ignorant? rest your vocal chords.
Let’s Stop the “Free Trade” Nutballs
Where are all those “free-trade” ideologues now that their theories have turned out to be bunkum, devastating American working families? “Trust us,” they shouted, as they shoved NAFTA, the WTO, and other globs of globaloney down our throats, promising us an economic paradise if only all quotas and tariffs were eliminated, letting the magic of the global free market create a bonanza of new export jobs for us. But their schemes turn out to be scams, and America’s chief export under their laissez-faire ideology turns out to be our middle-class jobs.
One of their brainflares was to eliminate all of the world’s quotas on clothing, which took effect in January. This has been disastrous for folks in the real world, which the theorists apparently never visited. In only three months, their policy has resulted in the closing of 17 American textile and clothing factories and the loss of 17,000 American jobs. …
you know that whiny fag character edward robinson played in the ten commandments? that’s what this boozer sounds like. NAFTA and WTO are not laissez-faire. it’s the same straw man routine that was pulled in the california energy “deregulation” debacle.
but put that aside a moment and simply look at his assumptions, which basically fall into the same category of fallacy as most economic state-licking BS: that which is seen, and that which is not seen.
isn’t it damned puzzling that these masters of freeing the working man never bother to discuss cutting down the state, that biggest destroyer of the working man? the solution is always to increase the behemoth that is choking us — so that we won’t be choked. if he’s so concerned about the working man, he could take 15 seconds for a rough computation of the waste and theft that the state inflicts. it’s insane. never mind though, because the problem is always “laissez-faire”, since nobody gives a shit about economics.
translation is required for the rhetoric. what are some of the inevitable effects of any government intervention, especially via mercantilism? higher prices, reduced production, and waste. those are seen, yet the reason for them isn’t connected. so they’re unseen for most arguments in which they should be discussed.
lordy lordy, i’ve been dragged like a fool into a utilitarian argument. this is the method of the anti-traders. but what is the principle in what they propose? it is not liberty. they propose full scale social engineering (the fatal conceit) which must always be based on force. in the “land of the free”, you may not choose your trading partners. what kind of philosophy is that?
free trade is the only road to wealth creation and happiness. yet we do not have free trade in the US. you will never see mercantilists wrestling with the factors that shoot down their collectivist pleas. rather, it is always a hitler-style rhetorical appeal to the crowd, with fingers pointed to the failures brought about by government, not trade. their solution? more government.
the logical conclusion of all anti-traders is that one may not trade with anybody. why stop at the US border? break down the “logic” to as local as it gets: yourself. the divisions proposed by mercantilists are always arbitrary, and always based on chest pounding, not logic.
even some self-styled soldiers of liberty argue against the theory that free trade leads to prosperity, saying we should accept government interference. allow for a moment that they are right about free trade being inferior. what then? then we must not propose or accept government interference. we must each make the economic choices we find acceptable for our situation, and we may listen to the argument that free trade is inferior. if that means you don’t trade with china, or you want to pay an artificially higher price for US goods, help yourself. but don’t presume you may make my choices for me and still call this the land of liberty.
this is the problem that socialists of all colors miss nearly every time: free trade does not mean indiscriminate trade. it simply means that we each make trade policy; it may be as restrictive or as liberal as one desires. the “fuck liberty” crowd cannot stomach that, because it means you are not living your life as best pleases them.
what does liberty mean?