>> The constitution doesn't say "there must be high tariffs", <<
you don't have to have high tariffs to be against free trade. tariffs are a tax, (a preferred tax rather than the income tax), but like any other tax, they can be raised too high. i'm not arguing for "high tariffs", i am arguing for reasonable tariffs like our founders intended.
>> its mostly silent on trade <<
Article I Section 8
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises,...To regulate commerce with foreign nations
congress should regulate commerce with foreign nations, not the president with fast track authority, and not a bunch of unelected bureaucrats in the wto.
>> As for American sovereignty choosing not to tax imports doesn't mean we lose the ability to tax them if we wanted to, nor does it mean we lose any other part of our sovereignty <<
i never suggested reducing duties on imports in and of itself undermines american sovereignty. our membership in the wto does however.
>> If your really concerned that trade treaties entangle us to much with other countries or international organizations you can push for including out clauses (which hopefully will never actually be exercised <<
we already have that with the wto. we can withdraw with i believe six months notice.
>> or just go for the idea of unilaterally dropping trade barriers, which would help our economy <<
help our economy? you mean help pad the coffers of corporate multinational scalawags who buy off our politicians? sure, free trade helps the economy if you are a well educated cultural elite. free trade does not help the average blue collar worker in america.
>> The downside of such unilateral action is that you lose the ability to use trade concessions to make other countries make similar concessions. <<
some downside! you kind of threw it in there like it was some kind of afterthought. this is a very important problem with unilateral free trade.
>> Relativly free trade (we don't have completely free trade and probably will not in my life time) has been one of the greatest forces to increaseing wealth and human well being over the past century. <<
hah! wealth for bill gates, phil knight and jack welch? a few hundred people control half the wealth in the world. 10% of americans control around 3/4 of our national wealth. also, americans have traded freedoms away for greater material pleasures. our increasing wealth has destroyed our culture as well. unfortunately the self-indulgent neo-conservatives are obsessed with material things and judge the success of america by how fast gdp is growing. i must inform you that material wealth is not what makes a country great.
>> Companies and industries shutting down are just part of the "creative destruction" of capitalism. <<
uh huh. wasn't it lenin and the bolsheviks who employed your logic when they said you have to break a few eggs to make an omelette?
>> Trade barriers are a much smaller attempt by the state to control the economy. <<
i don't disagree with this. what is wrong with that? do you believe the government should not exert any control on the economy? if so, you are on the wrong thread. this is the right wing extremist thread, not the libertarian anarchist thread.
>> Do you think that we should do anything these people did, or support any concept they supported, or oppose any concept or idea or policy they opposed? <<
i believe when we consider important issues such as trade we should view the arguments in light of the historical context of our founding. our founding fathers didn't buy into this radical liberal utopian trade mantra, for good reason.
>> If you do think these things then your argument makes sense but otherwise I don't see how your argument from authority gets us anywhere <<
obviously my arguments do not stem solely from authority. i have provided all sorts of arguments, from current thinkers to past authorities that others don't have a problem invoking when it suits their cause. i'm sure if i peruse the archives of this thread i could find all sorts of arguments making reference to our founding and the great principles behind our declaration and constitution.
of course when the argument switches to free trade, many pipe up with questions as to why should we listen to a bunch of dead white men like washington, madison, adams, hamilton, etc? what do they know anyway? they only dedicated their lives to founding the greatest nation the world has ever seen!
after all, we should really listen to academic paper scribblers like milton friedman instead. a guy who has never founded a nation. a guy who doesn't have to live with the consequences of his quack theories. a guy who never led young boys into battle, spilling their blood for freedom. a guy who never dedicated his life to fighting for freedom and establishing self-government.
that is the problem with the current generation. academically minded intellectuals are always looking for some new-fangled theory that is going to deliver us to the promised land. they think that some complex mathematical equation applied to trade is going to overcome human nature and lead to not only economic nirvana, but some kind of utopian heaven on earth. it's all a bunch of liberal babble, which fails to understand the fallen nature of man, not unlike communism which sounded so good on paper.
"There is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that the World Trade Organization is a major diminution of sovereignty. GATT, the global free trade, is the replacement utopia for Marxism. It is another one of these mad utopias."
--Sir Jimmy Goldsmith, November 15, 1994, speaking to the Senate Committee on Commerce |
