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: TimF who wrote (26231)	5/16/2002 6:24:29 PM
From: craig crawford	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 59480

>> I think a reasonable rate for any tax is one that has a minimal impact on people's lives and on the economy << tariffs fill that bill. the oppressive and intrusive income tax that replaced tariffs does not! >> Do you want tariffs that are so low that they do almost nothing to effect trade? << no, that would be the libertarian position. i believe tariffs are an effective tool for the government to regulate the economy for the benefit of the nation. >> I never argued that congress did not have the constitutional power to put in place trade barriers, I have only questioned the wisdom of it actually doing so << i am arguing that it was the founding father's wisdom that resulted in it being put in the constitution in the first place. free traders want to turn their backs to that wisdom. >> Congress has the power to do a lot of stupid things, that doesn't mean it should actually go ahead and do them. << most of the stupid things congress does is in violation of the constitution, under the guise of their actions being constitutional. >> Congresses power includes the power to make treaties in this area. The president can only get fast track authority if congress gives it to him and then when the treaty is ready for ratification the congress can always reject it so it is congress who is still regulating commerce with foreign nations. << that is an example of congress trying to abdicate and delegate its authority. that is wrong and unconstitutional. >> No I mean help our economy, both overall and the majority of individuals rich or poor in the US. << yeah, theodore roosevelt wanted the same thing. only he and other traditional conservatives didn't see it the same way as you free traders of today. "These forty odd years have been the most prosperous years this nation has ever seen; more prosperous years than any other nation has ever seen. Every class of our people is benefited by the protective tariff." --Theodore Roosevelt >> I threw it out casually because even with this downside we are better off if we drop trade barriers. However we would be even better off if other countries did as well so if we can convince them to do so by offering the carrot of access to our markets then I would hold off on unilateral free trade. When this matter is not a consideration (if other countries offer free trade or if we realize that they never will) then I am all for unilateral free trade. When the ability to pry trade concessions from other countries is an issue then whether or not I would support unilateral free trade depends on the specifics of the situation. << the british already tried this and failed miserably. no reason for the united states to take the same path. >> And it would be even easier for them to exercise more control if they did not face competition from other countries. << i'm sorry but you are completely naive in this regard. you think free trade leads to less control by the elites? hmm...in 1949 the top 1% held 21% of the national wealth. with free trade for the last half century the top 1% now control over 40% or twice as much. it is even more extreme on a global scale. >> Free trade is itself an example of freedom. << ahh, but freedom without restraint is anarchy. if total freedom is our chief goal, then why do we want any government at all? thomas jefferson said, "It is to secure our rights that we resort to government at all." that is why the founding fathers agreed that congress should regulate commerce. to secure our rights. >> If you try to prevent someone from buying foreign goods you limit their freedom. << and this is necessarily a bad thing? how about the government preventing boeing from selling cruise missiles to saddam hussein? is that limiting freedom? is that bad? >> I don't think it has, but it is a seperate issue unless you are attacking free trade on basis that it increases our wealth and thus contributes to the destruction of our culture. << free trade absolutely contributes to the destruction of our moral fabric. theodore roosevelt told us so over a century ago. "Thank God I'm not a free trader. In this country pernicious indulgence in the doctrine of free-trade seems inevitably to produce fatty degeneration of the moral fibre.” --Theodore Roosevelt in 1895 wrote to Henry Cabot Lodge

To: TimF who wrote (26231)	5/16/2002 6:50:12 PM
From: craig crawford	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 59480

>> Lenin and the bolsheviks where talking about imprisoning and shooting and starving and tortureing people to impose an ideology by force << yes, the neo-marxists of today have refined their methods a great deal. they realize there are far better ways to overthrow the traditional culture and institute their world domination. >> Abscent this "creative destruction" you would still have the majority of Americans working on farms, and there would be few people available to produce the modern goods and services that we want today << when we shifted from an agrarian economy to an industrial economy we did not abandon agriculture. as we have moved from an industrial economy to an information/service economy we have abandoned manufacturing industry. that is the difference. >> Instead 1 or 2% of Americans can feed the US and a big chunk of the rest of the world << we import one-third of our fruits and vegetables. >> I think that the government should have almost no control over the economy << you sound like a libertarian, not a right wing extremist. almost no control on the economy? get ready for a lot more enrons! >> First of all I don't believe in any radical liberal utopia << ok, you sound like you believe in a radical libertarian utopia. it is wrong just like radical liberalism. >> Secondly your whole point here is just a way to make an argument from authority << no it's to show how pathetic the republican party and the so-called conservative movement in america has become. neo-conservatives try to pass themselves off as true conservatives, but i am trying to inform you that traditional conservatism didn't believe in free trade. >> In any case I submit that they have a much better understanding of economics then at least most, if not all, of the founders of our country, << they have far less understanding of human nature, and that is what is most important. our founding fathers understood human nature very well. intellectuals love to come up with quack theories that sound good on paper but ignore human nature. communism for example. and now, free trade. >> Capitalism and free trade are not new ideas << neither are socialism and marxism! they just get repackaged and recycled and relabeled as free trade! >> Nor are they attempts to impose a utopian vision on society << free trade is!