There’s a guy at Youtube that I’m subscribed to. He does a radio program at his college and in my opinion he’s very talented. His name is paleocrat. However, I was slightly surprised to see his latest video, The Cost of Free Trade. He does make a comment about being ‘torn’ between Pat Buchanan and Ron Paul on free trade. Personally, I’m VERY drawn to Anarchy but I also possess a STRONG patriotism toward the good ole US of A. I just don’t know if I could ever turn my back on her. I also tend to lean toward a stronger military response than most might. I’m still working thru it all. Just like I’m trying to work thru Protestantism vs Catholicism. Paleocrat is a Catholic convert himself. I think he said he’s about 29 yrs old and converted about 1-2 yrs ago. I like the organization and deep intellectual roots of the Catholic Church, but I also have that ‘bothersome’ streak of individualism, not that the two can’t coincide…
I made a comment about Mises. If Niccolo goes there, I hope he doesn’t get big-headed. I’m sure he’s only brilliant in a relative sense - I’m retarded and he’s normal. [:'(]
Here’s another ‘free trade’ video by another Youtuber, blakethepacifist. It basically sounds like he’s saying that as long as U.S. industries are heavily regulated via that entity of wonder and awe, US of A govt., it’s unfair to seek alternative goods and services. Regardless of the reasons for inefficiencies, shouldn’t we be free to buy and sell what we believe to be most beneficial to us? Should we sympathize with producers that may have had crops drought-stricken, factories weakened by unions or uncertainty heaped upon them by politicians? What causes of inefficiency should cause us to choose goods and services at a higher cost? I’m not against someone choosing to buy an American made tire because they want to support American workers. That’s up to them, even though I think it’s wrong-headed. But I would also like the favor returned and be able to spend as I please.
I remember many moons ago, when my son was very young and in elementary school. They were having a fund raiser for the school. Me and his mom disagreed on public education. I didn’t want to be too heavy-handed toward what he was doing, but I made a comment. My son was amazed that you could actually get an education outside the public system! lol. He didn’t think it’d be fair if we did that because it would hurt his school, teachers, students, etc.
So here’s my small point. Those that believe we should buy heavily regulated products because the heavy regulation puts an unfair burden on the business, do they also believe they shouldn’t have the option of a private education for their child? The public system has all the burdensome regulations. Wouldnt it be unfair for the parent to try and get a better education for their child at home or in a privately run school if it takes anything away from the public system?
Here’s some extreme thoughts:
If a factory in Mexico can manufacture a quality car for 50 cents and wants to sell it to Americans for $1, should we be disallowed that option and be forced to pay $25,000 for the same quality car made in America?
If you child is dying and needs a particular treatment to save her and it costs $1 if purchased internationally but $1,000,000,000,000 domestically, should you be made to forego the $1 pill and try to somehow purchase the billion dollar pill?
Doesn’t it perpetuate government regulation when we’re forced to patronize these victims? What’s really scary is where this strand of logic leads the protectionist - The Berlin Wall! There are MANY people that see American’s doing business overseas to escape America’s onerous regulations as unpatriotic, subversive and heretical. They wish to build a virtual wall. They wish to punish them economically if they dare sojourn outside the province of Utopia. Doesn’t it say something about a country that has to keep it’s citizens, I mean inmates, locked inside? It’s like a freakin lunatic stalker, determined to make you love them.
Yes, I like paleocrat. I’ve discussed Catholicism and Christian apologetics w/ him, among other things. I think he has a lot of talent and will make a success of himself. I was disappointed to hear his views on free trade, but I also realize I probably much more radical than most everyone out there. NOT smarter, just stubborn enough to take things further. He said he used to have a strong interest in Mises/Austrianism. I think principles can become clouded when we’re exposed to anecdotal evidence. Sometimes, when people see someone out of a job, they want to make it better by acting on impulse rather than rationality. We must consider the rightness and wrongness of the total effect and how this effects EVERYONE in the present as well as the future.
Would Blake the Pacifist want state action to force us to buy American, or is he simply making a claim that the individual should claim to buy American? On the former claim, he’s contradicting himself. On the latter, I have no opinion, since lots of things enter into subjective valuation considerations.
That, if he is endorsing state action to force us to buy American, he’d be a pacifist calling for men with guns to shoot people who buy from out of the country, or, more likely, to shoot people who buy from out of the country without paying the appropriate bribe (i.e. tariff.)
I guess if you’re against the war in Iraq that qualifies you as a pacifist. Just a guess. I really don’t know the reason behind the name. Maybe he was less warmongering than his friends so he’s sarcastically referring to himself as a pacificst. Or maybe pacifism only refers to a non-interventionist policy abroad but not at home.
Protectionism is bad for Americans. Free trade isn’t what has diminished American Industry. American industry was formed during the 19th century, the peak of free trade. It is domestic regulations and government managed trade (NAFTA) that ruins production, and thus the standard of living.
Anarchy and militarism are incompatible. The United States military is the most evil government in the world. It is the Pentagon, and not the UN, that is a true world government. It threatens( and inflicts) violence across the globe. There is no Iraq War, there is only Iraqi occupation and open warfare waged upon subjects of the American Empire.
Here’s one line of reasoning from an ‘Economic Nationalist’, ie Protectionist:
“The rest of your remarks may be well intended, but historical inaccurate. You talk about how economic nationalism would result in some massive spike in the cost of goods and how freedoms would be stripped from us left and right by the government. Was this true under George Washington? Did Alexander Hamilton agree with you? What about just about any American president up until Woodrow Wilson? Freedoms? The growth and prosperity of a nation that went from 13 colonies to the world’s richest and most powerful nation? Under economic nationalism. And how are freedoms and liberties right now? It would appear, to use the economics/freedom analogy you did, that the closer we get to free trade, the less free we become.”
–end quote
Here’s my comment that he was replying to (the wall comments is an analogy comparing tariffs & anti-outsourcing to the Berlin Wall)
"It’s like this guy that keeps telling me we need to stop all food imports because food is vital and we cant live w/o it. Aside from the lunacy of the massively fertile US going barren, consumers are free to stored canned foods as a security measure. Everyone picks out there little special interest, ie food, makers, etc and they think it’ll help the makers, consumers and the security. It’s freedom that helps the consumer. It’s not, ‘maker X is heavily regulated and as such is disadvantaged, therefore, we’re going to disadvantage consumers’. Inefficienies need to be ended, not patronized. Just because someone is fleeing the economic oppression of the U.S. doesnt mean you should build a wall around the US to keep them in. That solves nothing! Thats the same thing communists do!!! The solution is to destroy the freedom-killing actions of regulators and not the freedom-promoting actions of the free market. "
Its like a friend of mine that wants doctors’ pay controlled by…surprise, surprise…the government! The government is why the price is so high now! lol. So after you close the borders and prices go sky-high, youre going to want the govt to do more,ie control prices. If you say no, well, thats what boycotting others’ produce is. Youre controlling prices by blocking competition. So, you are for price controls and youll control prices further after the walls are fully erected. Then youll have a dearth of production because it isnt profitable. Then whats the answer? More government! We’ll need the government to produce what the ‘free market is incapable of’. lol
You’re plugging a hole in the ship by making a hole elsewhere. Everyone always wants to use just that little bit of coercion to curry their little pet projects and before long, all freedom has been vanquished.
–end quote
Comments on his ‘empirical data’ proving protectionism works? Any comments?
I also think correlating all our prosperity from colonial days to pre-World War I is akin to talking about how much we grew before the advent of the internet. If the murder rate and economic prosperity rise in tandem, then murder is good. Just because something is wrong doesn’t mean anything that happens contemporaneously is by neccessity a result of the ‘wrongness’. I think the greatness of America is it’s level of freedom and to imply that any oppression employed during economic growth must mean that growth hinged upon that oppression, was spurred by that oppression or wasn’t adversely affected by that oppression is flatout illogical.
See my dear friend Bastiat for the real truth! [:P]
But, it may be asked, are the benefits of freedom so well hidden that they are evident only to professional economists?
I.I.5
Yes, we must admit that our opponents in this argument have a marked advantage over us. They need only a few words to set forth a half-truth; whereas, in order to show that it is a half-truth, we have to resort to long and arid dissertations.
I.I.6
This situation is due to the nature of things. Protection concentrates at a single point the good that it does, while the harm that it inflicts is diffused over a wide area. The good is apparent to the outer eye; the harm reveals itself only to the inner eye of the mind.*3 In the case of free trade, it is just the reverse.
I.I.7
The same is true of almost all economic questions.
Youtube Friend wrote: "Not a fan of Bastiat, sorry.
My point in mentioning the past is to show that arguments against economic nationalism is bogus. It is a system that has been tried. It is a system that has been good. It is a system that brought about national greatness, both diplomatically and economically. Free trade has no precedent. It is wishful thinking.
I also used it to show that one can be an economic nationalist and not some kind of tyrant wishing to take away civil liberties. Free traders try to correlate the two. When the government hinders freedom of trade, then for some reason it will hinder other freedoms. This, too, is bogus.
And why couldn’t the flipside be true? The more laissez faire economics become, the more laissez faire morality becomes? This may do well for culture hating libertarians, but not for paleoconservatives and traditionalists such as me.
Lastly, I think what alludes many economists is the notion of community, nationality, citizenship, and culture. It is like the medical sciences who depersonalize life to such a degree that it makes the conditions in Oryx and Crake sound humane. To major in a specific field is excellent. But to boil life down to economic units and consumers is absurd. Life is bigger than this. This is something that many (not all) economists seem to forget in their zeal to find means to maximize profit. "
He was very wrong on his assertions. The US was very pro-trade from the get-go. In fact, the government saw to its duty protecting American trade overseas (even to the degree of border-line interventionism). For example, the country nearly went to war with both Britain and France in the early 19th century because they would not allow US trading ships to trade with the other party. The US did go to war with Babary states in protection of US trade vessles.
US leadership had a very good understanding of just how important trade was. In fact, the whole strategy of the North’s prosecution of the Civil War was the “Anaconda Plan,” conceived long before the war actually broke out: an economic strangulation of the South through naval blockade. Goes to show just how important the US leadership considered international trade, long before Wilson. Banning international trade would be like applying the strangling “Anaconda Plan” on itself. BTW, the first crop of super-rich Americans that emerged in the second half of 19th century made their fortune through the far east trade, with Yankee Clippers.
"The more laissez faire economics become, the more laissez faire morality becomes? This may do well for culture hating libertarians, but not for paleoconservatives and traditionalists such as me.
. . . I think what alludes many economists is the notion of community, nationality, citizenship, and culture. "
That gentleman would have fitted very well into late 19th century Prussia . . . an army that had a country (as opposed to others, countries that have armies). That’s why the Prussians invented public education: to build “national spirit.” Well, we knew soon enough what good all that “national spirit” did for the Prussian Germans: Konigsburg changed its name to Kaliningrad in the next half century, with millions of dead young German men and raped German women of all ages accompanying such transformations. Where goods do not cross borders, armies do.
My only question when I read things like this - why? You’re spending all this time and effort arguing with one person, without an audience. If I’m going to debate someone, I want 20 people watching. The watchers are the people I’m trying to convince, because someone who has researched the topic and feels strongly enough about it to give you a strong debate is not going to switch sides. Or, if they do, it will have nothing to do with what you said. The people you can convince are those who basically agree with you and are unclear on a certain topic, the undecideds, and the people who haven’t thought about it before. You can tell the difference quickly. The people you can persuade might disagree with you at first, and argue with you, but it’s easily to tell which group they fall into. This guy, whatever he calls himself, is fundamentally a conservative - he believes that it is acceptable to use force to purify his culture. You won’t convince him of anything.
