Brainstorm: Free Trade debate
At 7:30 PM Eastern time on Friday, June 17th, I will be debating Free Trade with Austrian economist Robert Murphy. Another notable figure of the Austrian School, Thomas Woods, will moderate the debate concerning the following resolution:
RESOLVED: Free trade is always economically beneficial in the long term, and the more free trade is practiced by a country, the higher the standard of living of its inhabitants will be.
The event is open and you may register for it here. The debate format will be as follows:
10-minute Bob opening statement
10-minute Vox opening statement
3-minute Bob rebuttal
3-minute Vox rebuttal
3 minutes for one Q&A between Bob and Tom
3 minutes for one Q&A between Vox and Tom
5 minutes: Bob asks Vox a question; Vox answers
5 minutes: Vox asks Bob a question; Bob answers
20 minutes: audience questions
3-minute Bob closing statement
3-minute Vox closing statement
1-minute wrap-up by Tom
Please don't bother telling me what you think I should or should not do. You are not debating the subject. I am. The purpose of this post is not to gather new ideas or information. Moreover, it is not fair to the other participant to have multiple parties ganging up on him. Any suggestions or advice concerning free trade will be deleted.
RESOLVED: Free trade is always economically beneficial in the long term, and the more free trade is practiced by a country, the higher the standard of living of its inhabitants will be.
The event is open and you may register for it here. The debate format will be as follows:
10-minute Bob opening statement
10-minute Vox opening statement
3-minute Bob rebuttal
3-minute Vox rebuttal
3 minutes for one Q&A between Bob and Tom
3 minutes for one Q&A between Vox and Tom
5 minutes: Bob asks Vox a question; Vox answers
5 minutes: Vox asks Bob a question; Bob answers
20 minutes: audience questions
3-minute Bob closing statement
3-minute Vox closing statement
1-minute wrap-up by Tom
Please don't bother telling me what you think I should or should not do. You are not debating the subject. I am. The purpose of this post is not to gather new ideas or information. Moreover, it is not fair to the other participant to have multiple parties ganging up on him. Any suggestions or advice concerning free trade will be deleted.
Labels: Brainstorm, free trade
125 Comments:
Should be interesting to review. Will you be releasing the audio afterward?
> RESOLVED: Free trade is always economically beneficial in the long term, and the more free trade is practiced by a country, the higher the standard of living of its inhabitants will be.
Okay, if they say so. But doesn't the history of the US over the past 40 years pretty much demolish that position?
How about we trade all our muslims to Europe for all their (only native British, German, or French) engineers?
@1: Or a book, like you did with Dr Miller?
Congrats on the creation of an actual, proper debate - a question, a time format for each side, audience questions, summing up, etc. Should be interesting to hear as a podcast or read as a transcript if that is possible.
Refreshing after all the years of the lugenpresse gotcha's with politicians that are mislabeled 'debate'.
@2 U.S. Has a lot of problems owing to different causes. Yes free trade contributed to it but since there are so many things going wrong at once you can't necessarily pin down a free trader and point to that as the sole cause.
Should be interesting to review. Will you be releasing the audio afterward?
Tom Woods will on his podcast.
Congrats on the creation of an actual, proper debate - a question, a time format for each side, audience questions, summing up, etc.
Tom came up with it. Any compliments should go to him.
Ok yeah free trade but what is your position on kitesurfing replacing windsurfing at the Rio Games? Also, lifting the ban on Tiny Tim?
Trump tweet's "America First", then this...
What a time to be alive.
RESOLVED: Free trade is always economically beneficial in the long term, and the more free trade is practiced by a country, the higher the standard of living of its inhabitants will be.
I would only add "Unilateral". Although problems exist with reciprocal free trade, the two are distinct and different.
This can be covered in the opening statement, but the question might come up if one side of a border is fully open but the other side has every restriction.
Isn't the "Contra Cruise" an example of off-shoring, and will you be throwing and effigy of Paul Krugman overboard.
You can order live chicks via the mail today, so would "mail-order brides" be regulated at all under "free trade"? I'm thinking the more common example and as an alternative to Divorce when you get tired of putting up with the missus.
My interest in economic theories is far below that of the intestinal flora of some insects, however, my compliments on the format. It is very refreshing to see a decent structure for rational conversation.
I'm not an economist by any means, but I can't believe anyone thinks free trade is good for a developed country. Free trade obviously sucks your standard of living down as it drives up the standard of living in undeveloped countries. It has the effect of leveling the playing field. If you remember, that was one of the selling points when NAFTA was being debated.
Will it have a segment on sex robots? That was a very entertaining and poignant part of the last free trade debate :-)
Anyone else here listen to the Tom Woods Show? I've listened to his podcasts for the last few months and really enjoyed the shows.
Registered. Sounds like a good listen.
I'll look forward to Vox describing how someone being forced to pay the Feds tribute for buying something manufactured outside the country is good for the economy.
Right because having to pay tribute to the Feds increases your standard of living.
Jeez do any of you people here think for yourselves?
Wear the red tie. You know it makes you look powerful and commanding. And would it kill you to sit up straighter?
Standards of living are going down? Might want to do some research on the percentage of citizens who enjoy air conditioning and cable compared to 40 years ago.
Hell even the poor are fat here now.
Since we can't discuss free trade, here's a story I wrote directly 100% inspired by the last debate.
https://justpaste.it/v9tm
This should be interesting.
I look forward to the highlights.
Keef, first order thinking is for mid-wits.
Literally look at what literally Hitler did in literally Germany before WW2 and get back to us. Or look at the fastest growth phase of the US economy ever (post Civil war) and consider that the government was financed with tariffs, we were on a gold standard and immigration was nearly zero.
I'm not saying that the restrictionist position is obvious. It isn't to me, for sure. But smart people have to concede that it's more complicated than the libertarian bedtime stories we all grew up on.
I can't sign up because I only have one name. And what about my friends Madonna, Sting, Bono, Charo and Cher?
Jeez do any of you people here think for yourselves?
Someone is in for a VERY nasty surprise.
The chance that you will correctly anticipate any of my arguments is effectively nil.
@24 - Polymerize (yu-gi-oh) - Cher Bono! And things are Sonny!
Dave wrote:Ok yeah free trade but what is your position on kitesurfing replacing windsurfing at the Rio Games? Also, lifting the ban on Tiny Tim?
I think the olympics should be as close to original as possible.
Everybody should compete naked.
PS Tiny Tim is a pain in the ass.
More importantly what's his position on freeform jazz?
And Tiny Tim can stay banned. He's more amusing in remembrance than in real life.
Reading Murphy's bio and summaries of his books at Amazon, it is clear he is a Kool-Aid imbibing true believer. He will be in for the same shock that Miller was, and as equally unprepared. It's going to be brutal.
As Mike Tyson said: "Everyone has an air-tight theoretical defense of free trade, until they get hit by Vox Day."
Indeed, we've all had enough of Tiny Tim talking about. Getting his hair done, rhapsodizing about sweaty, half-naked Salvadoran gang bangers working on his ranch/oil refinery/shooting range and claiming everyone laughing at him are the real gays... to last a couple thousand lifetimes. Tiny Tim might scare Milo straight.
"Please don't bother telling me what you think I should or should not do. You are not debating the subject. I am. The purpose of this post is not to gather new ideas or information. Moreover, it is not fair to the other participant to have multiple parties ganging up on him. Any suggestions or advice concerning free trade will be deleted."
You were being way too polite saying that.
I would have said if you no likee, fuck off and shut up.
But, that's me.
"I can't sign up because I only have one name. And what about my friends Madonna, Sting, Bono, Charo and Cher?"
THEY CAN'T SIGN UP EITHER. I'd rather hear your opine than those turds anyhoo. Not saying I want to hear yours,dig ?
( I kid, for I am a kidder.)
I hope you will be sitting in your badass chair with the Lions etched in the wood. Lions of Judah, no doubt.
No free trade in ideas.
The Dark Lord is nothing if not consistent ...
[/end idiocy]
This is great news, Murphy's a serious and original thinker so I relish the contest.
Should the proposition carry or have an inconclusive resolution, some future questions it would be interesting to discover what the current Austrian School thinking on would be:
Considering the Austrian School does acknowledge the validity of making economic policy for non-economic reasons, an example given in _Human Action_ is protecting a local industry of military importance, and that regardless of long term benefit, it must be admitted that unrestricted free trade at least has short term harms, under what conditions is it sound policy to restrict trade for non-economic reasons? (Social policy, political stability, reducing unemployment, etc.)
Even if free trade is proven to be positive on a long enough time scale, is it morally required to accept unlimited short term pain to achieve it? How can the sort of popular governments conducive to free economies be maintained in the face of the popular unrest caused by the economic dislocations related to unrestricted free trade?
But if ya go ahead and crush em on the basic premise that is good too.
VD,
Your post says 7:30, but the login indicates 7:00. Can you confirm the correct starting time? Thanks!
Good luck! Looking forward to some excellent debate.
@Keef-
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/05/if_trade_made_the_us_rich_explain_this_graph.html
VD wrote:Jeez do any of you people here think for yourselves?
Someone is in for a VERY nasty surprise.
The chance that you will correctly anticipate any of my arguments is effectively nil.
Ok, there's the pitch.
yeah, but what are you going to wear?
Jeez do any of you people here think for yourselves?
Some people would do well to outsource their thinking. You, for instance...
VD, what is a best case scenario for you and your arguments, and what does a worst case scenario look like?
In the past, when I have witnessed relatively expert people debate a complex topic, the course tends to test the boundaries of definitions, assumptions, etc. For viewers, it can be unfulfilling.
The other clear pattern I have seen is that both parties have a stronghold that is pretty well thought out, and there isn't much movement on either party into unfamiliar territory. Do you think this is a possible outcome?
I've found that an effective strategy in debate is to end your opening statement with "De de de de dink... necessarily the means of the body...the niggaz will not survive."
Also, when the clock runs out, say "Fuck the time!" and refuse to yield the floor. Really throws your opponents off.
Correct the government was financed with tariffs, and there was NO INCOME TAX and NO CORPORATE TAX.
Adding another revenue stream or increasing payments to the Feds is fucking idiotic.
Cool. I'd love I hear your arguments.
I'd also love to hear about your enforcement mechanism.
Something tells me your plan would empower and enrich the Feds.
Care to make an argument?
I think that graph is pretty weak in that it doesn't distinguish between domestic trade and international trade. It also doesn't seems to account for inflation.
Keef: do you think that foreign governments engage in mercantilism?
If yes, how do you think that those economies are doing relative to the united states? How are they doing at maintaining productive capacity vs. the united states?
Looks like a fair forum. Tom Woods is an honest broker and Murphy is a decent guy.
Will it be recorded for those of us who won't be able to watch live?
I've come around on the merits of protectionism. My sense is that some modest tariffs might slightly negatively impact our total GDP, but the wealth would be distributed more towards the middle class rather than the investor class and the welfare class. It would boost the national work ethic and decrease the corrosive freeloader tendencies of the welfare class.
My biggest concern about tariffs is the corruption angle. If you allow a benevolent government to dictate which sectors of the economy deserve tariff protection and which ones do not, it will surely inspire bribery and corruptions as special interests lobby government. There would need to be a way to objectively evaluate the economy and determine where tariffs would have the most beneficial net effect. Either that, or make tariffs across-the-board, at least for finished products of any kind. You can't pick and choose specific sectors.
The anticipation is palpable for this event. This is Ali and Frazier No. 4.
Vox, here is a news story you might want to help spread. A new muslim rape gang uncovered in England:
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-leeds-36559092
This story has gone under the radar and can only be found as a local Leeds story.
A new muslim child rape gang had been uncovered the day before that open borders politician was murdered. The gang was operating in the same area she and the killer lived. The media has not made the connection, or are not reporting it, but it is possible he knew a victim and blamed her for pushing for rapists to enter England. This would explain why the media has been so silent about the man's motives. If word of another muslim rape gang became national news right before the Brexit vote it would be a done deal.
I like these debates. I don't know much about economics, and it helps to listen to these debates.
This Tom Woods podcast? http://tomwoods.com/podcasts/
Great Again wrote:I've come around on the merits of protectionism. My sense is that some modest tariffs might slightly negatively impact our total GDP, but the wealth would be distributed more towards the middle class rather than the investor class and the welfare class. It would boost the national work ethic and decrease the corrosive freeloader tendencies of the welfare class.
That does seem to be the metric of choice for free traders, right? Of course it is; because it's almost the only one that consistently gives them the results that they want to see. They rarely explain how it makes much difference to regular middle-class working folks, or even attempt to imply that it really does.
peter blandings wrote:yeah, but what are you going to wear?
Are they just doing a voice call? xD
Two words: Arge 'n Tina.
Two more words (for the French): Ven et Zuela.
Restrict voluntary exchange, encourage poverty. Competition is the friend of the poor and the bane of monopolists, state or otherwise.
Keef thinks his libertarianism is still relevant.
Keef wrote:Care to make an argument?
You could start by reading the blog author's book.
No see that's not an argument.
If you care to make one, great. If not that's cool too.
Your post is why I wonder if readers here think for themselves. I know Vox does, I just disagree on his opinion of international trade.
You on the other hand don't even rise to the level of putting his argument into your own words, let alone conceive of an argument yourself.
I tweeted Mark Levin and Conservative Review about this debate urging them to attend.
No, I am not holding my breath. My tweet was in response to Levin and CR bragging about a caller who got to "debate" levin on the issue of Free Trade and then boasting about his "victory"
For the record, it is my belief that Anne Barnhart got it right--We are the Gold.
This implies that trade is essentially a humanistic (in the Christian sense) thing--subject to the spiritual realities of our Fall and Redemption.
To focus on the models is to miss the point.
Trade is a form of worship. Free-Trade is idolatry, like Free Love.
Unfortunately, 7:30 PM EST is passed my bedtime and I live in the Eastern Time Zone (:
Good luck Vox.
Suppose we have two neighboring landowners, call them China and 'Murica. Let us assume they have other neighbors who, by contract, they may call upon for either defense or enforcement of agreements, but which otherwise don't matter to this thought experiment. Let us further assume China has a lot of gemstones on his land, and 'Murica doesn't. Let us assume that 'Murica has large agricultural production capacity in comparison with China. Let us assume both start with a fixed supply of gold.
Let us assume China sells 'Murica gemstones at a profit. The gemstones are easily acquired by China, and are priced highly compared to the produce received, such that there becomes, over time, a trade imbalance between China and 'Murica - China has profited in exchanges with 'Murica, and 'Murica has not, as measured in gold. In light of 'Murica's decreasing capacity to pay China for his gemstones, China buys productive land from 'Murica and rents it out to 'Murica in exchange for produce rasied thereon (and the gold China just bought the land with). Through this process over time, China owns all of 'Murica's land and all the gold. 'Murica has been reduced to peonage, and voluntarily so.
One may quibble on the details; it's the substance that matters.
There's no undercard for this event. Please to arrange your event on your own platform.
Trade is a form of worship. Free-Trade is idolatry, like Free Love.
Which totally sounds like bullshit and will lose any newcomer within 0.005 seconds of reading it.
@62 Log has the better approach .
And now we have simplytimothy vs. simplytimothy. "I'm kicking my ass. Do ya mind?" Some of you guys are so weird.
Shit. I already started drinkin'....
we have simplytimothy vs. simplytimothy
Heh, he did say 7:30pm EST is past his bedtime...is he sleep-posting?
Shit. I already started drinkin'....
And now we have simplytimothy vs. simplytimothy. "I'm kicking my ass. Do ya mind?" Some of you guys are so weird.
One of us will win, but it won't be that guy!
Heh, he did say 7:30pm EST is past his bedtime...is he sleep-posting?
Sun is still up...checks watch....doesn't have a watch so gets up to check phone clock, in the kitchen....
gets wine instead and doesn't check the phone....has more wine. Its all good.
Shit. I already started drinkin'....
Rex Goliath Merlot
Keef, there's a part of me that wants to believe you could do okay here if only you could muster the patience to understand the culture. But that part of me gets smaller every day.
So no, you will not be baiting my autism today. If you actually care whether or not I can think for myself, Google is your friend.
Meantime, please compute the mean of the following numbers: 4, 6, 3, 4, 8.
Legislation to impose tarrifs should be simultaneously associated with legistion to reduce taxes (regulations, etc.) on any company that builds or expands manufacturing (and not just assembly of foreign parts) in the US. The two pieces of legislation should be linked such that one is not signed without the other.
@20 keef..
A nation of fat, unemployed drones sitting in their air-conditioned flats swigging beer.
Yeah, sounds like a winner to me.
Only a Marxist believes that economics is the sole justification for doing something.
less than 5 min. in till first Ricardo reference
Oh this is getting good...
Vox's preparation vs Mr. Murphy's is clear. Murphy is constantly defending dogma and is totally reactionary at this point.
Jeez... Tom won the debate for Vox with that question for Bob
"well... Uh... Yeah, errybody gonna be poorer, but muh comparative advantage..."
So if you destroy your tribe but your tribal dollar buys more, you are better off. Doesn't sound right but that seems to be Robert's answer to Vox's question.
boy bob is sure a talker, even though he says almost nothing.
"Well, I suppose theoretically that it's possible but... It seems unlikely..."
Yes, that's exactly what's happening in this country, so the idea that it is unlikely or theoretical is laughable.
Give credit where’s it’s due. Muslim men have balls and will not surrender to Zionist Wall-Street-Hollywood-Las-Vegas-funded globalist POO-RIDE Degeneracy.
In contrast, Western men have done NOTHING but surrender being brainwashed by Jews & Homos and allowing their cities(and even churches) to be turned into Sodom & Gomorrahs that celebrate fecal penetration of homo men and genital mutilation of trannies.
Go Turks!!!! Proud Turks will NOT allow their sacred fatherland be defiled by Zionist-Homo-promoted neo-imperialist degeneracy.
The homo flag is the New Flag of Western Imperialism.
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/06/muslim-youth-league-calls-massacre-gay-rights-parade/
#82-
except of course for the young turks... or maybe I should say the middle-aged liberal turks that have absolutely no grasp on reality.
That was pretty entertaining. I'm biased, of course, but I think Vox was more convincing.
Also lot of Bob's responses seemed like a lot of "who are you going to believe? Me, or Vox & your lying eyes?"
Bob did the verbal equivalent of hand waving. I think Vox's closing statement gets to the heart of the matter.
Great debate!
This is certainly one of the issues of our time. I don't think the case was completely resolved. It will be a pleasure to hear further updates.
@ Queef
Free trade as currently practiced by our lords and betters will eventually result in me shitting the oligarchs and their defenders into a six foot deep hole*. I will be picking the flecks of flesh out from my filed-sharpened teeth with their cracked bones.
*Thank you David the Good, I will use it as fertilizer for the hundreds of heirloom fruit and nut tree saplings that will be planted for my kids so they have wholesome food to eat after the tinned stores run out. Better I develop the long-pig prion disease then them.
@87-
Sounds like you are ready for the zombie apocalypse.
Me, I plan on putting on body armor and a spiked helmet before I inject myself with the virus... and I am in great cardio shape for catching the vegans.
I used to be a MI member. I ended up terminating my membership because while I found myself agreeing with many of the positions espoused in the articles and books, they seemed to always ignore a few things that bothered me:
1) Not all humans on the planet are 1-2SD above norm IQ, European-descended, middle-class people who basically just want to be peacefully left alone.
2) People are not equal.
3) There is no world consensus on Western values and morals, let alone economic practices.
4) Sin/Vice does not seem to factor into their thought experiments concerning a completely non-government society. This is do to the school not supporting any particular religion even though they operate from a Christian modality.
5) Human well-being is not solely predicated on material wealth.
6) Culture, Religion, genetics, and psychological well-being are discounted factors in their discussions.
That last one is why so many of the Austrian School come off as Aspie. The school's focus on logic rather than mathematical models is admirable, but when they discount the human element and reduce people to just homo economis, those who travel and hang out with different groups of people rather than just one or two social groups quickly see a problem. Focusing on the money isn't a good idea when your country and culture are collapsing.
Anyway, good job Vox. I didn't come away with an impression that either of you won the debate. It felt like an appetizer to a bigger debate. Hope your and Murray can agree to do some more episodes on his podcast.
And don't beat yourself on your presentation. The more you do these talked debates rather than written ones, the better you'll get.
@85 - I thought that was the best part of the debate. I want to see Robert tackle Vox's 5-point argument.
Vox I get your point, however how would you justify giving government more power since you yourself have pointed out how most of the political elites have betrayed their own people and have become in most cases agents of the corporate elites and their interests disregarding any ties to their "lesser brethren"?
@ Dire Badger
Eat all the whacko Vegans you want. I've only met ONE who was normal and he grows mushrooms and some weird algae that gives him ALL his nutrients as well as the most diverse garden of veggies, fruits and nuts I've ever seen. Hard-core but wise and understood it wasn't for everyone.
The normal ovo-lacto-vegetarians I met all ate meat from their chickens, sheep and goats once they were too old to produce. Or gave it to neighbors. They lived by the philosophy "make sure they only have one bad day".
Excellent.
Now Woods needs to have you on on SJWs always lye with their caustic comments.
@87 - Bob was the zombie in Wood's "Interview with a zombie" regarding his nullification book.
@71, there was the H8teful Eight, but you refer to the nasty (mean) 5.
The worst part, Monsanto doesn't have GMO low-carb popcorn. But I had enough good beer.
In retrospect, there was less "labor crossing borders" than would have been useful for the debate.
Tom needs to review (If a tree falls after being chainsawed in the Woods...).
@60-
Allow me.
Have you ever been in a community afflicted by the virus of 'the company store'? or one where the local populace does not have the power or technology to oppose corporate interests, such as in African diamond country?
this is not an isolated event, this is the standard operating procedure for 'free trade'. When companies grow large enough, and are not opposed by a government or ruler, all interest in treating humans like humans evaporates, ESPECIALLY when transportation is easy like it is today.
When you can divorce your workforce from your consumers, it makes good business sense to enslave your workforce, destroy their local environment, poison their water supply, etc... after all, with distance, sins become irrelevant.
Look at chemotherapy chemical companies if you want to see the egregious abuse companies are willing to commit if 'the bottom line' supports it.
J.M. wrote:however how would you justify giving government more power
Why do free traders alays trot this out. It doesn't even make sense.
The elites are already arrogating themselves more power. The government already picks winners and losers on a domestic basis. Violating Free Trade merely means extending the benefits of the elite leadership so that foreigners as well as locals can benefit from their wise guidance.
@97. tz:
"If a tree falls after being chainsawed in the Woods..."
A little compassion, here, please. There are trees reading this. Sheesh!
Vox's points in his free trade debates always remind me of Sir James Goldsmith's arguments against GATT and the proper role of trade in a society. Notice his very early warning about derivatives.
Sir James Goldsmith in 1994
@99. Snidely Whiplash:
'however how would you justify giving government more power'
"Why do free traders alays [sic] trot this out. It doesn't even make sense.
The elites are already arrogating themselves more power. The government already picks winners and losers on a domestic basis. Violating Free Trade merely means extending the benefits of the elite leadership so that foreigners as well as locals can benefit from their wise guidance."
It's simplytimothy vs. simplytimothy all over again. Whose side are you on, yours or your imaginary opponents? Don't violate free trade, otherwise... farting sounds with your mouth.
@ tz
Zombies are rather indiscriminate. I'm a "does this clown taste funny?" Cannibal.
Groot wrote:Whose side are you on, yours or your imaginary opponents?
I'm on my opponents' side. Really, I'm a jerk. I can't event alk to me. It's like
"Did you know x"
"Faggot cocksucker idiot! Gnaw your own testes off you effeminate frottagist!"
"Ummm"
So, I'm totally on my opponenets' side. Especially after half a bottle of wine.
Snidely Whiplash wrote:Especially after half a bottle of wine.
Only half? Cheap date, huh?
Trade itself is what makes modern civilization possible. People specialize and exchange the surpluses generated thereby.
There's a logical case that one ought not deny foreigners this opportunity because in doing so you hinder the commonwealth of your own people.
But! It's a big leap from there to "free" trade, to pretending anything in this world is free (and irony of ironies, from libertarians who laugh uproariously at similar constructions like "free education"), or that any benefit a person or society can derive may be had without concomitant cost.
Hard nosed practical people suddenly become fantasists, and it's hard to avoid the conclusion that the friedmanites and their duplicitous rationalisations for corporate irresponsibility, have not infected the otherwise usually clear sighted Austrians.
@104. Snidely Whiplash:
I'm only picking on you because I think you can handle it. Man up, don't cave, bro. These other pussies are so dispiriting. I always thought it was my size, but online I have no size. What the hell is it?
@residentMoron:
I'm having problems with this handle. You're not really a moron, but the name...
Resident Moron, your blatant equivocation of "without hindrance" and "without cost" qualifies you for the comments section of the Washington Times, on a slow day. Go away.
vfm0202
I hadn't realized this was your house. And you accuse me of equivocation! Huh.
You do, in spite of that, make a fair point. But the argument of the free traders is that an import duty is a tax, a labelling regulation is a tax, a quality standard is a tax.
The founders of the USA considered government enforcement of contract a necessary condition for the high trust society they designed to build, and so they considered tariffs a necessary evil to fund the operation of government. Securing the border means anyone who seeks to profit by crossing it must pay a fee for that security.
That's different from both the punitive protectionism of the past and the free traders "free" idealism.
12. The Kurgan June 14, 2016 7:20 PM
for some reason, i keep reading this name as "The Krugman".
VD
"Please don't bother telling me what you think I should or should not do.
31. jOHN MOSBY June 14, 2016 11:45 PM
You were being way too polite saying that.
jOHN MOSBY, you are a funny, funny little man.
61. simplytimothy June 17, 2016 5:19 PM
Free-Trade is idolatry, like Free Love.
all you REALLY have to point out is that Free Trade is part of the Marxist Communist plan to destroy the Aristocracy and elevate the Bourgeois class. and this has been the Communists plan since 1848.
why do the Communists want to elevate the Bourgeois class?
because, according to the Marxist "Inevitable Forces of History", immediately upon the Bourgeois displacing the Aristocracy and seizing the reins of power, the war between the Proletariat and Bourgeois begins.
and the Marxist Communist desires the war against the Bourgeois to begin as soon as possible.
Free Trade is not AND NEVER HAS BEEN an ideal of the 'Right', it has been a weapon advanced by Marxist Communists to destroy the Aristocracy since ~1850 ( Lincoln was a protectionist for his entire term in the presidency in the 1860s ). if this weapon should also be useful against the Bourgeois, they certainly won't lay it down after the Aristocracy has been disposed of.
so the only real necessary answer to (((Levin))) is that his advocacy of Free Trade proves that he is a stalking horse for Communist Ideals.
when he complains that the accusation is Rhetoric, cite the relevant passages the Manifesto and tell him to prove that your statement is not Dialectic.
i think that's what drives people nuts about me.
i make seemingly outrageous statements ( like "there's a bunch of pedophiles in charge of the GOP" ) and everybody assumes i'm using Rhetoric because what i'm saying is so crazy.
then i prove that what i said was Dialectic.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Snidely Whiplash wrote:J.M. wrote:however how would you justify giving government more power
Why do free traders alays trot this out. It doesn't even make sense.
The elites are already arrogating themselves more power. The government already picks winners and losers on a domestic basis. Violating Free Trade merely means extending the benefits of the elite leadership so that foreigners as well as locals can benefit from their wise guidance.
I don't think I would be called a good libertarian at least according to your standards since I think free trade of goods is possible under ideal circumstances and free movement of peoples is just madness given human nature. My point is along the lines of Hans Hermann Hoppe and his opposition to immigration and how in a real small government environment, this wouldn't be an issue since people themselves would decide if someone gets citizenship, in the case of Arizona for you Americans, the State or the very counties near the border would be the ones in charge of immigration policy not Washington so if "Arizonians" or whatever county is the policy unit responsible decide to destroy yourselves and accept hordes of Mexicans so be it, but for example Colorado would be able to reject your idiocy and the idiots you just let in, so far such a system used to work well in Switzerland until the women suffrage.
My point is that Free trade of goods is beneficial...when both parts engage in it freely and with the utmost transparency and honesty...hence it's possible that due to the human nature real free trade of only goods is impossible, only limited trade.
J.M. wrote:My point is that Free trade of goods is beneficial..
No, that's your dogma
when both parts engage in it freely and with the utmost transparency and honesty...hence it's possible that due to the human nature real free trade of only goods is impossible, only limited trade.
So, only between hominem economicae, and not any actual humans known to exist. Fair enough.
Question: was there a debate winner? i only caught the last 20mins or so but i was curious if there was a consensus on performance.
D'oh!
homines not hominem
dB wrote:Question: was there a debate winner? i only caught the last 20mins or so but i was curious if there was a consensus on performance.
Durandel @89 summed it up nicely: "Anyway, good job Vox. I didn't come away with an impression that either of you won the debate. It felt like an appetizer to a bigger debate. Hope your and Murray can agree to do some more episodes on his podcast."
If free trade is good, by definition, when both parties agree to it, because they wouldn't agree to it if it didn't benefit them both...
How does that apply to a situation where we are trying to stop it because it doesn't benefit us? By that definition isn't trade bad?
Snidely Whiplash wrote:J.M. wrote:My point is that Free trade of goods is beneficial..
No, that's your dogma
when both parts engage in it freely and with the utmost transparency and honesty...hence it's possible that due to the human nature real free trade of only goods is impossible, only limited trade.
So, only between hominem economicae, and not any actual humans known to exist. Fair enough.
It's not dogma. Very few nations if any have the same capability to produce or manufacture all past, present and future inanimate things needed to run a society, either in the past, present or future. When trade wasn't option and scientific/engineering breakthroughs weren't there, war was a viable and welcome path in order to acquire resources and capabilities you didn't have and couldn't/wouldn't by (lands, milk, wood, iron, gold, silver, diamonds, rare earth minerals, women...).
1337kestrel wrote:If free trade is good, by definition, when both parties agree to it, because they wouldn't agree to it if it didn't benefit them both...
How does that apply to a situation where we are trying to stop it because it doesn't benefit us? By that definition isn't trade bad?
If trade is not beneficial any longer the party should be able to just cut it off and that's it. That is how it should work if the parties operated with utmost transparency and honesty .
However I think history has shown that's not possible due to the human nature. Moreover what China and other nations in the East practice is not free trade is mercantilism, war and politics by other means, they are not honest and transparent. They are not even looking at increasing the wealth of their populations, they are looking to weaken and or destroy the productive capabilities of their partners while preserving theirs, even at the expense of their own country (China pollution problem). A nation that trades with them and whose elite doesn't act accordingly in base of the reality is either made up of utopian imbeciles that don't dwell in the real world (aka cuckservatives in modern American jargon) or traitors. Choose your pick.
@110. bob k. mando:
"̶J̶o̶o̶s̶"̶ "joos" is not a dialectic argument.
@118. J.M.:
J.M., you're too wordy, though I appreciate your efforts. These guys are so easy to demolish, it's just boring.
Division of labor is so efficient that the biggest problem the poor have today is obesity and their greatest health risks are obesity-related (diabetes, heart disease, being fat disgusting fucks with triple-chins and man-boobs). The only way to obtain the benefits of specialization is through trade. The end.
You don't even need to venture into Ricardian comparative advantage vs. absolute advantage, though that is equally simple. If no trade, then no specialization, hence starvation.
When is tomwoods.com going to post this podcast? I can at least trust Vox to provide an argument worth demolishing.
"J.M., you're too wordy,"
Like you are not. Groot, nigga please. If there is anybody's ass can be demolished, it you, boy.
@120. Nigga Pleez:
Niggapotamus can't help pulling a Kezie, ya ol' dirty bastard.
"Niggapotamus can't help pulling a Kezie, ya ol' dirty bastard."
You damn betcha.
Treachery and old age beats the youth and vigor every damn time.
Deelz wid it.
32. jOHN MOSBY
That's not me, bob k. Vox told me I had a potty mouth, and was spammed. Never mind that Vandy Josh talked about dick suckin ',
It is what it is.
"A little compassion, here, please. There are trees reading this. Sheesh!"
AND THE DEAD WOOD NEEDS TO GET CULLED.
What were you sayin' ?
Post a Comment
Rules of the blog