>> I do know I have good and reasonable reason to believe that freedom and free trade both work well <<
i'm all ears. would you say that free trade worked for the british empire?
>> 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. <<
i just presented the evidence in my prior post to you. here is some more evidence.
this article is interesting because it is pro-free trade, yet i think it backfires and actually serves the protectionist argument even better. like i said, free trade is a liberal, utopian fantasy dream concocted in the minds of economists and intellectuals who don't have a clue about how human nature and the real world works.
Free Trade, Peace, and Goodwill Among Nations: The Sesquicentennial of the Triumph of Free Trade
fff.org
Under such a system, [Adam] Smith argued,
every man, as long as he does not violate the laws of justice, is left perfectly free to pursue his own interest his own way, and to bring both his industry and capital into competition with those of any other man, or order of men. . . . The sovereign is completely discharged from a duty . . . of which no human wisdom or knowledge could ever be sufficient; the duty of superintending the industry of private people, and of directing it towards employments most suitable to the interest of society.
people always seem to forget or gloss over the part where adam smith said "as long as he does not violate the laws of justice"
freedom only works with moral self-restraint. enron didn't exercise moral restraint, and therefore violated the laws of justice. they are a perfect example of why there is a need for regulation in our economy. the point i have been trying to drive home is that this lack of moral restraint doesn't just exist within our own borders and companies. it is inherent in mankind itself, and so you have foreign countries and foreign companies who "violate the laws of justice". this is the exploitation of labor, the environment, and unfair business practices such as dumping below the cost of production that i have spoken of.
free trade proponents on this thread and elsewhere attempt to make the ridiculous argument that the reason american industry is being gutted to the bone and driven out of business must be due to inefficiencies. hogwash. why do you think we have laws here in america which seek to prevent predatory business practices such as dumping and price collusion? because without these regulations financially stronger companies would undercut or collude with other businesses to drive their smaller competitors out of business. this is anti-competitive and it's why we have laws against that sort of thing.
the trouble with the free "traitors" is that they can't seem to grasp the simple concept that these same sort of unfair business practices occur on a global scale. foreign countries/companies engage in their own protectionist measures against the united states and i don't hear anyone here complaining about that. all i hear is the utterly naive point of view that somehow our industries just aren't as efficient or competitive.
the sad part is that it's not just foreign competitors that "violate the laws of justice". it is happening within our own country, exemplified by large multinational corporations who betray their country in various ways. of course i have already detailed one way. they extort american workers with wage and benefit concessions by threatening to pack up and ship out to countries where they can pay people slave labor wages. this is immoral and unpatriotic. it betrays our country by showing no allegiance to hard working blue collar americans and it also exploits other human beings who don't enjoy the benefits of living in a free society like we do.
now we come to the part where the article concedes that this is a utopian fantasy
In spite of the eloquence and rigor with which Adam Smith demonstrated the harm and futility of the mercantilist forms of planning and regulation in his day, he despaired that economic freedom would never be triumphant.
"To expect, indeed, that the freedom of trade should ever be entirely restored to Great Britain," he said, "is as absurd as to expect that an Oceana or Utopia should ever be established in it. Not only the prejudices of the public, but what is much more unconquerable, the private interests of many individuals irresistibly oppose it."
even though adam smith warned that true free trade wasn't achievable, further on in the article the author tries to lure us right back into this utopian fantasy world.
From the beginning, in making his case for free trade, Richard Cobden saw the breaking down of trade barriers as a powerful avenue for depoliticizing human relationships. By privatizing all market transactions between individuals of different countries, he said, free trade would assist in removing many of the causes of war. "As little intercourse as possible between Governments," Cobden declared, "as much connection as possible between the nations of the world." To emphasize this, the slogan of the Anti-Corn Law League became "Free Trade, Peace and Good-Will Among Nations."
history proved this view to be utterly naive and foolhardy. britain practiced what these wide-eyed, dreamer economists recommended and look what happened. they were practically starved into submission and needed us to bail them out in both world wars. how exactly did free trade lead to peace? the twentieth century was one of the bloodiest in history. with all this movement in the direction of free trade since the end of world war two, are nations any less hostile and has war been averted? go ask either bush if buying oil from countries in the middle east averted war. of course not, war will always be with us. you don't just lay down your weapons whether they be military or economic weapons--and then just hope everybody will play nice.
but later on in the article what do these radical liberal utopians advocate? just that!
Furthermore, Cobden and the Anti-Corn Law League made the case for unilateral free trade. "We came to the conclusion that the less we attempted to persuade foreigners to adopt our trade principles, the better," Cobden explained in later years, "for we discovered so much suspicion of the motives of England, that it was lending an argument to the protectionists abroad to incite the popular feeling against the free-traders. . . . To take away this pretense, we avowed our total indifference whether other nations became free-traders or not; but we should abolish Protection for our own selves, and leave other countries to take whatever course they liked best."
does this not sound just like the radicals on the left that are always preaching unilateral disarmament? if we just get rid of all our nukes, we could all just commune together in harmony and unity and we could sit and sing songs with john lennon about how the world could live as one.
Within three years — by 1849 — not only were the Corn Laws gone, but so were the remaining Navigation Acts carried over from the 18th century that had required goods being imported into Britain to be carried on British ships. From then on, both goods and merchant vessels from any land could arrive in Great Britain "as free as air and water," as Henry Parnell had wished it to be in 1830.
One hundred and fifty years ago — on June 25, 1846 — Great Britain became the first country in the world to institute a unilateral policy of free trade. For the rest of the 19th century — indeed, until the dark forces of collectivism enveloped Europe during World War I — the British Empire was open to all the world for the free movement of men, money, and goods. Its economic success served as a bright, principled example to the rest of the globe, many of whose member countries followed the British lead in establishing, if not complete free trade, at least regimes of much greater freedom of trade and commerce.
give me a break! the united states didn't follow britain's lead--we were protectionist and that is how we ascended to superpower status on par with the british empire. germany built their empire with protectionism and almost destroyed unilaterally free trading britain.
The triumph of free trade in 1846 in Great Britain was one of the shining jewels in the crowning achievements of 19th-century classical liberalism
Nevertheless, the victory of 1846 demonstrates that an uncompromising, principled belief in the freedom of man can triumph and change the course of human events.
if that is not utopian and naive--i don't know what else to call it. this intellectually inspired nonsense proved to be an abject failure and helped to bring down the british empire. that's why we should be wary of letting intellectual economists run a country.
free "traitors" need a cold dose of reality about how their flawed liberal ideology is detrimental to the survival of any great nation state.
great britain is living proof of that. |
