Craig,
Re: "by all means show me where i reported the facts wrong."
Mind you, I didn't say you reported the facts wrong. I've assumed, without the Great Britian matter being within my realm of particular knowledge, that you've reported accurately. I do know that you presented facts limited to time frames and trade policy. I do know I have good and reasonable reason to believe that freedom and free trade both work well. I do know that you've not presented a depth of information concerning Great Britian that would suffice for me(certainly)- or I think for any aware and unbiased observer- to draw a hard and fast conclusion on the matter. I'm simply feeling confident that matters other than tariffs, and not mentioned by you, come into play when considering the fate of G.B then.
Re: "marx was only in favor of free trade because he thought it so destructive that it would hasten the onset of the revolution."
Of course, I understood that.
Re: "i never suggested he believed free trade would work"
You write as though I'd suggested you had made the suggestion. I can't imagine how you can write something like the above, when I didn't even come close to suggesting such a ridiculous thing anywhere.
Re: "my qualm was that you painted him(J. Keynes) as anti-free-trade when he was an ardent free trader until after the depression when he got a dose of the real world and woke up."
You brought Keynes into the discussion, explained the above which I'd accepted as true(this one rings a bell with me), and I only pointed to the same truth you surely recognize...i.e. that he certainly was against free trade WHEN he wrote your quoted lines. I know you believe he "woke up." However, I believe he was just wrong as rain to change his mind, and near as I've come to know over the years as an interested party in economic discussions, he simply never offered an argument on the matter that I and many others haven't felt was trumped by free trade.
By the by, Marx did believe free markets would hasten the "revolution." And to the best of my knowledge, he did in fact write, in a banned in the USSR writing the name of which I can't remember from my college course in the "Soviet Economy,(my prof. was a liberal from Checkoslovakia)" that his surplus value theory(about which he wrote extensively as he hoped for the revolution), was wrong. I can say that HE wised up...but the fact is that whoever believed what and when, simply has no bearing on the arguments involved.
Re: "so let me get this straight. you voted for harry browne--who you say is in favor of tariffs, yet you are spending all this time arguing with me that tariffs are bad? huh?"
Here, I can see your honest mistake. I said he believed in the sort of tariffs that our founding fathers in fact instituted from our beginnings. If you didn't know it, those were very limited(well, because free trade was a conservative principle, even back then- as I say, despite all your numerous anecdotal cases indicating otherwise). Harry Browne would, I believe almost certainly, tell us he would cut tariffs back to the bone if given the chance, because I'm confident he understands free-trade and what harm tariffs can and do bring.
Re: "there is a slight problem. we conduct trade with countries where the people are not free. now do you see why it might not be so fair?"
That was once a wonderment to me too, until I understood the complexity of what actually occurs. So in short, No. Having looked into this matter in detail, I am convinced that even if we are the only country not employing tariffs, we- and to a lesser extent even the countries with the tariffs- will be better off.
Re: "i am not against reducing trade barriers on our trading partners that play by the same rules, and share our values and standard of living."
I do not believe these factors prevent tariffs from harming all parties involved. Essentially, I believe if one country institutes a tariff against another, both countries are harmed. I believe too, and consistently, mind you, that if the the other country responds with a retaliatory tariff in an attempt to level the playing field again, then that retaliatory tariff only adds to the harm. Hence, the best response to a tariff being leveled against us, is in fact NO response save a request, for everyone's sake, that the initial tariff be ended immediately. To attempt to retaliate only harms us more in the long run.
Now, say what you will, but if you haven't looked at the quite serious arguments long coming from with-in conservative thought, in particular, that explain why the above happens, you haven't lived and certainly won't be able to refute them to anyone who knows them.
Re: "soon as everyone adopts a moral culture with a similar constitution we can have true free trade. but we all know that won't happen. therefore we must use and or threaten to use tariffs to protect our interests."
I wholeheartedly agree that "that won't happen," but wholeheartedly disagree that we ought to use tariffs as a threat against a country, let alone as an actively employed tool in that regard. As another writer on your side here was saying yesterday concerning steel mills, exceptions must exist(I say, in most everything..but that's another story). Well, he said that....and I can accept it, grudgingly...but tried to point out the existence of factors that may render his concern relatively moot, if not moot. We may indeed seldom need to succumb to the tantalizing immediate gratification tariffs offer up at the expense of long term harm done(there is always a hitch, isn't there? Actions and reactions, ya know?).
If I thought it was generally possible for tariffs to protect our long term interests, I'd be for them(wartime IS an affair of immediacy, and so I can accept that tariffs can conceivably be useful in that regard, without too much squawking.
Freedom Works, and ought to be considered as PAR for our course- nothing more nor less.
Dan B |
