Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Right Wing Extremist Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: craig crawford who wrote (25981)	5/5/2002 12:28:48 AM
From: TimF	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 59480

Re : Invisible Hand : How Free Trade Is Choking the Life Out of America I followed your link to Amazon.com The book is apparently out of print. Its most recent edition came out in 1984. Amazon does sell used copies. There is no reviews or comments or even a picture of the books cover. The only use your link would be was if I wanted to buy a used copy but neither you nor Amazon has given me any reason to do so. Conservatives, who pride themselves for their patriotism, should be the last to endorse free trade. Believers in world government are of course internationalists, and therefore are believers in free trade -- which is nothing more than the elimination of all boundaries between countries. Since I am patriotic I want to see my country become wealthier instead of being cut off from world markets by high import taxes (tarrifs are a tax). I am not a believe in world government. Free trade does not depend on a world government. Free trade is not the elimination of all bounries between countries, just the reduction of (rarely the elimination of) trade barriers. Nationalists -- those who believe in American sovereignty and the Constitution -- cannot be free traders. That is simply BS. The constitution doesn't say "there must be high tariffs", its mostly silent on trade. 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. 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) or just go for the idea of unilaterally dropping trade barriers, which would help our economy and not even hint at infringing on US sovereignty. The downside of such unilateral action is that you lose the ability to use trade concessions to make other countries make similar concessions. Free trade is wrecking the economies of capitalist countries all over the world. 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. It creates over-production and under-production, Both of them? I guess you mean it exacerbates the economic cycle? You have shown no evidence or argument to support the contention that this is the case. Also the overall increase in economic growth would be more important then any but the most extreme increase in economic volitility. cartels, multinational corporations, free trade cheating (non-tariff barriers and state subsidies), international bribery Cartels are less likely when you have free trade. You need a greater number of more diverse producers to agree to be part of the cartel and then to follow the rules to sustain the effectivness of the cartel. Cartels are much more likely to exist and are often more effective (and thus more damageing) when trade barriers are high. Non traiff barriers and subsidies are not examples of free trade nor are they caused by free trade. They are a movement away from free trade. They are popular because many people (includeing you apparently) don't like free trade and a number of these people feel that it is politically expedient to at least pay lip service to free trade while still distorting the market to benefit one special interest or another. At least you are up front about your views but not everyone who doesn't like free trade is. and shutdowns of industries ... Communism and socialism thrive and expand in a world of economic anarchy. Companies and industries shutting down are just part of the "creative destruction" of capitalism. Shut down the "destruction" and you end the creation. Communism and socialism are the exact opposte of economic anarchy, they are the state trying to take dominent control of the economy. Trade barriers are a much smaller attempt by the state to control the economy. George Washington, Alexander Hamilton and the Founding Fathers vehemently rejected 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? 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. vehemently rejected the half-baked free trade scheme proposed by Smith. Actually Smith's ideas about trade where in a sense half baked. He recognized the concept of absolute advantage and figured that some countries would be better at producing X, while others could produce Y, and then they could trade, but he did not develop the concept of comparative advantage, which more accuartly discribes the reasons for and the benefits of trade. Tim