Podcast Topic on Trump

[rosencrantz]

This works locally. This works globally. The distortion is when arbitrary boundaries are created by tariffs and other taxes which skew this fundamental truth.

 

Comparative advantage where trade benefits both parties only works empirically in one case. When capital is stationary, there are some tariffs, and the immigration is restricted (basically pre 1980s). There you had the case that countries industrialized and traded with each other at the same time. 

 

In the current year, capital can move freely and there is free trade, but people can't move freely. This leads to negative side effects. When a factory moves to a different country the workers can't move with it. They lose their job and have to look for jobs at the service industry. The service industry is largely low paid, because that's the only way they can compete when it comes to marginal costs. 

The country where those industries moved to has a comparative advantage for a short time. But because of capital's mobility the wages there can't raise too much. If they do so too much, the company will move yet again to a cheaper country. 

[Wuzzums]

the slave labor or child labor thing is a common misconception. when trading labor for productivity both parties win ... one doesn't win and the other loses. basic econ. as consumers we participate in the market logically and economically ... not emotionally ... the whole buy american thing is not free trade nor is it sound economic policy.

Yes. I know.

 

People often complain about their designer shoelaces being made by "child labor" which needs to be stopped. Which is WHY you NEED people to start buying homebrewed products and see the economic effects of ending "child labor", which they WISH to end.

[PedroRomero]

So you think americans should buy child labor products even if it's against their wishes?

 

No, I don't think americans should buy anything they don't wish to buy.

But I also don't think they need the government to tell them what to buy via tariffs for specific products or countries of origin.

It is actually the tariffs preventing the american people from buying exactly what they decide they should buy.

 

And yes, I do understand that if a job is sent overseas, the person who had that job does no longer have an income to buy those cheaper things.

Unless he goes to a different industry or a different position.

 

So I totally get the ingroup preference implied on wanting your country to put first the natives.

 

I was just thinking about how the kind of policies that pretend to protect the people in your country often achieve the opposite.

Just in the same sense that the "war on poverty" creates more poor people.

 

But again, I'm open minded on this. I'm trying to figure out things myself.

[Susana]

This is something I'm also interested on.

 

Yesterday I watched Trump's RNC nomination acceptance speech.

It had many things which should be good for the Americans, but he also talked about Tariffs to prevent companies from outsourcing jobs abroad.

 

Not being an expert, I'm under the impression that Tariffs, while they could help keep some jobs into the country, they could also make many other products more expensive as they need to be bought from abroad.

So unless America is able to produce everything it needs via domestic industry, the consumer's income will not be too much better.

 

Everything is already expensive in the USA, Rent, insurance, taxes, healthcare, student loans (food more than before but not yet as much as other nations as a percentage of income spending)

People want JOBS! to pay these bills and expenses and taxes. If stuff is too expensive to buy then... dont buy it. The priority should be making money and saving anyway, not "omg stuff is expensive now because we pay Americans who work"

This idea "stuff is so expensive if we make it here and we can get it cheaper in China" was exactly what the previous generation did, sold out the Manufacturing Base of the country and its sold out its prosperity to get cheap crap that needs to be replaced.

 

People are tired of cheap crap, they want quality and jobs back

[Will Torbald]

Everything is already expensive in the USA, Rent, insurance, taxes, healthcare, student loans (food more than before but not yet as much as other nations as a percentage of income spending)

People want JOBS! to pay these bills and expenses and taxes. If stuff is too expensive to buy then... dont buy it. The priority should be making money and saving anyway, not "omg stuff is expensive now because we pay Americans who work"

This idea "stuff is so expensive if we make it here and we can get it cheaper in China" was exactly what the previous generation did, sold out the Manufacturing Base of the country and its sold out its prosperity to get cheap crap that needs to be replaced.

 

People are tired of cheap crap, they want quality and jobs back

Basically this. If people don't have jobs, they can't buy cheap imported goods. If people have jobs as a result of protectionist economies, they'll have money to buy the cheaper homegrown products competing with the high marked imported goods. Quality of life is more important than raw money.

[Tyler H]

Everything is already expensive in the USA, Rent, insurance, taxes, healthcare, student loans (food more than before but not yet as much as other nations as a percentage of income spending)

People want JOBS! to pay these bills and expenses and taxes. If stuff is too expensive to buy then... dont buy it. The priority should be making money and saving anyway, not "omg stuff is expensive now because we pay Americans who work"

This idea "stuff is so expensive if we make it here and we can get it cheaper in China" was exactly what the previous generation did, sold out the Manufacturing Base of the country and its sold out its prosperity to get cheap crap that needs to be replaced.

 

People are tired of cheap crap, they want quality and jobs back

Everything is expensive because the currency is devalued through the inflation of the money supply. The fact that it costs less to make something that isn't geographically specific on the other side of the planet and ship it over here is a testament to the amount of coercion imposed on this country. The reason it costs more to make products in America, and the reason people don't have jobs, is because of the regulatory, collective bargaining, and minimum wage laws enforced by the government. All of the above is exactly for what we can thank the last generation.

 

Despite what people may want, what they prefer is the important factor. Some people may prefer higher quality goods as opposed to cheaper lower quality ones, however for some people the option is lower quality now or higher quality in the future; for others lower quality may be the only option they have. It's not for anyone else to decide for them.

 

If your interested in free market economic theory I suggest Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt.

Rothbard and Bastiat are also quite good.

[Susana]

Everything is expensive because the currency is devalued through the inflation of the money supply. The fact that it costs less to make something that isn't geographically specific on the other side of the planet and ship it over here is a testament to the amount of coercion imposed on this country. The reason it costs more to make products in America, and the reason people don't have jobs, is because of the regulatory, collective bargaining, and minimum wage laws enforced by the government. All of the above is exactly for what we can thank the last generation. 

 

Despite what people may want, what they prefer is the important factor. Some people may prefer higher quality goods as opposed to cheaper lower quality ones, however for some people the option is lower quality now or higher quality in the future; for others lower quality may be the only option they have. It's not for anyone else to decide for them.

If your interested in free market economic theory I suggest Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt.

Rothbard and Bastiat are also quite good.

 

 

Thank you but I already got A's and B's in my econ classes. Econ Theory is soooooo boring(aka theory not real world reality) and really I only find useful and find value in Calculus, Volunteerism, An-Caps and Max Keiser. Also not that a college degree is really that noteworthy my major was BS: International Finance and Marketing so I know enough to know what my opinion is Jobs, jobs, jobs is the main issue or "preference" people care about. 

If a person prefers to have cheap crap instead of quality and manufacturing jobs for others and their country they can think that but I will not agree with them. 

 

What is faster and more effective for creating/influencing positive outcomes in terms of American jobs(manufacturing jobs); tariffs or changes/elimination of "regulatory, collective bargaining, and minimum wage laws" .  Do you really think tariffs are less important for domestic job creation (esp Manufacturing) than "regulatory, collective bargaining, and minimum wage laws" ?

 

 

[Tyler H]

Thank you but I already got A's and B's in my econ classes. Econ Theory is soooooo boring(aka theory not real world reality) and really I only find useful and find value in Calculus, Volunteerism, An-Caps and Max Keiser. Also not that a college degree is really that noteworthy my major was BS: International Finance and Marketing so I know enough to know what my opinion is Jobs, jobs, jobs is the main issue or "preference" people care about. 

If a person prefers to have cheap crap instead of quality and manufacturing jobs for others and their country they can think that but I will not agree with them. 

 

What is faster and more effective for creating/influencing positive outcomes in terms of American jobs(manufacturing jobs); tariffs or changes/elimination of "regulatory, collective bargaining, and minimum wage laws" .  Do you really think tariffs are less important for domestic job creation (esp Manufacturing) than "regulatory, collective bargaining, and minimum wage laws" ?

 

Apologies, I meant theory as is synonymous with principles not hypothetical proposition; perhaps I should have used that word.  However, I don't see how economic interactions in the absence of coercion is not "real world reality".

 

I can certainly respect your educational background and take this discourse as a possible learning experience for myself, but first I think I need to point out that when I said some people may prefer cheaper goods I meant for themselves, not for others and their country (again, I should have been more precise).  To my knowledge this is the essence of voluntarism, each individual making voluntary decisions to suit their preferences and not enforcing those preferences onto others.  

 

In regards to jobs, I don't think employment should be the primary concern.  The fastest and most effective way to create jobs would be to ban certain technological advances.  For example, if you banned particular farming equipment you could create more than enough jobs overnight.  Yet no one would recognize this as a solution because what is truly important is capital wealth and an increase in real wages (buying power) which the banning of technological advances would destroy.  I do think the most effective way to increase jobs and overall wealth is to remove the laws that prevent people from working, but also (from the argument for morality) I prefer the voluntarism of a free market to the coercion of tariffs.  

 

Let me know what you think and if you disagree.  Also, I'm curious what school of economics was taught in your classes, was it Keynesian?

[perrytheplat]

Yes. I know.

 

People often complain about their designer shoelaces being made by "child labor" which needs to be stopped. Which is WHY you NEED people to start buying homebrewed products and see the economic effects of ending "child labor", which they WISH to end.

Is your response above ... a response to people who are claiming that child labor needs to be stopped and a solution for them to put their money where their mouth is and buy local (sarcastically of course)? ... or are you suggesting that buying domestic regardless of price, quality, or economic consequence is a sound economic policy for a domestic economy and the people who live in it?

 

Everything is already expensive in the USA, Rent, insurance, taxes, healthcare, student loans (food more than before but not yet as much as other nations as a percentage of income spending)

People want JOBS! to pay these bills and expenses and taxes. If stuff is too expensive to buy then... dont buy it. The priority should be making money and saving anyway, not "omg stuff is expensive now because we pay Americans who work"

This idea "stuff is so expensive if we make it here and we can get it cheaper in China" was exactly what the previous generation did, sold out the Manufacturing Base of the country and its sold out its prosperity to get cheap crap that needs to be replaced.

 

People are tired of cheap crap, they want quality and jobs back

I think what you are referring to is called when you refer to cheap crap is called "dumping". It's another common economic fallacy. In this PDF there is a section on that. Take a read through it if you are so inclined. It explains why this is incorrect. https://mises.org/library/protectionism-and-destruction-prosperity

 

I also have a degree in Economics and Finance. Most college degrees are useless and much of that degree was useless too. I learned most of what I know outside of college through self-study because they don't teach economics in college. They teach political economic philosophy of philosophers they prefer who are all different types of Keynesians, Communists, and Interventionists. The first day in money and banking they taught us money is debt. It was laughable. But yes, I would say there are tons of reasons why companies choose to open plants in other countries and pretty much all of them have to do with the insane amount of regulations, taxes, and devaluation of currency and its effects on the wage rates and benefits demanded by Americans who only understand one thing .... that their dollar doesn't go as far as it used to. That has little to do with what geographic location those goods are manufactured in. I would be happy to entertain this conversation further if you would like.

 

 

Basically this. If people don't have jobs, they can't buy cheap imported goods. If people have jobs as a result of protectionist economies, they'll have money to buy the cheaper homegrown products competing with the high marked imported goods. Quality of life is more important than raw money.

People will not have jobs because taxing companies to levels that make them non-competitive in the global marketplace will decrease their market share as their costs of capital skyrocket in order to comply. If a company was to comply, they would have to raise the costs of their finished products enough to break even and make a meaningful profit that would keep their doors open. It would also fundamentally change the nature of their business model. A company like Ford who manufactures thousands of cars would immediately have to cut production to remain profitable. They would have to fire tens of thousands of people if not more and shrink from becoming a largely international company to a smaller regional one. You cannot impose prices via government edict without negative consequences. This is a common economic fallacy laid out by Bastiat in "The Law". People tend to focus on what is seen and not unseen.

 

If your interested in free market economic theory I suggest Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt.

Rothbard and Bastiat are also quite good.

That's a great book. It was one of the first I taught myself with. Here's a link to a Rothbard paper on protectionism that addresses several of the most common fallacies. https://mises.org/library/protectionism-and-destruction-prosperity

[rosencrantz]

The first day in money and banking they taught us money is debt. It was laughable. 

 

(Most) Money is debt. Most money is created endogenously by private banks. They loan it into existence. Extrogenous money that is created by the Federal bank plays a marginal role in money creation. 

[Wuzzums]

Is your response above ... a response to people who are claiming that child labor needs to be stopped and a solution for them to put their money where their mouth is and buy local (sarcastically of course)? ... or are you suggesting that buying domestic regardless of price, quality, or economic consequence is a sound economic policy for a domestic economy and the people who live in it?

 

First reason.

[Will Torbald]

People will not have jobs because taxing companies to levels that make them non-competitive in the global marketplace will decrease their market share as their costs of capital skyrocket in order to comply. If a company was to comply, they would have to raise the costs of their finished products enough to break even and make a meaningful profit that would keep their doors open. It would also fundamentally change the nature of their business model. A company like Ford who manufactures thousands of cars would immediately have to cut production to remain profitable. They would have to fire tens of thousands of people if not more and shrink from becoming a largely international company to a smaller regional one. You cannot impose prices via government edict without negative consequences. This is a common economic fallacy laid out by Bastiat in "The Law". People tend to focus on what is seen and not unseen.

I think you're arguing something different. I don't see where I said I am in favor of taxing domestic companies into oblivion. I was suggesting that tariffs on imported goods keep jobs inside since companies wouldn't take their manufacturing elsewhere and then sell it back. Tariffs plus low taxes for ingroup companies is what Trump is declaring he'll do. It's also what America used to do before the so called free trade deals were implemented and that did take the manufacturing abroad.

[12StringSamurai]

At the moment I'm with Stef.  Voting for Trump is the best move to advance a small-state agenda as best I can tell with the information we have.  Here's my arguments for why:

 

1.)  Hillary Clinton will grant amnesty to illegals within days of becoming president.  I know that free travel is a libertarian principle, but look at what happened to California.  The Demographic shift caused by Reagan's amnesty transformed California into the bluest of blue states.  An amnesty today would have the same effect across much of the South.  The Republican Party sucks too, but if they are never able to win national office again, the Left will run the federal government indefinitely and the remaining economic freedoms we have will be destroyed.  

 

Also, the violence caused by the inability of many migrants from third world countries to assimilate into Western culture is used by the Left to justify suppression of civil liberties even further.

 

The Republican voter base has been trying to get its leadership to address this issue for decades, but they were too afraid of political correctness.  Which brings me to my next point.

 

2.) A Trump victory is a major defeat for Political Correctness.  PC is essentially the use of social pressure to make people afraid to speak out against the expansion of state power.  Because of his views on immigration, Trump has brought the wrath of the entire PC memeplex down upon himself.  He is being shamed and mocked with every insult the Left can throw at him, Racist, Bigot, Xenophobe, Hitler, etc, and it's rolling right off his back.

 

If Trump wins, PC will very possibly go away forever, because it will have been proven ineffective at full blast.  Honestly, this might be the most compelling reason to support Trump.  We can't solve problems if we can't even discuss them.

 

3.) I'm willing to compromise with him on his views on trade because what's going on right now has been proven to be destructive to our civil society.  

 

The anti-NAFTA crowd has been vindicated by history.  The manufacturing base of the US has indeed been gutted and largely transferred to the third world.  A free market could deal with these kinds of pressures, but we don't have a free market.  It would be impossible to fix every problem with our free market in one or two election cycles.  No one can realistically get rid of the fiat money system, all the regulations inflicted on business, labor laws, union collusion with the state, etc.  

 

Are the tariffs really going to be more destructive than having every company with the means to do so flee the country so they can hire workers in China and pay taxes in Ireland?  I don't believe so.  And in a related note, the repeal of Glass-Steagall, while technically making the market more free in a sense, was enormously destructive because the FDIC and consumer ignorance has removed all downward market pressure on banks.  

 

What the state and the big corporations have tried to do is use regulations to crush their small business competitors and nationalize their loses while keeping their profits private, and remove barriers to the expansion of their own power.  What have been sold to the public as "Free Trade deals" have actually been tools to that end.  I genuinely think Trump will try to roll this back.

 

It's not perfect, but I'll take a mixed back over a bag that has been proven to be filled with rabid wolverines.  We have to make practical decisions based on what we can accomplish in the real world.  

 

4.) Trump has already reformed the Republican Party in a positive way.  Would you have guessed that a man would get a standing ovation for declaring himself to be a proud gay Republican 4 years ago?  Hell, six months ago?  And Trump got the evangelical vote in spite of this.  The Social Conservatism has been dragging the Republican Party down for decades.  They waste time and political capital fight gay marriage and weed.  A Trump victory will solidify this. 

 

By this alone, Trump has managed to move the Party in a libertarian direction more than anyone else in recent memory.  He also has broken the Party Establishment, which had basically turned the Republicans into Democrat Lite.  

 

5.)There are many potential dangers in a Trump presidency.  But the press hates him and is adversarial with him at all times.  That is better, because they will hold his feet to the fire.  Meanwhile, they actively run interference for Hillary in truly shocking and terrifying ways.

 

 

I'm actually researching and writing a video essay for my own You Tube channel on this topic, and I will have more to say, but this is the gist of it.  I'd love to hear rebuttals of these points so I can shore up my arguments (or change my position if there's better arguments).  I can not over emphasize that we have to make practical decisions based on what we can accomplish in the real world.  Sometimes the perfect is the enemy of the good.  

[Tyler H]

Thanks for the post Samurai.  I can say that I certainly see how people want a Trump presidency - just the thought of Hillary Clinton in stripes gives me goosepimples - but I think there are moral reasons not to vote.  Also, I see Trump as a savior to the state; not to the West.  I hesitate to argue from effect because so much of the outcome is uncertain, but I'll add my thoughts/rebuttals and let me know what you think.

At the moment I'm with Stef.  Voting for Trump is the best move to advance a small-state agenda as best I can tell with the information we have.  Here's my arguments for why:

 

1.)  Hillary Clinton will grant amnesty to illegals within days of becoming president.  I know that free travel is a libertarian principle, but look at what happened to California.  The Demographic shift caused by Reagan's amnesty transformed California into the bluest of blue states.  An amnesty today would have the same effect across much of the South.  The Republican Party sucks too, but if they are never able to win national office again, the Left will run the federal government indefinitely and the remaining economic freedoms we have will be destroyed.  Amnesty may happen with a Hillary presidency, but I don't think the outcome you express will happen because there is not that much remaining for the left to pillage without destroying the source of their income; it's not the rich that support the welfare state it's the middle class.  If the left get control indefinitely then the length of their run will be determined by their ability to preserve the economic freedoms that are remaining.  To the degree that they destroy those freedoms will be the degree to which the American empire nosedives towards collapse.  So Trump may be the best move to advance a small-state agenda, but Clinton may be the best move to advance a no-state agenda.  I think that if the system is going to fail no matter who is in there (which is entirely possible) then it is far more beneficial to advocates of freedom if it fails under the control of the left.  If it fails under Trump it may reinforce the propagandized opinion that freedom is bad and government control is good, pushing a free society farther into the future.  We cannot know the outcome so why diverge from our principles?

 

Also, the violence caused by the inability of many migrants from third world countries to assimilate into Western culture is used by the Left to justify suppression of civil liberties even further.  

 

The Republican voter base has been trying to get its leadership to address this issue for decades, but they were too afraid of political correctness.  Which brings me to my next point.

 

2.) A Trump victory is a major defeat for Political Correctness.  PC is essentially the use of social pressure to make people afraid to speak out against the expansion of state power.  Because of his views on immigration, Trump has brought the wrath of the entire PC memeplex down upon himself.  He is being shamed and mocked with every insult the Left can throw at him, Racist, Bigot, Xenophobe, Hitler, etc, and it's rolling right off his back.

 

If Trump wins, PC will very possibly go away forever, because it will have been proven ineffective at full blast.  Honestly, this might be the most compelling reason to support Trump.  We can't solve problems if we can't even discuss them.  ​I think PC is what liberals do when they are in power because they need something to bitch about and they won't bitch about the same exact policies they go on about when republicans are in power because it's their team that's doing it (go blue!).  It'll go away while Trump is president and return the moment a democrat is in the white house.  I'm just thinking out loud (so to speak) here; that's all just my opinion.  

 

3.) I'm willing to compromise with him on his views on trade because what's going on right now has been proven to be destructive to our civil society.  

 

The anti-NAFTA crowd has been vindicated by history.  The manufacturing base of the US has indeed been gutted and largely transferred to the third world.  A free market could deal with these kinds of pressures, but we don't have a free market.  It would be impossible to fix every problem with our free market in one or two election cycles.  No one can realistically get rid of the fiat money system, all the regulations inflicted on business, labor laws, union collusion with the state, etc.  

 

Are the tariffs really going to be more destructive than having every company with the means to do so flee the country so they can hire workers in China and pay taxes in Ireland?  I don't believe so.  And in a related note, the repeal of Glass-Steagall, while technically making the market more free in a sense, was enormously destructive because the FDIC and consumer ignorance has removed all downward market pressure on banks.  

 

What the state and the big corporations have tried to do is use regulations to crush their small business competitors and nationalize their loses while keeping their profits private, and remove barriers to the expansion of their own power.  What have been sold to the public as "Free Trade deals" have actually been tools to that end.  I genuinely think Trump will try to roll this back.

 

It's not perfect, but I'll take a mixed back over a bag that has been proven to be filled with rabid wolverines.  We have to make practical decisions based on what we can accomplish in the real world.  

 

4.) Trump has already reformed the Republican Party in a positive way.  Would you have guessed that a man would get a standing ovation for declaring himself to be a proud gay Republican 4 years ago?  Hell, six months ago?  And Trump got the evangelical vote in spite of this.  The Social Conservatism has been dragging the Republican Party down for decades.  They waste time and political capital fight gay marriage and weed.  A Trump victory will solidify this. 

 

By this alone, Trump has managed to move the Party in a libertarian direction more than anyone else in recent memory.  He also has broken the Party Establishment, which had basically turned the Republicans into Democrat Lite.  

 

5.)There are many potential dangers in a Trump presidency.  But the press hates him and is adversarial with him at all times.  That is better, because they will hold his feet to the fire.  Meanwhile, they actively run interference for Hillary in truly shocking and terrifying ways.

 

 

I'm actually researching and writing a video essay for my own You Tube channel on this topic, and I will have more to say, but this is the gist of it.  I'd love to hear rebuttals of these points so I can shore up my arguments (or change my position if there's better arguments).  I can not over emphasize that we have to make practical decisions based on what we can accomplish in the real world.  Sometimes the perfect is the enemy of the good.  <-----I'm not sure what this means.

I think you've made some good points, but all compared to the expected outcome of a "successful" Clinton presidency; in other words compared to an already perceived worse outcome.  There's no reason to think that sticking to the principle that force achieves the opposite effect desired won't affect the real world.  Ultimately I do not care who becomes president; I care that the initiation of force is evil and the state is immoral - and voting lends my support to that system.

 

You might be interested in posting this in the Vote/Don't Vote thread.  This topic is the focus there.

[shirgall]

The argument "the perfect is the enemy of the good" is that it is often better to make a good enough decision now than it is to analyze and engineer things to make a perfect decision later, because a threat may be imminent, or you may be too late to engage in an opportunity, or because someone else may act before you and seize the moment. Agility and adaptability favor decisive action.

[Tyler H]

The argument "the perfect is the enemy of the good" is that it is often better to make a good enough decision now than it is to analyze and engineer things to make a perfect decision later, because a threat may be imminent, or you may be too late to engage in an opportunity, or because someone else may act before you and seize the moment. Agility and adaptability favor decisive action.

Oh thank you, very good explanation.

[dsayers]

1.)  Hillary Clinton will

How do you know? No politician has ever done what they've claimed and the president is supposedly checked/balanced against two other branches of government.

 

2.) A Trump victory is a major defeat for Political Correctness.

Political Correctness isn't picking the pocket of my unborn child. Perceived legitimacy is the lifeblood of the State. President X and voting at all contributes to this perceived legitimacy.

 

3.) I'm willing to compromise with him

Compromise is lose-lose and those who believe they belong to a different, opposing moral category and view violence as an option are not cooperating with you. This sounds like Stockholm Syndrome.

 

4.) Trump has already reformed the Republican Party in a positive way.

There is no positive way to enhance a thief/batterer/rapist/murderer.

 

5.)...But the press hates him and is adversarial with him at all times.

Nobody listens to the press and we can piss them off in ways that aren't predicated on condoning violence. Remember: the only thing you can achieve with violence that you cannot achieve without violence is violence itself.

[12StringSamurai]

Thanks for the post Samurai.  I can say that I certainly see how people want a Trump presidency - just the thought of Hillary Clinton in stripes gives me goosepimples - but I think there are moral reasons not to vote.  Also, I see Trump as a savior to the state; not to the West.  I hesitate to argue from effect because so much of the outcome is uncertain, but I'll add my thoughts/rebuttals and let me know what you think.

I think you've made some good points, but all compared to the expected outcome of a "successful" Clinton presidency; in other words compared to an already perceived worse outcome.  There's no reason to think that sticking to the principle that force achieves the opposite effect desired won't affect the real world.  Ultimately I do not care who becomes president; I care that the initiation of force is evil and the state is immoral - and voting lends my support to that system.

 

You might be interested in posting this in the Vote/Don't Vote thread.  This topic is the focus there.

 

Thanks for the response!  I like a good discussion.  I'll address your points as follows:

 

"I care that the initiation of force is evil and the state is immoral - and voting lends my support to that system."  and "We cannot know the outcome so why diverge from our principles?"

 

I think the disagreement between us here is subjective and this will be like arguing about if a comedy is funny or not.  But we just can't resist it, can we? 

 

lt's like arguing over wether or not to quit smoking.  I can lay out all the studies that show that it's very much more likely that you will have serious health problems if you continue to smoke.  And you can shrug and say "I might get hit by a car tomorrow, so why bother?"

 

I know that you'll say that it's not as straightforward as that, and it's not, but I think the analogy holds some water because of what I will explain in my next response.

 

"Clinton may be the best move to advance a no-state agenda."

 

A collapse of the system doesn't advance a no-state agenda.  Can you name a state that collapsed and birthed a Voluntaryist anarchic free market when the dust settled?  It hasn't happened because the state only exists because most people believe in the necessity of its existence and some people get a highly addictive endorphin rush from exercising power over others.  In other words, there is a DEMAND for a state and so the market creates one.

 

When a state collapses I'm only aware of two outcomes.  

 

1.) The relatively peaceful establishment of a new state or states, like what happened after the collapse of the Soviet Union

 

2.) A period of violent conflict until a new state or states are established.  Sometimes the civil wars last indefinitely, until the people are too traumatized and dysfunctional to even establish a civil society, like in parts of Africa.  

 

So if I could press a button and make the state as it exists right now disappear, I wouldn't press it.  Even if the transition of power happens peacefully, it's very likely that the new state established to replace the existing one will be as bad or worse than the one we have now.  And I think we can hazard to guess that we won't have much luck using reason and evidence to convince people not to establish as state with bombs raining down on us and bullets whizzing past our ears.

 

The only way to get to a stateless society is by removing the demand for the state, and it seems to me that the only way to do that is within a relatively peaceful civil society. 

 

The way I see it, preserving the civil society so we can use reason and evidence to spread our ideas is the better move than waiting for the system to collapse on its own.  

 

Especially considering my next point:

 

"I don't think the outcome you express will happen because there is not that much remaining for the left to pillage without destroying the source of their income"

 

The Left might actually want to collapse the current system, because they would be in place to mold the new system built to replace it.  It's a strategy that Leftist intellectuals have openly discussed in the circles that Obama and Clinton ran in.  Seeing how eager they are to bring third world migrants who will very likely end up as part of a permanent and violently discontent underclass in the US, I don't think it's outside the realm of possibility that this is what they have in mind.  

 

This article is an example of what I mean:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloward%E2%80%93Piven_strategy 

 

"You might be interested in posting this in the Vote/Don't Vote thread.  This topic is the focus there."

 

I might just do that, thanks for the suggestion. 

[12StringSamurai]

How do you know? No politician has ever done what they've claimed and the president is supposedly checked/balanced against two other branches of government.

 

 

Yes, but politicians don't act randomly and they don't do the exact opposite of what they promise.  They act in what they judge to be in their own best interest, like everyone else.  Hillary Clinton is on the verge of expanding her base of voters by the tens of millions.  And the Republican Establishment wants amnesty too because they are happy being a minority party as long as they can still sell favors to their donors, and their donors want that sweat, sweat cheap labor.  It's a very real threat.  The political class has been trying to get amnesty for a while now.

 

"Political Correctness isn't picking the pocket of my unborn child. Perceived legitimacy is the lifeblood of the State. President X and voting at all contributes to this perceived legitimacy."

 

Actually, it is, because people are afraid to attack the utility and morality of the welfare state and other government programs because they're scared of being emotionally bullied by social justice warriors.  

 

"Compromise is lose-lose"

 

Um, it's also win-win if the compromise gets everyone some of what they want instead of nothing or worse than nothing.  Read my responses to Tyler H above for my definition of worse than nothing.  (Short answer: indefinite civil war).

 

"There is no positive way to enhance a thief/batterer/rapist/murderer."

 

Let's say we live in a small isolated village with just a hundred people or so living there, and we don't have access to modern technology like guns and bombs.  Bear with me, this is going somewhere.

 

A man named Snerg lives up the road.  By a genetic accident he's a foot taller, 15mph faster and twice as strong as everyone else.  Once every day, he walks out of his house and picks out the first woman he sees as he's walking down the street.  In public, he then brutally beats, rapes, tortures and strangles her.  When he's done he throws her off a cliff.  Every day.

 

Many, many men have died trying to stop Snerg, to avenge a lover or sister, or just out of a sense of justice.  All have failed and died horribly at his hands.  He is beyond the ability of the village to imprison or kill.  A few people have tried to travel to other villages, but they all came back.  The other villages all have some version of Snerg too, and most of them are worse.  Some of them are FAR worse.

 

Now let's say one morning I sit down and buy Snerg a beer.  I get to chatting with him, and I manage to convince him through some rhetorical contrivance that he will from that day forward only torture, rape and strangle one woman per month instead of one every day.

 

I just enhanced a rapist and murderer in a positive way.  It's not an ideal situation, but it's better than things used to be.  I reduced the amount of violence going on.  The Republican Party used to be willing to use the violence of the State to oppress homosexuals who want to get married.  Now they cheer a gay man who loudly proclaims it at their convention.  It's a step in the right direction. 

 

In other words, take what you can get today and come back and try to get more tomorrow.  That's how the minimalist state described in the Constitution was destroyed.  The statists took a little piece each and every time they could get one.

[Gavitor]

In other words, take what you can get today and come back and try to get more tomorrow.  That's how the minimalist state described in the Constitution was destroyed.  The statists took a little piece each and every time they could get one.

 

While I don't care much for you're story you are correct that its possible to take a little at a time. I'm Curious though whats to stop the villages from getting together and acting as one to get rid of all the snergs?

[12StringSamurai]

While I don't care much for you're story you are correct that its possible to take a little at a time. I'm Curious though whats to stop the villages from getting together and acting as one to get rid of all the snergs?

 

Eh, it was just a quick and dirty metaphor to try to illustrate the idea that, when you find yourself in an unwinnable situation, you have to try to lose as little as possible.  It wasn't meant to be examined that closely.  

 

But just for fun, let's say the villagers don't bind together to overthrow Snerg because they've been propagandized to believe they can't.  

[dsayers]

Yes, but politicians don't act randomly...

Doesn't matter. You made an absolute claim and I asked how you know. Deflecting isn't answering the question.

 

Actually, it is, because people are afraid to attack the utility and morality of the welfare state and other government programs because they're scared of being emotionally bullied by social justice warriors.  

...because those SJWs perceive the State as legitimate and could use the State to destroy others. Which they would get away with because others perceive the State as legitimate. Saying black instead of African American will not pick the pockets of my unborn child.

 

Um, it's also win-win if the compromise gets everyone some of what they want

X != -X is a first principle. "SOME of what they want" is lose. In the free market, people work together to achieve their goals in a win-win arrangement. You said you're willing to compromise and I pointed out that interacting in any way with somebody who has a gun pointed at your head is NOT compromising.

 

Let's say

Let's not. You were offered a direct challenge. If you refuse to accept the truth when it is pointed out to you, that is your prerogative. This deflection, obfuscation, and avoidance will not slip by me.

 

That's how the minimalist state described in the Constitution was destroyed.  The statists took a little piece each and every time they could get one.

That's not a description of the Constitution being destroyed. That is a description of the eventuality that pretending that humans can exist in different, opposing moral categories EVERY TIME. See above: perceived legitimacy.

[12StringSamurai]

 

X != -X is a first principle. "SOME of what they want" is lose. In the free market, people work together to achieve their goals in a win-win arrangement. You said you're willing to compromise and I pointed out that interacting in any way with somebody who has a gun pointed at your head is NOT compromising.

 

In the free market no one gets everything they want, that's part of what makes it work.   Human desires are infinite but resources and time are finite.  You have to pick and choose, and negotiate with others to find solutions that are mutually beneficial.  We don't have a free market right now, but if we can make it more free, or prevent it from becoming less free, that's a win for now.  Then next time we try to get more.  

 

If you've redefined compromise as a "lose-lose" arrangement, and you're unwilling to negotiate to get some of what you want and accept that as a partial victory, then I don't believe that a productive dialog between the two of us is possible. You've got a Plutonic ideal of morally pure anarchism and you won't accept anything less.  

 

Ok, fair enough.  But I will engage with the real world and try to accomplish what I can to make the world a better place incrementally.  I think following that strategy will be more productive than not participating in the process at all.  I encourage others reading to make their own decision.

[Tyler H]

Thanks for the response!  I like a good discussion.  I'll address your points as follows:

 

"I care that the initiation of force is evil and the state is immoral - and voting lends my support to that system."  and "We cannot know the outcome so why diverge from our principles?"

 

I think the disagreement between us here is subjective and this will be like arguing about if a comedy is funny or not.  But we just can't resist it, can we?

 

lt's like arguing over wether or not to quit smoking.  I can lay out all the studies that show that it's very much more likely that you will have serious health problems if you continue to smoke.  And you can shrug and say "I might get hit by a car tomorrow, so why bother?"  

 

I know that you'll say that it's not as straightforward as that, and it's not, but I think the analogy holds some water because of what I will explain in my next response.

 

"Clinton may be the best move to advance a no-state agenda."

 

A collapse of the system doesn't advance a no-state agenda.  Can you name a state that collapsed and birthed a Voluntaryist anarchic free market when the dust settled?  It hasn't happened because the state only exists because most people believe in the necessity of its existence and some people get a highly addictive endorphin rush from exercising power over others.  In other words, there is a DEMAND for a state and so the market creates one.  I get your meaning but I would hesitate to call the results of coercive propaganda "demand" as if it would occur naturally in the absence of aggression.  The government creates a "demand" for tanks, but most free market thinkers separate real consumer demand from coercively generated artificial demand.  I'm not sure I have an argument here but the statement stuck in my mind and I wanted to make a comment.  I'm still playing with it.  

 

When a state collapses I'm only aware of two outcomes.  

 

1.) The relatively peaceful establishment of a new state or states, like what happened after the collapse of the Soviet Union

 

2.) A period of violent conflict until a new state or states are established.  Sometimes the civil wars last indefinitely, until the people are too traumatized and dysfunctional to even establish a civil society, like in parts of Africa.  

 

So if I could press a button and make the state as it exists right now disappear, I wouldn't press it.  Even if the transition of power happens peacefully, it's very likely that the new state established to replace the existing one will be as bad or worse than the one we have now.  And I think we can hazard to guess that we won't have much luck using reason and evidence to convince people not to establish as state with bombs raining down on us and bullets whizzing past our ears.  ​I certainly agree here, but I'm not suggesting we push any buttons; I'm saying if the state is going to collapse we should not work to prevent it or support a new state in it's stead.

The only way to get to a stateless society is by removing the demand for the state, and it seems to me that the only way to do that is within a relatively peaceful civil society. Agreed

 

The way I see it, preserving the civil society so we can use reason and evidence to spread our ideas is the better move than waiting for the system to collapse on its own.  I definitely don't suggest we just wait around - I don't think that was the position you were ascribing to me but I just wanted to clarify.  My counter argument is that if we oppose the initiation of force it does not matter what form it comes in. The state is the initiation of force, if a new evil arises after its self destruction we will oppose that as well. We oppose aggression in all its forms. 

 

Especially considering my next point:

 

"I don't think the outcome you express will happen because there is not that much remaining for the left to pillage without destroying the source of their income"

 

The Left might actually want to collapse the current system, because they would be in place to mold the new system built to replace it.  It's a strategy that Leftist intellectuals have openly discussed in the circles that Obama and Clinton ran in.  Seeing how eager they are to bring third world migrants who will very likely end up as part of a permanent and violently discontent underclass in the US, I don't think it's outside the realm of possibility that this is what they have in mind.  I think you may be right, but I don't think they will want it under their watch because it will harm that agenda as far as popular support.  Even if Trump gets in he won't have the power to stop them from orchestrating a collapse under his watch.

 

This article is an example of what I mean:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloward%E2%80%93Piven_strategy 

 

"You might be interested in posting this in the Vote/Don't Vote thread.  This topic is the focus there."

 

I might just do that, thanks for the suggestion. 

Good points man.  Also it's refreshing to have a civil discussion about this topic.  

[dsayers]

In the free market no one gets everything they want, that's part of what makes it work.   Human desires are infinite but resources and time are finite.

Citing restrictions that reality binds everybody with has no bearing on an analysis of interpersonal interactions. You are deflecting again. Kind of like how this whole post ignores numerous challenges so that you can continue to believe things that are not true.

 

If you've redefined compromise as a "lose-lose" arrangement, and you're unwilling to negotiate

Poisoning the well. Negotiation is an attempt at win-win and is NOT synonymous with compromise.

 

You are demonstrating a profound lack of integrity by accusing me of altering definitions while providing none of your own. Which is more poisoning of the well because *I* didn't redefine anything. The first definition of compromise from dictionary.com is "a settlement of differences by mutual concessions." That's lose-lose.

 

None of this changes the fact that no interaction of yours with somebody who has a gun to your head could be described as compromising with them. Something you continue to refuse to address.

 

The point here (for the benefit of those who are actually curious and want to improve their relationships) is that when two people have competing desires, trying to compromise means approaching the problem as if win-win is not possible. Which becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy. Negotiation could lead to a result that allows both parties to get what they want. Win-win.

 

Worse still is that you're talking about "compromising" with a politician. Which means that you are conceding things that belong to other people. Which you do NOT have the right to do.

[perrytheplat]

(Most) Money is debt. Most money is created endogenously by private banks. They loan it into existence. Extrogenous money that is created by the Federal bank plays a marginal role in money creation. 

depends on how you define terms. money cannot be debt. currency is debt. There are several characteristics that define money. paper debt notes are not money.

I think you're arguing something different. I don't see where I said I am in favor of taxing domestic companies into oblivion. I was suggesting that tariffs on imported goods keep jobs inside since companies wouldn't take their manufacturing elsewhere and then sell it back. Tariffs plus low taxes for ingroup companies is what Trump is declaring he'll do. It's also what America used to do before the so called free trade deals were implemented and that did take the manufacturing abroad.

I'm not arguing something different. Tariffs "are" taxes. I gave the example of Ford manufacturing products outside of the US market to explain that raising tariffs on trade directly hurts domestic companies and will force them to raise prices along with the cost of capital. It's market rigging and will result in malinvestment, shrinking industry, higher prices, and destruction of inefficiently used resources. 

 

You are correctly looking at domestic jobs and their corresponding increase and decrease depending where companies choose to manufacture. You are missing all of the other costs that come along with forcing companies to produce locally in inefficient markets. Bastiat's Law of what is seen and unseen comes into play here regardless of how patriotic and nationalistic this policy sounds.

Poisoning the well. Negotiation is an attempt at win-win and is NOT synonymous with compromise.

I'm not so sure it's poisoning the well but ... points for negotiation comment.

 

Negotiation is not compromise. In free trade, one party values something they want more than what they are already have. The other party does the same thing. This is a mutually beneficial trade since both parties are winning and not losing anything. This is called the "coincidence of wants". 

[Susana]

I do think the most effective way to increase jobs and overall wealth is to remove the laws that prevent people from working, but also (from the argument for morality) I prefer the voluntarism of a free market to the coercion of tariffs.  

 

Let me know what you think and if you disagree.  Also, I'm curious what school of economics was taught in your classes, was it Keynesian?

 

The best "guarantee" for economic freedom and workers rights is not having regulations/licenses (not including finance/banking) so that people who want to braid, cut hair or open a stand on the side of the road can do so without having to get licenses and pay money to the government. So if there is a business who treats his workers badly... the employee can open up a business that competes with his old boss. 

However, how likely is it to happen that these regulations and licenses will be gotten rid of? The baby boomers who own the existing business and industry certainly do not want to allow or mentor upstarts. They wont even let the housing prices crash down to the levels they should be because that negatively effects their net worth. Everyone who already went through the money and time drain of getting their licenses will not want to support lots of upstarts not having to go through the same hurdles. 

 

Tariffs to me while more government(yuck) is specifically tied to "isolationism" and do not seem to have the same hurdles and downsides of negatively impacting the native population (other than I guess prices). If your company is not importing from other counties then you would not be negatively impacted, in fact you would be positively impacted and gain an advantage. I'd be happy to know what you see are the hurdles and downsides of tarrifs on the native population (I am fine with prices going up because I think it will improve quality and create jobs). As a positive I also see tariffs as combating the "free trade" globalism like nafta which is crappy for all countries involved (agriculture subsidies, globalism etc)

 

I also have heard the argument, just go ahead and have machines take over all "low-skill menial jobs" because then people would not want to immigrate because they would not be able to find any jobs. Then it would be better on the native population because the demand for housing, etc would greatly decrease.

 

Was it Keynsian? .... Which college can I enroll in that will teach me Mises?

[Will Torbald]

I'm not arguing something different. Tariffs "are" taxes. I gave the example of Ford manufacturing products outside of the US market to explain that raising tariffs on trade directly hurts domestic companies and will force them to raise prices along with the cost of capital. It's market rigging and will result in malinvestment, shrinking industry, higher prices, and destruction of inefficiently used resources. 

 

You are correctly looking at domestic jobs and their corresponding increase and decrease depending where companies choose to manufacture. You are missing all of the other costs that come along with forcing companies to produce locally in inefficient markets. Bastiat's Law of what is seen and unseen comes into play here regardless of how patriotic and nationalistic this policy sounds.

 

Taxing the income of native companies is not the same as placing a tariff on the imports of a foreign company. Don't miss that on purpose. If Toyota sends cheaper cars than Ford, it's going to have to compete, so a tariff on Toyota to help Ford won't hurt Ford. But if Ford decides to make cheap cars in Mexico and bring back the cars to the US, then Ford is behaving like a foreign company since it is not creating jobs in the US anymore, and it's probably keeping the money in foreign subsidiaries as well. But if another US car company were to make cars for the US, and Ford gets to bring in cheaper Mexican cars - can it really be said that placing that tariff on Ford hurts the US? When the other US car company that made the american cars gets to be undercut by the traitorous Ford?

[Tyler H]

The best "guarantee" for economic freedom and workers rights is not having regulations/licenses (not including finance/banking) so that people who want to braid, cut hair or open a stand on the side of the road can do so without having to get licenses and pay money to the government. So if there is a business who treats his workers badly... the employee can open up a business that competes with his old boss.

However, how likely is it to happen that these regulations and licenses will be gotten rid of? The baby boomers who own the existing business and industry certainly do not want to allow or mentor upstarts. They wont even let the housing prices crash down to the levels they should be because that negatively effects their net worth. Everyone who already went through the money and time drain of getting their licenses will not want to support lots of upstarts not having to go through the same hurdles.

 

Tariffs to me while more government(yuck) is specifically tied to "isolationism" and do not seem to have the same hurdles and downsides of negatively impacting the native population (other than I guess prices). If your company is not importing from other counties then you would not be negatively impacted, in fact you would be positively impacted and gain an advantage. I'd be happy to know what you see are the hurdles and downsides of tarrifs on the native population (I am fine with prices going up because I think it will improve quality and create jobs). As a positive I also see tariffs as combating the "free trade" globalism like nafta which is crappy for all countries involved (agriculture subsidies, globalism etc)

 

I also have heard the argument, just go ahead and have machines take over all "low-skill menial jobs" because then people would not want to immigrate because they would not be able to find any jobs. Then it would be better on the native population because the demand for housing, etc would greatly decrease.

 

Was it Keynsian? .... Which college can I enroll in that will teach me Mises?

The Mises Institute is a wonderful resource for information regarding the Austrian school of economics. They run courses every summer (today's the last day this year) in Auburn, Alabama. Aside from that they run online courses and have tons of free content. Tom Woods, Robert Murphy, Tom DiLorenzo, Robert Higgs - these are all great Austrian economic minds involved with the institute today. Frédéric Bastiat, Ludwig von Mises, Murray Rothbard, Eugen Böhm von Bawerk, Henry Hazlitt - these guys laid the groundwork. Bastiat is one of my favorites to read. That Which Is Seen and That Which Is Not Seen is a fantastic essay.

 

It is likely that you were taught Keynesian economics since that is the school that is widely taught today; probably because it supports government control over the economy. Ironically enough by today's standards John Maynard Keynes isn't even a "Keynesian". They have manipulated his ideas to suit their agenda. Henry Hazlitt wrote a line by line refutation of Keynes' The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money called The Failure of the New Economics.

 

The negative aspect of tariffs is the cost of enforcement, so not only are you paying more for a product that could be made more efficiently somewhere else, you are paying (in taxes, currency inflation, or debt) for the enforcement of the law - all of the people involved in making sure no one is bypassing the tariffs. The result is an unseen loss in misallocated resources that could have been more productively put to use in some other fashion. Also the country where these goods are being made will most likely institute tariffs of their own negating any positive result at here at home and doubling the damage to capital on a global scale. Here's an article on tariffs from the Foundation for Economic Education you may find useful, another great source.

[Paul in Sweden]

How do the economic models and courses in free trade calculate the artificial stimulus of generous welfare systems? Cui bono?

Obviously by importing cheaper TVs and other products from countries that are actively exploiting workers and manipulating their nation's currency former United States workers now on govt. subsidy can purchase smart phones & TVs etc at a cheaper price. Isn't the use of government welfare artificial market influence.

Isn't this a direct contribution to the shrinking of the middle class?

[shirgall]

The most serious attack on the middle class is inflation, the printing of money by the Fed and the multiplication of money by large-scale institutional lending. The really rich can convert cash into investments in other items that are protected from inflation. The middle class, however, is driven primarily by salary cash flow and cash savings, both of which are undermined by inflation. They are strongly encouraged to protect themselves with 401Ks and similar instruments that put aside cash for decades and few take the time to seriously manage them to avoid inflation. Instead these 401Ks support the same organizations that willfully play along with the inflation game... a game where they can continually shows growth that, when inflation-adjusted, is illusory.

 

IMHO, the middle class should be investing in local ventures that they can see and evaluate for themselves (and therefore make informed decisions about), but those sorts of efforts are not protected from taxes like 401Ks.

[perrytheplat]

Taxing the income of native companies is not the same as placing a tariff on the imports of a foreign company. Don't miss that on purpose. If Toyota sends cheaper cars than Ford, it's going to have to compete, so a tariff on Toyota to help Ford won't hurt Ford. But if Ford decides to make cheap cars in Mexico and bring back the cars to the US, then Ford is behaving like a foreign company since it is not creating jobs in the US anymore, and it's probably keeping the money in foreign subsidiaries as well. But if another US car company were to make cars for the US, and Ford gets to bring in cheaper Mexican cars - can it really be said that placing that tariff on Ford hurts the US? When the other US car company that made the american cars gets to be undercut by the traitorous Ford?

It's definitely not the same thing. But they will have negative outcomes. The degree and timelines you can measure and debate for yourself. The point is that if Toyota sends cheaper cars than Ford can produce, that is competition, and competition is a good thing for everybody (consumers, employers, and employees). If Ford cannot produce cars as efficiently as Toyota, then perhaps Ford needs to either accept a smaller market share, or get out of the car business. If price fixing and economic rigging cause malinvestment and waste in production, perhaps the capital and labor resources aren't being allocated properly, and therefore, those businessmen and employees working for that company are being told by economic law to move to a field or industry in which they are actually productive. That's just basic markets.

 

It will hurt Ford in many other ways than just direct sales of their cars. We don't have tariffs in between the 50 states and we shouldn't be arguing for tariffs on the importation of products from other states. Private companies are not obligated to do anything for anyone and using government force to steal from them to do so is not only immoral but it is bad economics. 

 

In your example, Ford would not be traitorous for manufacturing cars elsewhere. It's a business. Businesses don't make cars because they love countries and governments. They make cars because they love cars and they can do so efficiently. They don't manufacture cars to kneel before the alter of the state. Yes, it could be said that placing that tariff on Ford hurts the US. It hurts car sales, it hurts consumers through higher prices, it forces consumers to buy higher priced lower quality products, it forces people out of jobs. It does a whole lot of bad.

 

You are only paying attention to one thing here ... which is a decrease and shifting of US jobs from one industry to another. 

[Will Torbald]

It's definitely not the same thing. But they will have negative outcomes. The degree and timelines you can measure and debate for yourself. The point is that if Toyota sends cheaper cars than Ford can produce, that is competition, and competition is a good thing for everybody (consumers, employers, and employees). If Ford cannot produce cars as efficiently as Toyota, then perhaps Ford needs to either accept a smaller market share, or get out of the car business. If price fixing and economic rigging cause malinvestment and waste in production, perhaps the capital and labor resources aren't being allocated properly, and therefore, those businessmen and employees working for that company are being told by economic law to move to a field or industry in which they are actually productive. That's just basic markets.

 

It will hurt Ford in many other ways than just direct sales of their cars. We don't have tariffs in between the 50 states and we shouldn't be arguing for tariffs on the importation of products from other states. Private companies are not obligated to do anything for anyone and using government force to steal from them to do so is not only immoral but it is bad economics. 

 

In your example, Ford would not be traitorous for manufacturing cars elsewhere. It's a business. Businesses don't make cars because they love countries and governments. They make cars because they love cars and they can do so efficiently. They don't manufacture cars to kneel before the alter of the state. Yes, it could be said that placing that tariff on Ford hurts the US. It hurts car sales, it hurts consumers through higher prices, it forces consumers to buy higher priced lower quality products, it forces people out of jobs. It does a whole lot of bad.

 

You are only paying attention to one thing here ... which is a decrease and shifting of US jobs from one industry to another. 

 

To what industry would those US jobs go if all industries take the jobs abroad if the regulations and taxes choke everybody? All industries die at once and the result is unemployment, and underemployment. A lot of companies will sell at a loss just to capture market share, which is the model the videogame consoles do with PS4 and XBOX selling their consoles lower than cost to compete with Nintendo which cannot afford to do so since it only does games, while Sony and Microsoft can use the money from their other branches to carry the cost. If Toyota sells cheaper cars than Ford in the US, you can bet it is doing it at a loss or at cost of production, which summed with marketing costs is also a loss. So it's not an issue to say that if Ford "can't make cheaper cars they shouldn't make them at all" since Toyota is willing to lose money just to compete. Should Ford lose that money and risk losing all and having thousands of people unemployed? Also, you think of companies as if they "choose where to manufacture" as if their decisions were morally independent. They don't choose where to go when the government is forcing high taxes and regulations, and other countries seduce them without those. When Disney replaces workers with H1B serfs, are you going to defend them because they "freely choose who to hire"? While leaving Americans out of their jobs? This is why globalists are disgusting.

[Susana]

The Mises Institute is a wonderful resource for information regarding the Austrian school of economics. They run courses every summer (today's the last day this year) in Auburn, Alabama. Aside from that they run online courses and have tons of free content. Tom Woods, Robert Murphy, Tom DiLorenzo, Robert Higgs - these are all great Austrian economic minds involved with the institute today. Frédéric Bastiat, Ludwig von Mises, Murray Rothbard, Eugen Böhm von Bawerk, Henry Hazlitt - these guys laid the groundwork. Bastiat is one of my favorites to read. That Which Is Seen and That Which Is Not Seen is a fantastic essay.

 

Why should I prefer the Mises Institute over Maxkeiser.com ? I already follow Cato the Younger on twitter.

 

Again I do not think it is a bad thing if products are more expensive.. if it is too expensive... then don't buy it. Is food going to be too expensive to buy? If not then expensive prices are not a bad thing... because prices are already expensive for the everyday person and we dont need to be a consumerist society anyway. This is not a convincing reason as we would be better off as a savers society. Of course there is the grey market and smuggling but again that is not a worry since Americans(white people) follow so many rules without rebelling it will be the minority of people in the grey market. Maybe some things I would purchase on the grey market (edit to add since I live in Port City) but I would much rather have a goal to save and buy handcrafted quality made in America, no matter the price than the already expensive crap imported from other places.

[shirgall]

Why should I prefer the Mises Institute over Maxkeiser.com ? I already follow Cato the Younger on twitter.

 

Bottom line is that you should decide on the truth of the concepts for yourself, but there is often insight and benefit to be had when you hear different takes on the same subjects. Tyler said it was a good source but didn't say it was the preferable one.

 

The thing about these forums is that you get another take than the resources listed, too. I have a tendency to boil things down to what's known in cooking as the "fond", the tasty crust of what used to be your sauce that get deglazed and scraped off the pan as a treat. See also my recipe for caramelized onions. But is my version the proper essence of the concept? You have to try other people's cooking, and cooking of your own, to know for sure.