ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2016 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Thursday, July 30, 2015

The illusion of knowledge

Now, I like Clark of PopeHat, but a challenge is a challenge. And one of the lures I find most irresistible is the cocksure breeziness of the man who thinks he knows what I know perfectly well he does not know. The fact is that no one who thinks "David Riccardo" is a reasonable response to a comment about immigration knows anything about economics. Or, for that matter, free trade.
James Thompson @JamesPsychol
Immigrants only benefit locals if they are better than the local average in ability and character, & make greater contributions

ClarkHat ‏@ClarkHat
The jury finds you guilty of economic ignorance and sentences you to read David Riccardo. 

Casher O'Neill @CasherONeill
@ClarkHat Do not invoke the sacred writings of Ricardo, that will get @voxday on your @@@ if he notices. :D

ClarkHat ‏@ClarkHat
Vox can attack me on economics if he wants; I'll fight back.
First, however, I will correct Mr. Thompson and observe that immigrants in sufficient numbers present a significant problem if even they are "better than the local average in ability and character". Consider the British in India, for example. If immigrants are inferior, they drag the invaded nation down. If they are superior, they tend to set themselves up to rule over the natives in their own interest and at the natives' expense.

Second, David Ricardo IS economic ignorance. Ricardo believed in a) the cost-of-production theory of value, which is a precursor of Marx's Labor Theory of Value, b) the price-of-corn theory of profit, and c) the theory of comparative advantage, all of which are widely recognized by modern economists to be intrinsically false. His mode of argument was so hopelessly inept that Joseph Schumpeter even mocked it in his epic History of Economic Analysis.
His interest was in the clear-cut result of direct, practical significance. In order to get this he cut that general system to pieces, bundled up as large parts of it as possible, and put them in cold storage – so that as many things as possible should be frozen and 'given'. He then piled one simplifying assumption upon another until, having really settled everything by these assumptions, he was left with only a few aggregative variables between which, given these assumptions, he set up simple one-way relations so that, in the end, the desired results emerged almost as tautologies.... The habit of applying results of this character to the solution of practical problems we shall call the Ricardian Vice.
Third, David Ricardo did not take immigration into account when he copied the concept from Robert Torrens, who introduced the theory of comparative advantage in An Essay on the External Corn Trade. As Ambrose Evans-Pritcher noted:
Ricardo described a world where free trade in goods was opening up, but labour markets remained largely closed. This is no longer the case. Globalisation bids up the wages of high-skilled engineers or software analysts towards international levels wherever they live.
Since Ricardo never took immigration into account, we shall do so on his behalf. I direct your attention to his original postulates from On the Principles of Political Economy and Taxation.

Unit Labor Costs

Britain 100 cloth 110 wine
Portugal 90 cloth 80 wine

In the absence of transportation costs, it is efficient for Britain to produce cloth, and Portugal to produce wine, since, assuming that the two goods trade at an equal price (1 unit of cloth for 1 unit of wine) Britain can then obtain wine at a cost of 100 labor units by producing cloth and trading, rather than 110 units by producing the wine itself, and Portugal can obtain cloth at a cost of 80 units by trade rather than 90 by production.

Now we introduce immigration into the equation and the free movement of labor. Obviously both wine and cloth laborers will move to Britain, since they believe they will receive an 11 percent raise and a 38 percent raise respectively. However, once they get there, the doubling of the labor supply in Britain this immigration causes will quickly cause the price of labor to fall. It will fall considerably.

This is great for Britain! It can now produce the same amount of cloth as before for price of only 47.5 units of labor and the same amount of wine for 47.5 labor units as well, thereby obtaining an equal quantity of both wine and cloth for less than what it used to cost to produce the wine alone. This will vastly increase profits in the British cloth and wine industries, as well as creating a windfall for the financial industry investing those profits! Granted, this is because wages have fallen by 50 percent; other consequences include how the newly unemployed British workers go on the dole and turn to crime, the new Portuguese immigrants are heavily inclined to vote for the Labour Party thereby imbalancing the British political system, and British women begin bearing half-Portuguese children and lower the average IQ of the next generation from 100 to 97.5, but those are mostly non-economic factors and therefore don't count as far as economists are concerned.

They sound suspiciously familiar, though, don't they?

In conclusion, we can see that open immigration and the free movement of labor is not only economically desirable, but is vastly preferable to comparative advantage by a factor of 105/200 and to autarky by a factor of 105/210. QED. What else can we conclude from this exercise of the Ricardian Vice?
  1. Ricardo implicitly postulated the immobility of labor.
  2. The mobility of labor not only fails to disprove comparative advantage, but actually strengthens the case for even freer trade... at least if you're in the higher labor cost country and you only look at the labor costs.
  3. The mobility of labor will eliminate international trade since everyone will be living in Britain.
  4. The mobility of labor operates to the detriment of labor.
  5. Ricardo's logic is remarkably stupid.
But my argument against free trade does not rest on David Ricardo's intellectual corpse. It is not even, strictly speaking, economic in nature. This is the four-step Vox Day Argument Against Free Trade.
  1. Free trade, in its true, complete, and intellectually coherent form, is not limited to the free movement of goods, but includes the free movement of capital and labor as well. (The "invisible judicial line" doesn't magically become visible simply because human bodies are involved.) 
  2. The difference between domestic economies and the global international economy is not trivial, but is substantive, material, and based on significant genetic, cultural, traditional, and legal differences between various self-identified peoples.
  3. Free trade is totally incompatible with national sovereignty, democracy, and self-determination, as well as the existence of independent nation-states with the right and ability to set their own laws according to the preferences of their nationals.
  4. Therefore, free trade must be opposed by every sovereign, democratic, or self-determined people, be they American, Chinese, German, or Zambian, who wish to preserve themselves as a free and distinct nation possessed of its own culture, traditions, and laws.

Labels: , ,

113 Comments:

Blogger Markku July 30, 2015 5:36 AM  

Raciss, ergo unthinkable. And we can only find answers among options we can think of, because duh. Ergo immigration wins by default.

Blogger ScuzzaMan July 30, 2015 5:49 AM  

"His interest was in the clear-cut result of direct, practical significance. In order to get this he cut that general system to pieces, bundled up as large parts of it as possible, and put them in cold storage – so that as many things as possible should be frozen and 'given'. He then piled one simplifying assumption upon another until, having really settled everything by these assumptions, he was left with only a few aggregative variables between which, given these assumptions, he set up simple one-way relations so that, in the end, the desired results emerged almost as tautologies....

The habit of applying results of this character to the solution of practical problems we shall call the Ricardian Vice.
"

Or, in other words, "climate science" ...

Anonymous Fp July 30, 2015 6:14 AM  

"At least if you're in the higher labor cost country and you only look at the labor costs."

And ignore the social costs of immigration that the higher labor country will incur and will raise taxes to deal with as well as the replaced natives on the dole. The free movement of labor just benefits certain industries but has diminishing returns for the nation involved if any benefit at all. It's too shortsighted a position for a nation to take.

Anonymous old man in a villa July 30, 2015 6:17 AM  

It seems to me that quite a few people are unable to distinguish between immigration and colonization (the Brits in India example).

The US is routinely referred to as "a nation of immigrants" when it is clearly a nation of colonists pursuing an immigration strategy as it transforms into an empire. If the US were made up entirely of immigrants we'd be living in roundhouses and wickwams. Colonists bring their forms of government, their technologies and cultural artifacts with them and transform the existing landmass (and it's inhabitants either through warfare or assimilation) into one that is uniquely different from the one that existed prior to their arrival. Immigrants bring their bodies, their needs, their offspring and little else in the hopes of capitalizing on the existing structures of their host nation, i.e. seeking the American Dream.

If the waves can be assimilated,if the numbers are small enough, if the arriving stock is close enough in character and genetics, if the host culture is sure enough of itself (Manifest Destiny anyone?) and strong enough in its own vision of what it is it will not only survive, but grow stronger through this admixture. If not, tada! the USSA.

America was a nation of colonists that transformed itself (albeit through the chicanery of the elites for their own purposes, not through a plebiscite or referendum at the grassroots level) into a polyglot, multicultural empire. Cue the band of the Titanic.

Blogger Rantor July 30, 2015 6:28 AM  

VD: An excellent contribution to the ideas of National Libertarianism.

#4 Old Man, brilliant point.

OT: Enjoying Somewhither by John C. Wright... unfortunately it has interrupted my reading of Creveld's History of Strategy

Blogger Dan Hewitt July 30, 2015 6:38 AM  

Free trade...includes the free movement of capital and labor as well

The Britain/Portugal example acknowledges that the importation of labor bids wages down. Wouldn’t the subsequent importation of capital bid them back up?

Blogger VD July 30, 2015 6:52 AM  

The Britain/Portugal example acknowledges that the importation of labor bids wages down. Wouldn’t the subsequent importation of capital bid them back up?

No. Capital doesn't necessarily have any impact on the price of labor. It usually isn't invested in it.

Anonymous Steve July 30, 2015 6:57 AM  

old man in a villa - Indeed.

There was no "immigration" (in the modern sense) in David Ricardo's day. The concept would've been as foreign to him as twerking - he died in 1823.

There was colonisation, where English, French, Spanish, Portugese, or what-have-you settlers would seek to claim new land for their king and/or company (e.g. the Scots sunk half of their nation's cash in a doomed private venture to colonise Panama).

There was transportation, where troublemakers, the Irish, or anybody who looked funny could be slapped in leg irons and shipped off to Australia.

Then there were a small number of European aristocrats doing the Grand Tour.

But no "immigration". The mass movement of people was seen in those days for what it is - conquest by other means.

In Ricardo's day, the Industrial Revolution saw large scale internal migration of people from the English countryside to the towns and cities, but the bulk of mankind still lived, worked and died within the parish they were born in.

For the average Englishman, encountering a foreigner would've been a rare and memorable event.

Anonymous Stephen J. July 30, 2015 7:00 AM  

Interesting argument, Vox. How free, then, do you think trade (of goods, capital and labor, as per #1) can be, compatible with the preservation of national sovereignty and cultural identity (#3) and the practical limits of societies' differing productive capacities as preserved by the retention of that culture (#2)?

You seem to be setting up an interesting paradox in which the only way for a society to really benefit from trade is to risk losing what it is. To which, I have to admit, I find myself thinking of Heinlein, who said: "Certainly the game is rigged. Don't let that stop you; if you don't play, you can't win."

Blogger Thordaddy July 30, 2015 7:04 AM  

Free trade includes the movement of free radicals too.

Anonymous al July 30, 2015 7:06 AM  

Vox,

Would you oppose 'free trade' if it pertained only to goods

not messing with you, just seeking clarification

Anonymous WRI July 30, 2015 7:25 AM  

@6 Labor and capital are usually substitutes for each other when it comes to production, so more, cheaper labor would imply lower demand for capital. Same idea as minimum wage goes up, McDonalds looks to replace employees with touch screens for ordering. Also, the simple nature of the model in question doesn't inform us about what should or should not happen about capital investments.

Blogger VD July 30, 2015 7:26 AM  

Would you oppose 'free trade' if it pertained only to goods

Yes. Some trade is not in the national interest. You can't outsource the construction of your nuclear weapons to China. Once you accept that principle, you have rejected the concept of a free trade in goods, it's just a matter of where you draw the line.

How free, then, do you think trade (of goods, capital and labor, as per #1) can be, compatible with the preservation of national sovereignty and cultural identity (#3) and the practical limits of societies' differing productive capacities as preserved by the retention of that culture (#2)?

Not very. If we had truly free trade, the nation would be finished within a single generation.

You seem to be setting up an interesting paradox in which the only way for a society to really benefit from trade is to risk losing what it is. To which, I have to admit, I find myself thinking of Heinlein, who said: "Certainly the game is rigged. Don't let that stop you; if you don't play, you can't win."

I'm not setting the paradox up. I'm simply observing it. Heinlein also wanted to fuck his mother; I wouldn't recommend taking his advice on this particular issue any more seriously. It's not even relevant here, many countries have won without playing the game of free trade.

Blogger jay c July 30, 2015 7:28 AM  

It seems to me that quite a few people are unable to distinguish between immigration and colonization (the Brits in India example).

Including most "immigrants"...

Anonymous Earl July 30, 2015 7:29 AM  

I too balked at Ricardo's Comparative Advantage in econ 101. I only considered my lesson on externalities. The Chinese are not really better than us at manufacturing. They're just better at destroying their environment and enslaving their population.

Anonymous dh July 30, 2015 7:35 AM  

I'm not setting the paradox up. I'm simply observing it. Heinlein also wanted to fuck his mother; I wouldn't recommend taking his advice on this particular issue any more seriously. It's not even relevant here, many countries have won without playing the game of free trade.

That's really brilliant. I am pretty sure I am going to nominate this for best fan writing next year.

Blogger Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus July 30, 2015 7:36 AM  

Ricky Ricardo was an economist too??

Anonymous DissidentRight July 30, 2015 7:42 AM  

Another point of clarification, Vox:

Opposing free trade does not imply support for any particular protectionist measure (e.g., restrictions on steel imports)? That is, the nation doesn't reject free trade for the same reason that the steel industry might?

Anonymous Whitey McWhite July 30, 2015 7:45 AM  

Under rare conditions, mass immigration is all solutions and no problems. The early 21st Century left would not like this kind of immigration, if the right dared to propose it; the 21st Century left only favors the nation-wrecking kinds of mass immigration, for all white countries and only white countries.

Early on, the Australian nation consisted of British colonists, and was or aspired to be "more British than the British". British mass immigration, officially encouraged and popular, was of the same racial character as that of the "native" Australian breed: neither smarter and able to dominate, nor dumber and apt to be a handicap, of identical temperament and fitness for society and democracy, of identical physical capabilities and appearance. Culturally, a constant flood of immigrants from the homeland had the effect of slowing but not preventing cultural divergence; this was not seen as a bad thing.

Under conditions such as these, mass immigration reduces diversity. In going from where jobs were not to where they were, the immigrants gave the natives, to whom they were very closely related, all the advantages of a great natural increase (a sort of "baby boom" of adults who at a population level were genetically indistinguishable from the descendants of earlier immigrants), and helped to secure their ethnic / genetic and national interests by populating and taking possession of the whole extended land, and crowding out any other potential claimants such as Orientals.

Everybody in this highly homogeneous and increasingly cohesive white "British" / Australian in-group was better off, the more immigration there was - that is possible under highly restricted conditions.

Under conditions like this, you can unite a continent and keep it happy and prosperous, without any wars either for independence or between the states. In other words, the positive externalities are overwhelming, and can remain so indefinitely.

(As long as no unsuspected, talented, wealthy, influential and hostile minority gets the idea of imposing multiculturalism.)

I agree that this is not "immigration" in the modern sense. But that only shows how destructive (and often anti-white) the modern sort of mass immigration is.

Anonymous Whitey McWhite July 30, 2015 7:52 AM  

Thus I refute James Thompson:

James Thompson @JamesPsychol
Immigrants only benefit locals if they are better than the local average in ability and character, & make greater contributions

Blogger Nate July 30, 2015 7:57 AM  

The vast majority of people who hide behind a Ricardian Shield... have never actually read Ricardo.

Ricardo could best be described as an inverted Keynes... He made something simple and easy to understand... and people concluded that because they understood it... that it was therefore true.

This is actually an excellent negotiating tactic that is still employed today.

Blogger VD July 30, 2015 8:00 AM  

Opposing free trade does not imply support for any particular protectionist measure (e.g., restrictions on steel imports)? That is, the nation doesn't reject free trade for the same reason that the steel industry might?

Correct.

Blogger HickoryHammer #0211 July 30, 2015 8:01 AM  

Nice takedown, to the point and fully verifiable if you happen to have a pair of eyeballs. Microsoft and Disney aren't selling out the natives for the lulz after all.

Anonymous 0007 July 30, 2015 8:02 AM  

Buying more popcorn here, Boss. May also have to pick up another case of (Mexican/Honduran made) coke, heh, heh, heh.

Blogger Nate July 30, 2015 8:07 AM  

Guys.. there is a time and place for free trade (note..no capitals letters) on certain goods between certain places.

Free Trade (caps!) is just a right wing utopian type idea that sounds great but actually ends in disaster. Its like the communism of the Right.

Blogger VD July 30, 2015 8:08 AM  

That's a good meme. "Free Trade is the Communism of the Right."

Anonymous Whitey McWhite July 30, 2015 8:18 AM  

"Free Trade is the Communism of the Right."

For a moment I wanted to object that Free Trade doesn't have a body-count to compare to Communism's; then I remembered that we'll be in a better position to make comparisons after the multi-cultural wars that we're importing have played themselves out. (If they ever do.)

Anonymous zen0 the Greek July 30, 2015 8:28 AM  

Free trade is totally incompatible with national sovereignty, democracy, and self-determination, as well as the existence of independent nation-states with the right and ability to set their own laws according to the preferences of their nationals.

Sounds familiar.

Blogger Steveo #238 July 30, 2015 8:29 AM  

So Clark, you like manzanas?


Blogger Nate July 30, 2015 8:30 AM  

i myself had never actually bothered to read Ricardo until Vox started questioning Free Trade all those years ago. the concept of Free Trade matched up nicely with my biases... not just because of my economics but also because the South was always bitching about the North being anti-free trade.

It was true because it confirmed my own views of the world.

Going back and actually reading Ricardo for myself... I was stunned. But even with the fact that his work was bad enough to create its very own logical fallacy... that wasn't what killed it for me.

What killed it was applying Austrian Economics to it. When you look at the results of Free Trade through Austrian glasses... that is to say... you look at its fruit and judge it accordingly... its a destructive horrible concept.



Blogger Nate July 30, 2015 8:32 AM  

"That's a good meme. "Free Trade is the Communism of the Right." "

Think about it. The Right even defends it the same way. When we point out the disasterous results of NAFTA what do they say?

"IT WASN'T FREE ENOUGH!"

Whenever free trade fails they always say if we'd just done free trade a little harder it would've worked. Exactly like the commies say about the old USSR and exactly like the Keynesians say about their bullshit.

Blogger Rooted in Him July 30, 2015 8:49 AM  

His description of "the Ricardian Vice" sounds like a description of global warming models.

Blogger Mr.MantraMan July 30, 2015 8:57 AM  

Don't know this Clark fella, but per usual jabbering about free trade is an outlet for SubmissiveCons to sound remotely masculine and authoritative

Anonymous Soga July 30, 2015 9:06 AM  

A question about your analysis of comparative advantage with immigration involved, Vox:

Why don't the Portuguese immigrants head back to Portugal since labor wages took a nosedive below what they would be paid in Portugal, especially since now the labor prices went up in Portugal due to reduced labor supply?

I'm thinking they don't go back because with the higher labor wages, Portuguese businesses are tightening up their hiring practices to get the most bang for their buck. But I'm also thinking it's because the wine and cloth industries in Portugal got destroyed because nobody wants to buy Portuguese wine and cloth anymore.

Blogger Ron Winkleheimer July 30, 2015 9:08 AM  

Unrestrained immigration also allows crappy third world hell holes government's the luxury of exporting all the hard working, industrious, entrepreneurial types that might work for change and the criminally inclined as well.

Its a win/win situation for them.

Blogger VD July 30, 2015 9:13 AM  

Why don't the Portuguese immigrants head back to Portugal since labor wages took a nosedive below what they would be paid in Portugal, especially since now the labor prices went up in Portugal due to reduced labor supply?

You can't introduce detail that Ricardo ignored. Why do ALL the Portuguese cloth merchants stop making cloth?

Anonymous Roundtine July 30, 2015 9:27 AM  

Free Trade is the Communism of the Right

Communism was also called International Socialism. No borders. The ex-commies went right and dumped Marxist economics, but they kept the idea of a borderless world. A lot of them come out of the Jewish diaspora, which has very good historical reasons to favor free movement of people's. Not so much with Israel now.

Anonymous Stephen J. July 30, 2015 9:40 AM  

VD: "I'm not setting the paradox up. I'm simply observing it."

Conceded; fair enough. Interestingly, it seems like it's not so much a paradox as a simple matter of mutual exclusivity: by definition, the things that make one culture/society different from another -- different laws, different values, different traditions and habits, different resource reserves, and different productivity/resource-usage patterns -- are the things that preclude truly "free" trade because they are the things that require what might be called "conversion of worth" in the labour-goods-capital movement cycle between trading partners, and wherever there is such conversion there is an entropic inefficiency loss. All trade regulations are attempts to compensate for this conversion-inefficiency value loss, and thus there can only ever be truly "free" trade between cultures so similar that the mutual value of that trade cannot exceed a certain limit anyway. Does this sound like it makes sense?

VD: "I wouldn't recommend taking [Heinlein's] advice on this particular issue any more seriously. It's not even relevant here, many countries have won without playing the game of free trade."

Which countries are you thinking of? I suspect I know where you're going, but want to be sure I understand. And Heinlein's personal proclivities aside, I would say the basic point of the quote remains accurate: the risk-reward tradeoff in any transaction is inevitable, and so it is better to try to find the right balance than to try eliminating risk by foregoing all reward.

Blogger VD July 30, 2015 9:45 AM  

I would say the basic point of the quote remains accurate: the risk-reward tradeoff in any transaction is inevitable, and so it is better to try to find the right balance than to try eliminating risk by foregoing all reward.

I don't. If the risk is losing your nation for a potential 20 percent reduction in consumer product prices, the smart thing to do is not play.

Blogger Ron Winkleheimer July 30, 2015 9:46 AM  

I remember seeing George Will on some Fox News show insisting that every immigrant was a net economic gain for the U.S. Someone actually challenged him on that, asking him about the people who were forced out of the labor market because of the lowering of wages. She (I forget who) asked him if he had any regard for those people whatsoever.

The panel went on to the next subject.

The U.S. is not a single entity. Free trade and mass immigration benefit certain groups at the expense of others. Go to any small town in the south that formerly produced textiles, ask them about the benefits of free trade.

Anonymous Soga July 30, 2015 9:51 AM  

You can't introduce detail that Ricardo ignored. Why do ALL the Portuguese cloth merchants stop making cloth?

Fair enough. In that scenario then, the immigrants stay in England because their skills are in cloth and wine production, and there's no demand for those skills in Portugal under Ricardo's theory.

Which would be very unrealistic indeed, so your point holds. Ricardo is a dum-dum.

Blogger Nate July 30, 2015 9:55 AM  

"I don't. If the risk is losing your nation for a potential 20 percent reduction in consumer product prices, the smart thing to do is not play."

There is a time and place to streamline the import export process... even to eliminate tarriffs and excises taxes completely on certain goods between certain countries.

but that's not Free Trade.

Blogger Jourdan July 30, 2015 9:59 AM  

Excellently argued and stated. VD's four points are *the* case against free trade.

Blogger YIH July 30, 2015 10:00 AM  

@3 Fp:
And ignore the social costs of immigration that the higher labor country will incur and will raise taxes to deal with as well as the replaced natives on the dole.
Such as ''hardworking Pedro''. Not to mention those who arrive solely for public assistance, such as all those Central American kids that a talk radio cuckservitive wanted to bring ''teddy bears and soccer balls'' to.
Another example is something that is rather common in Seattle: Apu works for Dell in Tech Support, lands a position (and an H1b) with Microsoft. 6-12 months later, brings his parents over. They are 'poor' (penniless in fact) and over 55 so they are considered 'disabled' - hello SSI!
That also works as 'anchor babies' in reverse, if M$ dumps Apu, he can't be deported ''because he needs to care for his elderly/disabled parents''!

Blogger Daniel July 30, 2015 10:01 AM  

Are you now or have you ever dreamed of a borderless economy? Babel went down for less.

Blogger dc.sunsets July 30, 2015 10:09 AM  

I get the stated downsides of "free trade." What's the alternative? I cannot see one that doesn't involve political calculation (states, which inevitably involve power relationships that devolve into exactly the morass now in place.)

Axioms are generally reducible. If we reduce nation-state autarky to smaller levels (where presumably political calculation is slightly less toxic) we quickly reach absurdity. So where is Nirvana?

Blogger JP July 30, 2015 10:10 AM  

19th century economic theories did not account for technological advances in manufacturing, travel and communication.

Blogger dc.sunsets July 30, 2015 10:15 AM  

I suggest that "the national interest" is a lot like some senator's definition of pornography. It also sounds suspiciously like Rousseau's "general will."

Who, whom? Who is doing what to whom? Isn't that Lenin's famous question? WHO DECIDES?

We all know that in no time at all the "caretakers" installed to "decide" become rulers who move Heaven and Earth to build sinecures and indulge in nepotism. Boom, you have an aristocracy of the rotten, just like today's Leviathan.

I see no way out of that box.

Blogger Nate July 30, 2015 10:25 AM  

" So where is Nirvana?"

Nirvana doesn't exist and seeking it is the apex of foolishness.

Blogger Nate July 30, 2015 10:26 AM  

"19th century economic theories did not account for technological advances in manufacturing, travel and communication."

they didn't even account for 19 century technological advances.

Blogger VD July 30, 2015 10:30 AM  

Boom, you have an aristocracy of the rotten, just like today's Leviathan.

Better a national aristocracy than a global one.

Blogger Nate July 30, 2015 10:33 AM  

" Boom, you have an aristocracy of the rotten, just like today's Leviathan."

who promised you a way out? whoever sold you on it lied to you.

borders and nations exist because of human nature. The borders don't represent forced segregation. They are evidence if not completely proof of voluntary segregation.

And those borders don't cause wars. Those borders are the primary defense against war.

Blogger bw July 30, 2015 10:36 AM  

The Federal Reserve Bank of New York is eager to enter into close relationship with the Bank for International Settlements....The conclusion is impossible to escape that the State and Treasury Departments are willing to pool the banking system of Europe and America, setting up a world financial power independent of and above the Government of the United States....The United States under present conditions will be transformed from the most active of manufacturing nations into a consuming and importing nation with a balance of trade against it.

Rep. Louis McFadden - Chairman of the House Committee on Banking and Currency quoted in the New York Times (June 1930)

Blogger dc.sunsets July 30, 2015 10:39 AM  

Careful, the lecture mode is getting dogmatic.

Some folks have a nasty habit of always thinking they're the smartest people in every room they enter. Physicians are filthy with that. Engineers, on the other hand, often have a better handle on the vast sum of what they don't know.

My point was that the theories underlying autarky are just as fallacious as those underlying free trade in a political world. Both reach absurdity rapidly when their paths are traveled.

Anonymous The other robot July 30, 2015 10:41 AM  

Therefore, free trade must be opposed by every sovereign, democratic, or self-determined people, be they American, Chinese, German, or Zambian, who wish to preserve themselves as a free and distinct nation possessed of its own culture, traditions, and laws.

The problem with this is that there tends to be multiple factions in any country and some of them care more about their own interests and think that when the shit hits the fan they can just move to another country.

Anonymous The other robot July 30, 2015 10:43 AM  

My point was that the theories underlying autarky are just as fallacious

Doesn't autarky invite defeat in detail?

Anonymous Stephen J. July 30, 2015 10:44 AM  

VD: "If the risk is losing your nation for a potential 20 percent reduction in consumer product prices, the smart thing to do is not play."

That depends; there's a difference between a 50% risk one's nation collapses in the next five years, and a 5% risk it collapses in the next hundred years. If the cost of avoiding the latter is ruining your nation's ability to compete and condemning your people to subpar economic status, I would suggest that sometimes it's smarter to take the chance than not to.

The trick is to figure out what your odds actually are, given that everyone with a stake in knowing it also has a stake in one side or other of the question. Which touches on one of the fundamental limits of economics as a science: neither the rationality of economic actors nor the knowledge of economic conditions is consistent, either between or within systems or over time.

Blogger Nate July 30, 2015 10:45 AM  

"Engineers, on the other hand, often have a better handle on the vast sum of what they don't know."

mechanics know more about what engineers don't know than engineers do.

Blogger Aeoli Pera July 30, 2015 10:49 AM  

Maybe rephrase that argument in terms of Mexicans, Indians, reservations and casinos. Chinese amygdala fingercuffs for the rhetorically minded.

Blogger Nate July 30, 2015 10:51 AM  

"Careful, the lecture mode is getting dogmatic."


The fact that big rock candy mountain doesn't exist is dogma. And questioning it doesn't make you a wise skeptic. It makes you look like a dumb dumb.

Blogger Aeoli Pera July 30, 2015 10:51 AM  

@Nate,

Troo dat, especially now that many engineering graduates have never changed their own oil.

Some of you older folks are thinking I'm exaggerating.

Blogger bw July 30, 2015 10:53 AM  

Better a national aristocracy than a global one

Encourage and Celebrate True Diversity and MultiCulti

Anonymous The other robot July 30, 2015 10:57 AM  

Troo dat, especially now that many engineering graduates have never changed their own oil.

Well, I've seen my father do it and I have imagined myself with a wrench undoing the oil pan drain plug.

Is that good enough?

Anonymous kfg July 30, 2015 10:59 AM  

"Consider the British in India . . ."

Or, for that matter, the Saxon in Britain.

Blogger Aeoli Pera July 30, 2015 11:01 AM  

@Roundtine,

Inter-Nazis.

Blogger Aeoli Pera July 30, 2015 11:07 AM  

Depends on the person, but generally it is about 1/4 of the way to "good enough".

Some kids can watch the prof write a derivation, understand it, and then use it to pass the test. Probably one of the Asians in your class is like this. But most people have to do exercises to work out the kinks in their understanding.

tl;dr, no.

Anonymous Elijah Rhodes July 30, 2015 11:08 AM  

Vox, in your ideal economic model is there any provision for the importation of goods?

Anonymous Meanwhile in Portugal July 30, 2015 11:10 AM  

All of our labor force has moved to the UK, how will we support our pensioners and layabouts... oh, look - Mohammad and his 100 best friends are willing set up shop.

Our welfare system is saved! And in addition, we've got some great new restaurants!

Blogger rcocean July 30, 2015 11:11 AM  

One problem with these Free Trade discussions is you have a lot of Southern boys who grew up worshipping Free Trade. Their Daddy was a free trader and his daddy before him and his daddy before him, dagnabit. The South always supported Free trade not because it was good for the Country but out of self-interest. They wanted to sit on their porch, sipping mint juleps while there slaves and later sharecroppers produced their cash crops. Since their Cotton market was overseas - and they no industry to protect - they wanted to buy goods at the cheapest price. So what if that destroyed the Yankee steel industry? No skin off their nose. Of course, we later needed all that industry to win WW 2, but Southerns aren't know for being far sighted.

Blogger rcocean July 30, 2015 11:13 AM  

"Free Trade is the Communism of the Right"

Great point. What makes it even better is that Marx supported Free Trade since it would increase misery and internationalism and give rise to Communism.

Blogger dc.sunsets July 30, 2015 11:31 AM  

The fact that big rock candy mountain doesn't exist is dogma. And questioning it doesn't make you a wise skeptic. It makes you look like a dumb dumb.

Answering a rhetorical question is not a sign of smart smart.

Blogger dc.sunsets July 30, 2015 11:41 AM  

A necessary characteristic of leftism is positing the benefits of a high-sounding policy and then implying it will be implemented by angels riding candy-crapping unicorns instead of the demons who inevitably volunteer to boss their neighbors.

I find it fascinating to watch rightists play the same game.

Perhaps Hoppe's rule by natural aristocracy is the stage after the next one (dictatorship.) Or maybe it, too, is positing a political system run by angels riding unicorns; after all, Sallust stated 2000 years ago the truth that most men are slaves because they prefer servitude. Orwell's High, Middle and Low is the natural state of humanity (from the Theory and Practice of Oligarchical Collectivism.)

There are no healthy societies where central planning and monopoly are not viewed with widespread and deep skepticism if not outright suspicion.

Anonymous Porky July 30, 2015 11:42 AM  

Any economist who thinks he is free of Ricardian vice is deluded.

Anonymous ZT July 30, 2015 11:55 AM  

VD Said:
But my argument against free trade does not rest on David Ricardo's intellectual corpse. It is not even, strictly speaking, economic in nature. This is the four-step Vox Day Argument Against Free Trade.
1. Free trade, in its true, complete, and intellectually coherent form, is not limited to the free movement of goods, but includes the free movement of capital and labor as well. (The "invisible judicial line" doesn't magically become visible simply because human bodies are involved.)
2. The difference between domestic economies and the global international economy is not trivial, but is substantive, material, and based on significant genetic, cultural, traditional, and legal differences between various self-identified peoples.
3. Free trade is totally incompatible with national sovereignty, democracy, and self-determination, as well as the existence of independent nation-states with the right and ability to set their own laws according to the preferences of their nationals.
4. Therefore, free trade must be opposed by every sovereign, democratic, or self-determined people, be they American, Chinese, German, or Zambian, who wish to preserve themselves as a free and distinct nation possessed of its own culture, traditions, and laws.


This presupposes you find cultural cohesion more desirable than free movement of capital and labor.

Would that be correct?

The problem I run into is that Anarcho-Capitalism (AC) makes since on one hand but I only see it working if all are doing it and that is just not going to happen as "All have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God."
On the other hand protecting culture requires government but we generally don't like government because it is to easily corrupted.

This leaves the possibility for limited AC that is stuck with in a cultural boarder. Would that be possible?

Anonymous notbob July 30, 2015 11:57 AM  

And this post is an excellent example of why I read this website.

Blogger VD July 30, 2015 12:09 PM  

Vox, in your ideal economic model is there any provision for the importation of goods?

Certainly. I'm not an autarkist.

This presupposes you find cultural cohesion more desirable than free movement of capital and labor.

And national sovereignty, yes.

Anonymous Donn #0114 July 30, 2015 12:12 PM  

Vox the reason they all quit producing cloth is that the Committee for Free Trade instructed them to. Then fined anyone who didn't comply.

Anonymous BGS July 30, 2015 12:17 PM  

"At least if you're in the higher labor cost country and you only look at the labor costs."

If illegals get hurt at work there is no workers comp to pay, taxpayers pay for the ER visit

Anonymous Eric the Red July 30, 2015 12:19 PM  

Incrementally increasing tariffs should be slapped on all goods imported from China. Simultaneously, offsetting regulations and taxes should be lowered for all companies that bring back their offshore manufacturing. However this would not apply to simply assembling parts already made in another country. Manufacturing that qualified would have to include at least 75% of the chain of parts all made in the US. Since moving manufacturing back to the US could not be done overnight, that is why tariffs would be increased incrementally. Ultimately, the final tariffs would become greater than what the company could keep if had moved back to the US.

Contrary to the international monetary struldbrugs, there are other factors besides profits in making economic decisions. The Chinese, I am sure, make all decisions within a cultural context, i.e., what is best for the Chinese people.

Anonymous BGS July 30, 2015 12:22 PM  

Physicians are filthy with that. Engineers, on the other hand, often have a better handle on the vast sum of what they don't know

What is the difference between an orthopedic doctor and a carpenter? The carpenter knows the name of more than 2 antibiotics.

Anonymous Elijah Rhodes July 30, 2015 12:28 PM  

Certainly. I'm not an autarkist.

How then would you prevent countries with cheap labor from flooding markets and displacing workers? Who would determine what is an acceptable level of importation? Would it be through protectionist schemes that levy tariffs, or would it be via trade agreements that require, say, a 1:1 reciprocity? And how would you prevent the inevitable trade expansion creep, as people shortsightedly demand to be allowed to purchase from the global marketplace?

Anonymous ZT July 30, 2015 12:31 PM  


ZT Said: This presupposes you find cultural cohesion more desirable than free movement of capital and labor.
VD Said: And national sovereignty, yes.


Given your libertarian stance would that then just mean free markets, labor, and capital can be within the nation?

Maybe need to have "Libertarian-Nationalist" be a thing.

Anonymous Sheila July 30, 2015 12:33 PM  

"Whenever free trade fails they always say if we'd just done free trade a little harder it would've worked. Exactly like the commies say about the old USSR and exactly like the Keynesians say about their bullshit."

That's my husband in a nutshell. Whenever I counter with some version of Vox's points (cultural cohesion/national sovereignty) he rebuts with a variant of "Left to itself, that's the beauty of the free market. It will police itself and reach a natural balance."

I've given up and suggested we simply agree to disagree.

Blogger Nate July 30, 2015 12:57 PM  

"Vox, in your ideal economic model is there any provision for the importation of goods? "

I really hate binary thinkers.

Blogger Sam July 30, 2015 1:10 PM  

It's all fun and games till you wind up with a psychopathic transnational elite.

Blogger Tommy Hass July 30, 2015 1:19 PM  

" They are evidence if not completely proof of voluntary segregation."

I think you're really stretching the word "voluntary" here.

To translate from libertarianese/anarchese, if you need guns to enforce it, it's not voluntary.

Not my opinion, just sayin.

Blogger Bubba July 30, 2015 1:37 PM  

@57:  If the cost of avoiding the latter is ruining your nation's ability to compete and condemning your people to subpar economic status, I would suggest that sometimes it's smarter to take the chance than not to.

"Compete" at what? "Compete" with whom?This jingoistic economic buzz-speak always sets my teeth on edge. It's one of those phrases like "productivity" or "good for the American economy" that generates tingles but is meaningless (or worse - downright harmful): Golly! Allus NFL-watchin' MLB-cheerin' fools just love to be "competitive". "Competitive" be cool, bruh!

Anonymous Elijah Rhodes July 30, 2015 1:55 PM  

I really hate binary thinkers.

I really hate people who think that asking for clarification constitues binary thinking. Isn't that just a different form of binary thinking?

Blogger bob k. mando July 30, 2015 2:24 PM  

85. Tommy Hass July 30, 2015 1:19 PM
To translate from libertarianese/anarchese, if you need guns to enforce it, it's not voluntary.



"freedom of association" means being able to choose not only who i WILL associate with ... but who i will NOT.

if someone wishes to associate with me AND i reciprocate, all is well and good.

if someone wishes to associate with me and i DO NOT reciprocate AND they stay away, all is well and good.

if someone wishes to associate with me and i don't want the blood sucking parasite around but THEY INSIST, then it's voluntary on my part to take up arms and tell them to fuck right off.

Blogger Nate July 30, 2015 2:41 PM  

"To translate from libertarianese/anarchese, if you need guns to enforce it, it's not voluntary."

i generally don't bother with the open border positions... mostly because I don't speak moron.

Anonymous Duke of URL July 30, 2015 2:42 PM  

"His interest was in the clear-cut result of direct, practical significance. ... The habit of applying results of this character to the solution of practical problems we shall call the Ricardian Vice."
Wow.
This is such a magnificent put-down that I'm going to have to order Schumpeter's History of Economic Analysis.
Thank you, Vox, for bringing it to my attention.

Anonymous ZT July 30, 2015 2:47 PM  

Elijah Rhodes Said => "Vox, in your ideal economic model is there any provision for the importation of goods? "

Nate Said => I really hate binary thinkers.


I think it's a fair question if you don't know anything VD said. It's just asking for clarification, and besides VD has refined his position on the topic compared to his earlier writing. (See: http://www.wnd.com/2006/03/35217/)

Quote:
"...I am not arguing, yet, that it is time to do so with regard to free trade. However, for the first time in years, I find myself forced to re-examine the merits of this long-hallowed doctrine, and to do so with a jaundiced and critical eye. It is certain that there are false prophets of free trade – that they exist neither confirms nor denies that the god itself is false.
The deeper question is this: In a globalist world that denies not only the sovereignty of the nation-state, but even its right to exist, is there any fundamental relevance to a doctrine that is defined by the asserted benefit to the nation-state and its citizens? If there is no nation-state and there is no freedom for the individual, then where is the free trade and to whom does it apply?


Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2006/03/35217/#Rfzo4juspUY7BUte.99

That is going back a bit I admit but VD has been known to refine his position over time and even change it.

Anonymous kfg July 30, 2015 2:52 PM  

"The carpenter knows the name of more than 2 antibiotics."

Vodka
Whiskey
Brandy

Blogger pyrrhus July 30, 2015 3:21 PM  

And of course, free trade is a myth when you are trading with mercantilist nations. "Free trading" Japan continues to refuse import licenses to foreign car makers, and only a handful of foreign-made vehicles can be found there.

Blogger YIH July 30, 2015 4:28 PM  

BGS:
If illegals get hurt at work there is no workers comp to pay, taxpayers pay for the ER visit.
Not only that, but lets say you hire a roofer to do your home. ''Joe's Roofing'' hires illegals (or even legals) and pays them in cash. Worker slips and falls off the roof, guess who gets sued?
Protip: You hire a contractor, make sure they're licensed, bonded and insured.
The legal butt-raping you save may well be your own.

Blogger Eraser July 30, 2015 5:18 PM  

Obviously both wine and cloth laborers will move to Britain, since they believe they will receive an 11 percent raise and a 38 percent raise respectively. However, once they get there, the doubling of the labor supply in Britain this immigration causes will quickly cause the price of labor to fall. It will fall considerably.
This is great for Britain! It can now produce the same amount of cloth as before for price of only 47.5 units of labor and the same amount of wine for 47.5 labor units as well, ...


Come on! At face value, this is bullshit. Worst case, there'd be immigration until the labor prices equalize, and the end result should be around cloth 95, wine 95 in both countries. This is assuming no social barriers to immigration at all, i.e. suppose every Portuguese laborer speaks English and is willing and able to move to another country for a moderate raise.

It doesn't work as a parody, either (whatever this Ricardian thought being parodied is). Too easy to mistake for a serious opinion. Especially since the end result just happens to match exactly Vox's ideas about immigration.

Blogger Danby July 30, 2015 6:17 PM  

Come on! At face value, this is bullshit. Worst case, there'd be immigration until the labor prices equalize, and the end result should be around cloth 95, wine 95 in both countries. This is assuming no social barriers to immigration at all, i.e. suppose every Portuguese laborer speaks English and is willing and able to move to another country for a moderate raise.

No, this is demonstrably what has happened. Look outside the theoretical model and understand that there are many externalities that are not accounted for. Which was actually the point of the post. Like, for instance, that England has welfare, and free health care, and is generally a nicer place to live. And the money managers have decided that Portugal shouldn't have a textile industry anymore, so it is starved of capital.

ETC ETC ETC
You're living in the wreckage from this idiot style of "thinking" and you want to argue theory?

Blogger Floyd Looney July 30, 2015 7:10 PM  

"Free trade" does sound good. Freedom is usually the cure. How can there possibly be free trade with a country like China? Can you have free trade with an unfree nation? Why would free trade require government involvement? We don't even have a free economy any more, how could "free trade" exist at all?

I think international trade is a good thing but "free trade" is not possible and cannot be allowed to act as a suicide pact on top of all the other problems.

Blogger Bee Killington July 30, 2015 7:34 PM  

Clark is a dummy.

he is all fancy expressions and (sometimes) vocabulary, but he does not understand anything of value.

he's a Jewish stereotype without being Jewish (or maybe he is. but let's assume he's not):

good with words, bad with anything else and toxic to everyone listening to him

Blogger VD July 30, 2015 8:25 PM  

Come on! At face value, this is bullshit. Worst case, there'd be immigration until the labor prices equalize, and the end result should be around cloth 95, wine 95 in both countries.

You're an idiot. I'm using the same rules Ricardo did. Do you really think all the cloth production was going to go to England?

Anonymous Anonymous July 30, 2015 8:59 PM  

If I am a free self determining person who cannot sell what I want to whom I want nor can I buy what I want from whom I want am I really a free self determining person?

Seems to me without the right to free trade my own property is not my own but in fact the property of the government regulating its sale transport and use.

- @HoocOtt

Blogger Nate July 30, 2015 9:04 PM  

"Seems to me without the right to free trade my own property is not my own but in fact the property of the government regulating its sale transport and use."

Free Trade is not a right and never has been.

Anonymous Anonymous July 30, 2015 10:31 PM  

"Free Trade is not a right and never has been."

How about property rights?

There is a lot of libertarian thought into how all rights are derived from property rights. If you can't own a church you cannot practice your faith in it. If you can't own a press your speech cannot be heard. If you can't own a gun you have no right to bare it. The list goes on and I am sure you can fill in the blanks.

This is not to say free trade is derived from property rights. I would say it is one of the major tenets of it. ie if you cannot buy and sell property freely then there is no individual property right.

- @HoocOtt (twitter)

Anonymous Whitey McWhite July 31, 2015 12:53 AM  

@HoocOtt (twitter): "How about property rights?"

How about the continued, multi-generational strength of the collective that has to guarantee those or any other rights?

It takes a great deal of force to make "rights" more than empty words, and if you freely sell the keys to the fortress to a Mongol army, or freely import a vast horde of racially incompatible slaves, or freely corrupt and destroy society with usury and addictive drugs, or some other self-seeking, society-wrecking equivalent, that collective will cease to exist.


@HoocOtt (twitter): "There is a lot of libertarian thought into how all rights are derived from property rights."

The Spartans had a different view of where their rights came from, and I think they were more correct.


@HoocOtt (twitter): "If you can't own a church you cannot practice your faith in it. If you can't own a press your speech cannot be heard. If you can't own a gun you have no right to bare it. The list goes on and I am sure you can fill in the blanks."

If you've freely exercised your property rights by crushing many under the minimum conditions of life needed to be "similars" of egalitarian courage, and raising others to luxury and decadence -- well here comes the enemy, all neat and level, and you'd better hope they respect the "rights" you bestow upon yourself with your fancy words.


@HoocOtt (twitter): "This is not to say free trade is derived from property rights. I would say it is one of the major tenets of it. ie if you cannot buy and sell property freely then there is no individual property right."

A limitless right of free trade is a right to destroy any society, and in passing evade duties. Nobody interested in remaining a going concern should concede such a right.

Anonymous Anonymous July 31, 2015 3:52 AM  

104. Whitey McWhite

Did the Golden Horde hide inside Play Station 4's to infiltrate Poland? Cuz that would be awesome.
Pretty sure slavery is still illegal. Our government masters so far has not abandoned the 13th amendment...if you don't count buying health care insurance from a government approved insurance company.
Many Drugs are grown and Made in America some are even legal.
We got Banks here also....who give zero percent interest on savings....
Are SF/F novels and video games "other self-seeking, society-wrecking equivalents?
Collective? That seems to rhyme with collectivist. I wonder why...

How did that turn out for the Soviets?

Wow I guess I need to repeat that again "How did that turn out for the Soviets?" I mean is the idea that free societies do better then unfree societies need to be demonstrated at this point?

I am going to put up something new here. An alternative to the Roosh's and at least partially to the Vox's claims that the US is in terminal economic decline because of free trade and immigration. The terminal economic decline I am full in agreement with. I differ on the reasons for it.
In the US there are no longer any property rights.The state has taken them.
You cannot start a business, you cannot build a house nor sell it, you cannot manufacture a widget without huge unprecedented costs of permissions from the government and even if you meet those costs and requirements you have no guarantee that the government will not arbitrarily shut it down.

Your claims and proposals to shut down free trade are just another nail in the regulatory coffin of the US economy.

Don't believe me? Take a look at any economic indicator in regards to start ups and small business and explain how immigration and free trade is pushing them over the abyss while established big business is hitting record stock valuations.

@HoocOtt (twitter)

Blogger Eraser July 31, 2015 5:33 AM  

@97: You're living in the wreckage from this idiot style of "thinking" and you want to argue theory?

I want to argue real world. You can't really blame free trade because current world trade is anything but free. The best example is agriculture: a mass of regulations, subsidies and trade barriers. The EU even passed a regulation about the curvature of bananas (or was it cucumbers, I don't remember)... It's understandable that they want to protect their agriculture (no one wants their food production in foreign hands), but then you can't blame free trade for the wreckage.

And who do you think gets hit the hardest by the heavy-handed regulation? Small companies or big multinationals like Walmart?

England has welfare, and free health care, and is generally a nicer place to live.

Nicer place to live depends on the point of view. For a Portuguese laborer England means "strange land, strange customs, bad weather, no one speaks my language and my friends stayed back home", so not very nice. Which is why people only immigrate in large numbers when there is massive economic advantage, like being a dishwasher or janitor in the US is better than most jobs in Mexico. I will agree that generous welfare is incompatible with immigration.

VD (@100): I understand you were making a parody, but what's the point? The idea of comparative advantage, simplifications and all, sounds believable. Your version with immigration does not. You can stretch a rule to absurdity and claim workers will continue to migrate even when it's clearly disadvantageous, but what does it prove?

Blogger Eraser July 31, 2015 5:45 AM  

@104: The Spartans had a different view of where their rights came from, and I think they were more correct.

Sparta is not a really good model. Their society was based on slavery. Their military training was needed to keep a much larger slave population under control. They also nearly drove themselves to extinction (Spartan citizens had too few children).

Blogger rcocean July 31, 2015 10:26 AM  

The same kind of Libertarian that supports "Free trade" because no one can tell him what to do with his property would logically support open borders and the abolition of nations. If the abstract right of property trumps everything else.

Of course, IRL, every trade with an unfree country is by its definition 'not free trade' since all trade domestic and foreign is controlled by the Government.

Blogger rcocean July 31, 2015 10:28 AM  

Until recently, you could have free trade in small amount of goods and not in people because of the high cost of immigration. When it took a week to get from France to the USA, or two weeks to get from China to the USA, immigration and international trade was limited.

Blogger rcocean July 31, 2015 10:29 AM  

Shorter eraser: Lets change the subject because I support free trade and don't have an argument.

Blogger bob k. mando July 31, 2015 10:44 AM  

102. Nate July 30, 2015 9:04 PM
Free Trade is not a right and never has been.


otherwise, the Supreme Court wouldn't be pretending that the Commerce Clause applies to telling bakers that they MUST sell cakes to homos.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause

note that the Commerce Clause gives the Feds no authority in intra-State trade.

Blogger Eraser July 31, 2015 3:29 PM  

@110: Nonsense. If you care to look, my argument is at @106 and still unanswered.

Anyone can make up a fictional situation. But if it's so obviously flawed/unrealistic, you can't draw any real-world conclusions from it.

Blogger Anna Wailliam August 11, 2015 10:41 AM  

Rather good post. I simply found your site not to mention was going to believe which i experience unquestionably appreciated Alpha XTRM searching your blog items. In fact We are registering to an individuals feed and I we imagine you compose once soon enough!http://www.healthcaresups.com/alpha-xtrm/

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts