ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2017 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Thursday, June 01, 2017

Darkstream: Free Trade part 2

Finally got around to addressing this in tonight's Darkstream. Hit 13 of Henry Hazlitt's 23 errors on free trade, which longtime readers already know. I also slapped down a Nazi larper who suggested "national socialism" as an alternative to free trade; one of these days I'm going to have to do an analysis of the Nazi economic program to make the absurdity of it clear to those who can't move beyond the binary world of "communism bad, ergo expansionary Teutonic supremacy good."

Labels: ,

98 Comments:

Blogger Aeoli Pera June 01, 2017 7:43 PM  

Muh Hugo Boss, muh romantic idealism, muh magic Aryan!

nuuuuuuu

Blogger Aeoli Pera June 01, 2017 7:45 PM  

I blame Goethe.

Blogger Al From Bay Shore June 01, 2017 7:53 PM  

Cool, Hazlitt! I've been seeking out video commentaries on that text. I know there are probably text commentaries of such but I have to iron clothes tonight. Easier to peep a video commentary while ironing.

Blogger Shane Sullivan June 01, 2017 8:31 PM  

Wasn't National Socialism designed solely for the German people? Vox, I hope that you do that analysis; I'd really like to see the economic outcomes of that system laid out completely by an excellent economist like yourself.

Blogger tz June 01, 2017 8:32 PM  

Christopher Cantwell has been having discussions with alt-righters (he's more libertarian, even ancap, but race realist). One of the interesting points is things like a totally unfettered market and free trade is damaging to social cohesion and thus liberty.

There is something about subsidiarity which should apply to economics as well as government - the closest, most local government which can, should. So passports and the border patrol are the feds. County landowners are local.

But it really applies to economics as well. My local stores are better than the national or multinational. It's nice I can get stuff from Amazon, but dollars I spend locally circulate locally. My local banker knows me in a way Citi or Chase can't. Tribes are in villiages (I forget the name of the "you can only remember 150 people max"). While one can have loyalty to a nation, the more diffuse and remote, the less it works. NYC and DC will always be some kind of proposition even if everything was transformed. The town and county are far more real.

And I think it is a lot of the Federal Reserve and cheap credit that makes an invasive Wal-Mart possible. They get cash from wall street and the banksters.

Restricting banking to individual states or regions sounds heretical, but I doubt the housing bubble would have been possible across the country.

I haven't thought everything out, but the aspect of the family, the tribe and the volk as an expanding set of circles with their political and economic spheres seems more right than a completely free market. San Francisco and Salt Lake City can be different on political, economic, artistic, and many other levels, and that is a good thing.

Economic power is still power and tends to corrupt.

Blogger tz June 01, 2017 8:33 PM  

Southern culture fights the bosses of free trade:
The Dukes of Hazlitt!

Anonymous Stoa June 01, 2017 8:38 PM  

Muh Mefo bill expansion failed to turn a second-rate power into one capable of economic production equal to even one of its enemies. Very sad."Wages of Destruction" covered the absurdity of Nazi economic non-planning enough to crush that nonsense.

Anonymous ninebynine June 01, 2017 8:44 PM  

@5: https://infogalactic.com/info/Dunbar%27s_number

Blogger Lazarus June 01, 2017 8:48 PM  

I like the way this is progressing. I sense a breakthrough.

Blogger JACIII June 01, 2017 8:56 PM  

We can all agree Nazi-larpers are a pain to have around during a serious discussion, but NO ONE has clothed men at war as well as Hugo Boss since WWII. Women still go weak in the knees for those SS lightning bolts.

You have to go all the way back to Confederate Calvary officers to find better.

Anonymous Rocklea June 01, 2017 9:18 PM  

Years ago I was speaking to a woman about free trade etc.
She said to me, "Look at all the different varieties of bread we can buy at the supermarket. Why do we need so many?"
I said to her, "How many do you think would be enough?"
I thought she was stupid. Maybe I was projecting.

Blogger Aeoli Pera June 01, 2017 9:19 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Anonymous Rocklea June 01, 2017 9:26 PM  

Why wouldn't excess choice destroy a species designed to maximize scarce resources?

Blogger Johnny June 01, 2017 9:38 PM  

Shane Sullivan wrote:Wasn't National Socialism designed solely for the German people? Vox, I hope that you do that analysis; I'd really like to see the economic outcomes of that system laid out completely by an excellent economist like yourself.

Nazis divided the human population into three groups. Arians who were the best and most wonderful people in the world. Anybody who spoke German and had no Jewish ancestors got to be Arian, along with selected members in the conquered groups. You had to look Arian.

Then there were the Jews, the great enemies of the Arians. And finally everybody else. People worthy of serving, usually.

Hitler did not like capitalism and had a romantic fantasy about a kind idyllic and rural German population. Vagner type romantic thinking. And he regimented the population a lot. Cradle to grave government intervention type stuff.

Hitler was a crummy administrator who never properly budgeted things, and only got around to having Germany on a war footing after things got bad on the Eastern Front. What made Germany work was that Hitler inherited a basically soundly run country. And under the pressure of WWII (like Roosevelt) became more friendly to big corporations owing to their ability to churn out production.

Anonymous johnc June 01, 2017 9:55 PM  

I watched a video the other day by a TWP leader explaining what National Socialism is and at the end of the video I don't think I got the point.

I do understand the idea of (traditional) social justice, but I don't know why some think National Socialism is the best mechanism to achieve that goal.

Anonymous Mike x June 01, 2017 10:18 PM  

It helps to differentiate the "National Socialist" economic theories of Gottfried Feder and Gregor Strasser versus the policies of Hitler.

Feder and Strasser were enemies of usury. Hitler wasn't. More below...

-----------------------
So what exactly is the Nazi program?
According to Mike Delaney, ‘those of us in the real truth movement are promoting a working people’s Fascist movement – populist, collectivist socialism which places the state as the core power of society, rather than promoting inhuman industrial forces to this position – as an obvious means to bring justice to our society’.

Interestingly, this quote is preceded by a withering attack on Libertarianism as ‘Jewish Free Market Capitalism’. Fair enough: this is just a good example of the dialectic at work. Of course we don’t want ‘Jewish Free Market Capitalism’. No. we want a big strong state. We are talking national SOCIALISM. Much different from ‘normal’ socialism, I guess. The question remains the same: who owns the State?

As we know, Hitler ruled through a coalition with Germany’s leading industrialists, who were to make a bundle first from reconstructing Germany and then in the war. Gottfried Feder, who was the leader of the Nazi ‘left’ and famous for his fight against Usury was sidelined in the late thirties and from then on Nazism was fully connected to the industrial powers that be. And through that, to International Finance. For instance: IG Farben, Germany’s leading chemical powerhouse, merged with Rockefeller’s Standard Oil in the thirties. In fact: the synthetic fuel that the Nazis generated from coal to keep their war machine going was a Standard Oil patent.

From:

https://realcurrencies.wordpress.com/2013/01/30/gordon-duff-nazis-and-the-unmistakably-macho-allure-of-anti-semitism/

Blogger S1AL June 01, 2017 10:35 PM  

"Years ago I was speaking to a woman about free trade etc.
She said to me, "Look at all the different varieties of bread we can buy at the supermarket. Why do we need so many?"
I said to her, "How many do you think would be enough?"
I thought she was stupid. Maybe I was projecting."

The answer to the implicit question here is "trial and error marketing conducted by multiple competitors". It is otherwise known as "a healthy economic system" and is infinitely preferable to the empty shelves produced by totalitarian systems.

And what the hell does branding have to do with free trade?

Blogger Johnny June 01, 2017 10:39 PM  

16. Mike x
Interestingly, this quote is preceded by a withering attack on Libertarianism as ‘Jewish Free Market Capitalism’. Fair enough: this is just a good example of the dialectic at work.

When long distance commerce started developing in Europe in the Middle Ages the Jews were heavily involved as traders and moneylenders. From that Hitler took capitalism to be a Jewish enterprise and the idea stuck even though a lot of Jews in his era were socialists.

Hitler was not a precise thinker and he didn't worry details. That makes Nazism hard to pin down because it was variable.

Blogger Lazarus June 01, 2017 10:43 PM  

S1AL wrote:The answer to the implicit question here is "trial and error marketing conducted by multiple competitors". It is otherwise known as "a healthy economic system" and is infinitely preferable to the empty shelves produced by totalitarian systems.



A healthy economic system is one that has different types of bread on sale at a significant discount on a rotating basis.

Extrapolate this out to other products and shut the fuck up.

Blogger Johnny June 01, 2017 10:45 PM  

>>"Years ago I was speaking to a woman about free trade etc.She said to me, "Look at all the different varieties of bread we can buy at the supermarket. Why do we need so many?"

You can get more efficient production with fewer choices, but that requires a state that regiments things. The usual problem is collateral damage in how they run stuff. I suppose that is what she was thinking with the choices of bread.

Free trade. I don't know? I suppose if society is regimented internally the tendency would be to do likewise with trade. Control generally has to be enforced generally or the free market part will interfere with state planning.

Blogger Lazarus June 01, 2017 10:56 PM  

Johnny wrote:Free trade. I don't know? I suppose if society is regimented internally the tendency would be to do likewise with trade. Control generally has to be enforced generally or the free market part will interfere with state planning.

You are almost there.

Anonymous Wooly Covfefe June 01, 2017 11:23 PM  

Apropos of rhyming:

Covfefe, Harambe, Sheneneh, Pepe.

Praise KEK!

Anonymous Grinder June 01, 2017 11:25 PM  

Yes to National Socialism. Collective action is required to ensure the survival of the white nations and hence the white race. Unfettered 'free market' capitalism is harmful to the race as most here have finally come to concede. A multitude of individuals motivated by self interest do not just spontaneously produce truly great works. It was socialism that put the first man, woman, satellite and space stations into orbit and the champion capitalist liberty poster child played catch up to put men on the moon (if it really did happen) and then only through government directed collective effort and resource expenditure. It was socialism and not 'communism' and no longer even really all that Marxist socialist by the time of Yuri Gagarin's flight. Jewish Communism was already on the way out as an eventual goal with Stalin's declaration of "Socialism in one country" as official policy in 1925. Stalin just never made the leap to national socialism, only to a brutal despotism - still hostile to western market economics, that paid little more than lipservice to Marxist values just like the "Communist" rulers of China today who are much less hostile to western market economics.
For all the criticism directed by many on this site to 'socialism' - whatever they think it means, there is slim details on what the best system of government that would turn around the decline of our people would look like aside from it being vaguely authoritarian but at the same time preserve individual liberty. How about some more details of what that looks like. I like the idea of individual liberty to the extent that it does not harm the race. People should be free to not associate with queers or non-whites and not to be compelled to bake cakes for sodomites or anyone they don't want to. Conversely, I don't believe in the freedom to churn out endless degenerate pornography or literature that weakens traditional values, the supremacy of the hetero family as the ideal and so forth. Economically it can be neither fully socialist nor fully free market driven but a mixed system with private property rights as exists already in the west with adjustments made to ensure that it best serves the interests of the nation and its people and changed whenever it fails to do so as is the case with the runaway crony globalist capital nation wreckers at their peak today. Marxism is a cancer that Jews created to destroy all races but especially whites. Feminism, globalism, LGBTQ activism all have Marxism as their root philosophy. For nationalists, even national socialists, Marxism is the proper name of the enemy you call SJW's. SJW is fine because so many of them would vehemently deny being in any way Marxist but they are the foot soldiers of nation wrecking Marxism, whether they know it or not.

Blogger Scott Birch June 01, 2017 11:42 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Anonymous Rocklea June 01, 2017 11:51 PM  

S1AL wrote:
"And what the hell does branding have to do with free trade?"

What if your favourite loaf of bread comes from halfway across the country, or another country, and puts your local farmer and Baker out of business?

Blogger Were-Puppy June 02, 2017 12:09 AM  

VD you briefly mentioned that economic mobility within the US may have caused some of the problems.

I haven't fully thought it through, but have long noted that families become scattered across the country because of jobs.

Not long ago went through a small town my grandparents lived in, and it's almost a ghost town now. Over time most left for parts unknown for work. This must have weakened the bonds of extended families.

Blogger Dedd Sirius June 02, 2017 12:12 AM  

NAZI LARPing seems often to be based on bromance-esque admiration for square jawed Germanic troopery, the timeless design of the Messerschmitt ME-109, and the aesthetics of the WWII helmet design. Tragic irony that the aesthetics coincided with such loony political leadership.

Blogger S1AL June 02, 2017 12:33 AM  

"What if your favourite loaf of bread comes from halfway across the country, or another country, and puts your local farmer and Baker out of business?"

That's not how it works. That's not even slightly how it works. This is pure Luddite idiocy.

---

"A healthy economic system is one that has different types of bread on sale at a significant discount on a rotating basis.

Extrapolate this out to other products and shut the fuck up."

Untwist your knickers, bitch. You clearly have no idea how the business works, or why it doesn't "extrapolate".

--

I get that this topic brings out the swastika fetishizers, but the choice isn't national socialism or borderless free trade or communism. There are a lot of other options.

Anonymous Rocklea June 02, 2017 1:18 AM  

S1AL wrote:
"That's not how it works. That's not even slightly how it works. This is pure Luddite idiocy."

Is that an analogy?

Blogger Bilroy June 02, 2017 1:27 AM  

But what about Hong Kong and Singapore? They've embraced free trade, yet unemployment is very low and families are still intact.

I don't buy the argument that in true free trade American families will be split up with mum, dad, son and daughter all working on different continents. The desire the stay home will affect the pricing mechanism, yielding a healthy equilibrium state.

Sure, if free trade means open borders, then I'm not a free trader. But some kind of compromise can arrived at. Hong Kong and Singapore may be the world's leaders in free trade, but the last time I checked their immigration websites, they have plenty of protectionist measures in place to put me off the idea of even thinking about moving there.

I'm all in favour of completely cutting off trade with Islamic countries. Let them eat from the tree that their false prophet lead them to.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash June 02, 2017 1:52 AM  

Bilroy wrote:I don't buy the argument that in true free trade American families will be split up with mum, dad, son and daughter all working on different continents. The desire the stay home will affect the pricing mechanism, yielding a healthy equilibrium state.
Then why am I negotiating over a job in The Other Washington? Despite the fact that I don't have any desire to move all the way across the country, to leave behind my adult children and my grandchildren or to live in the East.
Singapore and Hong Kong total what, 40 sq miles? With closed borders and a police state, anything is possible, I guess.

Blogger Gareth June 02, 2017 1:59 AM  

Hi vox,

As a longtime reader here, I feel I would benefit from you writing your take on national socialist economics. I hear so much about how they did wonders for the German economy and even after watching "the greatest story never told" I don't feel I'm really any wiser in that regard.

Blogger Nick S June 02, 2017 1:59 AM  

Yes to National Socialism.

No.

Once we break up into smaller tribal nation states, some expanded hybrid form of Direct Democracy/Minarchism Plus with cyclical citizen governing as an obligatory jury duty sort of thing. Everybody serves X# of years in a capacity determined by fitness and aptitude testing then you're out.

Blogger Gareth June 02, 2017 2:05 AM  

An interesting comment but not one that shines a light on how national social economics would work.

Blogger Benjamin Kraft June 02, 2017 2:22 AM  

How long do you think it will take these wannabe skinheads to realize that NatSoc is actually quite similar to Socialism (read: Communism) in many ways? It's a nigh-lowest-common-denominator ideology that had the batsh** insane gusto to successfully drive socialism out of Germany, but it's still right near the nadir of governing systems, kind of like Islam is for both religions and governments.

Granted, it's a very broad nadir, but whatever.

Blogger Bilroy June 02, 2017 2:26 AM  

Snidely Whiplash

You're right. If it happens in America, then an open borders, free trade arrangement world wide would be similar. But HK and Singapore still manage to lead the world in free trade yet not at the expense of their borders or their jobs.

Maybe my problem is that I don't see how we can't have relatively free trade with tight borders.

As for Vox's point that free trade is a poison, I'm not convinced. A high tax, highly regulated modern economy is always going to be out-competed by a low-tax, lax-regulation country that is hungry and on the rise. That isn't a failure of global free trade; it's a failure to allow for free trade on home turf, hence putting us at a competitive disadvantage.

Blogger Tom Kratman June 02, 2017 2:36 AM  

@33

"Once we break up into smaller tribal nation states, some expanded hybrid form of Direct Democracy/Minarchism Plus with cyclical citizen governing as an obligatory jury duty sort of thing."

Minarchism my ass; if we do break apart we're going to be either at war or with war impending continuously. That _always_ increases state power.

"Everybody serves X# of years in a capacity determined by fitness and aptitude testing then you're out."

Is this someone's actual program? Whose? Have they never heard of "cuis custodiet"? Have they inhaled so much glue that they really think people in a position to do the evaluations won't be looking out for their own progeny, or working a deal with colleagues to take care of each others? Have they never noticed that this is revolution and, while revolutionaries often do quite well for themselves, revolutions always fail (in achieving their stated purpose. No, ours was not a revolution. No, France had a new hereditary aristocracy within 13 or so years. No, 90% plus of the millionaires in China are the children of high party cadres.)

Blogger Tom Kratman June 02, 2017 2:47 AM  

"analysis of the Nazi economic program"

I'm not sure they even _had_ something cohesive enough that we could call it an economic program, prior to 43. Rather, they had a bunch of short term expedients, many of which left them - or would have left them - in worse shape than they'd started with once their terms ran. That, a lot of wishful thinking, and a few forays into what is perhaps best termed "state capitalism."

Of socialism there wasn't much; that being mostly some feelgoodism for the plebes (Kraft durch Freude). Indeed, the Nazis didn't even really take control of their economy until 1943, under the pressure of the war. We and the Brits were far more socialist than they were. (I am using here Eric Flint's definition/method of identification, that socialism exists when you cannot tell where the government ends and the economy begins.)

Blogger JP June 02, 2017 3:05 AM  

Put on your Hazlitt suits, cuz here we go.

Blogger wreckage June 02, 2017 3:56 AM  

@36 Exactly. Free trade, not free movement. If you can just walk across every border, why produce goods to trade across it? And that's exactly what we see with Mexico and the USA right now.

Porous borders violate the necessary conditions for trade to work. To put it another way, the right to own land is the foundation of property rights, from which all the benefits of trade flow.

Now, if, as we see, the USA HAS no rights to its own land, it's all over.

Singapore proves you can even have semi-communal land ownership provided land ownership remains unquestioned and absolute.

The error of the free market mavens then, it to assume liquidity and demand are God. The opposite is true. Stable and assured ownership rights and production are.

If that's Vox's problem with the "Free market" then not only do I agree, I'll lead the next charge, naked but for woad and a falchion.

The Free Market is nothing. It's like arguing over how to best make the breeze free or what policies will be best for the clouds. Property rights, rooted in blood and soil, fenced by borders and defended by military might, are the foundation of prosperity.

Blogger SteelPalm June 02, 2017 4:08 AM  

@35 Benjamin Kraft How long do you think it will take these wannabe skinheads to realize that NatSoc is actually quite similar to Socialism (read: Communism) in many ways?

In many cases, never. It's especially comical to see these idiots simultaneously praising Hitler and decrying communism, while blissfully unaware that

1. Hitler loved Karl Marx and would frequently quote him during speeches. Both were socialists that hated capitalism, which they blamed on Jews.

2. Hitler and Stalin were great friends until their competing ambitions for European supremacy caused Hitler to betray Stalin before Stalin had an opportunity to betray Hitler.

3. There was at most a dime's worth of difference between Hitler's socialism and Stalin's socialism. Their economies included.

The German economy was built for war and little else. They solved the unemployment problem by getting everyone to make munitions. Which would have led to an even worse economic collapse if Germany hadn't started the war.

They were banking on the conquest of Europe covering up for this.

Very similar to the absurd inefficiency and waste of the Soviet Union's central planning. Minus the total war part.

I admittedly did laugh at this comment by Grinder, though;

A multitude of individuals motivated by self interest do not just spontaneously produce truly great works.

Yeah, however would Vox have started Castalia House or Infogalactic without an oppressive socialist government telling him to do so?!

Blogger VD June 02, 2017 4:37 AM  

Free trade, not free movement.

For the Nth time, free trade IS free movement. You cannot have the former without the latter; the same logic applies.

Blogger Doom June 02, 2017 4:40 AM  

Well, Nazism wasn't all bad. Not that it ever had a chance, was good for it's people or ever could have been, economics is a minor consideration if too why it would never be good for any, but it pitted it's evil against more direct communism, and the two black dogs gutted each other. If Germany had not been going Nazi when Russia was going full on always-lie, double-down, tard, Europe would be Russia. Well, for a while. It was a pleasant coincidence... at least compared to the options, either way actually. Either? Any... well, almost any that might really have come from the snafu which bore it.

It's coming again. Only this time they are trying to skip nations and just start from the top down. This isn't the first, or last, time this has happened. It... always fails, sometimes more disastrously than others. Sometimes more quickly. How long did the League of Nations, Holy (and unholy) Roman Empires, Dynasties, and royal families really last? Men were not meant to be kings, at least over one another. Some at the top, and bottom, simply prefer it that way. Thank God for firearms.

Anonymous Rocklea June 02, 2017 5:28 AM  

"For the Nth time, free trade IS free movement. You cannot have the former without the latter; the same logic applies."

"Kwa mara ya Nth, biashara huru NI harakati bure. Huwezi kuwa na zamani bila mwisho, mantiki hiyo inatumika."

There, fixed. Swahili.

Anonymous Selat June 02, 2017 5:32 AM  

Vox you often argument that people should read sone new books. Then I recommend you to read book called "Democracy, the god that failed". There you will learn that free movement is antithesis to free trade. You ask others to open their minds to your logic, try the same on yourself with this book.

Blogger wreckage June 02, 2017 5:51 AM  

You can't, except for the entire history of free trade, right up until it stopped working.

In other words, you can't have free trade and free movement, because regardless of logic, it breaks.

Emergent systems don't care how illogical they are.

Libertarianism is the perfect example of applying logic until you don't make sense anymore.

Blogger wreckage June 02, 2017 5:59 AM  

Free trade entails no borders is like saying that to be friends we have to physically merge into a single fleshy abomination.

Everyone, with the possible exception of Rome, who has mistaken imperialism for wealth creation... ie., erasing borders instead of trading across them, has failed and collapsed.

The reason free-traders can't argue with your free movement assumption is because they've always assumed but never thought about it; their reasoning for it is so specious they can't even *in principle* argue for or against it.

They also think demand creates wealth. I am sure you have no trouble seeing why that's logically impossible, for the same reason you see that importing 10 million consumers can't work, and that innovation can't happen without a diverse industrial base.

Here's my final argument: buying groceries does not require me to let the grocer bang my wife. Trade, and peaceful relations, are not made impossible, but possible, by borders.

Blogger VD June 02, 2017 6:10 AM  

There you will learn that free movement is antithesis to free trade.

I've read it. Hoppe is wrong. My father used to idolize him too.

You can't, except for the entire history of free trade, right up until it stopped working.

It stopped working because free movement became affordable and politically permissible. The only difference between free trade and free movement of people is technology. The same thing goes for free trade and free movement of capital.

Ricardo didn't account for capital because it couldn't easily move then. Mises didn't account for services/people because they couldn't easily move then.

The situation has changed. The economic logic has changed too as a result.

Blogger VD June 02, 2017 6:36 AM  

Note to Hoppe enthusiasts: he considers Ricardo's case for free trade to be "logically unassailable".

Anonymous Mike x June 02, 2017 6:52 AM  

One cannot discuss the theories behind National Socialism vs. (((capitalism))) without talking about the issue of usury.

Consider a public works program, like a national highway system:

1. The (((capitalists))) loan the state fiat money charged at interest, the state then hires (is bribed to hire) contractors to build the roads (often large corporations also built off of usury and international finance)...

2. The (((communist))) uses the state to build the roads using literal slave labor...

3. The National Socialist pays for the roads directly using no-interest currency to locally owned (often worker-owned) co-ops... all citizens and taxpayers gain benefit from a road system built without usury, the workers benefit from being paid for their labor with non-interest-bearing currency.

Of course the theory was different from the practice. Gottfried Feder and Gregor Strasser never got a chance to apply their theories.

PS: The only LARPers here are those who get their history from the (((History Channel))). "Muh socialism is socialism said Glenn Beck's chalkboard..."

Anonymous Mike x June 02, 2017 7:03 AM  

Vox, perhaps the binary thinkers here can't compute that the opposite of (((free trade))) is NOT zero-trade/movement of goods/currency but instead regulated trade/movement of goods/currency.

In fact, we already have regulated trade under so-called "free trade" right now, but regulated in favor of (((whom))) is the question....

Anonymous Mike x June 02, 2017 7:06 AM  

"In many cases, never. It's especially comical to see these idiots simultaneously praising Hitler "

A Jew smearing National Socialism. News at 11. Water is wet lol.

Blogger VD June 02, 2017 7:49 AM  

A Jew smearing National Socialism.

In that particular case, he is right to do so. National socialism is a total economic nonstarter. It was nothing but a credit boom meant to be paid off by military adventure. The collective deficit of the Nazi budget from 1934 to 1939 was significantly bigger in relative terms than the US budget deficit from 2010 to 2016.

Nazi economics are not even remotely sustainable. The Nazis doubled the state ownership of capital assets and were strongly anti-small business and killed one-fifth of Germany's small businesses by banning any business with less than 40,000 in capital.

Anyone who claims to favor National Socialism on the basis of its economics is economically illiterate. It never had any core economic theory; it was always pure ad hoc.

"The basic feature of our economic theory is that we have no theory at all."
- Adolf Hitler

Anonymous Mike x June 02, 2017 8:15 AM  

First off, it is as much a mistake to conflate all of National Socialism with Hitler as it is to conflate Wall Street and Adam Smith...

You won't find anything but rhetoric in Mein Kamph. Though interesting enough, all of Hitler's popular rhetorical ideas were American in origin (eugenics, Henry Ford, Manifest Destiny...)

Have you studied Gottfried Feder and Gregor Strasser? Did you know their ideas predate the Hitler regime by decades?

Strasserism has much in common with the Founding Father's view of economics, and continuing on with the populist/producerism tradition of Jackson, Huey Long, Pat Buchanan and right to his the campaign-version of Trump...

Of course the reality of implementing Strasserism in Weimar Germany was nill. The (((Globalists))) controlled at least 50% of Germany, yielding two choices for National Socialists: 1) gradual submission i.e. cucking, or 2) taking total power (hmmm, this all seems so familiar...)

But in taking power, Hitler chose to side with the generals and bankers and had the Strasserites purged or shot. In the end the Swamp won, and so it goes.

Anonymous PAC June 02, 2017 8:27 AM  

"Anyone who claims to favor National Socialism on the basis of its economics is economically illiterate. It never had any core economic theory; it was always pure ad hoc.

"The basic feature of our economic theory is that we have no theory at all."
- Adolf Hitler


Well, that in itself speaks well of National Socialism philosophically. It is not an economicism, which is why Anglos have such trouble understanding it.

Having a "core economic theory" ultimately means obeisance to Homo Oeconomicus.

Anonymous Rocklea June 02, 2017 8:35 AM  

"Well, that in itself speaks well of National Socialism philosophically. It is not an economicism, which is why Anglos have such trouble understanding it."

Why won't these damnable Anglo shopkeepers line up properly in nice neat rows?

Blogger confederate miner June 02, 2017 9:04 AM  

You might be surprised at how well it helps an economy when you get rid of the right of Jewish bankers to legally plunder the wealth of a nation.

Blogger confederate miner June 02, 2017 9:05 AM  

You might be surprised at how well it helps an economy when you get rid of the right of Jewish bankers to legally plunder the wealth of a nation.

Blogger Gapeseed June 02, 2017 9:22 AM  

Nazi Economics -

1. Buy lots of guns on credit.
2. Go on crime spree with guns.
3. Kill the repo men.

Blogger Nick S June 02, 2017 9:41 AM  

Have they inhaled so much glue that they really think people in a position to do the evaluations won't be looking out for their own progeny

When Watson and D-Wave start creating offspring, we should get very worried.

Blogger Nick S June 02, 2017 9:44 AM  

Minarchism my ass; if we do break apart we're going to be either at war or with war impending continuously.

Right. Hence, expanded Minarchism Plus to account for a military and border protection.

Blogger wreckage June 02, 2017 10:39 AM  

@48 OK, I see your point there. I'd argue that capital is the truly intractable one; people are pretty easy to regulate. The high tech movement that makes it all easy-cheap flights- is also well-nigh impossible to sneak into and out of.

All that's needed to repair that is enforce current laws and tighten up on visas-perhaps add a tariff-like tax.

The movement of capital, now that I have no clues; not how to fix it within the current environment, nor what environment would even notionally permit control. All of the West has a huge problem with governments aiding and abetting the grossest mismanagement and fraud in terms of capital; Wall Street savagely defends the terrible rules and loopholes that are even now undermining the consensus that Wall Street should even exist.

Blogger wreckage June 02, 2017 10:41 AM  

@37; A bottom-heavy Federation with near-total local autonomy hasn't resulted in a rolling 2-century bloodbath in Switzerland. A strong local autonomy can be worked into a survivable structure, and might be the only survivable structure, since it denies SJWs the means of enacting systemic change.

Blogger wreckage June 02, 2017 10:45 AM  

@62, sorry to reply to myself, but governments have fetishized demand and efficient allocation of capital as the keystones to economic prosperity. Another example of governments not having even a basic notion of their own job; it is logically impossible for consumption to create growth, and efficiency, as pointed out by Taleb, efficiency is not in itself a good thing.

Blogger Tom Kratman June 02, 2017 10:50 AM  

@63

The background is a former united states split into rather small polities. We already hate each other so we can assume hostility. Unless you can bring that system about in _all_ those polities at once, and you can't, then the one most well geared and organized for war will either a) conquer the others, or b) cause them to become just like it. Each might well be cohesive and peaceful, internally, just like Switzerland (though, be it noted, Switzerland hasn't been as internal harmonious as all that), but among themselves? Not a chance, really.

If you're talking about the US becoming Switzerland, complete to people saying "The United States doesn't have an army, it IS an army," let me know when you have a plan to bring that about.

Blogger Tom Kratman June 02, 2017 10:54 AM  

@61

You're missing the cube-square problem. WHat the tax-the-shit-out-of-everything-except-the-hyperrich United States can barely do, with 310 or so million people to defend a 2000 mile or so border, Texas, alone, is unlikely to be able to do to defend half that border, plus other borders with other independent states. They can do it, of course, provided they're willing to subordinate themselves to a state that takes nearly everything.

Blogger Gapeseed June 02, 2017 11:06 AM  

The purest form of free trade ever seen was enabled by the ratification of the U.S. Constitution and its strictures largely prohibiting states from hindering the movement of goods, capital and people.

The free movement of people necessarily weakened local cultures. Early on, people identified much more strongly as a "Virginian" or a "New Yorker" putting their American identity well behind in their minds and hearts. Hundreds of years of this intracontinental churn have diluted regional differences (seen anecdotally in the gradual erosion of regional dialects).

This churn infuses local cultures with a common American ethic mostly unique to the world. At our best, we have unmatched optimism and entrepreneurial imagination, a byproduct of free trade between the states and ability to migrate. If I want to reshuffle my deck and uproot myself from Brooklyn to give the Fracking Empire of North Dakota a try, I could do that. We all tolerate the incursions of American migrants because we may migrate ourselves within America one day. I would bet most people here already have.

The best argument for free trade, though, is that it has helped make America very wealthy. That is in part due to the entrepreneurial imagination it helped engender, and partly because we don’t have border guards and related bureaucracies at every state border looking too hard to stop people or goods.

None of this is meant to provide cover for an open borders policy to non-Americans, which I would not support. But free trade is a wild American success story, at least when looked at from within.

Blogger wreckage June 02, 2017 11:09 AM  

@66 The Federal Government is the only thing stopping Texas from controlling its border.

Blogger Nick S June 02, 2017 11:13 AM  

Fine then, Tom! When I create my shining technological marvel of logistical efficiency on a hill, I'm not gonna let you in. jk ;) I'll let you in if you say, "Pretty please, Uncle Nick. You were right all along."

Blogger Tom Kratman June 02, 2017 11:19 AM  

@66

No, the federal government is the only thing pretending to stop Texas from enforcing its own border. Cost is a biggie. Moreover, as mentioned, we we not just talking about the Mexican border, but the entire Texas border for a completely independent Texas.

Blogger Tom Kratman June 02, 2017 11:20 AM  

Yeah, I'll take my chances, Nick.

Blogger Nick S June 02, 2017 11:39 AM  

LOL!

Tom, you may know this. I've wondered why the government didn't create a federal easement along all our land borders to begin with. Seems like it would have made common sense.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash June 02, 2017 11:42 AM  

Tom Kratman wrote:WHat the tax-the-shit-out-of-everything-except-the-hyperrich United States can barely do, with 310 or so million people to defend a 2000 mile or so border, Texas, alone, is unlikely to be able to do to defend half that border, plus other borders with other independent states.
The US hasn't even tried to defend that border in 50 years. If we actually put the Army on the border, it would be shut down within a week. We can presume that Texas isn't going to be sending troops to central Asia, Europe or the Middle East, which is where all the American military money has been spent.

Blogger Tom Kratman June 02, 2017 1:45 PM  

@73:

Which is still rather missing the point, Snidely. If pressed the US can. If pressed, some little podunk successor state probably cannot, and certainly cannot consistent with any number of anarchist-objectivist-libertarian-minarchist visions.

That's the point; minarchism and petty little states do not go together very well in a hostile world, with hostile neightbors. Said a bit differently, Oklahoma can have free speech because Texas and Kansas are not planning to attack it, nor are either likely to fall to Mexico or a consortium of Colorado, Nebraska, and Missouri under the command of the evil Bostonian Empire. Break up and all those things become possible, while free speech becomes a luxury that is not likely to be tolerated.

I'm surprised I have to explain this to people; the puissant United States, quite possibly purged of dangerous elements, can provide a lot more freedom, because of its power, limited areas of vulnerability, and strategic depth, than any pissant group of successors is likely to.

Blogger Tom Kratman June 02, 2017 1:47 PM  

As for the other, yes, we should have nuked 3-4-5 Islamic cities, as many as it took to create a 1000:1 revenge, and used the armed forces for the much more serious long term threat of Mexico. I can't answer for strategic idiocy or limp wrists on the part of our society.

Blogger Tom Kratman June 02, 2017 1:49 PM  

@72

Arguably, Nick, because we created a conditional easement on our neighbors' land borders, and three miles out to sea as well. Conditional? Yes, "If you put anything to threaten us within three day's march of our borders, we'll declare war, mobilize, and invade." We are not unique in this.

Blogger Nick S June 02, 2017 1:59 PM  

I thought we were talking a post puissance disunited shambles rather than some kind of social Schumpeter's Gale.

Blogger Peter Jackson June 02, 2017 2:04 PM  

Commenter on Free markets are no answer darkstream: "I know you're criticizing something, so let's talk about something you advocate..."
VD: I don't do that, ever.

Then you're pretty worthless as a pundit, or whatever you call yourself. Obviously advocating for something opens your position up for critical analysis, which we just can't have.

Blogger Tom Kratman June 02, 2017 2:12 PM  

If it falls apart completely, Nick, then it does. Won't change the essentially zero possibility of anything minarchical arising from the ruins.

Blogger Tom Kratman June 02, 2017 2:15 PM  

"Obviously advocating for something opens your position up for critical analysis, which we just can't have."

Or, in the alternative, he simply recognizes that there IS no solution and those claiming there is are simply frauds.

Blogger SirHamster June 02, 2017 3:01 PM  

Peter Jackson wrote:Then you're pretty worthless as a pundit, or whatever you call yourself. Obviously advocating for something opens your position up for critical analysis, which we just can't have.

Darkstreams are about what the SDL wishes to talk about, not about what the most insistent or vocal audience members want to talk about.

If it's worth discussion, lay out the case in the post-Darkstream comments like in here. A solid case will attract a response.

Blogger SirHamster June 02, 2017 3:06 PM  

I missed the big idea.

Pointing out a problem does not necessitate offering a solution.

For a sufficiently complex problem, offering a guaranteed wrong solution is only going to obscure the correct diagnosis.

Blogger Peter Jackson June 02, 2017 3:27 PM  

Pointing out a problem does not necessitate offering a solution.

Funny, I don't hear this acknowledgement when Atheists criticize religion. We're constantly badgered into offering some sort of better alternative.

Blogger S1AL June 02, 2017 3:31 PM  

"Funny, I don't hear this acknowledgement when Atheists criticize religion. We're constantly badgered into offering some sort of better alternative."

That's because you never just criticize. You also claim atheism is superior, which *does* necessitate offering a solution. Which you can't.

Anonymous Ominous Cowherd June 02, 2017 3:37 PM  

Tom Kratman wrote:... Texas, alone, is unlikely to be able to do to defend half that border...

Looking strictly at the border with Mexico, I'd guess it would be cheaper for Texas to defend it against the incursions of illegals and cartels than for Texas to allow the illegals and cartels to continue to enter.

Because of the cube-square thing Alaska might have some difficulty defending its entire border, except Canadians are polite enough that a series of signs saying ``Please keep out, eh?'' would do the job.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash June 02, 2017 3:43 PM  

Tom Kratman wrote:I'm surprised I have to explain this to people; the puissant United States, quite possibly purged of dangerous elements, can provide a lot more freedom, because of its power, limited areas of vulnerability, and strategic depth, than any pissant group of successors is likely to.
I would wholeheartedly agree. I just can't see any path that winds up there. I can see a successor state that pretends to be America that has little to no freedom. Indeed, it seems we are on that very path, due to the intentional efforts of the Left. I can't see any way forward that retains the territorial integrity of the US without megadeaths and a Spanish-Nationalist-style police state. And that's the best-case scenario, if we win. If the Left wins, it's gulag time.

So talking about a breakup is more of the forlorn wish that we could avoid that end state, and (as is the American tendency) revert to a live-and-let-live truce.

I don't expect that personally, but it's one of the better outcomes.

Blogger SirHamster June 02, 2017 3:56 PM  

Peter Jackson wrote:Pointing out a problem does not necessitate offering a solution.

Funny, I don't hear this acknowledgement when Atheists criticize religion. We're constantly badgered into offering some sort of better alternative.


You concede the point on Vox, then?

Atheists criticizing religion is not pointing out a problem. Atheists criticizing religion is an attempt to replace one belief system with another, where belief systems are solutions to man's need for a mental framework to interpret the world and man's role in it.

The reasons you don't get the acknowledgement you think you deserve is because atheist mental frameworks uniformly suck. You can't even correctly categorize your own ideas. Atheism is trying to be an alternative to religion, and it fails at being better. It doesn't fit the statement I made.

Now, are you going to confront the criticism of your point, or keep changing the topic?

Blogger Snidely Whiplash June 02, 2017 4:09 PM  

Peter Jackson wrote:Funny, I don't hear this acknowledgement when Atheists criticize religion. We're constantly badgered into offering some sort of better alternative.
No, you're constantly mocked because you're deeply irrational, emotion-driven ashcoals.

Blogger Peter Jackson June 02, 2017 6:20 PM  

The reasons you don't get the acknowledgement you think you deserve is because atheist mental frameworks uniformly suck.


a·the·ism
ˈāTHēˌizəm/Submit
noun
disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.


You're the one who needs to educate himself. You don't even understand the definition of that which your criticize.

Blogger SirHamster June 02, 2017 6:26 PM  

"Now, are you going to confront the criticism of your point, or keep changing the topic?"

Surprise, surprise. Look at what the atheist using a defective mental framework decided to do.

Blogger Nick S June 02, 2017 8:15 PM  

Won't change the essentially zero possibility of anything minarchical arising from the ruins.

Okay. Let's forget the minarchist framework and just call it Nick's Completely New and Monumentally Superior Way of Thinking About Minimalistic Governance and Magnificent Social Structures Emerging from Dystopian Aftermaths.

Blogger Tom Kratman June 02, 2017 8:19 PM  

That's because you're looking at Texas, in a US that is. Change it to a balkanized US, with hostile statelets all around Texas, and the calc become cube-square.

Blogger Tom Kratman June 02, 2017 8:21 PM  

Fantasyland, you mean? I think there is, or was, one of those at Disney.

Blogger Tom Kratman June 02, 2017 8:22 PM  

@86

Timocracy.

Anonymous starret June 03, 2017 1:56 AM  

@VD:
You missed the biggest flaw in Hazlitt Chapter 11.

A tariff is a tax! If you abolish one tax, you have to raise a different tax or reduce government spending by an equivalent amount. Hazlitt does not account for this at all.

So the consumer saves $5 on a shirt, but has to pay $5 more in income tax or in tax on some other good or service. Or the government has to reduce some public good or service by $5 that the consumer then has to pay out of his own pocket instead.

Blogger wreckage June 03, 2017 2:03 AM  

"the puissant United States, quite possibly purged of dangerous elements, can provide a lot more freedom, because of its power, limited areas of vulnerability, and strategic depth, than any pissant group of successors is likely to."

As an aside from the argument, that is a very fine sentence, sir.

"Change it to a balkanized US, with hostile statelets all around Texas..."

Why? That's not just a fantasy, it's a highly unlikely one.

Blogger Tom Kratman June 03, 2017 6:57 PM  

I have my moments.

It's not so important that it's highly unlikely (though it's less unlikely depending on how you want to define Texas; i.e. it's less unlikely if we think of small confederacy centered on Texas), as that that kind of fragmentation seems to be what some folks are rooting for.

Blogger Shawn Hetherington June 04, 2017 7:59 PM  

@48,

"It stopped working because free movement became affordable and politically permissible. The only difference between free trade and free movement of people is technology. The same thing goes for free trade and free movement of capital."

Can someone point me to a definition of free movement as it is meant by Vox? I can't see what he means here. I am Canadian and we pretty much have free trade with the US, however, we don't have free movement with the US in the sense that I understand it. I cannot, for example, drive across the border and go apply for a job somewhere while I have pretty much carte blanche to go there as a tourist for periods up to 6 months or so a year(and this is very straightforward to do).

Post a Comment

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

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts