United States
Vox continues to expand upon free trade:
“Let us suppose I told you of a certain doctrine in which millions of people believe without ever having read the book in which it is contained, which is predicated upon a situation that has never existed, and promises positive consequences that not only have never been delivered, but we are told cannot even be measured and cannot be realized without achieving something that has never been done before in the history of man. Furthermore, the doctrine was developed by a successful gambler and politician with absolutely no credentials or qualifications on the subject, which he had never even encountered before the age of 27, in tandem with a related theory that is so obviously insane that barely anyone has ever even heard of it.”
Racial equality?
It seems psychotic to act out any idealized instance of a thing that differs from its actual manifestation, especially to do so persistently in denial of observable facts to the contrary. Free market is one example, race is another and there are more ways the behaviour shows itself when we know what to look for in people.
Maybe some cross section of the northern Caucasian ethnic groups tend to be afflicted with this type of cognitive disorder. I wouldn’t find it surprising if that drd4 “liberal gene” was directly involved.
Vox is getting trounced.
The only argument against free trade can be made from a nationalistic perspective. Nationalists need to admit they value some things more than money, rather than champion bogus economic arguments.
Free trade made perfect sense for Great Britain at the time, as both the nation that industrialized first, and the one with the highest population density they had export capacity to spare, and no one that could compete with them, atleast not for a century by which point they’d been surpassed by both America and Germany.
That said, we could have a mostly(but not entirely) free trade between good actors, that is those that don’t promote overpopulation, and those that have a legal system that doesn’t lend itself to Non-tariff barriers to trade. Unfortunately there are damned few such actors these days.
I believe in free trade, but also in tariffs to protect our own manufacturing. Not everything can be allowed to come down to the almighty dollar.
Wayne believes in free trade with tariffs.
Vox is of the Austrian Protectionist school.
It’s Mr. Potatohead economics!
Right that bell, shout for joy……
http://www.myspace.com/music/player?sid=33048084&ac=now
In case nobody’s checking the other thread 🙂
Nationalists need to admit they value some things more than money, rather than champion bogus economic arguments.
Tamer
I thought that was made clear by being a nationalist
If everybody is doing free trade doesn’t the initial economical advantage of those that started it become moot ?
If everybody has tariffs but then 2 countries decide to do free trade, then those 2 countries have a strategic advantage over they others; but once every body doing it then any advantage over others is canceled out.
It appears we’re moving towards one world government and borders are only frivolous lines drawn on a map.
I’ve noticed that free trade seems to correlate with an explosion in national and personal debt. There has never been more free trade, but the typical American household has never been more distressed and pessimistic.
Free trade, capitalism, and all the other -isms strike me as little more than distractions from the only modus vivendi worth following: reciprocity. They all seem to be extended verbiage designed to convince the rubes that giving like you get is good policy.
Fella does you a good turn? Return the favor. Fella screws you over? Screw him back, with interest.
E.g., “free trade” means we open our markets, and they keep theirs closed. $#@% that. It’s stupid. Return the favor; if they practice economic nationalism, do the same.
Er, *isn’t* good policy.
The only argument against free trade can be made from a nationalistic perspective. Nationalists need to admit they value some things more than money, rather than champion bogus economic arguments.
That’s like saying the only argument against free trade can be made from a nationally self-interested perspective. It’s not saying much.
But I agree, I just come right out and say I value some things more than money. This is obvious to anyone who isn’t a Kool-Aid swiller, but it’s worth saying anyway; we don’t see free-traders pimping out their daughters, selling their sons into slavery, etc.
If there is a football league – or whatever – and one team starts doing Performance Enhancing Drugs and, as a result, they start beating all the other teams. Then, all the other teams get wise and they start doing PED’s, then its back to square one.
Free trade breaks down borders and it isn’t just the free flow of goods, there’s services and people. Taken to it’s nth degree, there are no real borders anymore and its a One World Government and, consequently, culture, language, race, etc.. is eroded until were all the same/equal (i.e. 1 language, 1 color, etc.)
I guess the indebted countries and banks are freaking out now and trying everything to “stimulate the economy” including the “free trade thing”, but its only a temporary fix, if that. The “stimulus money well” has gone dry, so now try old “free trade agreement” trick.
Vox is getting trounced.
Quote the trouncing, please. I got tired of reading comments and waiting for the “trouncing.”
Never mind, I got all the way to the end, and there was no trouncing.
All ideology is bunk. While ideas are whites’ trump card, turning them into the “Final Truth” is stupid. Both sides make great points, in the 70’s my union loving dad bought a foreign car because American cars stunk to high heaven, free trade was good then, but over time a little bit of protectionism should be necessary to lower the arbitrage. Hence we get carmakers building plants in the South.
Free trade, open borders and global government are interrelated. When you accept one, pressure mounts on your economy, society, culture and body politic to accept the other two.
@ Rob
Good point. Some is good to create competition in certain areas or technology transfer, but we’ve gone too far with it lately – just look at the crap electrical components and contaminated products coming from China. Not to mention the lost of low-end, and even med-end jobs to 3rd world countries.
Not lines on a map.
Containment fences.
I’m all for an open and robust free trade like economy within the next CSA,and I don’t want much govt control over what goes on within our borders. It’s free trade with those outside of your nation that causes the problems
“I’m all for an open and robust free trade like economy within the next CSA,and I don’t want much govt control over what goes on within our borders. It’s free trade with those outside of your nation that causes the problems”
That’s rather ironic considering that Lincoln and the Republicans were staunch supporters of high tariffs while the South was all for free trade with other nations in order to have a global market for their agricultural commodities. (eg. “King Cotton” and tobacco.) In fact the dispute over free trade was arguably an even stronger cause of the War Between the States than the issue of slavery.
it was the cause, however, live and learn.
The free trade of heavy equipment …
Caterpillar cut from social index over Israel ” Al-Jizya June 27, 2012
MSCI, a US investment firm, has removed Caterpillar from three of its popular indexes that track socially responsible investments, citing concerns about the Israeli military’s use of the company’s bulldozers in the Palestinian territories.
MSCI said in a statement that Israeli practices were one of the “key factors” in its decision to remove the US manufacturer of machinery and engines.
etc.
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2012/06/201262711732387905.html
People need to reread my first comment, in its entirety.
And yes, Svigor he was/is trounced, not by commentators on his WND soapbox – but by North at Lew Rockwell.