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/130831195327-23-iconic-vulture---restricted-horizontal-large-gallery.jpg

    here's a photo of working class Americans

    http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-2mABfzwiISo/TgtiTFvE0kI/AAAAAAAAAnU/igdlLf-FraM/s1600/blue-collar.jpg

    in-between those two stark images, there is a lot of wealth to be made by exploiting the people in the first photo until they become equalized with the people in the second.

    Republican Senators are whore$ to the .01%. That's why the .01% get subsidies while the middle and working classes get the shaft.

    For Trump to finally be a politician who wants to implement tariffs, is a very good sign that someone finally is looking out for the American worker, as opposed to the .01%

    (also since I notice they've shown up here, it's worth pointing out that the anti-white, identity politics orcs are also opposed to tariffs, because they want their own shithole countries like India to profit from the collapse of the American economy and worker). Duh.

    the income gap looks more and more like pre-revolutionary France

    Table 3, page 66

    http://www.piketty.pse.ens.fr/files/MorrissonSnyder2000.pdf

    It was not bad at all. It does not explain revolution.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  34. Cohn home!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  35. Anon • Disclaimer says:
    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  36. bjondo says:

    PB,
    No longer GOP. No longer Dem Party.
    Both are something else. Are they Neoliberals?
    Guantanamo available for both.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  37. @MEFOBILLS
    Actual history and data is what matters.

    Theories that don't match data should be thrown out. Our libertarian-tard free-dumb friends are conveniently ignoring America's protectionist take-off. It doesn't match their a-priori theories.

    If you have a country with nascent industries it must be protected from overseas predators, who have the ability to dump and lower prices. Later foreign predators will resort to monopoly pricing actions, especially after the home-grown industry has been strangled in its crib.

    The U.S. used its own internal credit, behind tariff walls, to build up home grown industry. This industry then provided for jobs and started a beneficial wealth cycle of middle class working to better themselves and their station.

    The American System also included health, infrastructure, and education. The thinkers of those days (Henry Clay, Peshine Smith) clearly understood that American's were different than "Coolie Labor." That innovation and harnessing machine power, and using intelligence were the methods to employ.

    Once industries are established, then special interests will agitate for LOWER TARIFFS. Why? They want to penetrate foreign markets, and desire them to have low tariffs as well. The shoe is now on the other foot.

    Post WW2, with adoption of dollar as reserve, and especially after 1971 gold window closing, America learned it could deficit spend AND have trade deficits. Bretton Woods gold trading standard was broken, then we passed into the TBill/Petro-dollar standard by 1974.

    The TBill economy of the world allows recycled overseas dollars to enter into the buying of TBills instead of purchasing goods from mainstreet. This means LOSS OF JOBS, as American Industry is off shored, especially if wall street finances the move. Then eventually you get a permanent trade deficit as the economy becomes hollowed out.

    The real answer is a Bancor System for international trade, and a Sovereign Money system for internal trade. Tariffs always have to be part of the picture.

    A proper economy has as much autarky as possible. That means high tariffs to jump start goods you should be making at home. That means low tariffs if the home-grown industry is monopolizing and taking rents through prices. The home grown industry is to be punished with low tariffs when they step out of line.

    Too many sophomoric economic students cannot discern when tariffs are good or bad, they simply knee jerk - all tariffs bad.

    Pat is completely correct, economic history teaches us that tariffs were necessary to jump starting the American Economic System, and it lead directly to prosperity.

    Don’t you understand the logical fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc?

    The great economic achievements in the United States during the 19th century and early 20th century were primarily due to the imagination, inspiration, perspiration, and vision of entrepreneurship. The achievements were not due to tariffs.

    Read More
    • Replies: @MEFOBILLS

    The achievements were not due to tariffs.
     
    I just explained to you how tariffs gave time for industry to develop.

    Only then can imagination, inspiration and perspiration come to the fore.

    Conditionalites have to be met FIRST. Even for entrepreneurs there is lag time between idea and making goods, and more lag time to make a price.

    You argument is sophomoric.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  38. @KenH
    With the abundance of cheap imported steel and aluminum one would think cars and other items would be cheaper but they aren't because imports of cheap raw materials and moving production overseas was all about bloating the bottom line and the multimillion dollar bonus checks that come with it.

    Only on planet libertarian is an 800 billion dollar trade deficit a good thing. As we've learned since NAFTA, free trade isn't free and there are definite winners and losers. NAFTA, GATT and other free trade schemes have impoverished the working class and portions of the middle class while destroying cities and towns. The winners are corporate executives and shareholders and the corrupt politicians who deliver policy in exchange for campaign donations and perhaps a spot on a corporate board or as their lobbyist when they retire from public service.

    Update: (((Gary Kohn))) has quit over Trump's imposition of tariffs. I guess he can't accept any policy where the goyim might reap some benefit from government policy instead of his fellow wall street Jews.

    You want the federal government making your economic decisions for you?

    Do you like the EPA? How about the hundreds of billions of dollars devoted to environmental impact statements, compliance with EPA’s regulatory edicts, compensation packages for bureaucrats, including administrative law judges, inspectors, and environmental police, attorneys’ fees paid by companies and individuals in connection with compliance and fighting for their economic livelihoods, payments made to environmental consultants, payments made to lobbyists in order to stave off the EPA wolves, and on and on.

    Have you ever stopped to consider the overall impact of the EPA on the economy? Do you think the EPA and its stranglehold on the economy is good for Main street?

    Have you ever stopped to consider the more productive uses to which all of the money squandered on the EPA could have been devoted?

    Have you ever stopped to think about why the cost of making, producing, distributing, marketing, and selling American goods and services is so high?

    How about unionism? Collective bargaining? The NLRB? Do you think that the NLRB is good for Main street?

    How about the thousands and thousands of pages of regulations added each year to the Federal Register? Do you think that these regulations are good for Main street?

    The alt-right / America the great collective mindset resides in fairy-tale land where if we just had the right men in office, all would be fine.

    Socialism, collectivism, progressivism, unionism, central planning, and the like are for LOSERS.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik

    Have you ever stopped to consider the more productive uses to which all of the money squandered on the EPA could have been devoted?
     
    the reason the EPA sucks is because it's corrupt, not because all government regulatory obligations are prima facia evil.

    if the EPA wasn't rotten and corrupt, it would be demanding we all know what the chemicals are that the fracking corporations are injecting into our drinking water.

    if you let corporations seek profits unleashed by regulation, by their very nature (man's nature) they'd run roughshod over people's interests.

    The problem isn't regulation per se, the problem is when those government agencies become corrupted by greed. The Securities and Exchange Commission should exist, just not in its corrupt form today, as it facilitates fraud, rather than preventing it.

    You sound like a 'true believer'. Like one of those Ayn Randian faithful, hoping for moral certainties, and like all religious faithful, looking for the 'true God', that explains it all, and lays it all out.

    what about borders? Do they also tweak your sense of protectionism? Should all peoples be able to wander wherever they wont, and let the markets sort it all out? Eh?
    , @MarkinLA
    You should talk to the people who worked in factories in the 40s, 50s, and 60s. Oh wait, so many of those guys had health problems related to the miserable working conditions that they aren't alive any more. Yeah, the EPA has problems and one of them is dealing with companies that lie and cheat on safety regulations so that they had to become more intrusive on business.

    Nobody is clean on this, least of all the saintly businessman.
    , @KenH

    You want the federal government making your economic decisions for you?
     
    Tariffs on steel and aluminum doesn't mean the government is dictating our daily economic decisions. Get real.

    Libertarians have a knee jerk reaction to the word tariff and it's like tariffs = Satan.

    America was built on protective tariffs. They're as American as apple pie. How do you think the federal government got funded before the federal income tax?

    And how did you come to the conclusion that my support for tariffs is also a blanket endorsement for the EPA, regulations in general and unions?

    How about the thousands and thousands of pages of regulations added each year to the Federal Register? Do you think that these regulations are good for Main street?
     
    No, I oppose an over-regulated economy but if you did your research you'd find that most large companies support massive regulations since that serves as an impediment for smaller competitors to form since they're unable to afford the legal staff and other experts to ensure compliance with the mountainous regulations. This allows large companies to maintain their monopolistic or oligopolistic grip on certain industries and keeps prices artificially high. Cable and satellite TV is a prime example.

    Libertarian faces have been streaked with war paint ever since Trump announced a simple tariff on steel and aluminum.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  39. bjondo says:

    Correction: Zionized NeoLiberal.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Liberty Mike
    Any President who appoints Goldman Sachs executives to high level advisory and Cabinet positions is with ((( THEM ))).

    You might say that a President who appoints more than one Goldman Sachs executive is a Goldman Sachs groupie.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  40. anarchyst says:
    @David
    I think the VAT as tariff argument is bogus. VAT is charged at the retail level. Whether a radio is made in the US or EU, when it's sold in Europe it gets VAT assessed. If you leave England for the US with your new American or EU made radio, you get your VAT back either way. I can't see anything discriminatory about it.

    Tangentially, I've been thinking that the stock market going down nowadays is symptomatic of the emancipation of the American worker and saver. To the degree that profits are driven by the spread between the sales price and the cost of production, higher wages will crimp profits and stock prices.

    Giving savers a decent return on their savings (enough to incentivize savings) will in turn cost borrowers. Much of American consumption is paid for by borrowing. So for that reason among others (multipliers, etc.), more natural interest rates will lower corporate profits and stock prices.

    Choosing higher wages, and economic nationalism generally, is likely to lead to much lower national consumption, at least until new productivity gains make up the difference. Doesn't mean it isn't worth it.

    Not true. VATs are charged at EACH stage of production, not just at the retail level. VATs are refunded for those products being exported, while imports are charged VATs.
    There are those who protest Canada being included in steel import tariffs. However, there is a good reason for including Canada, as it does not have much steel producing capacity, but imports almost all of its steel from China. What better way to circumvent trade restrictions on China, than to allow “tariff-free” “Canadian” (actually Chinese) steel into the United States.

    Read More
    • Replies: @MarkinLA
    I also thought that VATS are refunded on the portion of a product that is purchased for production not just exports. For example, I buy 100 dollars of steel, I pay the VAT on that. However, when I make something with it and sell that for 200 dollars the purchaser pays VAT on the 200 dollars. I get the VAT I paid refunded (by some mechanism I am not completely aware). This makes it a really complicated tax and one likely cheated as easily as our corporate income taxes.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  41. @bjondo
    Correction: Zionized NeoLiberal.

    Any President who appoints Goldman Sachs executives to high level advisory and Cabinet positions is with ((( THEM ))).

    You might say that a President who appoints more than one Goldman Sachs executive is a Goldman Sachs groupie.

    Read More
    • Replies: @bjondo
    Let's wait bit longer and see. Gary Cohn now out. One down.

    Though not sure why you bring this up.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  42. Gumby says:

    Our “Market should be viewed as a Common Good and access to it should be used for the betterment of the American people.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  43. Rurik says:
    @Liberty Mike
    You want the federal government making your economic decisions for you?

    Do you like the EPA? How about the hundreds of billions of dollars devoted to environmental impact statements, compliance with EPA's regulatory edicts, compensation packages for bureaucrats, including administrative law judges, inspectors, and environmental police, attorneys' fees paid by companies and individuals in connection with compliance and fighting for their economic livelihoods, payments made to environmental consultants, payments made to lobbyists in order to stave off the EPA wolves, and on and on.

    Have you ever stopped to consider the overall impact of the EPA on the economy? Do you think the EPA and its stranglehold on the economy is good for Main street?

    Have you ever stopped to consider the more productive uses to which all of the money squandered on the EPA could have been devoted?

    Have you ever stopped to think about why the cost of making, producing, distributing, marketing, and selling American goods and services is so high?

    How about unionism? Collective bargaining? The NLRB? Do you think that the NLRB is good for Main street?

    How about the thousands and thousands of pages of regulations added each year to the Federal Register? Do you think that these regulations are good for Main street?

    The alt-right / America the great collective mindset resides in fairy-tale land where if we just had the right men in office, all would be fine.

    Socialism, collectivism, progressivism, unionism, central planning, and the like are for LOSERS.

    Have you ever stopped to consider the more productive uses to which all of the money squandered on the EPA could have been devoted?

    the reason the EPA sucks is because it’s corrupt, not because all government regulatory obligations are prima facia evil.

    if the EPA wasn’t rotten and corrupt, it would be demanding we all know what the chemicals are that the fracking corporations are injecting into our drinking water.

    if you let corporations seek profits unleashed by regulation, by their very nature (man’s nature) they’d run roughshod over people’s interests.

    The problem isn’t regulation per se, the problem is when those government agencies become corrupted by greed. The Securities and Exchange Commission should exist, just not in its corrupt form today, as it facilitates fraud, rather than preventing it.

    You sound like a ‘true believer’. Like one of those Ayn Randian faithful, hoping for moral certainties, and like all religious faithful, looking for the ‘true God’, that explains it all, and lays it all out.

    what about borders? Do they also tweak your sense of protectionism? Should all peoples be able to wander wherever they wont, and let the markets sort it all out? Eh?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Liberty Mike
    Actually, the true believers are those that think, notwithstanding man's nature, man, somehow can be trusted to lord over the affairs of other men. That is the fatal conceit of all collectivists, communists, fabians, fascists, government lubbers, progressives, socialists, and totalitarians.

    To some extent, the founding generation understood this. That is why so many in the founding generation urged that strict limits be placed upon the powers to be granted to government because it was understood that there is no greater folly than entrusting power to men to regulate the affairs of other men.

    Is there any constitutional authority for Congress to create an SEC? Does the constitution say that Congress can create such a life-sucking bureaucratic agency? Regulation by state fiat is, per se, evil as it uses force and violence to achieve ends to which not all parties consent. Are you conversant with Rule 10(b)(5)? Should you be penalized and incarcerated because your cousin, a stock broker gives you a tip about a company which is about to go public?

    Moreover, regulation by state fiat operates under the dubious assumption that public sector parasites are somehow competent and honest. The worst of men are attracted to power and that is why all good men should ruthlessly attack and kill those who seek such power.

    No, I am not a Randian because she zealously supported the state having a monopoly on the administration of justice and violence. No free society can tolerate such a state of affairs and all of recorded history proves this so. Expressed otherwise, how many hundreds of millions of people have been assaulted, beaten, forcibly expatriated, maimed, murdered, raped, robbed, and tortured by the state, in the name of the state, by men of the state in the last 150 years?

    No, I am not looking to the one "true God" for the answer or to impose my divinations of what he or she or zhe reveals to me upon others. What I am looking for is to be left alone and failing that, killing all those who seek to aggress upon me, my family, and my friends.

    You could look to Josey Wales' statements to Ten Bears as an artistic manifestation of my thoughts.
    , @Liberty Mike
    As for borders, let's start with your property and my property.


    The folks who support the MIC, the American empire, social security, Medicare, Medicaid, et al include a large segment of fly-over country, those that jerk off to the flag and the national anthem and men with guns and badges and Caesar's medals. These rednecks have consistently supported politicians and policies that can be summed up as warfare / welfare.

    What makes a people great is liberty, individual and economic. Liberty is not libertinism, it is entrepreneurship, initiative, innovation, improvisation, and a resistance to the socialist impulse which is always informed by envy, jealousy, and a desire to control.

    If you do not want Pedro or Raheem on your property, you have an absolute right to prohibit them from entering upon your domain. If you run a business, you have an absolute right not to hire Paco or Abdul or De'Shaun. Neither I nor any other person has a right to interfere with your choices. Freedom of association.

    If you do not want to contribute to the welfare of third world analphabets, you have an absolute right to refrain from doing so. If you do not want to surrender any of your property to nihilistic negroes, you have an absolute right to tell such negroes, "fuck off and get a job."

    If you support socialism and welfarism, of any kind, you support the redistribution of wealth from those who acquire it by voluntary and consensual means to those who do not earn it, including black and brown skin parasites.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  44. Tariffs are about goods crossing borders. Globalists insist there must be no borders. Therefore Globalists oppose tariffs.

    Libertarians also oppose tariffs because they conflict with Libertarian dogma.

    Job one for Nationalists is to defeat and dethrone the Globalists. But we should keep the Libertarians around as they are the only advocates for honest money.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik

    Job one for Nationalists is to defeat and dethrone the Globalists. But we should keep the Libertarians around as they are the only advocates for honest money.
     
    Agree

    libertarians are well-intentioned, except when so many of them don't do nuance.

    I've known a lot of them who want to 'believe' in certainties, as is human nature. They want a structure, so that every issue doesn't have to be poured over on its merits, they can just check out the tenets of Libertarianism, (or Objectivism as it's patron saint called it) and voila, there it is.

    They need to dethrone Ms. Rand, and look more to Ron Paul, as a contemporary, if hard-nosed realist.

    IMHO

    also we can't allow a party or organization to dictate to the faithful, because as soon as there's an organization, it will be taken over by the PTB and $ubverted from the top down and inside out. The only movement that can affect effective change must come from the grass-roots.

    , @Liberty Mike
    Tariffs are about the powerful getting government to give them special favors and to protect them from the rigors of the marketplace.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  45. @Rurik

    Have you ever stopped to consider the more productive uses to which all of the money squandered on the EPA could have been devoted?
     
    the reason the EPA sucks is because it's corrupt, not because all government regulatory obligations are prima facia evil.

    if the EPA wasn't rotten and corrupt, it would be demanding we all know what the chemicals are that the fracking corporations are injecting into our drinking water.

    if you let corporations seek profits unleashed by regulation, by their very nature (man's nature) they'd run roughshod over people's interests.

    The problem isn't regulation per se, the problem is when those government agencies become corrupted by greed. The Securities and Exchange Commission should exist, just not in its corrupt form today, as it facilitates fraud, rather than preventing it.

    You sound like a 'true believer'. Like one of those Ayn Randian faithful, hoping for moral certainties, and like all religious faithful, looking for the 'true God', that explains it all, and lays it all out.

    what about borders? Do they also tweak your sense of protectionism? Should all peoples be able to wander wherever they wont, and let the markets sort it all out? Eh?

    Actually, the true believers are those that think, notwithstanding man’s nature, man, somehow can be trusted to lord over the affairs of other men. That is the fatal conceit of all collectivists, communists, fabians, fascists, government lubbers, progressives, socialists, and totalitarians.

    To some extent, the founding generation understood this. That is why so many in the founding generation urged that strict limits be placed upon the powers to be granted to government because it was understood that there is no greater folly than entrusting power to men to regulate the affairs of other men.

    Is there any constitutional authority for Congress to create an SEC? Does the constitution say that Congress can create such a life-sucking bureaucratic agency? Regulation by state fiat is, per se, evil as it uses force and violence to achieve ends to which not all parties consent. Are you conversant with Rule 10(b)(5)? Should you be penalized and incarcerated because your cousin, a stock broker gives you a tip about a company which is about to go public?

    Moreover, regulation by state fiat operates under the dubious assumption that public sector parasites are somehow competent and honest. The worst of men are attracted to power and that is why all good men should ruthlessly attack and kill those who seek such power.

    No, I am not a Randian because she zealously supported the state having a monopoly on the administration of justice and violence. No free society can tolerate such a state of affairs and all of recorded history proves this so. Expressed otherwise, how many hundreds of millions of people have been assaulted, beaten, forcibly expatriated, maimed, murdered, raped, robbed, and tortured by the state, in the name of the state, by men of the state in the last 150 years?

    No, I am not looking to the one “true God” for the answer or to impose my divinations of what he or she or zhe reveals to me upon others. What I am looking for is to be left alone and failing that, killing all those who seek to aggress upon me, my family, and my friends.

    You could look to Josey Wales’ statements to Ten Bears as an artistic manifestation of my thoughts.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik
    I agree with the tenor of your positions, but being a purist is not realistic in our modern society, where things like the stock market are facts of life.

    Without a regulatory body with teeth to protect the environment, greedy men will pollute it, to the detriment of all others.

    I too would love to live in a nineteenth century type of culture where men like Josey Wales and Ten Bears could shake hands and that'd be it. But we don't live in such a world anymore, at least those of us condemned to languish in a modern society.

    There are hard realities to face, and that includes the necessity of government regulation of certain things like rivers and lakes, so they don't become like Lake Erie was in the 1960s, when it was a free-for-all, and the corporations simply used the lake as their chemical dump.

    I'm with you philosophically, vis-a-vis my own soul, and its inviolate sovereignty, but when there are over 300 million Americans, we have to have some regulations, and some government is a necessary evil.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  46. @Rurik

    Have you ever stopped to consider the more productive uses to which all of the money squandered on the EPA could have been devoted?
     
    the reason the EPA sucks is because it's corrupt, not because all government regulatory obligations are prima facia evil.

    if the EPA wasn't rotten and corrupt, it would be demanding we all know what the chemicals are that the fracking corporations are injecting into our drinking water.

    if you let corporations seek profits unleashed by regulation, by their very nature (man's nature) they'd run roughshod over people's interests.

    The problem isn't regulation per se, the problem is when those government agencies become corrupted by greed. The Securities and Exchange Commission should exist, just not in its corrupt form today, as it facilitates fraud, rather than preventing it.

    You sound like a 'true believer'. Like one of those Ayn Randian faithful, hoping for moral certainties, and like all religious faithful, looking for the 'true God', that explains it all, and lays it all out.

    what about borders? Do they also tweak your sense of protectionism? Should all peoples be able to wander wherever they wont, and let the markets sort it all out? Eh?

    As for borders, let’s start with your property and my property.

    The folks who support the MIC, the American empire, social security, Medicare, Medicaid, et al include a large segment of fly-over country, those that jerk off to the flag and the national anthem and men with guns and badges and Caesar’s medals. These rednecks have consistently supported politicians and policies that can be summed up as warfare / welfare.

    What makes a people great is liberty, individual and economic. Liberty is not libertinism, it is entrepreneurship, initiative, innovation, improvisation, and a resistance to the socialist impulse which is always informed by envy, jealousy, and a desire to control.

    If you do not want Pedro or Raheem on your property, you have an absolute right to prohibit them from entering upon your domain. If you run a business, you have an absolute right not to hire Paco or Abdul or De’Shaun. Neither I nor any other person has a right to interfere with your choices. Freedom of association.

    If you do not want to contribute to the welfare of third world analphabets, you have an absolute right to refrain from doing so. If you do not want to surrender any of your property to nihilistic negroes, you have an absolute right to tell such negroes, “fuck off and get a job.”

    If you support socialism and welfarism, of any kind, you support the redistribution of wealth from those who acquire it by voluntary and consensual means to those who do not earn it, including black and brown skin parasites.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik

    As for borders,
     
    but you didn't answer the question..

    does Sweden have a right (obligation) to protect its ethnic and cultural character from invasion by hoards of 'others'? Who share neither her ethnicity nor culture?

    Does Norway have a right to tell the Swedes who want to enter, that they have to get a visa and are only allowed in under certain circumstances?

    does Mexico have the right to disallow Guatemalans from immigrating?

    Does the Dominican Republic have the right to tell the Haitians that they can't move in? (and do to the DR what they did to Haiti)

    what about Canada? Should unlimited millions from the Middle East and Africa and Asia and S. America all have the right to immigrate?

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  47. Rurik says:
    @WorkingClass
    Tariffs are about goods crossing borders. Globalists insist there must be no borders. Therefore Globalists oppose tariffs.

    Libertarians also oppose tariffs because they conflict with Libertarian dogma.

    Job one for Nationalists is to defeat and dethrone the Globalists. But we should keep the Libertarians around as they are the only advocates for honest money.

    Job one for Nationalists is to defeat and dethrone the Globalists. But we should keep the Libertarians around as they are the only advocates for honest money.

    Agree

    libertarians are well-intentioned, except when so many of them don’t do nuance.

    I’ve known a lot of them who want to ‘believe’ in certainties, as is human nature. They want a structure, so that every issue doesn’t have to be poured over on its merits, they can just check out the tenets of Libertarianism, (or Objectivism as it’s patron saint called it) and voila, there it is.

    They need to dethrone Ms. Rand, and look more to Ron Paul, as a contemporary, if hard-nosed realist.

    IMHO

    also we can’t allow a party or organization to dictate to the faithful, because as soon as there’s an organization, it will be taken over by the PTB and $ubverted from the top down and inside out. The only movement that can affect effective change must come from the grass-roots.

    Read More
    • Replies: @WorkingClass

    They need to dethrone Ms. Rand, and look more to Ron Paul, as a contemporary, if hard-nosed realist.
     
    When they are talking about makers and takers and the free market utopia they are Randroids. Objectivist being the polite term. Ron Paul is Jeffersonian. He comes off as an ideologue only because he insists that the constitution AS WRITTEN is the highest law of the Republic. The centrality of individual sovereignty to both Rand and Jefferson leaves ownership of the term Libertarian in dispute.

    Any society more complex than an agrarian village requires a policeman if it would have a free market. And requiring private financing of public needs amounts to social Darwinism. These are problems for the Objectivist.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  48. Tipsy says:

    Like anything, the best policy concerning trade is not at the ideological poles. Particularly, when you consider how much off-shoring and excessively free trade has hollowed out life for Heritage America – both black and white.

    Ideologues, globalists, and profiteers don’t care about the human aspect of their policies, but a policy that has a punitive effect on a lot of people will eventually be opposed. Fortunately, Trump is just getting ahead of the curve.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  49. @WorkingClass
    Tariffs are about goods crossing borders. Globalists insist there must be no borders. Therefore Globalists oppose tariffs.

    Libertarians also oppose tariffs because they conflict with Libertarian dogma.

    Job one for Nationalists is to defeat and dethrone the Globalists. But we should keep the Libertarians around as they are the only advocates for honest money.

    Tariffs are about the powerful getting government to give them special favors and to protect them from the rigors of the marketplace.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik

    protect them from the rigors of the marketplace.
     
    without those protections the wages and lifestyle of the average American will be reduced to that of the Third World, at least until they achieve parity.

    that is what the market place would do. And CEOs love the idea, just as the ((cultural Marxists)) do.

    the working class of America, (of all races) not so much.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  50. MarkinLA says:
    @anarchyst
    Not true. VATs are charged at EACH stage of production, not just at the retail level. VATs are refunded for those products being exported, while imports are charged VATs.
    There are those who protest Canada being included in steel import tariffs. However, there is a good reason for including Canada, as it does not have much steel producing capacity, but imports almost all of its steel from China. What better way to circumvent trade restrictions on China, than to allow "tariff-free" "Canadian" (actually Chinese) steel into the United States.

    I also thought that VATS are refunded on the portion of a product that is purchased for production not just exports. For example, I buy 100 dollars of steel, I pay the VAT on that. However, when I make something with it and sell that for 200 dollars the purchaser pays VAT on the 200 dollars. I get the VAT I paid refunded (by some mechanism I am not completely aware). This makes it a really complicated tax and one likely cheated as easily as our corporate income taxes.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Fredrik
    Yes, if you're a corporation you get the VAT on your purchases refunded so in the end it's only the retail customer that will be paying VAT. VAT is not really different from US sales tax for you and me.

    The general US trade problem is your goods are inferior so you can't compete. What you do well on the other hand is software and entertainment.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  51. bjondo says:
    @Liberty Mike
    Any President who appoints Goldman Sachs executives to high level advisory and Cabinet positions is with ((( THEM ))).

    You might say that a President who appoints more than one Goldman Sachs executive is a Goldman Sachs groupie.

    Let’s wait bit longer and see. Gary Cohn now out. One down.

    Though not sure why you bring this up.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  52. MarkinLA says:
    @Liberty Mike
    What do the protectionists have to say about John D. Rockefeller and the rise of Standard Oil?

    Is the wealth of Rockefeller attributable to tariffs?

    Were tariffs responsible for Rockefeller's incessant and ferocious focus on efficiency?

    Were tariffs responsible for Rockefeller's thrift and foresight?

    Were tariffs the reason why he was able to parlay $4,000.00 into being the richest man in the world?

    Were tariffs the reason why Rockefeller's company made the cleanest burning kerosene?

    Were tariffs the reason why Rockefeller's company was able to profitably dispose of oil residue in the form of lubricating oil, paraffin wax, paint, varnish, and Vaseline?

    Were tariffs the reason why Rockefeller made the oil refining industry substantially more efficient?

    Were tariffs the reason why Rockefeller was able to achieve such efficiencies in the refining of kerosene that it became widely available to the American public in the 1870s?

    Keep in mind that life was revolutionized by the availability of kerosene in the 1870s as after-dark work and reading became widespread.

    During the phase when somebody is building a monopoly things are usually pretty good for the consumer. The problem is what happens after the monopoly has driven everybody else out of business?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  53. Rurik says:
    @Liberty Mike
    Actually, the true believers are those that think, notwithstanding man's nature, man, somehow can be trusted to lord over the affairs of other men. That is the fatal conceit of all collectivists, communists, fabians, fascists, government lubbers, progressives, socialists, and totalitarians.

    To some extent, the founding generation understood this. That is why so many in the founding generation urged that strict limits be placed upon the powers to be granted to government because it was understood that there is no greater folly than entrusting power to men to regulate the affairs of other men.

    Is there any constitutional authority for Congress to create an SEC? Does the constitution say that Congress can create such a life-sucking bureaucratic agency? Regulation by state fiat is, per se, evil as it uses force and violence to achieve ends to which not all parties consent. Are you conversant with Rule 10(b)(5)? Should you be penalized and incarcerated because your cousin, a stock broker gives you a tip about a company which is about to go public?

    Moreover, regulation by state fiat operates under the dubious assumption that public sector parasites are somehow competent and honest. The worst of men are attracted to power and that is why all good men should ruthlessly attack and kill those who seek such power.

    No, I am not a Randian because she zealously supported the state having a monopoly on the administration of justice and violence. No free society can tolerate such a state of affairs and all of recorded history proves this so. Expressed otherwise, how many hundreds of millions of people have been assaulted, beaten, forcibly expatriated, maimed, murdered, raped, robbed, and tortured by the state, in the name of the state, by men of the state in the last 150 years?

    No, I am not looking to the one "true God" for the answer or to impose my divinations of what he or she or zhe reveals to me upon others. What I am looking for is to be left alone and failing that, killing all those who seek to aggress upon me, my family, and my friends.

    You could look to Josey Wales' statements to Ten Bears as an artistic manifestation of my thoughts.

    I agree with the tenor of your positions, but being a purist is not realistic in our modern society, where things like the stock market are facts of life.

    Without a regulatory body with teeth to protect the environment, greedy men will pollute it, to the detriment of all others.

    I too would love to live in a nineteenth century type of culture where men like Josey Wales and Ten Bears could shake hands and that’d be it. But we don’t live in such a world anymore, at least those of us condemned to languish in a modern society.

    There are hard realities to face, and that includes the necessity of government regulation of certain things like rivers and lakes, so they don’t become like Lake Erie was in the 1960s, when it was a free-for-all, and the corporations simply used the lake as their chemical dump.

    I’m with you philosophically, vis-a-vis my own soul, and its inviolate sovereignty, but when there are over 300 million Americans, we have to have some regulations, and some government is a necessary evil.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  54. MarkinLA says:
    @Liberty Mike
    You want the federal government making your economic decisions for you?

    Do you like the EPA? How about the hundreds of billions of dollars devoted to environmental impact statements, compliance with EPA's regulatory edicts, compensation packages for bureaucrats, including administrative law judges, inspectors, and environmental police, attorneys' fees paid by companies and individuals in connection with compliance and fighting for their economic livelihoods, payments made to environmental consultants, payments made to lobbyists in order to stave off the EPA wolves, and on and on.

    Have you ever stopped to consider the overall impact of the EPA on the economy? Do you think the EPA and its stranglehold on the economy is good for Main street?

    Have you ever stopped to consider the more productive uses to which all of the money squandered on the EPA could have been devoted?

    Have you ever stopped to think about why the cost of making, producing, distributing, marketing, and selling American goods and services is so high?

    How about unionism? Collective bargaining? The NLRB? Do you think that the NLRB is good for Main street?

    How about the thousands and thousands of pages of regulations added each year to the Federal Register? Do you think that these regulations are good for Main street?

    The alt-right / America the great collective mindset resides in fairy-tale land where if we just had the right men in office, all would be fine.

    Socialism, collectivism, progressivism, unionism, central planning, and the like are for LOSERS.

    You should talk to the people who worked in factories in the 40s, 50s, and 60s. Oh wait, so many of those guys had health problems related to the miserable working conditions that they aren’t alive any more. Yeah, the EPA has problems and one of them is dealing with companies that lie and cheat on safety regulations so that they had to become more intrusive on business.

    Nobody is clean on this, least of all the saintly businessman.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  55. Rurik says:
    @Liberty Mike
    As for borders, let's start with your property and my property.


    The folks who support the MIC, the American empire, social security, Medicare, Medicaid, et al include a large segment of fly-over country, those that jerk off to the flag and the national anthem and men with guns and badges and Caesar's medals. These rednecks have consistently supported politicians and policies that can be summed up as warfare / welfare.

    What makes a people great is liberty, individual and economic. Liberty is not libertinism, it is entrepreneurship, initiative, innovation, improvisation, and a resistance to the socialist impulse which is always informed by envy, jealousy, and a desire to control.

    If you do not want Pedro or Raheem on your property, you have an absolute right to prohibit them from entering upon your domain. If you run a business, you have an absolute right not to hire Paco or Abdul or De'Shaun. Neither I nor any other person has a right to interfere with your choices. Freedom of association.

    If you do not want to contribute to the welfare of third world analphabets, you have an absolute right to refrain from doing so. If you do not want to surrender any of your property to nihilistic negroes, you have an absolute right to tell such negroes, "fuck off and get a job."

    If you support socialism and welfarism, of any kind, you support the redistribution of wealth from those who acquire it by voluntary and consensual means to those who do not earn it, including black and brown skin parasites.

    As for borders,

    but you didn’t answer the question..

    does Sweden have a right (obligation) to protect its ethnic and cultural character from invasion by hoards of ‘others’? Who share neither her ethnicity nor culture?

    Does Norway have a right to tell the Swedes who want to enter, that they have to get a visa and are only allowed in under certain circumstances?

    does Mexico have the right to disallow Guatemalans from immigrating?

    Does the Dominican Republic have the right to tell the Haitians that they can’t move in? (and do to the DR what they did to Haiti)

    what about Canada? Should unlimited millions from the Middle East and Africa and Asia and S. America all have the right to immigrate?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Liberty Mike
    If you recall, you might remember that, like you, I am a race realist. Like you, I do not want to live in an environment where I am surrounded by hordes of third world black and brown types.

    Europe has been destroying itself. It pains me to see what has been transpiring in Germany, Norway, and Sweeden. The same thing is happening in the US. There is no denying it.

    The West should not be a dumping ground for displaced Muslims or economic refuges from Angola, Botswana, Cameroon, Chad, Ghana, Ivory Coast, Kenya, Lesotho, Liberia, Nigeria, South Africa, Tanzania, or that fine exemplar of black governance, Zimbabwe.

    So, given the above, your question is how is that to be accomplished? Do you think that the answer is ICE? Is the solution a federal leviathan? I think that if there is no warfare / welfare Empire state, our chances would be much better.

    I do not pretend to have all of the answers - that is part of the Josey Wales / Ten Bears compact.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  56. Rurik says:
    @Liberty Mike
    Tariffs are about the powerful getting government to give them special favors and to protect them from the rigors of the marketplace.

    protect them from the rigors of the marketplace.

    without those protections the wages and lifestyle of the average American will be reduced to that of the Third World, at least until they achieve parity.

    that is what the market place would do. And CEOs love the idea, just as the ((cultural Marxists)) do.

    the working class of America, (of all races) not so much.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  57. Tariffs are right way to go for US to regain independence and strength.
    It could mean a pain little bit sometime for US, but final result will worth it.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  58. KenH says:
    @Liberty Mike
    You want the federal government making your economic decisions for you?

    Do you like the EPA? How about the hundreds of billions of dollars devoted to environmental impact statements, compliance with EPA's regulatory edicts, compensation packages for bureaucrats, including administrative law judges, inspectors, and environmental police, attorneys' fees paid by companies and individuals in connection with compliance and fighting for their economic livelihoods, payments made to environmental consultants, payments made to lobbyists in order to stave off the EPA wolves, and on and on.

    Have you ever stopped to consider the overall impact of the EPA on the economy? Do you think the EPA and its stranglehold on the economy is good for Main street?

    Have you ever stopped to consider the more productive uses to which all of the money squandered on the EPA could have been devoted?

    Have you ever stopped to think about why the cost of making, producing, distributing, marketing, and selling American goods and services is so high?

    How about unionism? Collective bargaining? The NLRB? Do you think that the NLRB is good for Main street?

    How about the thousands and thousands of pages of regulations added each year to the Federal Register? Do you think that these regulations are good for Main street?

    The alt-right / America the great collective mindset resides in fairy-tale land where if we just had the right men in office, all would be fine.

    Socialism, collectivism, progressivism, unionism, central planning, and the like are for LOSERS.

    You want the federal government making your economic decisions for you?

    Tariffs on steel and aluminum doesn’t mean the government is dictating our daily economic decisions. Get real.

    Libertarians have a knee jerk reaction to the word tariff and it’s like tariffs = Satan.

    America was built on protective tariffs. They’re as American as apple pie. How do you think the federal government got funded before the federal income tax?

    And how did you come to the conclusion that my support for tariffs is also a blanket endorsement for the EPA, regulations in general and unions?

    How about the thousands and thousands of pages of regulations added each year to the Federal Register? Do you think that these regulations are good for Main street?

    No, I oppose an over-regulated economy but if you did your research you’d find that most large companies support massive regulations since that serves as an impediment for smaller competitors to form since they’re unable to afford the legal staff and other experts to ensure compliance with the mountainous regulations. This allows large companies to maintain their monopolistic or oligopolistic grip on certain industries and keeps prices artificially high. Cable and satellite TV is a prime example.

    Libertarian faces have been streaked with war paint ever since Trump announced a simple tariff on steel and aluminum.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Liberty Mike
    We agree with regard to the big boy companies wanting regulation. It is a cost of business that they can withstand whereas the little guy cannot. It stifles competition.

    No, America was not "built" on protective tariffs. Like Pat, you are engaging in a classic logical fallacy, the "post hoc ergo propter hoc" fallacy. Keep in mind that less than 10% of America's total economy was international trade throughout the 19th century.

    Besides, tariffs were not the reason for the successes of Cornelius Vanderbilt or James J. Hill or John D. Rockefeller or Thomas Edison or countless other entrepreneurs who relied upon their entrepreneurship, energy, innovation, imagination, and vision to remake and improve the American economy and American life.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  59. @KenH

    You want the federal government making your economic decisions for you?
     
    Tariffs on steel and aluminum doesn't mean the government is dictating our daily economic decisions. Get real.

    Libertarians have a knee jerk reaction to the word tariff and it's like tariffs = Satan.

    America was built on protective tariffs. They're as American as apple pie. How do you think the federal government got funded before the federal income tax?

    And how did you come to the conclusion that my support for tariffs is also a blanket endorsement for the EPA, regulations in general and unions?

    How about the thousands and thousands of pages of regulations added each year to the Federal Register? Do you think that these regulations are good for Main street?
     
    No, I oppose an over-regulated economy but if you did your research you'd find that most large companies support massive regulations since that serves as an impediment for smaller competitors to form since they're unable to afford the legal staff and other experts to ensure compliance with the mountainous regulations. This allows large companies to maintain their monopolistic or oligopolistic grip on certain industries and keeps prices artificially high. Cable and satellite TV is a prime example.

    Libertarian faces have been streaked with war paint ever since Trump announced a simple tariff on steel and aluminum.

    We agree with regard to the big boy companies wanting regulation. It is a cost of business that they can withstand whereas the little guy cannot. It stifles competition.

    No, America was not “built” on protective tariffs. Like Pat, you are engaging in a classic logical fallacy, the “post hoc ergo propter hoc” fallacy. Keep in mind that less than 10% of America’s total economy was international trade throughout the 19th century.

    Besides, tariffs were not the reason for the successes of Cornelius Vanderbilt or James J. Hill or John D. Rockefeller or Thomas Edison or countless other entrepreneurs who relied upon their entrepreneurship, energy, innovation, imagination, and vision to remake and improve the American economy and American life.

    Read More
    • Replies: @KenH

    No, America was not “built” on protective tariffs.
     
    Yes, American manufacturing most definitely was and I suggest you read Pat's book The Great Betrayal for incontrovertible proof. Early America had a trade imbalance with England and enacted tariffs to correct it and generate revenue for the fledgling federal government.

    Trump's steel tariff just created 500 new jobs in Illinois:
    http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-biz-us-steel-granite-city-illinois-plant-restart-20180307-story.html

    Besides, tariffs were not the reason for the successes of Cornelius Vanderbilt or James J. Hill or John D. Rockefeller or Thomas Edison
     
    Never said it was but this is an apples to oranges comparison. But Vanderbilt partly made his fortune in railroads which would have required steel made in the U.S. Thomas Edison's inventions such as the phonograph, incandescent light bulb and motion picture camera among other things would have been manufactured only in the U.S. for a time thereafter and wouldn't need protection from foreign competition because it scarcely existed.
    , @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    Ok, using the same logic, how exactly did Japan and China's economies go from basically in the poorhouse in the mid to late twentieth century to first rate economic powerhouses (where China's is set to overtake the US's economy sometime next decade)?

    HINT: It's not due to free trade.

    FACT: It IS due in large part to protectionism for their economies.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  60. @Rurik

    As for borders,
     
    but you didn't answer the question..

    does Sweden have a right (obligation) to protect its ethnic and cultural character from invasion by hoards of 'others'? Who share neither her ethnicity nor culture?

    Does Norway have a right to tell the Swedes who want to enter, that they have to get a visa and are only allowed in under certain circumstances?

    does Mexico have the right to disallow Guatemalans from immigrating?

    Does the Dominican Republic have the right to tell the Haitians that they can't move in? (and do to the DR what they did to Haiti)

    what about Canada? Should unlimited millions from the Middle East and Africa and Asia and S. America all have the right to immigrate?

    If you recall, you might remember that, like you, I am a race realist. Like you, I do not want to live in an environment where I am surrounded by hordes of third world black and brown types.

    Europe has been destroying itself. It pains me to see what has been transpiring in Germany, Norway, and Sweeden. The same thing is happening in the US. There is no denying it.

    The West should not be a dumping ground for displaced Muslims or economic refuges from Angola, Botswana, Cameroon, Chad, Ghana, Ivory Coast, Kenya, Lesotho, Liberia, Nigeria, South Africa, Tanzania, or that fine exemplar of black governance, Zimbabwe.

    So, given the above, your question is how is that to be accomplished? Do you think that the answer is ICE? Is the solution a federal leviathan? I think that if there is no warfare / welfare Empire state, our chances would be much better.

    I do not pretend to have all of the answers – that is part of the Josey Wales / Ten Bears compact.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik

    It pains me to see what has been transpiring in Germany, Norway, and Sweeden. The same thing is happening in the US. There is no denying it.
     
    because ideologically they've been driven into a corner, with the Marxist / Zionist mantra that protecting their way of life is racist. Or that a slogan like Germany for Germans = gas chambers.

    We suffer the same thing and by the same Marxist/Zionist forces here in the states. Only they use vapid platitudes like 'America is an idea', or 'we are a nation of immigrants'.

    Yea, tell that to the Amerindians. How well did being a 'nation of immigrants' work out for them?

    I'm all for stopping the warfare/welfare state, as anyone who's read a sample of my frothing well knows, but just doing that won't stop the flood, because I've been to Third World countries, and I've seen the rampant poverty and corrosive corruption that permeates those places.

    There are of course beautiful places in the Third World, but there're mostly for the elites and wealthy and Western tourists, whereas the stinking, sewage in the streets barrios are where the locals languish, and would be fools not to come to a First World nation where there's law and order, and some hope for upward mobility.

    I harbor no malice against those people, and wish them all the best. But if they come here in transformative numbers, they'll create the same thing here that they created in their own countries. And we already have enough corruption and poverty and ethnic rancor to last us all a lifetime.

    So the reason I left the Libertarian Party, where I was once a card carrying member, is because of their strident myopia vis-a-vis immigration. It's like they just couldn't admit that their ideology was flawed, and that at some point you need a man with a gun to tell others that they can't come in and take what your citizens have.

    That's the reason Ten Bears was going to kill Josey. Because too many forked-tongue, white devils had already demonstrated their treachery, and willingness to do what ever it took to replace the Indians in their own lands.

    Land is finite, yet human fecundity is potentially infinite, and so you're going to have strife and competition. The solution is borders where people are forced to limit their numbers.

    If we allow our nation to be an overflow valve for the Third World, then they'll have no reason to limit their numbers, because the N. Americans (and Europeans) are too stupid (cowed by the Zionists and corporate greed) to enforce our borders. And then soon the ethnics from those Third World nations will have growing clout politically, and it's a win/win for Mexico, and a net loss to the middle and working classes of N. Americans being replaced by cheaper labor.

    I get their arguments, believe me!

    If I were a Mexican nationalist, (La Raza member) I too would be demanding open borders to the ZUSA. (not for Mexico of course! that would be suicidally insane)

    If I were a Jewish supremacist, hell bent on absolute domination, I too would want to blend away the only people (white, ethno-Europeans) who might resist that zio-boot on the neck of humanity.

    If I were a CEO of a large corporation, and wanted above all other things more and more and more and more and more profit$....

    then I too would like to pay slave labor wage rates.

    if I were one of the millions upon millions of frumpy, aging feminists who had hit the wall, then I too would probably like to have dusky young men interested in my "charms', such as they are.

    homosexuals who want little brown boys with poor parents who can be paid off

    realtors and developers whose livelihood depends on a constant and increasing demand for housing

    and a thousand other reasons some people want the ever exploding numbers of people for reasons of their own. I get it.

    But for most of the traditional Americans, (of all races) who aren't a member of some narrow group of butt-hurts or the greedy, massive immigration is a calamity, and destroys the fabric of a society and community and rips apart the social contract and kills trust and the erstwhile geniality of our way of life.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  61. Buck says:

    I’m more of a libertarian mindset but I’ve been leaning toward tariffs as a good way to backdoor a consumption tax as Pat outlines in his article. But that would only work if the tariff was broad based like an import VAT on every good, not piecemeal like 25% on steel and 7% on soybeans. Tariffs shouldn’t be punitive measures set out to hurt specific nations and help certain protected industries.

    The idea that high tariffs lead to wealth was thoroughly debunked by Latin America’s attempts at Import Substitution Industrialization (ISI). Like Pat, they thought protecting domestic producers from foreign competition would lead to economic growth and prosperity. Instead, they went from being early 20th century success stories to late 20th century cautionary tales. That protectionism actually led to a lack of domestic investment and ruined consumer buying power.

    Instead of protectionism and punitive tariffs, an import VAT (iVAT) should be designed to favor domestic producers without overly hurting consumer purchasing power. So keep the iVAT low, maybe 5-15%, and put it on every imported good. Like Pat, I think this only works if you lower domestic taxes by the amount you gain from the iVAT. Specifically, try to give it back to workers who may have to pay more for consumer goods.

    As that socialist dunderhead Piketty correctly pointed out, investments grow faster than wages over the long term. So the answer is to try to encourage American workers to invest rather than spend. If you raise government revenue through consumption taxes instead of taxes on work, income and investment; you change the economic incentives from spending to saving.

    Americans love to complain about the wealthy but the cognitive dissonance is stunning. Americans ARE the wealthy compared to the rest of the world. We actually have the accumulated wealth of hundreds of trillions in our built up infrastructure. The average household income dwarfs any other large nation. Almost everyone of us has the money to invest in the future but, more often than not, we spend in the present. We buy junk made in China. How many pairs of shoes do you need?

    Shifting to consumption taxes is one way to discourage overconsumption. If a tariff gets us there, great, let’s go for it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @MarkinLA
    That protectionism actually led to a lack of domestic investment and ruined consumer buying power.

    Not sure I buy that. The purpose of protective tariffs is to make sure that local producers are not driven out of business by cheaper foreign goods. This basically says that if you invest in productive facilities, you will stay in business and make money. The high prices may cause some temporary imbalances due to the higher costs but eventually when the country is fully industrialized the wages will start rising and consumer buying power should go up.

    Wasn't part of the reason the South was unhappy with the North was because of the tariffs that made superior English manufactured goods more expensive than the inferior American ones? Eventually all that went away.

    If Latin America didn't properly transition like the US, Japan, Korea did and China is doing, then it wasn't due to protectionism - maybe the general corruption endemic to Latin America.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  62. @Rurik

    Job one for Nationalists is to defeat and dethrone the Globalists. But we should keep the Libertarians around as they are the only advocates for honest money.
     
    Agree

    libertarians are well-intentioned, except when so many of them don't do nuance.

    I've known a lot of them who want to 'believe' in certainties, as is human nature. They want a structure, so that every issue doesn't have to be poured over on its merits, they can just check out the tenets of Libertarianism, (or Objectivism as it's patron saint called it) and voila, there it is.

    They need to dethrone Ms. Rand, and look more to Ron Paul, as a contemporary, if hard-nosed realist.

    IMHO

    also we can't allow a party or organization to dictate to the faithful, because as soon as there's an organization, it will be taken over by the PTB and $ubverted from the top down and inside out. The only movement that can affect effective change must come from the grass-roots.

    They need to dethrone Ms. Rand, and look more to Ron Paul, as a contemporary, if hard-nosed realist.

    When they are talking about makers and takers and the free market utopia they are Randroids. Objectivist being the polite term. Ron Paul is Jeffersonian. He comes off as an ideologue only because he insists that the constitution AS WRITTEN is the highest law of the Republic. The centrality of individual sovereignty to both Rand and Jefferson leaves ownership of the term Libertarian in dispute.

    Any society more complex than an agrarian village requires a policeman if it would have a free market. And requiring private financing of public needs amounts to social Darwinism. These are problems for the Objectivist.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Liberty Mike
    Ron Paul also talks about makers and takers. He recognizes that those who don't are fakers.
    , @Rurik

    And requiring private financing of public needs amounts to social Darwinism
     
    that is the understatement of the century

    maybe millennium

    ;)
    , @utu
    Libertarianism regardless of its provenance whether from Ayn Rand or Ron Paul has only one function which is to promote egoism, individualism leading to atomization of society in which individual optimization of individual merit functions prevents ever attaining better global optimum (this stems from Prisoner's Dilemma). In the end the strongest win which leads to oligarchy and neoliberalism. The masters and the owners of the world like libertarians very much.

    Example of not optimizing individual merit function comes from Switzerland. In Switzerland they just had a referendum whether to continue to pay a fee for state TV which is about 400 CHF annually. The argument against it that would fly and most likely win in America: I want to pay for only what I want to watch. And the more communitarian argument was: if we there is no Swiss state television then people with money form outside like Berlusconi or Murdoch will come and make TV the way they want for us. All cantons voted for keeping the state TV.

    Complex civilization is possible only when natural human instincts like egoism is controlled. Ayn Rand ideology puts egoism in the driving seat and extolls it: Greed is good and so on. This is not the way to build a society. It is a possible way but it leads to hell. American is on the way to it with the help of Satan little helpers, the libertarians useful idiots.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  63. @WorkingClass

    They need to dethrone Ms. Rand, and look more to Ron Paul, as a contemporary, if hard-nosed realist.
     
    When they are talking about makers and takers and the free market utopia they are Randroids. Objectivist being the polite term. Ron Paul is Jeffersonian. He comes off as an ideologue only because he insists that the constitution AS WRITTEN is the highest law of the Republic. The centrality of individual sovereignty to both Rand and Jefferson leaves ownership of the term Libertarian in dispute.

    Any society more complex than an agrarian village requires a policeman if it would have a free market. And requiring private financing of public needs amounts to social Darwinism. These are problems for the Objectivist.

    Ron Paul also talks about makers and takers. He recognizes that those who don’t are fakers.

    Read More
    • Replies: @WorkingClass
    Ron Paul taught me about the FED and debt money and conversely the importance of honest money to peace and prosperity. These lessons are now essential to my politics and my understanding of American history. This and his non-interventionist foreign policy (and the outrageous treatment of R.P. by the political establishment) caused me to support Ron Paul in his campaigns outside of Texas. Unlike the Objectivist element of American Libertarianism I cannot recall Ron Paul ever speaking contemptuously of any class of American people. I regard Rand as a limiting factor in the movement if it can still be called a movement.

    I was born into the American working class in 1944. If I am a Conservative I am a blood and soil Conservative. My heart is with the people and the land. I am a Populist.

    I wish you well Mike. We have the same enemies in the District Of Corruption. My friendly advise to Libertarians and ideologues in general is don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  64. Rurik says:
    @Liberty Mike
    If you recall, you might remember that, like you, I am a race realist. Like you, I do not want to live in an environment where I am surrounded by hordes of third world black and brown types.

    Europe has been destroying itself. It pains me to see what has been transpiring in Germany, Norway, and Sweeden. The same thing is happening in the US. There is no denying it.

    The West should not be a dumping ground for displaced Muslims or economic refuges from Angola, Botswana, Cameroon, Chad, Ghana, Ivory Coast, Kenya, Lesotho, Liberia, Nigeria, South Africa, Tanzania, or that fine exemplar of black governance, Zimbabwe.

    So, given the above, your question is how is that to be accomplished? Do you think that the answer is ICE? Is the solution a federal leviathan? I think that if there is no warfare / welfare Empire state, our chances would be much better.

    I do not pretend to have all of the answers - that is part of the Josey Wales / Ten Bears compact.

    It pains me to see what has been transpiring in Germany, Norway, and Sweeden. The same thing is happening in the US. There is no denying it.

    because ideologically they’ve been driven into a corner, with the Marxist / Zionist mantra that protecting their way of life is racist. Or that a slogan like Germany for Germans = gas chambers.

    We suffer the same thing and by the same Marxist/Zionist forces here in the states. Only they use vapid platitudes like ‘America is an idea’, or ‘we are a nation of immigrants’.

    Yea, tell that to the Amerindians. How well did being a ‘nation of immigrants’ work out for them?

    I’m all for stopping the warfare/welfare state, as anyone who’s read a sample of my frothing well knows, but just doing that won’t stop the flood, because I’ve been to Third World countries, and I’ve seen the rampant poverty and corrosive corruption that permeates those places.

    There are of course beautiful places in the Third World, but there’re mostly for the elites and wealthy and Western tourists, whereas the stinking, sewage in the streets barrios are where the locals languish, and would be fools not to come to a First World nation where there’s law and order, and some hope for upward mobility.

    I harbor no malice against those people, and wish them all the best. But if they come here in transformative numbers, they’ll create the same thing here that they created in their own countries. And we already have enough corruption and poverty and ethnic rancor to last us all a lifetime.

    So the reason I left the Libertarian Party, where I was once a card carrying member, is because of their strident myopia vis-a-vis immigration. It’s like they just couldn’t admit that their ideology was flawed, and that at some point you need a man with a gun to tell others that they can’t come in and take what your citizens have.

    That’s the reason Ten Bears was going to kill Josey. Because too many forked-tongue, white devils had already demonstrated their treachery, and willingness to do what ever it took to replace the Indians in their own lands.

    Land is finite, yet human fecundity is potentially infinite, and so you’re going to have strife and competition. The solution is borders where people are forced to limit their numbers.

    If we allow our nation to be an overflow valve for the Third World, then they’ll have no reason to limit their numbers, because the N. Americans (and Europeans) are too stupid (cowed by the Zionists and corporate greed) to enforce our borders. And then soon the ethnics from those Third World nations will have growing clout politically, and it’s a win/win for Mexico, and a net loss to the middle and working classes of N. Americans being replaced by cheaper labor.

    I get their arguments, believe me!

    If I were a Mexican nationalist, (La Raza member) I too would be demanding open borders to the ZUSA. (not for Mexico of course! that would be suicidally insane)

    If I were a Jewish supremacist, hell bent on absolute domination, I too would want to blend away the only people (white, ethno-Europeans) who might resist that zio-boot on the neck of humanity.

    If I were a CEO of a large corporation, and wanted above all other things more and more and more and more and more profit$….

    then I too would like to pay slave labor wage rates.

    if I were one of the millions upon millions of frumpy, aging feminists who had hit the wall, then I too would probably like to have dusky young men interested in my “charms’, such as they are.

    homosexuals who want little brown boys with poor parents who can be paid off

    realtors and developers whose livelihood depends on a constant and increasing demand for housing

    and a thousand other reasons some people want the ever exploding numbers of people for reasons of their own. I get it.

    But for most of the traditional Americans, (of all races) who aren’t a member of some narrow group of butt-hurts or the greedy, massive immigration is a calamity, and destroys the fabric of a society and community and rips apart the social contract and kills trust and the erstwhile geniality of our way of life.

    Read More
    • Agree: RadicalCenter
    • Replies: @Liberty Mike
    Excellent.

    I agree with everything you wrote but, nonetheless, although we agree that a man with a gun needs to stop the invasion, I am troubled by the notion that our federal government should be that man. In fact, I am sure you will agree, the feds have facilitated the invasion of the third world, at our expense.

    One nitpick: Ten Bears, at first, acknowledging that as Josey would not make peace with the Bluecoats, he was free to go. It was only after Josey said that he wasn't going to go, that Ten Bears was going to kill Josey.

    But, as you know, that did not take place as Ten Bears recognized that Josey was not speaking with the forked tongue and that Josey wasn't feeding him any pie in the sky bullshit, "I ain't promisin' you anything extra...."
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  65. Rurik says:
    @WorkingClass

    They need to dethrone Ms. Rand, and look more to Ron Paul, as a contemporary, if hard-nosed realist.
     
    When they are talking about makers and takers and the free market utopia they are Randroids. Objectivist being the polite term. Ron Paul is Jeffersonian. He comes off as an ideologue only because he insists that the constitution AS WRITTEN is the highest law of the Republic. The centrality of individual sovereignty to both Rand and Jefferson leaves ownership of the term Libertarian in dispute.

    Any society more complex than an agrarian village requires a policeman if it would have a free market. And requiring private financing of public needs amounts to social Darwinism. These are problems for the Objectivist.

    And requiring private financing of public needs amounts to social Darwinism

    that is the understatement of the century

    maybe millennium

    ;)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  66. Anon • Disclaimer says:

    “In short, Pat’s always been wrong on tariffs. His ratiocination suffers from the logical fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc.”

    {Insert long string of words to make up for not having an argument}

    “Why does Pat fail to note that during the second half of the 19th century, international trade amounted to less than 10% of the total economy?”

    …because that was the first of half the 1800s – not exactly analogous to the modern world.

    “Obviously, high tariffs could not be the animating force behind the great entrepreneurship, efficiencies, industrialization, and improvisation that characterized the period.”

    They probably contributed. Otherwise, Americans would have just purchased European goods, not industrialized, and then never competed internationally with their own industries.

    “Protectionism is for losers.”

    Works well for the Chinese.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  67. utu says:
    @WorkingClass

    They need to dethrone Ms. Rand, and look more to Ron Paul, as a contemporary, if hard-nosed realist.
     
    When they are talking about makers and takers and the free market utopia they are Randroids. Objectivist being the polite term. Ron Paul is Jeffersonian. He comes off as an ideologue only because he insists that the constitution AS WRITTEN is the highest law of the Republic. The centrality of individual sovereignty to both Rand and Jefferson leaves ownership of the term Libertarian in dispute.

    Any society more complex than an agrarian village requires a policeman if it would have a free market. And requiring private financing of public needs amounts to social Darwinism. These are problems for the Objectivist.

    Libertarianism regardless of its provenance whether from Ayn Rand or Ron Paul has only one function which is to promote egoism, individualism leading to atomization of society in which individual optimization of individual merit functions prevents ever attaining better global optimum (this stems from Prisoner’s Dilemma). In the end the strongest win which leads to oligarchy and neoliberalism. The masters and the owners of the world like libertarians very much.

    Example of not optimizing individual merit function comes from Switzerland. In Switzerland they just had a referendum whether to continue to pay a fee for state TV which is about 400 CHF annually. The argument against it that would fly and most likely win in America: I want to pay for only what I want to watch. And the more communitarian argument was: if we there is no Swiss state television then people with money form outside like Berlusconi or Murdoch will come and make TV the way they want for us. All cantons voted for keeping the state TV.

    Complex civilization is possible only when natural human instincts like egoism is controlled. Ayn Rand ideology puts egoism in the driving seat and extolls it: Greed is good and so on. This is not the way to build a society. It is a possible way but it leads to hell. American is on the way to it with the help of Satan little helpers, the libertarians useful idiots.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Liberty Mike
    The road to hell is paved by communitarian claptrap.

    It is also paved by blowhards who misapprehend libertarianism. I note that you have not quoted from, or make accurate reference to, any libertarian theorist. Ayn Rand is not one.

    Libertarianism is not about egoism. It is not an all encompassing life philosophy. Rather, its cornerstone is the Non-Aggression Principle.

    Whereas dopey communitarians think that one's television menu should be put up to a vote, libertarians posit that such a decision belongs to the individual.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  68. @Rurik

    It pains me to see what has been transpiring in Germany, Norway, and Sweeden. The same thing is happening in the US. There is no denying it.
     
    because ideologically they've been driven into a corner, with the Marxist / Zionist mantra that protecting their way of life is racist. Or that a slogan like Germany for Germans = gas chambers.

    We suffer the same thing and by the same Marxist/Zionist forces here in the states. Only they use vapid platitudes like 'America is an idea', or 'we are a nation of immigrants'.

    Yea, tell that to the Amerindians. How well did being a 'nation of immigrants' work out for them?

    I'm all for stopping the warfare/welfare state, as anyone who's read a sample of my frothing well knows, but just doing that won't stop the flood, because I've been to Third World countries, and I've seen the rampant poverty and corrosive corruption that permeates those places.

    There are of course beautiful places in the Third World, but there're mostly for the elites and wealthy and Western tourists, whereas the stinking, sewage in the streets barrios are where the locals languish, and would be fools not to come to a First World nation where there's law and order, and some hope for upward mobility.

    I harbor no malice against those people, and wish them all the best. But if they come here in transformative numbers, they'll create the same thing here that they created in their own countries. And we already have enough corruption and poverty and ethnic rancor to last us all a lifetime.

    So the reason I left the Libertarian Party, where I was once a card carrying member, is because of their strident myopia vis-a-vis immigration. It's like they just couldn't admit that their ideology was flawed, and that at some point you need a man with a gun to tell others that they can't come in and take what your citizens have.

    That's the reason Ten Bears was going to kill Josey. Because too many forked-tongue, white devils had already demonstrated their treachery, and willingness to do what ever it took to replace the Indians in their own lands.

    Land is finite, yet human fecundity is potentially infinite, and so you're going to have strife and competition. The solution is borders where people are forced to limit their numbers.

    If we allow our nation to be an overflow valve for the Third World, then they'll have no reason to limit their numbers, because the N. Americans (and Europeans) are too stupid (cowed by the Zionists and corporate greed) to enforce our borders. And then soon the ethnics from those Third World nations will have growing clout politically, and it's a win/win for Mexico, and a net loss to the middle and working classes of N. Americans being replaced by cheaper labor.

    I get their arguments, believe me!

    If I were a Mexican nationalist, (La Raza member) I too would be demanding open borders to the ZUSA. (not for Mexico of course! that would be suicidally insane)

    If I were a Jewish supremacist, hell bent on absolute domination, I too would want to blend away the only people (white, ethno-Europeans) who might resist that zio-boot on the neck of humanity.

    If I were a CEO of a large corporation, and wanted above all other things more and more and more and more and more profit$....

    then I too would like to pay slave labor wage rates.

    if I were one of the millions upon millions of frumpy, aging feminists who had hit the wall, then I too would probably like to have dusky young men interested in my "charms', such as they are.

    homosexuals who want little brown boys with poor parents who can be paid off

    realtors and developers whose livelihood depends on a constant and increasing demand for housing

    and a thousand other reasons some people want the ever exploding numbers of people for reasons of their own. I get it.

    But for most of the traditional Americans, (of all races) who aren't a member of some narrow group of butt-hurts or the greedy, massive immigration is a calamity, and destroys the fabric of a society and community and rips apart the social contract and kills trust and the erstwhile geniality of our way of life.

    Excellent.

    I agree with everything you wrote but, nonetheless, although we agree that a man with a gun needs to stop the invasion, I am troubled by the notion that our federal government should be that man. In fact, I am sure you will agree, the feds have facilitated the invasion of the third world, at our expense.

    One nitpick: Ten Bears, at first, acknowledging that as Josey would not make peace with the Bluecoats, he was free to go. It was only after Josey said that he wasn’t going to go, that Ten Bears was going to kill Josey.

    But, as you know, that did not take place as Ten Bears recognized that Josey was not speaking with the forked tongue and that Josey wasn’t feeding him any pie in the sky bullshit, “I ain’t promisin’ you anything extra….”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik

    we agree that a man with a gun needs to stop the invasion, I am troubled by the notion that our federal government should be that man. In fact, I am sure you will agree, the feds have facilitated the invasion of the third world, at our expense.
     
    the man with the gun will be there, and there's nothing we can do about that

    Our only hope is that he's pointing the gun away from American citizens, and at the invading armies, with the intention of protecting the American people, which is what Trump ran his campaign on.

    The alternative would be as you suggest, and that if Hillary had won, that gun would be pointed directly at the heart of American citizens on behalf of their enemies, foreign.. and domestic.

    I tell people we dodged a bullet when the cackling war hag got defeated, and I mean that literally.
    , @MEFOBILLS
    Liberty Mike is having libertarian cognitive dissonance.

    He agrees that people form in-groups, yet Libertarian ism is predicated on individualism.

    Libertarians are myopic about monopoly and in-groups gaming the system for their own self interests.

    What Free dumb Libertarians want, they cannot have because their economic policies are flawed with regard to group and monopoly behavior. It is a circle of illogic.

    They are even more flawed because they assume incorrectly that everything and markets are price elastic.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  69. @utu
    Libertarianism regardless of its provenance whether from Ayn Rand or Ron Paul has only one function which is to promote egoism, individualism leading to atomization of society in which individual optimization of individual merit functions prevents ever attaining better global optimum (this stems from Prisoner's Dilemma). In the end the strongest win which leads to oligarchy and neoliberalism. The masters and the owners of the world like libertarians very much.

    Example of not optimizing individual merit function comes from Switzerland. In Switzerland they just had a referendum whether to continue to pay a fee for state TV which is about 400 CHF annually. The argument against it that would fly and most likely win in America: I want to pay for only what I want to watch. And the more communitarian argument was: if we there is no Swiss state television then people with money form outside like Berlusconi or Murdoch will come and make TV the way they want for us. All cantons voted for keeping the state TV.

    Complex civilization is possible only when natural human instincts like egoism is controlled. Ayn Rand ideology puts egoism in the driving seat and extolls it: Greed is good and so on. This is not the way to build a society. It is a possible way but it leads to hell. American is on the way to it with the help of Satan little helpers, the libertarians useful idiots.

    The road to hell is paved by communitarian claptrap.

    It is also paved by blowhards who misapprehend libertarianism. I note that you have not quoted from, or make accurate reference to, any libertarian theorist. Ayn Rand is not one.

    Libertarianism is not about egoism. It is not an all encompassing life philosophy. Rather, its cornerstone is the Non-Aggression Principle.

    Whereas dopey communitarians think that one’s television menu should be put up to a vote, libertarians posit that such a decision belongs to the individual.

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu

    Whereas dopey communitarians think that one’s television menu should be put up to a vote, libertarians posit that such a decision belongs to the individual.
     
    I have mentioned the Prisoner's Dilemma and what one can learn form it. That when individuals optimizing their individual merit functions the global optimum often is not reached and everybody ends up being worse off. This is the point of libertarianism to leave everybody in worse off state and protect the oligarchic system.

    It is interesting that libertarian ideology infected Americans more than anybody else. If NKVD ever though of how to undermine and damage America they could do no better than creating an agent of influence like Alisa Zinovyevna Rosenbaum. And add to it few more Jews like Ludwig von Mises, Murray Rothbard and few others and you have a movement whose sole purpose is to keep the status quo and protect the oligarchy.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  70. gustafus says:

    The GOP are anti abortion corporate globalists.

    The DNC are pro abortion corporate globalists.

    I love abortion because of the demographic being extinguished. If I thought there would be enough black and hispanic abortions to stave off the coming race wars, I would never vote R again.

    As it is… both serve other masters.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  71. utu says:
    @Liberty Mike
    The road to hell is paved by communitarian claptrap.

    It is also paved by blowhards who misapprehend libertarianism. I note that you have not quoted from, or make accurate reference to, any libertarian theorist. Ayn Rand is not one.

    Libertarianism is not about egoism. It is not an all encompassing life philosophy. Rather, its cornerstone is the Non-Aggression Principle.

    Whereas dopey communitarians think that one's television menu should be put up to a vote, libertarians posit that such a decision belongs to the individual.

    Whereas dopey communitarians think that one’s television menu should be put up to a vote, libertarians posit that such a decision belongs to the individual.

    I have mentioned the Prisoner’s Dilemma and what one can learn form it. That when individuals optimizing their individual merit functions the global optimum often is not reached and everybody ends up being worse off. This is the point of libertarianism to leave everybody in worse off state and protect the oligarchic system.

    It is interesting that libertarian ideology infected Americans more than anybody else. If NKVD ever though of how to undermine and damage America they could do no better than creating an agent of influence like Alisa Zinovyevna Rosenbaum. And add to it few more Jews like Ludwig von Mises, Murray Rothbard and few others and you have a movement whose sole purpose is to keep the status quo and protect the oligarchy.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  72. MarkinLA says:
    @Buck
    I'm more of a libertarian mindset but I've been leaning toward tariffs as a good way to backdoor a consumption tax as Pat outlines in his article. But that would only work if the tariff was broad based like an import VAT on every good, not piecemeal like 25% on steel and 7% on soybeans. Tariffs shouldn't be punitive measures set out to hurt specific nations and help certain protected industries.

    The idea that high tariffs lead to wealth was thoroughly debunked by Latin America's attempts at Import Substitution Industrialization (ISI). Like Pat, they thought protecting domestic producers from foreign competition would lead to economic growth and prosperity. Instead, they went from being early 20th century success stories to late 20th century cautionary tales. That protectionism actually led to a lack of domestic investment and ruined consumer buying power.

    Instead of protectionism and punitive tariffs, an import VAT (iVAT) should be designed to favor domestic producers without overly hurting consumer purchasing power. So keep the iVAT low, maybe 5-15%, and put it on every imported good. Like Pat, I think this only works if you lower domestic taxes by the amount you gain from the iVAT. Specifically, try to give it back to workers who may have to pay more for consumer goods.

    As that socialist dunderhead Piketty correctly pointed out, investments grow faster than wages over the long term. So the answer is to try to encourage American workers to invest rather than spend. If you raise government revenue through consumption taxes instead of taxes on work, income and investment; you change the economic incentives from spending to saving.

    Americans love to complain about the wealthy but the cognitive dissonance is stunning. Americans ARE the wealthy compared to the rest of the world. We actually have the accumulated wealth of hundreds of trillions in our built up infrastructure. The average household income dwarfs any other large nation. Almost everyone of us has the money to invest in the future but, more often than not, we spend in the present. We buy junk made in China. How many pairs of shoes do you need?

    Shifting to consumption taxes is one way to discourage overconsumption. If a tariff gets us there, great, let's go for it.

    That protectionism actually led to a lack of domestic investment and ruined consumer buying power.

    Not sure I buy that. The purpose of protective tariffs is to make sure that local producers are not driven out of business by cheaper foreign goods. This basically says that if you invest in productive facilities, you will stay in business and make money. The high prices may cause some temporary imbalances due to the higher costs but eventually when the country is fully industrialized the wages will start rising and consumer buying power should go up.

    Wasn’t part of the reason the South was unhappy with the North was because of the tariffs that made superior English manufactured goods more expensive than the inferior American ones? Eventually all that went away.

    If Latin America didn’t properly transition like the US, Japan, Korea did and China is doing, then it wasn’t due to protectionism – maybe the general corruption endemic to Latin America.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous

    Wasn’t part of the reason the South was unhappy with the North was because of the tariffs that made superior English manufactured goods more expensive than the inferior American ones? Eventually all that went away.
     
    It also had the effect of the South subsidizing the North's development, while retarding the South's development, which persists to this day.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  73. Rurik says:
    @Liberty Mike
    Excellent.

    I agree with everything you wrote but, nonetheless, although we agree that a man with a gun needs to stop the invasion, I am troubled by the notion that our federal government should be that man. In fact, I am sure you will agree, the feds have facilitated the invasion of the third world, at our expense.

    One nitpick: Ten Bears, at first, acknowledging that as Josey would not make peace with the Bluecoats, he was free to go. It was only after Josey said that he wasn't going to go, that Ten Bears was going to kill Josey.

    But, as you know, that did not take place as Ten Bears recognized that Josey was not speaking with the forked tongue and that Josey wasn't feeding him any pie in the sky bullshit, "I ain't promisin' you anything extra...."

    we agree that a man with a gun needs to stop the invasion, I am troubled by the notion that our federal government should be that man. In fact, I am sure you will agree, the feds have facilitated the invasion of the third world, at our expense.

    the man with the gun will be there, and there’s nothing we can do about that

    Our only hope is that he’s pointing the gun away from American citizens, and at the invading armies, with the intention of protecting the American people, which is what Trump ran his campaign on.

    The alternative would be as you suggest, and that if Hillary had won, that gun would be pointed directly at the heart of American citizens on behalf of their enemies, foreign.. and domestic.

    I tell people we dodged a bullet when the cackling war hag got defeated, and I mean that literally.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  74. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @MEFOBILLS
    Ah, the socialism canard.

    Here is some reading material for you:

    https://www.amazon.com/Americas-Protectionist-Takeoff-1815-1914-Michael/dp/3980846687

    Tariffs = Good when it helps American Industry get on its feet. Tariffs= bad, when monopolists use Tariffs to take unearned income in the form of higher prices.

    In the case of Steel and Aluminum, without that industry you cannot make things, nor can you win a war.

    Everytime INDUSTRIAL CAPITALISM is used, it works. Frederick Lists system in Germany, Peshine Smiths "American System" and Japan's Manchurian Railroad system copied from List.... all of these systems worked.

    Did I say everytime.... yes everytime.

    It gets tiring hearing sheeple bleet out the word "socialism" as if that means something, as if it is an intelligent response.

    Mixed economies with industrial capitalism is the only template that has worked, that is the verdict of history.

    Incidentally, Hudson is a hardcore socialist whose father was a Trotskyite activist in Minnesota.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  75. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @MarkinLA
    That protectionism actually led to a lack of domestic investment and ruined consumer buying power.

    Not sure I buy that. The purpose of protective tariffs is to make sure that local producers are not driven out of business by cheaper foreign goods. This basically says that if you invest in productive facilities, you will stay in business and make money. The high prices may cause some temporary imbalances due to the higher costs but eventually when the country is fully industrialized the wages will start rising and consumer buying power should go up.

    Wasn't part of the reason the South was unhappy with the North was because of the tariffs that made superior English manufactured goods more expensive than the inferior American ones? Eventually all that went away.

    If Latin America didn't properly transition like the US, Japan, Korea did and China is doing, then it wasn't due to protectionism - maybe the general corruption endemic to Latin America.

    Wasn’t part of the reason the South was unhappy with the North was because of the tariffs that made superior English manufactured goods more expensive than the inferior American ones? Eventually all that went away.

    It also had the effect of the South subsidizing the North’s development, while retarding the South’s development, which persists to this day.

    Read More
    • Replies: @MEFOBILLS
    The south was coming under sway of British Colonial System.
    Jewish capital in London and Wall Street had outfitted slave ships. These ships took hemp, rum and timber on their outbound leg.

    Our ((friends)) brought slaves from West Africa to sell to landowners in the South. This then produced an Oligarchy in South, who extracted labor value and sent cotton into England. There the cotton was made into finished goods, and distributed about the colonial system.

    The North was trying to jump start her industry and needed protection from British goods.

    The North's mistake was to not build enough ships to blockade the British, and further did not buy up enough Southern goods.

    If the southern pattern had continued, it would have been an Oligarchy of land owners, with Slaves outnumbering them in a large ratio. The West would have become a slave economy full of negroes. The southern landowners would have been the tail wagging the Northern dog as they told their slaves how to vote to then manipulate the north.

    American's would have become drawers of water and hewers of wood as they extracted their minerals to be exported to England.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  76. KenH says:
    @Liberty Mike
    We agree with regard to the big boy companies wanting regulation. It is a cost of business that they can withstand whereas the little guy cannot. It stifles competition.

    No, America was not "built" on protective tariffs. Like Pat, you are engaging in a classic logical fallacy, the "post hoc ergo propter hoc" fallacy. Keep in mind that less than 10% of America's total economy was international trade throughout the 19th century.

    Besides, tariffs were not the reason for the successes of Cornelius Vanderbilt or James J. Hill or John D. Rockefeller or Thomas Edison or countless other entrepreneurs who relied upon their entrepreneurship, energy, innovation, imagination, and vision to remake and improve the American economy and American life.

    No, America was not “built” on protective tariffs.

    Yes, American manufacturing most definitely was and I suggest you read Pat’s book The Great Betrayal for incontrovertible proof. Early America had a trade imbalance with England and enacted tariffs to correct it and generate revenue for the fledgling federal government.

    Trump’s steel tariff just created 500 new jobs in Illinois:

    http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-biz-us-steel-granite-city-illinois-plant-restart-20180307-story.html

    Besides, tariffs were not the reason for the successes of Cornelius Vanderbilt or James J. Hill or John D. Rockefeller or Thomas Edison

    Never said it was but this is an apples to oranges comparison. But Vanderbilt partly made his fortune in railroads which would have required steel made in the U.S. Thomas Edison’s inventions such as the phonograph, incandescent light bulb and motion picture camera among other things would have been manufactured only in the U.S. for a time thereafter and wouldn’t need protection from foreign competition because it scarcely existed.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  77. MEFOBILLS says:

    Hudson = hardcore Trotskyite.

    That is labeling without proof. I think we can judge Hudson on the body of his work, not his parents affiliations.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  78. MEFOBILLS says:
    @Anonymous

    Wasn’t part of the reason the South was unhappy with the North was because of the tariffs that made superior English manufactured goods more expensive than the inferior American ones? Eventually all that went away.
     
    It also had the effect of the South subsidizing the North's development, while retarding the South's development, which persists to this day.

    The south was coming under sway of British Colonial System.
    Jewish capital in London and Wall Street had outfitted slave ships. These ships took hemp, rum and timber on their outbound leg.

    Our ((friends)) brought slaves from West Africa to sell to landowners in the South. This then produced an Oligarchy in South, who extracted labor value and sent cotton into England. There the cotton was made into finished goods, and distributed about the colonial system.

    The North was trying to jump start her industry and needed protection from British goods.

    The North’s mistake was to not build enough ships to blockade the British, and further did not buy up enough Southern goods.

    If the southern pattern had continued, it would have been an Oligarchy of land owners, with Slaves outnumbering them in a large ratio. The West would have become a slave economy full of negroes. The southern landowners would have been the tail wagging the Northern dog as they told their slaves how to vote to then manipulate the north.

    American’s would have become drawers of water and hewers of wood as they extracted their minerals to be exported to England.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  79. MEFOBILLS says:
    @Liberty Mike
    Don't you understand the logical fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc?

    The great economic achievements in the United States during the 19th century and early 20th century were primarily due to the imagination, inspiration, perspiration, and vision of entrepreneurship. The achievements were not due to tariffs.

    The achievements were not due to tariffs.

    I just explained to you how tariffs gave time for industry to develop.

    Only then can imagination, inspiration and perspiration come to the fore.

    Conditionalites have to be met FIRST. Even for entrepreneurs there is lag time between idea and making goods, and more lag time to make a price.

    You argument is sophomoric.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  80. MEFOBILLS says:
    @Liberty Mike
    Excellent.

    I agree with everything you wrote but, nonetheless, although we agree that a man with a gun needs to stop the invasion, I am troubled by the notion that our federal government should be that man. In fact, I am sure you will agree, the feds have facilitated the invasion of the third world, at our expense.

    One nitpick: Ten Bears, at first, acknowledging that as Josey would not make peace with the Bluecoats, he was free to go. It was only after Josey said that he wasn't going to go, that Ten Bears was going to kill Josey.

    But, as you know, that did not take place as Ten Bears recognized that Josey was not speaking with the forked tongue and that Josey wasn't feeding him any pie in the sky bullshit, "I ain't promisin' you anything extra...."

    Liberty Mike is having libertarian cognitive dissonance.

    He agrees that people form in-groups, yet Libertarian ism is predicated on individualism.

    Libertarians are myopic about monopoly and in-groups gaming the system for their own self interests.

    What Free dumb Libertarians want, they cannot have because their economic policies are flawed with regard to group and monopoly behavior. It is a circle of illogic.

    They are even more flawed because they assume incorrectly that everything and markets are price elastic.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  81. Alex123 says:

    Something is gripping the GOP, certainly. Same ones that oppose tariffs seem to love Israel. Money changers like “Free Trade.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  82. Fredrik says:
    @MarkinLA
    I also thought that VATS are refunded on the portion of a product that is purchased for production not just exports. For example, I buy 100 dollars of steel, I pay the VAT on that. However, when I make something with it and sell that for 200 dollars the purchaser pays VAT on the 200 dollars. I get the VAT I paid refunded (by some mechanism I am not completely aware). This makes it a really complicated tax and one likely cheated as easily as our corporate income taxes.

    Yes, if you’re a corporation you get the VAT on your purchases refunded so in the end it’s only the retail customer that will be paying VAT. VAT is not really different from US sales tax for you and me.

    The general US trade problem is your goods are inferior so you can’t compete. What you do well on the other hand is software and entertainment.

    Read More
    • Replies: @MarkinLA
    The trade deficit isn't because American products are inferior. It is because American executives build plants outside America to take advantage of cheap labor. America invented the personal computer but now no longer makes them is a perfect example.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  83. @Liberty Mike
    Ron Paul also talks about makers and takers. He recognizes that those who don't are fakers.

    Ron Paul taught me about the FED and debt money and conversely the importance of honest money to peace and prosperity. These lessons are now essential to my politics and my understanding of American history. This and his non-interventionist foreign policy (and the outrageous treatment of R.P. by the political establishment) caused me to support Ron Paul in his campaigns outside of Texas. Unlike the Objectivist element of American Libertarianism I cannot recall Ron Paul ever speaking contemptuously of any class of American people. I regard Rand as a limiting factor in the movement if it can still be called a movement.

    I was born into the American working class in 1944. If I am a Conservative I am a blood and soil Conservative. My heart is with the people and the land. I am a Populist.

    I wish you well Mike. We have the same enemies in the District Of Corruption. My friendly advise to Libertarians and ideologues in general is don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

    Read More
    • Agree: Rurik
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  84. Rurik says:
    @Liberty Mike
    What do the protectionists have to say about John D. Rockefeller and the rise of Standard Oil?

    Is the wealth of Rockefeller attributable to tariffs?

    Were tariffs responsible for Rockefeller's incessant and ferocious focus on efficiency?

    Were tariffs responsible for Rockefeller's thrift and foresight?

    Were tariffs the reason why he was able to parlay $4,000.00 into being the richest man in the world?

    Were tariffs the reason why Rockefeller's company made the cleanest burning kerosene?

    Were tariffs the reason why Rockefeller's company was able to profitably dispose of oil residue in the form of lubricating oil, paraffin wax, paint, varnish, and Vaseline?

    Were tariffs the reason why Rockefeller made the oil refining industry substantially more efficient?

    Were tariffs the reason why Rockefeller was able to achieve such efficiencies in the refining of kerosene that it became widely available to the American public in the 1870s?

    Keep in mind that life was revolutionized by the availability of kerosene in the 1870s as after-dark work and reading became widespread.

    What do the protectionists have to say about John D. Rockefeller and the rise of Standard Oil?

    Is the wealth of Rockefeller attributable to tariffs?

    Were tariffs responsible for Rockefeller’s incessant and ferocious focus on efficiency?

    Were tariffs responsible for Rockefeller’s thrift and foresight?

    Were tariffs the reason why he was able to parlay $4,000.00 into being the richest man in the world?

    Hey Mike,

    I couldn’t help think of your post when I watched this video

    http://www.brasschecktv.com/videos/energy/the-great-amnesia.html

    sort of a different take on his ‘laissez faire’ rise to wealth and power

    if true, (and according to the video it’s all well-documented) then he didn’t just use government and corruption to stifle competition, but he was responsible for all the crimes and deaths that resulted from Prohibition and the subsequent gangsterism. Not to mention the vile and unforgivable impingement of the American people’s right to a drink, but also the corruption of our representative government.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Liberty Mike
    One, his rise did not coincide, temporally, with Prohibition. Keep in mind that Rockefeller was 80 years old when Prohibition became the law of the land.

    Two, look at the language of the Amendment and the language of the Volstead Act: there is no prohibition of non-beverage uses of alcohol. Here is Section 1 of the 18th Amendment:

    After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all the territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof FOR BEVERAGE PURPOSES is hereby prohibited.

    Three, of course prohibition was an unmitigated disaster - and all those who pushed for it should be condemned, including Rockefeller, whose motivation was his distorted conception of Christianity.

    Let us not forget that Prohibition is yet another reminder of how horrible communitarian progressivism is. Expressed otherwise, reliance on big daddy government to make life wonderful is the biggest hoax in the history of humanity.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  85. @Liberty Mike
    In short, Pat's always been wrong on tariffs. His ratiocination suffers from the logical fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc.

    His fallacy applied is: (1) for almost seven decades, the big government party, the party of Lincoln, the party of mass murder, erected tariffs; (2) a lot of wealth created and most folks had some good economic experiences; and (3) therefore, the REpublican party's tariffs caused the good economic experiences.

    Why does Pat fail to note that during the second half of the 19th century, international trade amounted to less than 10% of the total economy? Obviously, high tariffs could not be the animating force behind the great entrepreneurship, efficiencies, industrialization, and improvisation that characterized the period.

    Strange how silent Pat is with regard to the motivations of Henry Clay and Justin Morrill for getting into the public sector. Both readily acknowledged that they entered public life in order to obtain state sanctioned favors for their enterprises. Morrill was a steel manufacturer who got into politics solely for the purpose of using state power in order to rip off his American customers. Same thing with Clay and his motive for getting into government: he wanted high tariffs on imported hemp so that he could legally plunder his customers.

    Protectionism is for losers.

    Yes I do agree! But what is your view on 20 trillion debt?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Liberty Mike
    The debt will eventually wreak havoc on the little guy. The money changers and manipulators of the financial markets, not so much-unless the little guys get out the pitchforks.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  86. And Patrick said it even without mentioning RD.
    All corporations even without purposeful conscious aim are inevitably going toward Monopoly.
    Worldwide lese faire capitalism final arrangement will be assembly of Monopolies.
    Monopoly does not have a competition so it can set the prices at will.
    I do think stupidity of people deserve it.
    Total chaos.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  87. EdH says:

    IF foreign countries give the same access to their markets as we grant to their’s tariffs aren’t needed.
    IF foreign countries don’t heavily support their own industries to keep unemployment and unrest down tariffs aren’t needed.
    IF our country had not lost untold numbers of well paid manufacturing jobs to countries paying a pittance in wages we wouldn’t need tariffs.
    If there was a plague that only killed off economists (and their theories with them) we wouldn’t need tariffs.

    Read More
    • Replies: @MarkinLA
    IF foreign countries don’t heavily support their own industries to keep unemployment and unrest down tariffs aren’t needed.

    This is something that is hard to unravel. Airbus got direct subsidies for almost 20 years but cried that Boeing was getting subsidized by the US government through lucrative defense contracts.

    You can subsidize your own countries businesses in a lot of ways that don't involve a check.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  88. MarkinLA says:
    @Fredrik
    Yes, if you're a corporation you get the VAT on your purchases refunded so in the end it's only the retail customer that will be paying VAT. VAT is not really different from US sales tax for you and me.

    The general US trade problem is your goods are inferior so you can't compete. What you do well on the other hand is software and entertainment.

    The trade deficit isn’t because American products are inferior. It is because American executives build plants outside America to take advantage of cheap labor. America invented the personal computer but now no longer makes them is a perfect example.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  89. MarkinLA says:
    @EdH
    IF foreign countries give the same access to their markets as we grant to their's tariffs aren't needed.
    IF foreign countries don't heavily support their own industries to keep unemployment and unrest down tariffs aren't needed.
    IF our country had not lost untold numbers of well paid manufacturing jobs to countries paying a pittance in wages we wouldn't need tariffs.
    If there was a plague that only killed off economists (and their theories with them) we wouldn't need tariffs.

    IF foreign countries don’t heavily support their own industries to keep unemployment and unrest down tariffs aren’t needed.

    This is something that is hard to unravel. Airbus got direct subsidies for almost 20 years but cried that Boeing was getting subsidized by the US government through lucrative defense contracts.

    You can subsidize your own countries businesses in a lot of ways that don’t involve a check.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  90. Correct me if I’m wrong but the tariffs should be seen as working in tandem with the corporate tax cut. Trump gave American producers a huge tax break. This should allow them to lower prices and still hit their targeted after-tax profitability (return-on-equity.) Simultaneously, he puts a tariff on offshore producers, forcing them to sell at a lower price (before tariff) if they wish to sell at the former equilibrium price. If instead they elect to pass all or part of the tariff along to the customer, they will sell fewer units at a higher price and American companies will pick up the lost sales. The US government gets the tariff revenues, which partly compensates for the loss of income tax revenues. As for the consumer, prices needn’t rise in this scenario. They could rise, fall, or stay the same.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  91. @Rurik

    What do the protectionists have to say about John D. Rockefeller and the rise of Standard Oil?

    Is the wealth of Rockefeller attributable to tariffs?

    Were tariffs responsible for Rockefeller’s incessant and ferocious focus on efficiency?

    Were tariffs responsible for Rockefeller’s thrift and foresight?

    Were tariffs the reason why he was able to parlay $4,000.00 into being the richest man in the world?
     
    Hey Mike,

    I couldn't help think of your post when I watched this video

    http://www.brasschecktv.com/videos/energy/the-great-amnesia.html

    sort of a different take on his 'laissez faire' rise to wealth and power

    if true, (and according to the video it's all well-documented) then he didn't just use government and corruption to stifle competition, but he was responsible for all the crimes and deaths that resulted from Prohibition and the subsequent gangsterism. Not to mention the vile and unforgivable impingement of the American people's right to a drink, but also the corruption of our representative government.

    One, his rise did not coincide, temporally, with Prohibition. Keep in mind that Rockefeller was 80 years old when Prohibition became the law of the land.

    Two, look at the language of the Amendment and the language of the Volstead Act: there is no prohibition of non-beverage uses of alcohol. Here is Section 1 of the 18th Amendment:

    After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all the territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof FOR BEVERAGE PURPOSES is hereby prohibited.

    Three, of course prohibition was an unmitigated disaster – and all those who pushed for it should be condemned, including Rockefeller, whose motivation was his distorted conception of Christianity.

    Let us not forget that Prohibition is yet another reminder of how horrible communitarian progressivism is. Expressed otherwise, reliance on big daddy government to make life wonderful is the biggest hoax in the history of humanity.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  92. @Reg Cæsar

    Consider. Assume a Lexus cost $50,000 in the U.S., and a 20 percent tariff were imposed, raising the price to $60,000.

     

    Okay, but a 200 percent tariff would raise the price to $150,000. 2000 percent tariff would raise the price to $1,050,000. That would end sales altogether. Why is Pat so timid with tariffs?

    Embargoes would work even better.

    All that tariff revenue could be used to eliminate and replace all taxes on production inside the USA.

     

    Now I'm confused. What is it you want, protection or revenue? How can you have both? To have revenue, you have to have purchases to tax. To have protection, you have to eliminate those purchases.

    And just as states charge higher tuition
     
    Tuition isn't "charged", it's "charged for". Pat, you of all people...

    You do know that China and Japan have tariffs on most of their goods that the US trades for. Also, they tend to protect their own jobs. And yet, both nations have first world economies. China in fact is due to surpass the US’s economy sometime during the next decade. And it ain’t due to free trade policies.

    Notice you don’t take issue with the US’s loss of millions of manufacturing jobs over the past several decades, as if that’s not a big deal at all. It’s simply the price we have to pay to “pay any price and bear any burden” to be the world’s best hope for global freedom.

    Or something like that.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  93. @Ilyana_Rozumova
    Yes I do agree! But what is your view on 20 trillion debt?

    The debt will eventually wreak havoc on the little guy. The money changers and manipulators of the financial markets, not so much-unless the little guys get out the pitchforks.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  94. @Liberty Mike
    What do the protectionists have to say about John D. Rockefeller and the rise of Standard Oil?

    Is the wealth of Rockefeller attributable to tariffs?

    Were tariffs responsible for Rockefeller's incessant and ferocious focus on efficiency?

    Were tariffs responsible for Rockefeller's thrift and foresight?

    Were tariffs the reason why he was able to parlay $4,000.00 into being the richest man in the world?

    Were tariffs the reason why Rockefeller's company made the cleanest burning kerosene?

    Were tariffs the reason why Rockefeller's company was able to profitably dispose of oil residue in the form of lubricating oil, paraffin wax, paint, varnish, and Vaseline?

    Were tariffs the reason why Rockefeller made the oil refining industry substantially more efficient?

    Were tariffs the reason why Rockefeller was able to achieve such efficiencies in the refining of kerosene that it became widely available to the American public in the 1870s?

    Keep in mind that life was revolutionized by the availability of kerosene in the 1870s as after-dark work and reading became widespread.

    Hold it, hold it. What do the free traders (who also tend to be open borders and pro-US nation building by the way) tend to think of Haliburton’s monopoly over in the middle east? What happened to competition for all in building oil pipelines, etc? The government playing well connected favorites for its defense contracts? That doesn’t sound like free trade, where multi companies compete for the contract and are not reliant on inside connections.

    Because monopolies never ever develop under a free trade economy. Suuurrre, they don’t.

    Bill Gates anyone? Mark Zuckerberg? Or any of the tech giants?

    Again. China and Japan aren’t nearly as free trade as the US in their economies, and yet they aren’t in a recession. China’s economy is set to overtake the US next decade, in large part due to its trade surpluses with the US.

    Why is it perfectly OK that the US has lost tens of millions of manufacturing jobs over the last few decades due to free trade policies?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Liberty Mike
    Do you think that I am a fan of Haliburton?

    Do you think that I am a fan of nation-building?

    I wasn't aware that Microsoft has a monopoly or that Facebook has one either.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  95. @Liberty Mike
    We agree with regard to the big boy companies wanting regulation. It is a cost of business that they can withstand whereas the little guy cannot. It stifles competition.

    No, America was not "built" on protective tariffs. Like Pat, you are engaging in a classic logical fallacy, the "post hoc ergo propter hoc" fallacy. Keep in mind that less than 10% of America's total economy was international trade throughout the 19th century.

    Besides, tariffs were not the reason for the successes of Cornelius Vanderbilt or James J. Hill or John D. Rockefeller or Thomas Edison or countless other entrepreneurs who relied upon their entrepreneurship, energy, innovation, imagination, and vision to remake and improve the American economy and American life.

    Ok, using the same logic, how exactly did Japan and China’s economies go from basically in the poorhouse in the mid to late twentieth century to first rate economic powerhouses (where China’s is set to overtake the US’s economy sometime next decade)?

    HINT: It’s not due to free trade.

    FACT: It IS due in large part to protectionism for their economies.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  96. @Yojimbo/Zatoichi
    Hold it, hold it. What do the free traders (who also tend to be open borders and pro-US nation building by the way) tend to think of Haliburton's monopoly over in the middle east? What happened to competition for all in building oil pipelines, etc? The government playing well connected favorites for its defense contracts? That doesn't sound like free trade, where multi companies compete for the contract and are not reliant on inside connections.

    Because monopolies never ever develop under a free trade economy. Suuurrre, they don't.

    Bill Gates anyone? Mark Zuckerberg? Or any of the tech giants?

    Again. China and Japan aren't nearly as free trade as the US in their economies, and yet they aren't in a recession. China's economy is set to overtake the US next decade, in large part due to its trade surpluses with the US.

    Why is it perfectly OK that the US has lost tens of millions of manufacturing jobs over the last few decades due to free trade policies?

    Do you think that I am a fan of Haliburton?

    Do you think that I am a fan of nation-building?

    I wasn’t aware that Microsoft has a monopoly or that Facebook has one either.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Pat Buchanan Comments via RSS
PastClassics
The evidence is clear — but often ignored
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?
The unspoken statistical reality of urban crime over the last quarter century.
The major media overlooked Communist spies and Madoff’s fraud. What are they missing today?
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.