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

Friday, July 01, 2016

Free trade: bad idea or bait-and-switch

Gary North believes it is the latter:
What was the bait and switch? This. Lure intellectuals and then politicians into a lobster trap of one-world government by means of the promise of greater wealth through free trade. Create free trade alliances that are in fact not free trade but rather trade managed by international bureaucrats. This is a combination of low tariffs and detailed regulations of production and distribution. Economic regulation favors large multinational firms that can afford lots of expensive lawyers. This regulatory system creates economic barriers against newer, more innovative, but under-capitalized competitors. In short, use the bait of greater national wealth to persuade national leaders into agreeing to a treaty-based international government that requires member nations to surrender much of national sovereignty. The final stage is the creation on centralized regional governments that absorb national governments into an immense international bureaucratic system that regulates most areas of life.

The arguments favoring free trade go back to David Hume in 1752, and later to his friend Adam Smith, whose Wealth of Nations (1776) presented a comprehensive case. Liberty is more productive than statist bureaucracy.

Free trade simply means that two people can legally agree to an exchange if they choose to. Simple. The idea of voluntary exchange is hated by those producers who cannot compete effectively, but the case is both logical and moral.

The reason why the Rockefeller Foundation paid F. A. Hayek, Wilhelm Röpke, and Ludwig von Mises to write books on international trade was to provide the economic bait.

Raymond Fosdick went on John D. Rockefeller, Sr.'s payroll no later than 1913. He went on Junior's payroll no later than 1916. He had met Fosdick in 1910. Fosdick was one of Woodrow Wilson's protégés at Princeton. A brief summary of his career is here. It does not cover his time at the Versailles Peace Conference, where he and Jean Monnet worked together in 1919 to create the League of Nations. It does not mention Monnet. It also does not cover his time as Junior's personal lawyer and advisor, 1920-1936. His brother Harry was on the board of the Foundation from 1917 on.

Another Wilson protégé was John Foster Dulles. He was the grandson of John Foster, Secretary of State under Harrison, known as "the fixer." He was also the nephew of Robert Lansing, Wilson's Secretary of State, who helped take the government into World War I. He was Secretary of State under Eisenhower. He was the defense attorney for Harry Emerson Fosdick in Fosdick's 1924 trial for heresy in the northern Presbyterian Church. He had been one of America's richest lawyers in the 1930's. He was a committed globalist. He was a deal-maker between American firms and the Hitler government until a revolt in his own firm got him to stop. He was an early promoter of the World Council of Churches, founded in 1948. He also presented a program in the 1930's for creating an international government funded by a low tax on international trade that would be created for the sake of huge firms -- his clients. They would be exempted from national tariffs.

These men were globalists. They proclaimed the doctrine of free trade, but always with this proviso: free trade was the bait for creating an international government with managed trade.
My belief is Gary North is gradually stumbling his way towards the truth, which is that there is no bait-and-switch, the globalists genuinely believe in free trade because free trade destroys nations and national sovereignty. After all, no less a personage than Karl Marx supported it for precisely that reason; he considered it a weapon in the arsenal of international socialism.


But regardless of whether they do or not, note that even this staunch defender of free trade is observing that free trade is a trojan horse. Therefore, it should be opposed on that basis alone, even by those who genuinely believe it increases national wealth in any and all circumstances.

Labels: , ,

60 Comments:

Blogger The Other Robot July 01, 2016 11:35 AM  

My belief is Gary North is gradually stumbling his way towards the truth, which is that there is no bait-and-switch, the globalists genuinely believe in free trade because free trade destroys nations and national sovereignty.

However, they are still being deceitful and dishonest in presenting to the great unwashed as a benefit to all rather than just a benefit to the globalists.

Blogger Keef July 01, 2016 11:38 AM  

Vox you always talk about how much you hate free trade, but it would be nice to see you talk about actual specific policy prescriptions that you would recommend.

Blogger Nick S July 01, 2016 11:45 AM  

Free trade as wealth/resource/equality redistribution with administrative compensation for a select few sums it up fairly well. The administrators of this strategy actually believe in their own beneficence.

Blogger Eric Slate July 01, 2016 11:51 AM  

One of the Brevity campaign's biggest arguments against staying in the EU was excessive EU regulations, specifically on trade. If accurate, it would be a piece of either incompetence or favoring the bureaucratic governing style.

Blogger frenchy July 01, 2016 12:06 PM  

One of the things that gets me about the free traders/libertarians is the belief in no tariffs. It follows like this:

1. The state exists to protect freedoms and liberties, and enforce contracts.

2. All taxation is theft.

3. The income tax is slavery.

4. Goods should freely flow through the borders to keep consumer prices low because tariffs make the items more expensive for consumers. In other words, open borders.

Problem #1. How in the hell do you pay for govt? You can either tax yourself, or tax strangers. It's amazing how they just skip over this.

Problem #2. A prosperous country without a border cannot retain its culture; peoples from lesser cultures will flock to it and the country will lose its character (this is what the Establishment/"They" want).

I don't see how these people cannot see this. Stuck on stupid, and can't shift into common sense.

Anonymous BGKB July 01, 2016 12:09 PM  

OT: Trump's advice, according to Carr: “Whatever you do, don’t apologize,” Trump said. “You never hear me apologize, do you? That’s what killed Jimmy the Greek way back. Remember? He was doing okay ’til he said he was sorry.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/trump-xenophobe-howie-carr-224975#ixzz4DAqEMBx3

Blogger Matthew July 01, 2016 12:10 PM  

Tariffs are the least invasive way for a government to fund itself, and the most directly related to the the function served: maintaining borders.

Income and sales taxes require an invasive government.

Blogger James Higham July 01, 2016 12:15 PM  

Gee, you don't ask the easy ones, do you? :)

Blogger Al From Bay Shore July 01, 2016 12:15 PM  

This sentence right here:

"The reason why the Rockefeller Foundation paid F. A. Hayek, Wilhelm Röpke, and Ludwig von Mises to write books on international trade was to provide the economic bait."

Reminds of something Rothbard said about intellectuals on the payroll. I'm sure the likes of Hayek never intended for the rise of vast and complex centralizing bureaucracies but intellectuals are often used to rationalize the formation of harmful institutions. Alexander Hamilton's intellectual prowess was harnessed by merchants and deposed colonial elites to overthrow the principles of the Declaration of Independence that were embodied in the Articles of Confederation. The "Critical Period" was a myth.

Blogger B.J. July 01, 2016 12:18 PM  

Brexit reminds me of this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zI5hrcwU7Dk

Anonymous A Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents July 01, 2016 12:21 PM  

Gary North was way wrong about Y2K, is overly fond of conspiracy as an explanation for events, and has some peculiar theology that he learned from Rushdoony. Therefore his views must be approached with caution and skepticism.

The desire for a one-world state isn’t new. One could argue that those who built the Tower of Babel were pursuing it. As with other sins, it’s not unique to one particular generation or time.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash July 01, 2016 12:21 PM  

Eric Slate wrote:it would be a piece of either incompetence or favoring the bureaucratic governing style.

In Europe, that's not an either/or. Same in America.

Anonymous Newcomer July 01, 2016 12:27 PM  

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/political_commentary/commentary_by_pat_buchanan/why_trump_is_routing_the_free_traders

Anonymous Thales July 01, 2016 12:27 PM  

"The reason why the Rockefeller Foundation paid F. A. Hayek, Wilhelm Röpke, and Ludwig von Mises to write books on international trade was to provide the economic bait."

Historically, members of the creative class were slaves to the rich and powerful.

They still are.

Blogger tz July 01, 2016 12:30 PM  

Free trade simply means that two people can legally agree to an exchange if they choose to. Simple. Using "legally" where they deny the law will be there - and an agreement is not delivery. But that is the point.

Note how it is always trade over long distances or even oceans where there are armies of third parties - shippers, the legal systems on both ends, the communication, whether post, telegraph, email, or skype.

And they laugh at my face to face exchange with the suspected shoplifter in the WalMart parking lot.

The cultural differences can be significant, and can cultures with opposite levels of trust or time preference be able to trade?

The Missionaries - the solution is to set up the Natives and show them "just paste this into a message and people will send you money". Any buyer's remorse is just due to cultural differences. Then there's the cannibals.

Gary North NEVER exchanges with an individual counterpart in China. First there would be the language barrier. Then does he fly to China to meet with the person he is exchanging with, or how does the exchange take place since something has to move in both directions. You probably need a financial intermediary - escrow perhaps? Then how does the merchandise get here? What if it is lost or stolen on the way? Shipping costs are much lower today, but what if they go up again? And they are all part of the trade.

To revisit time preference, we've replaced outright racism, sexism, and ageism with technology: the credit score. If you give some people access to credit, they will go and run up huge debts. The punishment is usually to just ruin their credit, but that happens along racial and other discriminatory lines.

This is also what happened in the EU - just over the northern-southern divide. The UK was smart not to join the Euro and now they have ended cosigning for the PIIGS. Replace trust with derivative contracts? How's that working out with Greece?

The Missionaries envisions a huge cultural gap. But Germany, and Italy have a large enough gap to prevent the free flows - The Deutschmark and Lira had different interest rates for a reason. The Euro just makes German debt have negative interest rates, and Italy to require a series of bailouts and bail-ins until it blows up. The antebellum South and North weren't even able to cooperate.

Can there be trade? Yes, but not "free trade". Some things will only be available across a border, and that should govern.

And we have exported jobs. The choice is not to have 50 million Americans employed doing "something else". It is either we keep manufacturing which we can do without extravagance here - Autos, appliances, textiles - and often with cheaper raw materials (we are exporting Coal to China?!). Then we can have the Husband working and supporting the traditional Christian family and household (North theoretically is a Christian). The alternative is to have two income families all struggling and unable to afford children, and many who have to get welfare or charity. If you don't want high taxes, and don't want people starving, they need to be working middle class families.

Blacks are for Trump and note that in 1960 the typical Black family even with Jim Crow and discrimination and apartheid (even in the North, neighborhoods weren't integrated) was a middle class working family with the father in some blue collar factory job and providing for his family. Yes things were more expensive but he made even more money so he could afford more. And it was enough of a meritocracy to limit bad behavior - they didn't want to lose the job.

Blogger Elocutioner July 01, 2016 12:32 PM  

The Conservative Treehouse just had a good analysis of it for normies.

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2016/06/29/trade-deals-and-fig-newtons/

As I see it, the free traders aren't all that different than the marxists on this point.

In *THEORY* it sounds great if you do some handwaving. The theory often ignores reality. Reality is that it is written by lobbyists hired by wealthy corporations, negotiated by politicians, then abused by corrupt countries and companies. "It works, it just wasn't implemented correctly this time! If you tamper with it you'll destroy the economy through tariffs! Your lost manufacturing job is just a small price to pay for millions of people saving a few pennies at Walmart! If you don't have a job it's your fault!" "Free trade" has objectively been bad for this country. You can argue that it's not really free trade by that's what it's been sold as for decades.

Altruistic whites are repeatedly told that their concentrated costs are outweighed by the distributed benefits as the costs continue to mount, distributed costs mount (lack of jobs, welfare, family, societal cohesion, migration), and any distributed benefits were quickly outweighed. We've built up China and Mexico and destroyed ourselves. Perot was absolutely right on this.

Along comes Trump who shatters the politically correct propaganda bubble and voices to broad audiences what tens of millions have been thinking or saying privately or has been limited to small audiences. He's leading on this issue. Trump's ascendancy threatens literally trillions of dollars in trade, budgets, and investments. That's why the uniparty in DC has spent untold millions in owning every pathway to power that they could and why they're freaking out over not being able to control him. Globalists don't want "fair," they don't place us first, they spout the ideology they were taught. The smart ones are in it for their own personal gain, the rest are useful idiots.

Blogger Eric Slate July 01, 2016 12:34 PM  

I just realize I got autocorrected. Brevity should be Brexit.

Anonymous TS July 01, 2016 12:34 PM  

"Income and sales taxes require an invasive government."

Yep."One major factor that eases the secession of member states in the EU is the fact that European Union is not primarily funded by direct taxes on Europeans, but mostly by remittances from member states." - Brexit Shows Why the US Income Tax Is So Bad

Blogger S1AL July 01, 2016 12:45 PM  

"Liberty is more productive than statist bureaucracy.

Free trade simply means that two people can legally agree to an exchange if they choose to. Simple. The idea of voluntary exchange is hated by those producers who cannot compete effectively, but the case is both logical and moral."

Spot the error.

Blogger Cail Corishev July 01, 2016 12:52 PM  

He describes the current trade system as low-tariff/high-regulation. That's true, but I think it also gives the free-trading globalists rhetorical cover. Whenever someone objects to free trade, they can point to the thousands of pages of regulations and say, "But see, it's not really free at all. Help us get rid of the regulations, and you'll see how great truly free trade can be." Then they go right on fighting for more of the same.

Some of them probably think if they can make their free trade zones large and powerful enough, the regulations will go away because they'll no longer be needed. But that's not how things work; bureaucrats gonna bureaucratize. Even if they get their one-world government, the regulations will simply become internal instead of international. What's the point of ruling the world if you can't play it like a sim game, adding some farms over here, removing factories over there, to order your personal world to your liking?

Anonymous Wyrd July 01, 2016 12:53 PM  

Meanwhile in Austria:

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/07/01/presidential-vote-annulled-anti-mass-migration-candidate-gets-second-chance-postal-vote-fraud/

Anonymous Lazarus North July 01, 2016 12:58 PM  

I'll be surprised if Gary North ever abandons his commitment to Libertarianism. Such is his commitment to his economic worldview, he even wrote a book against his father-in-law R.J. Rushdoony called "Baptized Patriarchalism", attacking his "familistic" view of society.

More likely he's just defending his ideology by showing the current "free trade" set up isn't *real* free trade.

Anonymous Rawle Nyanzi July 01, 2016 1:03 PM  

Free trade is intended to sink the price of labor as low as it can go.

Blogger Yorzhik July 01, 2016 1:05 PM  

@5 frenchy: "1. The state exists to protect freedoms and liberties, and enforce contracts.

2. All taxation is theft.

3. The income tax is slavery.

4. Goods should freely flow through the borders to keep consumer prices low because tariffs make the items more expensive for consumers. In other words, open borders."

The correct view is that there is only one tax; that being the income tax. And free trade does not require open borders.

Remove these two points from your list and free trade becomes good.

Blogger Neanderzerk July 01, 2016 1:06 PM  

I concede that Vox was right on free trade and I was clueless. Yet another pillar of my damn cuckservative heritage falls.

Free trade does not exist in the Bible. The Lord loves honest weights and measures, not open knees and open borders. Buying white and Christian are moral obligations for white Christians. "Free trade" is fair-seeming words and Satan's lucre in exchange for the national soul. Commit your whoredoms across many waters, and receive the adulterated penalty of fornication in your bowels.

"Free trade" is "Fool trade". "Some trade" is "Sharp trade". No company would "Free trade," but negotiates artful deals, taking consideration of the whole. Thus also must nations.

In a land ruled by judges, it is the responsibility of neighbors to enforce this - as they enforce against sodomy and the acquisition of strange wives. In a land ruled by kings, it is the responsibility of the king. All hail King Trump.

Ricardian competitive advantage abstracts mobs of pseudo-chimps into server racks virtualizing cloud applications. IQ is the banana in the hard drive. "Free trade" lies in so many ways: suboptimization, info cost, friction, agent-principal, tragedy of the commons, class warfare, etc.

The correct answer to free traders is: "Begin with your own house." Permit anyone to solicit and contract with your wife and children for anything. The diffuse orgasmic benefits of the resulting videos far outweigh your concentrated lacrymal costs.

Well, how'd I do? Does that sound right?

Blogger praetorian July 01, 2016 1:13 PM  

Vox you always talk about how much you hate free trade

Hate?

Binary thinking isn't good for you, Keef. You are projecting. Vox doesn't hate it, he just sees tradeoffs with it and doesn't believe the Libertarian Just So stories about it we were all told as children.

Binary thinking isn't good for you, Keef.

Anonymous TS July 01, 2016 1:20 PM  

"Free trade does not exist in the Bible. The Lord loves honest weights and measures, not open knees and open borders. Buying white and Christian are moral obligations for white Christians. "Free trade" is fair-seeming words and Satan's lucre in exchange for the national soul. Commit your whoredoms across many waters, and receive the adulterated penalty of fornication in your bowels."

A biblical example of "free trade".

"1Moreover, the word of the LORD came to me saying, 2“And you, son of man, take up a lamentation over Tyre;
3and say to Tyre, who dwells at the entrance to the sea, merchant of the peoples to many coastlands, ‘Thus says the Lord GOD,
“O Tyre, you have said, ‘I am perfect in beauty.’

4“Your borders are in the heart of the seas;
Your builders have perfected your beauty.

5“They have made all your planks of fir trees from Senir;
They have taken a cedar from Lebanon to make a mast for you.

6“Of oaks from Bashan they have made your oars;
With ivory they have inlaid your deck of boxwood from the coastlands of Cyprus.

7“Your sail was of fine embroidered linen from Egypt
So that it became your distinguishing mark;
Your awning was blue and purple from the coastlands of Elishah.

8“The inhabitants of Sidon and Arvad were your rowers;
Your wise men, O Tyre, were aboard; they were your pilots.

9“The elders of Gebal and her wise men were with you repairing your seams;
All the ships of the sea and their sailors were with you in order to deal in your merchandise..."

Mr.North should know who the Lord is addressing in Ezekiel 27 and 28?



Anonymous Goodnight July 01, 2016 1:20 PM  

I spent half of my adult life with a company and position that almost defined offshoring to most people. We were the poster children of globalization. The amount of corruption, bribery, deceit, and outright governmental intervention involved is staggering. There is nothing free about any of it. It's a puppet show.

Anonymous TS July 01, 2016 1:22 PM  

"Mr.North should know who the Lord is addressing in Ezekiel 27 and 28?"

I meant behind the King of Tyre.

Blogger Neanderzerk July 01, 2016 1:28 PM  

Since I am functionally stupid due to divided attention and time constraints, and actually ignorant, would you kindly spell out the meaning TS? Whore of babylon or somesuch?

Anonymous TS July 01, 2016 1:46 PM  

"Since I am functionally stupid due to divided attention and time constraints, and actually ignorant, would you kindly spell out the meaning TS? Whore of babylon or somesuch?"

Not at all.

Question: "Is the king of Tyre prophecy in Ezekiel 28 referring to Satan?"

Answer: At first glance, the prophecy in Ezekiel 28:11–19 seems to refer to a human king. The city of Tyre was the recipient of some of the strongest prophetic condemnations in the Bible (Isaiah 23:1–18; Jeremiah 25:22; 27:1–11; Ezekiel 26:1– 28:19; Joel 3:4–8; Amos 1:9, 10). Tyre was known for building its wealth by exploiting its neighbors. Ancient writers referred to Tyre as a city filled with unscrupulous merchants. Tyre was a center of religious idolatry and sexual immorality. The biblical prophets rebuked Tyre for its pride brought on by its great wealth and strategic location. Ezekiel 28:11–19 seems to be a particularly strong indictment against the king of Tyre in the prophet Ezekiel’s day, rebuking the king for his insatiable pride and greed.

However, some of the descriptions in Ezekiel 28:11–19 go beyond any mere human king. In no sense could an earthly king claim to be “in Eden” or to be “the anointed cherub who covers” or to be “on the holy mountain of God.” Therefore, most Bible interpreters believe that Ezekiel 28:11–19 is a dual prophecy, comparing the pride of the king of Tyre to the pride of Satan. Some propose that the king of Tyre was actually possessed by Satan, making the link between the two even more powerful and applicable.

Before his fall, Satan was indeed a beautiful creature (Ezekiel 28:12–13). He was perhaps the most beautiful and powerful of all the angels. The phrase “guardian cherub” possibly indicates that Satan was the angel who “guarded” God’s presence. Pride led to Satan’s fall. Rather than give God the glory for creating him so beautifully, Satan took pride in himself, thinking that he himself was responsible for his exalted status. Satan’s rebellion resulted in God casting Satan from His presence and will, eventually, result in God condemning Satan to the lake of fire for all eternity (Revelation 20:10).

Like Satan, the human king of Tyre was prideful. Rather than recognize God’s sovereignty, the king of Tyre attributed Tyre’s riches to his own wisdom and strength. Not satisfied with his extravagant position, the king of Tyre sought more and more, resulting in Tyre taking advantage of other nations, expanding its own wealth at the expense of others. But just as Satan’s pride led to his fall and will eventually lead to his eternal destruction, so will the city of Tyre lose its wealth, power, and status. Ezekiel’s prophecy of Tyre’s total destruction was fulfilled partially by Nebuchadnezzar (Ezekiel 29:17–21) and ultimately by Alexander the Great.


Also notice in the passage (Ezekiel 27 and 28) the various products from many different countries.

Anonymous mature-Craig July 01, 2016 1:46 PM  

I was just thinking out loud, lets say Trump gets elected. He imposes Tariffs, ad they generate so much revenue that the 19 trillion debt is paid off. ... what happens to the treasury bond market if there is no government debt. anyone?.. and then they start accumulating a national savings, instead of a national debt, and the savings is used to be like golden public parks, govt helicopters flying around dropping bags of food on people.... seriously though what happens to the treasury bond market if/when the debt is paid off in the future

Blogger Neanderzerk July 01, 2016 1:51 PM  

Thanks. Dangerous parallels afoot.

Anonymous fred July 01, 2016 2:00 PM  

"...Wilson's Secretary of State, who helped take the government into World War I."

Would that the actual, literal government itself had been taken into WWI.

Blogger Neanderzerk July 01, 2016 2:05 PM  

There's also Abraham refusing to take Sodomite goods right before Jehovah covenanted with him, and Israel forbidden to buy horses from Egypt.

Don Deffinbaugh on Bible.org says that tariffs violate the 10 commandments: thou shalt not steal, despite that God says the king shall take a tenth.

Anonymous ZaijiaN July 01, 2016 2:09 PM  

If the best defense of an ideology is that it hasn't yet been implemented perfectly, then consider that it cannot, nor ever will be.

I used to say that about communism, but it's increasingly obvious now that it also applies to Free Trade.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash July 01, 2016 2:12 PM  

@Neanderserk
" The diffuse orgasmic benefits of the resulting videos far outweigh your concentrated lacrymal costs.
Normally I avoid $1 words when .50 will do, but that was pitch-perfect academicism.

I literally laughed out loud. Thanks.

Anonymous Nigel Roxx July 01, 2016 2:24 PM  

@TS Nice.

Some folks think the "anointed cherub that covers" refers to a stewardship over an area of creation. As such, having a subordinate (man) end up elevated (compared to the angels) in relationship with God, was the impetus of the prideful response and the subsequent hatred of God and man.







Anonymous BGKB July 01, 2016 2:28 PM  

what happens to the treasury bond market if there is no government debt. anyone?

With TRUMP limited to 2 terms I don't think any of us have to worry about paying off all the (((DEBT))). His mentioning of auditing the FED will make things pretty rough. That's like TRIGGLYPUFF worrying about having to buy smaller cloths if she loses 200lbs.

Blogger Neanderzerk July 01, 2016 2:46 PM  

Snidely Whiplash wrote:Normally I avoid $1 words

I find the ballistic properties of the larger denominations favorable for certain applications :)

Blogger Tom K. July 01, 2016 2:57 PM  

The economic elites use both intellectual innovators and scientific innovators as tools to increase their power and accomplish their goals. They realize they don't know what the results of the patronage will be but that's OK. It's only in hindsight that we recognize their genius in supporting the geniuses.

Anonymous mature-Craig July 01, 2016 3:14 PM  

anyway, this is my last comment, want to leave on an optimistic note. I strongly believe that the country and the world is going to get better and better. Take care all.

Blogger Ingot9455 July 01, 2016 4:16 PM  

Nothing happens to the treasury bond market if the country is in surplus.

Example: US sells 1 million dollar bond at X percent. US has 2 million surplus. US has power to buy out bond at any time, bond is extra secure. US can sell another million in bonds while being super secure.

Being in surplus means you have total control of your debt.

Blogger Ingot9455 July 01, 2016 4:16 PM  

Nothing happens to the treasury bond market if the country is in surplus.

Example: US sells 1 million dollar bond at X percent. US has 2 million surplus. US has power to buy out bond at any time, bond is extra secure. US can sell another million in bonds while being super secure.

Being in surplus means you have total control of your debt.

Blogger CM July 01, 2016 5:02 PM  

I am a complete dunce in economics and I recognize that "Globalization" is more than simply Free Trade. I recognize the faults in this economic policy without fully understanding the finer points of it.

My issues with Globalization started while learning about the Panama Canal. I had a rather strong distaste for how that entire technological marvel came to be and I strongly associated it with globalization. Essentially, I saw a type of underhanded Imperialism that masquerades as altruism for other, poorer countries.

When you rely on other countries for resources, you become concerned with their way of life and their turmoils in order to protect your interests. It leads to Saudi Arabia, China, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria because the stability of and "good relations" with those countries affects our own infrastructure. It also gives them the upper hand in dealings with us, that they can manipulate us into getting their way because they control our energy sources.

And those countries that are weaker than us are not gaining "capitalistic" infrastructure from us. We are manipulating them right back. It is a soft Imperialism similar to Alexander the Great's only it meddles in other countries' abilities to take care of their own however they see fit.

Blogger Aeoli Pera July 01, 2016 5:06 PM  

95% of economic theory is obfuscation.

Blogger Escoffier July 01, 2016 5:07 PM  

I've always been struck at the quasi-messianic tone in this quote by Cobden...

"I believe that the physical gain will be the smallest gain to humanity from the success of this principle. I look farther; I see in the Free Trade principle that which shall act on the moral world as the principle of gravitation in the universe - drawing men together, thrusting aside the antagonism of race, and creed, and language, and uniting us in the bonds of eternal peace."

It was a false religion from the get go.

Blogger Groot July 01, 2016 5:44 PM  

When a fish goes for bait, but then is caught on a hook, then somehow gets away, the lesson to learn here is not "I will never eat food again," but instead, "Avoid hooks."

Some of you even see that the "Free Trade" they've been selling is not Free Trade, then proceed to focus on the bait instead of the hook. It's like Scott Adams hypnotizing his dog.

Here is an article, Free Trade Is Dead, which details out some of the ways in which politicians with "geostrategic" purposes sacrificed economic sense with these treaties, which were the hook. I have no idea if it's right for "normies." The author, an establishment figure, of course draws the wrong conclusions (government bad, therefore more government), but he has many examples of how lunk-headed our negotiators have been for decades now.

Anonymous cheddarman July 01, 2016 6:09 PM  

In terms of the old wisdom about where one should place their loyalty, the old hierarchy of God, family, country is timeless wisdom. As a culture we have abandoned all three and are reaping the consequences.

Blogger lowell houser July 01, 2016 6:41 PM  

Uh, no. Gary is right. Reason being is that for all the talk of free trade, there has never been free trade. Every "free" trade deal always come in the thickness of a phonebook. "Free" trade is no deal at all. Free trade is simply no rules, no tariffs, no nothing. That has NEVER existed. The trade deals with acronyms always favor the industrial destruction of the wealthier nation precisely because they aren't free at all, but deliberately;y targeted destruction of the powerful nation that must be brought to heel in pursuit of the all powerful international superstate.

Blogger Blunt Force July 01, 2016 8:04 PM  

Interestingly enough, Harry Emerson Fosdick, supported no less a global power broker than John D. Rockefeller was the SJW that infiltrated Presbyterian Church and planted the tares of tolerance, which over decades has effectively replaced the worship of Christ the Divine Savior with Christ the tolerant teacher. In 600 years, the cancer of self-serving Protestant tolerance has inflicted immeasurable damage on a faith the Catholic Christian successfully defended with blood and treasure for 1500. Martin Luther and his 95 theses led not to reformation, but infernal damnation.

http://www.fpcnyc.org/about-us/history/harry-emerson-fosdick.html#sthash.NAvXo4ef.n9DVBCYa.dpbs

After explaining Christian liberals’ efforts to reconcile the Bible with the new scientific knowledge, he says: “the Fundamentalists are out on a campaign to shut against them the doors of Christian fellowship. Shall they be allowed to succeed?
Shall the Fundamentalists Win?” was thus a plea for tolerance, deeply critical of those unwilling to accept, as Christians, others with different Biblical interpretations.

Fosdick’s plea for tolerance was meant to go beyond the walls of First Presbyterian Church. But the effectiveness with which it did go beyond the Church was totally unexpected. Ivy Lee, a public relations agent for the Rockefellers, published, with Fosdick’s permission, a slightly edited version of the sermon with a new title: “The New Knowledge and the Christian Faith.” It was mailed to all Presbyterian clergy in the country, about 130,000 copies”

Anonymous Eric the Red July 01, 2016 8:28 PM  

“What was the bait and switch? This. Lure intellectuals and then politicians into a lobster trap of one-world government by means of the promise of greater wealth through free trade. Create free trade alliances that are in fact not free trade but rather trade managed by international bureaucrats. This is a combination of low tariffs and detailed regulations of production and distribution. Economic regulation favors large multinational firms that can afford lots of expensive lawyers. This regulatory system creates economic barriers against newer, more innovative, but under-capitalized competitors.”

It follows that President Trump should not just impose tariffs, but should also simultaneously change the regulatory environment. I'm not an economist nor do I play one on tv, but here are my examples:

- Declare that Congress has not done its Constitutional duty regarding regulatory bodies, and nullify all regulations (EPA, OSHA, etc.) enacted for the last 15 years until & unless Congress reviews and approves each individual such regulation (i.e., no blanket omnibus-style votes allowed).

- Declare that all regulations issued under the rubric of the precautionary principle do not meet Constitutional standards regarding prior restraint.

- Provide regulatory relief from new regulations for 7 years for startup companies.

- Impose tariffs on all multi-nationals that import goods they manufacture in other countries, as well as reduce statutory corporate taxes on those businesses that ramp up real manufacturing (not just assembly) of goods within the US.

- Impose tariffs based on country exclusions, not only by industry; e.g., impose massive tariffs on anything from Mexico and China.

- Declare existing so-called free trade agreements to be under executive review and therefore subject to revision or nullification at any time.

Anonymous Gen. Kong July 01, 2016 8:29 PM  

Interesting info on Fosdick, a name which could very well serve as an insult term in the manner of cuckservative. His heresy went well beyond Presbyterianism and well beyond even Protestantism. One of his kindred spirits is now the anti-pope Hi-Fellatin' Franny XIII, the High Queen of Fosdickery. There seem to be relatively few actual Christians left, either in the Banana Empire or in its EUSSR branch office. As for the new-model Christians, their only gospel is Galatians 3:28 and the their only god the Golden Dindu (or perhaps the Goldman-Sachsteins). Who's worse - these SJW clowns or the Musloids? Hard to tell.

Blogger bob k. mando July 01, 2016 10:25 PM  

15. Elocutioner July 01, 2016 12:32 PM
As I see it, the free traders aren't all that different than the marxists on this point.


read the Communist Manifesto.

Blogger The Overgrown Hobbit July 02, 2016 2:04 AM  

Distinctions matter. Free trade within nations is not the same as free trade among nations.

Most of your honest antagonists imagine you to be attacking the former when you inveigh against the latter.

The, ah, less honest are counting on the confusion.


Blogger The Overgrown Hobbit July 02, 2016 2:04 AM  

Distinctions matter. Free trade within nations is not the same as free trade among nations.

Most of your honest antagonists imagine you to be attacking the former when you inveigh against the latter.

The, ah, less honest are counting on the confusion.


Blogger John S July 02, 2016 8:53 AM  

Free Trade: Threat, or Menace?

Anonymous Abyssus Invocat July 02, 2016 10:04 AM  

Free trade is fraud because like "Commmunism", its advocates always fall back on the "It's never been tried, so we don't if it works." canard. It's fraud because it fails the first test of the scientific method, it isn't falsifiable. Free trade always has been and always will be managed trade. The only question is "Cui bono ?"

Blogger Henry July 02, 2016 4:03 PM  

Ha-Joon Chang "Bad Samaritans: The Myth of Free Trade". Sense of humor, knows his stuff
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-JDJIW80jbM

Blogger Rotting July 05, 2016 11:41 PM  

@57 I watched that awhile ago and recall him endorsing free trade for us and protectionism for developing nations.

Post a Comment

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

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts