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

Friday, June 17, 2016

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.

Labels: ,

125 Comments:

Blogger Austin Ballast June 14, 2016 6:24 PM  

Should be interesting to review. Will you be releasing the audio afterward?

Blogger James Dixon June 14, 2016 6:29 PM  

> 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?

Blogger Bill June 14, 2016 6:33 PM  

How about we trade all our muslims to Europe for all their (only native British, German, or French) engineers?

Blogger J June 14, 2016 6:39 PM  

@1: Or a book, like you did with Dr Miller?

Anonymous A Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents June 14, 2016 6:50 PM  

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'.

Blogger SS June 14, 2016 6:58 PM  

@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.

Blogger VD June 14, 2016 6:58 PM  

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.

Blogger Dave June 14, 2016 7:05 PM  

Ok yeah free trade but what is your position on kitesurfing replacing windsurfing at the Rio Games? Also, lifting the ban on Tiny Tim?

Blogger praetorian June 14, 2016 7:06 PM  

Trump tweet's "America First", then this...

What a time to be alive.

Blogger tz June 14, 2016 7:10 PM  

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.

Blogger tz June 14, 2016 7:19 PM  

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.

Blogger The Kurgan June 14, 2016 7:20 PM  

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.

Blogger RobertT June 14, 2016 7:30 PM  

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.

Blogger Quizzer W June 14, 2016 7:39 PM  

Will it have a segment on sex robots? That was a very entertaining and poignant part of the last free trade debate :-)

Anonymous Godfrey June 14, 2016 7:43 PM  

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.

Blogger John S June 14, 2016 8:19 PM  

Registered. Sounds like a good listen.

Blogger Keef June 14, 2016 8:24 PM  

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.

Blogger Keef June 14, 2016 8:25 PM  

Right because having to pay tribute to the Feds increases your standard of living.

Jeez do any of you people here think for yourselves?

Blogger Gordon June 14, 2016 8:25 PM  

Wear the red tie. You know it makes you look powerful and commanding. And would it kill you to sit up straighter?

Blogger Keef June 14, 2016 8:27 PM  

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.

Blogger maniacprovost June 14, 2016 8:33 PM  

Since we can't discuss free trade, here's a story I wrote directly 100% inspired by the last debate.

https://justpaste.it/v9tm

Blogger Cluebat Vanexodar June 14, 2016 8:38 PM  

This should be interesting.

I look forward to the highlights.

Blogger praetorian June 14, 2016 8:45 PM  

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.

Blogger Groot June 14, 2016 8:53 PM  

I can't sign up because I only have one name. And what about my friends Madonna, Sting, Bono, Charo and Cher?

Blogger VD June 14, 2016 9:28 PM  

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.

Blogger tz June 14, 2016 9:36 PM  

@24 - Polymerize (yu-gi-oh) - Cher Bono! And things are Sonny!

Blogger Lazarus June 14, 2016 9:47 PM  

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.

Blogger Student in Blue June 14, 2016 10:14 PM  

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.

Blogger Samuel Nock June 14, 2016 11:07 PM  

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."

Blogger Stilicho June 14, 2016 11:17 PM  

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.

Anonymous jOHN MOSBY June 14, 2016 11:45 PM  

"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.

Anonymous jOHN MOSBY June 14, 2016 11:54 PM  

"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.)

Anonymous Cheddarman June 15, 2016 12:14 AM  

I hope you will be sitting in your badass chair with the Lions etched in the wood. Lions of Judah, no doubt.

Blogger residentMoron June 15, 2016 12:32 AM  

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.

Blogger John Morris June 15, 2016 1:15 AM  

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.

Blogger Samuel Nock June 15, 2016 1:23 AM  

VD,

Your post says 7:30, but the login indicates 7:00. Can you confirm the correct starting time? Thanks!

Blogger Gapeseed June 15, 2016 1:23 AM  

Good luck! Looking forward to some excellent debate.

Blogger Dire Badger June 15, 2016 1:51 AM  

@Keef-

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/05/if_trade_made_the_us_rich_explain_this_graph.html

Anonymous Spartacus xxxxx June 15, 2016 2:09 AM  

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.

Blogger peter blandings June 15, 2016 4:00 AM  

yeah, but what are you going to wear?

Blogger Nick S June 15, 2016 8:00 AM  

Jeez do any of you people here think for yourselves?

Some people would do well to outsource their thinking. You, for instance...

Blogger dh June 15, 2016 12:01 PM  

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?

Anonymous National Debate Champion June 15, 2016 12:12 PM  

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.

Blogger Keef June 15, 2016 12:59 PM  

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.

Blogger Keef June 15, 2016 1:01 PM  

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.

Blogger Keef June 15, 2016 1:02 PM  

Care to make an argument?

Blogger Keef June 15, 2016 1:30 PM  

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.

Blogger praetorian June 15, 2016 6:26 PM  

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?

Blogger admin June 16, 2016 8:07 PM  

Looks like a fair forum. Tom Woods is an honest broker and Murphy is a decent guy.

Blogger lm June 17, 2016 2:48 PM  

Will it be recorded for those of us who won't be able to watch live?

Anonymous Great Again June 17, 2016 2:50 PM  

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.

Blogger Dave June 17, 2016 2:55 PM  

The anticipation is palpable for this event. This is Ali and Frazier No. 4.

Anonymous Millenium June 17, 2016 3:05 PM  

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.

Blogger Were-Puppy June 17, 2016 3:31 PM  

I like these debates. I don't know much about economics, and it helps to listen to these debates.

Blogger Gaiseric June 17, 2016 3:32 PM  

This Tom Woods podcast? http://tomwoods.com/podcasts/

Blogger Gaiseric June 17, 2016 3:36 PM  

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.

Blogger Aeoli Pera June 17, 2016 4:59 PM  

peter blandings wrote:yeah, but what are you going to wear?

Are they just doing a voice call? xD

Blogger Groot June 17, 2016 5:03 PM  

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.

Blogger Aeoli Pera June 17, 2016 5:04 PM  

Keef thinks his libertarianism is still relevant.

Keef wrote:Care to make an argument?

You could start by reading the blog author's book.

Blogger Keef June 17, 2016 5:13 PM  

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.

OpenID simplytimothy June 17, 2016 5:19 PM  

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.





Blogger Log June 17, 2016 5:27 PM  

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.

Blogger Dave June 17, 2016 5:35 PM  

There's no undercard for this event. Please to arrange your event on your own platform.

OpenID simplytimothy June 17, 2016 5:36 PM  

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 .




Blogger Groot June 17, 2016 5:42 PM  

And now we have simplytimothy vs. simplytimothy. "I'm kicking my ass. Do ya mind?" Some of you guys are so weird.

Blogger JACIII June 17, 2016 5:43 PM  

Shit. I already started drinkin'....

Blogger Dave June 17, 2016 5:55 PM  

we have simplytimothy vs. simplytimothy

Heh, he did say 7:30pm EST is past his bedtime...is he sleep-posting?

Blogger JACIII June 17, 2016 6:03 PM  

Shit. I already started drinkin'....

OpenID simplytimothy June 17, 2016 6:13 PM  

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





Blogger Aeoli Pera June 17, 2016 6:27 PM  

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.

Blogger Aeoli Pera June 17, 2016 6:31 PM  

Meantime, please compute the mean of the following numbers: 4, 6, 3, 4, 8.

Anonymous Eric the Red June 17, 2016 7:05 PM  

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.

Anonymous Eric the Red June 17, 2016 7:10 PM  

@20 keef..
A nation of fat, unemployed drones sitting in their air-conditioned flats swigging beer.

Yeah, sounds like a winner to me.

Anonymous George of the Jungle June 17, 2016 7:16 PM  

Only a Marxist believes that economics is the sole justification for doing something.

Blogger allyn71 June 17, 2016 7:43 PM  

less than 5 min. in till first Ricardo reference

Anonymous Dave June 17, 2016 7:57 PM  

Oh this is getting good...

Blogger allyn71 June 17, 2016 8:04 PM  

Vox's preparation vs Mr. Murphy's is clear. Murphy is constantly defending dogma and is totally reactionary at this point.

Blogger John S June 17, 2016 8:15 PM  

Jeez... Tom won the debate for Vox with that question for Bob

Blogger John S June 17, 2016 8:17 PM  

"well... Uh... Yeah, errybody gonna be poorer, but muh comparative advantage..."

Blogger Durandel Almiras June 17, 2016 8:30 PM  

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.

Blogger Dire Badger June 17, 2016 8:59 PM  

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.

Blogger One and Only Gubbler June 17, 2016 9:02 PM  

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/

Blogger Dire Badger June 17, 2016 9:03 PM  

#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.

Blogger John S June 17, 2016 9:11 PM  

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?"

Blogger allyn71 June 17, 2016 9:12 PM  

Bob did the verbal equivalent of hand waving. I think Vox's closing statement gets to the heart of the matter.

Anonymous Dole June 17, 2016 9:18 PM  

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.

Anonymous Takin' a Look June 17, 2016 9:19 PM  

@ 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.

Blogger Dire Badger June 17, 2016 9:23 PM  

@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.

Blogger Durandel Almiras June 17, 2016 9:26 PM  

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.

Blogger Durandel Almiras June 17, 2016 9:27 PM  

@85 - I thought that was the best part of the debate. I want to see Robert tackle Vox's 5-point argument.

Blogger J.M. June 17, 2016 9:31 PM  

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"?

Anonymous Takin' a Look June 17, 2016 9:35 PM  

@ 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".

Blogger tz June 17, 2016 9:36 PM  

Excellent.

Now Woods needs to have you on on SJWs always lye with their caustic comments.

Blogger tz June 17, 2016 9:37 PM  

@87 - Bob was the zombie in Wood's "Interview with a zombie" regarding his nullification book.

Blogger tz June 17, 2016 9:39 PM  

@71, there was the H8teful Eight, but you refer to the nasty (mean) 5.

Blogger tz June 17, 2016 9:41 PM  

The worst part, Monsanto doesn't have GMO low-carb popcorn. But I had enough good beer.

Blogger tz June 17, 2016 9:43 PM  

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...).

Blogger Dire Badger June 17, 2016 10:07 PM  

@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.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash June 17, 2016 10:39 PM  

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.

Blogger Groot June 17, 2016 11:51 PM  

@97. tz:
"If a tree falls after being chainsawed in the Woods..."

A little compassion, here, please. There are trees reading this. Sheesh!

Blogger beerme June 18, 2016 12:03 AM  

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

Blogger Groot June 18, 2016 12:12 AM  

@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.

Anonymous Takin' a Look June 18, 2016 12:27 AM  

@ tz

Zombies are rather indiscriminate. I'm a "does this clown taste funny?" Cannibal.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash June 18, 2016 1:09 AM  

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.

Anonymous Mr. Rational June 18, 2016 2:02 AM  

Snidely Whiplash wrote:Especially after half a bottle of wine.
Only half?  Cheap date, huh?

Blogger residentMoron June 18, 2016 2:47 AM  

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.

Blogger Groot June 18, 2016 3:45 AM  

@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...

Anonymous vfm #0202 June 18, 2016 8:26 AM  

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.

Blogger residentMoron June 18, 2016 10:27 AM  

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.

Blogger bob k. mando June 18, 2016 10:46 AM  

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.

Blogger residentMoron June 18, 2016 11:14 AM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger J.M. June 18, 2016 4:18 PM  

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.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash June 18, 2016 4:37 PM  

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.

Anonymous dB June 18, 2016 4:46 PM  

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.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash June 18, 2016 4:48 PM  

D'oh!
homines not hominem

Anonymous Dave June 18, 2016 5:31 PM  

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."

Blogger 1337kestrel June 18, 2016 6:29 PM  

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?

Blogger J.M. June 18, 2016 6:57 PM  

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.

Blogger Groot June 18, 2016 7:36 PM  

@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.

Anonymous Nigga Pleez June 18, 2016 8:50 PM  

"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.

Blogger Groot June 18, 2016 11:21 PM  

@120. Nigga Pleez:

Niggapotamus can't help pulling a Kezie, ya ol' dirty bastard.

Anonymous Uno Hu June 18, 2016 11:55 PM  




"Niggapotamus can't help pulling a Kezie, ya ol' dirty bastard."
You damn betcha.

Anonymous Uno Hu June 19, 2016 12:12 AM  

Treachery and old age beats the youth and vigor every damn time.
Deelz wid it.

Anonymous Uno Hu June 19, 2016 12:38 AM  

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.

Anonymous jOHN MOSBY June 19, 2016 12:52 AM  

"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
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts