Posted by Frank on Wed, 11 Mar 2009 01:29 | #

By someone who is recommending an Austrian economic book, and is a fan of Adam Smith… It’s a freakin globalist cult.

Friedrich List tears up Smith, btw.

—-

Some good points though (from the original “The UK and the Silent Bank Run”):

There is nothing so dramatic as a line of people lined up outside a bank, hopeful of retrieving their money whilst there is still money left. It makes a good picture for the papers. What of the silent bank run? This is where there are no lines of people, but just a long line of electronic transactions as institutional investors remove their funds. No pictures. No drama. No headlines.

The government is having to bail out the banks to repay these overseas investors such that, as fast as the money is pumped in, it is pumped straight back out to meet the demands of overseas depositors. With the banks sitting on mountains of toxic debt, with no market left for the sales of these toxic assets, there is nowhere to turn except to the government.

Here he’s responding to previous comments:

Lord Keynes: You say in your example:

The banks are hoarding the £30 that they have been receiving as interest. Also, the banks refuse to lend any new money to people, so the economy just can’t get that extra £30 to get the economy on track.

You are talking about lending for consumption. Lending for consumption = a future contraction….Also, nobody is ‘hoarding’ money. They are lending it to governments….the banks do not sit with piles of cash in vaults, but buy ‘safe’ assets according to Basel II requirements. ‘Hoarding’ is an emotive word for saving and investing. When money is not being consumed (whether by governments or consumers) it is used to invest in new business ventures. This is not hoarding.

Posted by Frank on Wed, 11 Mar 2009 01:49 | #

Linking to someone whom folks here would respect: A Tariff in Time . . . Saves Billions The Proposed Automotive Industry Bailout by Greg Johnson of TOQ.

—My attempt at shattering the Austrian cult grip on misguided nationalists.

Posted by exPF on Wed, 11 Mar 2009 04:41 | #

Hey Frank,

I’m more than willing to listen to your arguments against the Austrian school of economics - apparently in favor of protectionism. I have no inborn resistance to this argument which would make me wish not to hear it.

However the article you posted from TOQ didn’t go into sufficient depth for my tastes and offered only one meager thought experiment involving auto companies as evidence of the importance of protectionism.

It would be good if you could provide links to some other page where a more lengthy refutation of Austrian economics was available, or a lengthier argument for protectionist policies.

Any further info appreciated,
exPF

Posted by Frank on Wed, 11 Mar 2009 05:27 | #

The List quotes above are excellent, they could equally apply to the Austrians today. I can repost some here if posts are preferred to links.

There are damning quote by von Mises out there too, but I don’t know where to find them right off. Essentially, he was a globalist like Smith and the other free traitors. I could very likely find one at the von Mises Institute archive, but that will have to wait till tomorrow.

Essentially a globally interdependent world at peace with itself is supposed to arise. However, if something happens to disrupt trading, a crisis could arise.

And since global resources are likely to decrease in supply, thus increasing competition, it is unlikely that a global order could work well or last.

—-

One of the best quotes from the List quotes:

List talks of an English dual standard in trade, which sounds similar to today how the EU and Asian states are all protectionist with regard to America, while America is supposed to remain open

With the fall of Napoleon, English competition, which had been
till then restricted to a contraband trade, recovered its footing
on the continents of Europe and America. Now for the first time the
English were heard to condemn protection and to eulogise Adam
Smith’s doctrine of free trade, a doctrine which heretofore those
practical islanders considered as suited only to an ideal state of
Utopian perfection. But an impartial, critical observer might
easily discern the entire absence of mere sentimental motives of
philanthropy in this conversion, for only when increased facilities
for the exportation of English goods to the continents of Europe
and America were in question were cosmopolitan arguments resorted
to; but so soon as the question turned upon the free importation of
corn, or whether foreign goods might be allowed to compete at all
with British manufactures in the English market, in that case quite
different principles were appealed to.(3*)

In other words the English were calling for: free trade for foreigners; protectionist trade for the English.

—-

Economy in Crisis is an excellent American trade site, though I think the site could be better organised. Gems are scattered throughout the site.

Clarifications on the Case for Free Trade by PCR is pretty good.

—-

Marx understood trade well:

in general, the protective system of our day is conservative, while the free trade system is destructive. It breaks up old nationalities and pushes the antagonism of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie to the extreme point. In a word, the free trade system hastens the social revolution. It is in this revolutionary sense alone, gentlemen, that I vote in favor of free trade.

===

I’d like to gather material for a case generally in favor of protectionist trade from an, ah, exclusively white American view. But that’ll take time. The arguments are out there though, for anyone with time on his hands.

Posted by Frank on Wed, 11 Mar 2009 05:30 | #

When England did finally adopt free trade for itself, Germany remained protectionist. And as a result, Germany grew powerful.

This happened after List’s book was written though, but it’s a powerful example, in addition to the many List provides.

Posted by Frank on Wed, 11 Mar 2009 05:32 | #

Apologies, I’m half asleep.

That’s meant to say: from an explicitly white American view, not exclusively white American…

Posted by exPF on Wed, 11 Mar 2009 06:01 | #

Frank,

When a government uses protective tariffs to subsidize native industries, don’t we run the risk of making those industries non-competitive by removing them from competition with foreign goods?

There is nothing about putting tariffs on foreign cars that would give US car makers incentives to improve their products - is there?

In fact, insofar as it insulates them from competition, it would be a corrupting influence, do you think?

I’ll have to read those links, thanks for posting them.

I guess, what is the main bone of contention with the free market, or the main refutation of its working, which is highlighted in these theories?

Posted by SM on Wed, 11 Mar 2009 07:23 | #

“...what is the main bone of contention with the free market, or the main refutation of its working, which is highlighted in these theories?

The main bone of contention is the pined for ‘Market’ has already spoken freely.

...It said it likes liberalism, feminism and “race replacement”.

Now if you’re saying that ‘techno “growth” will slow’ if entrepenurialism (ie runtism) is curtailed, you are correct. ...Trickle down will stop: the bum will die; wimmins will go home.

But I say big woop. Men did just fine with out the gizmo conveyor belt.

Now if you say “if we slow our growth, other cultures /races will prevail (and push us out of the ‘darwinist nest of life’)”, I say…

No, we must grab the wrists of those other cultures and make them obey so that that specifically doesn’t happen (no other reason to get involved).

This is the same as the breeding thing…

“Other cultures make scores of babies there for westerns need to spit out endless ill raised broods too, in order to keep up.”

No! Wrong! We need to make a few babies here and there—_Raise them properly, with resources/energies converged on them_ and then control other cultures (of ding bats)—including internal ones [hail jebus!]—so they will slow their idiotic ill-raised brood machine down too.

What the hell kind of Nationalists are `yous?

Posted by Frank on Wed, 11 Mar 2009 11:13 | #

exPF,

I.

the ability to produce cars is important because the state can use this capacity to produce tanks and other machines of war. America’s manufacturing capacity was advantageous during WWII.

—-

In the ideal, raw materials are imported, and then some of these materials are processed and exported as finished goods in exchange for the raw materials.

Such a balance allows the home state to support larger productive capacity (capacity used for both the home state and the trading partner state). This capacity can be used for war.

Also, materials are growing increasingly scarce. Peak copper, peak tin, peak silver, peak gold, etc. will be reached soon. Some states will have large quantities of these, some will have goods to trade for these, and some will have neither and so will grow defenseless and poor.

—-

II.

It’s desired that a state increase its productive capacity and improve its technology.

This technology can be used to produce cheaper products, which can be used to flood foreign markets, and the technology can be used for war.

Those states that fall behind will tend to fall increasingly farther behind as other states speed their progress forward, each step allowing advancements to made more quickly.

—-

III.

It’s desired that a state be self-sufficient, chiefly so it can wage war independently, but also so that it can improve its sense of nationality. Sense of nationality is improved for what I suspect are obvious reasons: workers enjoy working for their own people, consumers enjoy consuming what’s distinctly theirs, ah walkers? enjoy seeing works created by own people, etc.

—-

IV.

Security. More difficult to plant a bomb if less is imported.

V.

Less contact with foreigner traders means less chance of foreign blood entering state.

———-

War should usually only be used in defense, since it is unChristian to attack another state unprovoked; and it is revolutionary to mix with foreigners and transform the state as is done during war.

Empire as SM dreams of is expensive and thus foolish. Though there’s some merit in wanting to be on top, and to stay on top, though it would take a wise statesman to achieve such dominance and retain it. Nothing lasts forever though, so eventually this would fail.

———-

Technological advance can be revolutionary and thus potentially dangerous. However, it’s again necessary to progress in order to keep up defenses. China was an advanced civilisation that declined to apply its technological advances. And the Europeans punished it for this error.

———-

All states grow corrupt and collapse, so plans would need to be made for how to minimise threats during periods of corruption.

———-

All this talk of war and it becomes more understandable how this globalist dreaming came about. However, the globalism is impossible, and additionally unwanted for many reasons people here would agree with. Those who don’t like this world should accept reality and dream of the next world, rather than embracing insanity and pretending this world is something different as globalist are apt.

Posted by Frank on Wed, 11 Mar 2009 11:18 | #

The need for advancement might be lesser or greater depending on what threats exist. Advancement can again be revolutionary, so it isn’t necessarily desired, except for defense.

—-

It’s scary how nations seem to commit suicide after achieving a strong degree of security. We see this most recently with the West which had more or less dominated the world last century.

He who can prevent a secure nation from committing suicide would be a hero, and might allow his nation to continue on for a long time.

Posted by Frank on Wed, 11 Mar 2009 11:51 | #

It’s tough to speak on trade exclusively without mentioning most everything else, since trade is naturally part of politics, and not something separate as economists try to claim today.

—-

The US auto industry is plagued by affirmative action, pensions, and unions; and these aren’t going to go away as a result of competition.

The car industry problem should be viewed as an American problem. Though American car workers are earning too much, the solution shouldn’t be to produce overseas. That is not solving the problem; that is running from the problem.

Pensions seem to lead to future crisis once workers begin retiring, so some correction of this could prevent a cycle of rise and collapse as each company falls under the weight of retirees. It’s profitable to promise the world upon retirement, and then declare bankruptcy after the work has been done. This shouldn’t be possible (laws should prevent).

Banning union-only factories could be a start.

Breaking the car companies up could make it less likely they’d all collude in paying their workers too much. However, this would be at the expense of some economy of scale. Where economy of scale levels off on car production would require specialised knowledge. Since Korea is able to support car companies though, I doubt the reasonable economy of scale could be too large.

The corporate system needs to be changed - that might lead to increased productivity. Or perhaps a distributive approach could work: require that workers’ incomes be dependent on profits.

Allowing in Japanese car makers on condition they produce the entire car within the US might be a solution. There’s little risk the Japanese would sabotage their own plants, we aren’t at war; there’s already a great many Asians here so the increased risk of mixing isn’t significant; and the productive capacity would remain within the US.

And I suppose the Japanese would run their plants with Japanese bosses, who would then not be as vulnerable as white bosses to accusations of racism. So, they’d suffer less from affirmative action. And they’re currently better at resisting unions.

It’d be nice too if the US simply accepted racial differences, and fired the dead weight.

—-

As long as some productive capacity remains within the US, the US will be fine.

Once hyperinflation hits the US though, Americans will only be able to buy American-made goods. So, whatever America doesn’t produce will not be available for purchase to the great majority of Americans. No one will want Monopoly money very soon (within this year).

Posted by Lurker on Wed, 11 Mar 2009 12:10 | #

Japan built up her car industry under a measure of protection. Japanese cars are not noted for their lack of quality or consumer friendliness.

The French state backs a car maker, Renault, its products seem fairly sound to me, though its years since I drove one.

The French state and people have a more nationalistic view of their industries than the British. In France almost every state owned vehicle - police*, fire, military, municipal is French. 60 to 70% of private cars are French too.

*In 2008 I witnessed a CRS convoy of maybe 30 vehicles and amazingly a few of them were Ford Transits, a first!

Posted by Jupiter on Wed, 11 Mar 2009 12:57 | #

Native Born White American Ohioans have been greatly harmed by anti-protectionists trade policy and economic globalization in general. The number of white Ohioans lining up at food banks every week keeps growing. There is your refutation of Austrian economics. In General, Austrian economics is refuted by the experiences of a majority of Americans and human beings in general with unadulturated free market economics. The abstract debating point of view in support of Austrian economics appeals mostly to a small group of delicate White Males.

Posted by jupiter on Wed, 11 Mar 2009 13:05 | #

There is also a recent econometric refutation of ani-protectionist trade policy. Read:Kicking away the ladder. This is book waswrittrn by a Korea economist who teaches economics at Oxford.

The Russian people had full-blown exposure of free market economics. It resulted in a collapse of the Russian population and shortened the life expectancy of Russian males.

Austrian school economics and extreme free market economics are fundamentally inhumane and anticommunity. And it is for these two reasons that is incompatible with the long term survival of Euro-Americans as thr majority racial group in America. It is not a coincidence that Ron Paul is politically aracial and fvors a massive increase in non-white LEGAL immigration. This all may have something to do with the closing of comments over at taki.com

Posted by jupiter on Wed, 11 Mar 2009 13:11 | #

The delicate free market types were destroyed in debate at the hands of captainchoas,myself and several others. Shortly thereafter the comment section was closed.

Posted by jupiter on Wed, 11 Mar 2009 13:17 | #

The current economic meltdown which was triggered by the subprime mortgage crisis was a direct consequence of the efforts of Senator Phil Graham-a well known enthusiast for extreme free market economics- to deregulate finacial markets.

Normal human beings are opposed to Austrian economics.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Wed, 11 Mar 2009 13:38 | #

The thing is, as should be obvious by now, you can’t talk about economics and trade without talking about race and nation.  Taking race and nation into account, it’s clear the optimal economics and trade policies would be a mixture of Austrian, Keynesian, National Socialist, and likely a few others.  Austrian alone won’t do it; nor will Keynesian alone; and so on.  Recently someone, it may have been Steve Sailer, said how odd it was that economists refuse to take race into account.  As long as they continue to refuse, they’ll never get anything right about the way societies work economically or the best prescriptions for economic/trade/tax policies.

Race and nation have to be explicitly taken into account.  There’s no getting around it.  Snobs think that’s parochial, racist, hopelessly ill-informed and disgusting.  Jews think it’s unmentionably racist, xenophobic, sexist, anti-LGBT, fascist, and last-but-not-least, anti-Semitic (mustn’t forget anti-Semitic!!!  No, must NEVER forget that!!!).  Snobs are wrong, and we’ve all had enough experience with Jews to know what they are.

Posted by ISRAEL LOBBY BLATANTLY EXPOSED on Wed, 11 Mar 2009 14:26 | #

Chas Freeman forced by Israel Lobbies to withdraw from NIC Chairmanship:

I am saddened by what the controversy and the manner in which the public vitriol of those who devoted themselves to sustaining it have revealed about the state of our civil society. It is apparent that we Americans cannot any longer conduct a serious public discussion or exercise independent judgment about matters of great importance to our country as well as to our allies and friends.

The libels on me and their easily traceable email trails show conclusively that there is a powerful lobby determined to prevent any view other than its own from being aired, still less to factor in American understanding of trends and events in the Middle East. The tactics of the Israel Lobby plumb the depths of dishonor and indecency and include character assassination, selective misquotation, the willful distortion of the record, the fabrication of falsehoods, and an utter disregard for the truth. The aim of this Lobby is control of the policy process through the exercise of a veto over the appointment of people who dispute the wisdom of its views, the substitution of political correctness for analysis, and the exclusion of any and all options for decision by Americans and our government other than those that it favors.

There is a special irony in having been accused of improper regard for the opinions of foreign governments and societies by a group so clearly intent on enforcing adherence to the policies of a foreign government – in this case, the government of Israel. I believe that the inability of the American public to discuss, or the government to consider, any option for US policies in the Middle East opposed by the ruling faction in Israeli politics has allowed that faction to adopt and sustain policies that ultimately threaten the existence of the state of Israel. It is not permitted for anyone in the United States to say so. This is not just a tragedy for Israelis and their neighbors in the Middle East; it is doing widening damage to the national security of the United States.

- http://www.juancole.com/2009/03/chas-freeman-forced-by-israel-lobies-to.html

Posted by haha on Wed, 11 Mar 2009 16:49 | #

The delicate free market types were destroyed in debate at the hands of captainchoas,myself and several others. Shortly thereafter the comment section was closed.

 

  Yeah, I’m sure they closed it down because they couldn’t handle your arguments, Jupiter.  LOL

Posted by $1 BILLION STIMULUS FOR JEW 'CHARITIES' on Wed, 11 Mar 2009 17:03 | #

Un-frickin-believable - AT LEAST 1 BILLION DOLLARS of Obama’s stimulus plan will be specifically set aside for “Jewish social service providers”!

This on top of the trillions already funneled to the Jewish-owned megabanks and insurance companies like AIG, and not to mention all of the Mini-Madoffs committing various forms of ‘charity’ fraud who are running around these days.

Posted by jupiter on Wed, 11 Mar 2009 17:23 | #

haha

Go take a look at the old threads on Taki.com if they can be found. Then tell me who the haha is on. If lisping Spencer and Jack Hunter-likes to hang out with male wrestlers..go to his web site to see what I mean-could have taken us down in a debate they would have. Now they are promoting aracial Ron Paul conservatism. The White Nationalist have been booted off Taki.com and have been replaced by the asian supremacist Rahzib Khan. What is this paki maggot doing in my country?

The current worldwide economic meltdown is the last gasp of Austrian school and neoclassical economics. You thought people would have learned a lesson after 1929.

These “great” debates between Paul Gottfried and Rhazib Khan are a real snooze.

Posted by Jupiter on Wed, 11 Mar 2009 17:38 | #

The Republican party is a rotting corpse. And it is a rotting corpse on public display. This makes it a public health issue. I am sure there must laws against leaving a rotting corpse unburied.

Posted by Jupiter on Wed, 11 Mar 2009 17:43 | #

Ron Paul is the zombie rotting course of the Republican party. This fact will not change no matter how much makeup the girly boy morticians over at Taki.com apply to Ron Paul. Someone shoould tell Peter Brimelow that is now time to bury the stinking rotting corpse of the Republican party. White Nationalism is the only game in town.

Posted by exPF on Wed, 11 Mar 2009 17:48 | #

SM wrote:

The main bone of contention is the pined for ‘Market’ has already spoken freely.
...It said it likes liberalism, feminism and “race replacement”

Those are clearly separate issues from the economy. It was anything but the market
which determined the fate of these issues - it was shared cultural volition and a faux morality
enforced from above by a minority of committed leftists in powerful media positions.
The “free market” isn’t responsible for our present culture. The consensus in media and
academia does not represent ‘free market forces’.

SM wrote:

No, we must grab the wrists of those other cultures and make them obey so that that specifically doesn’t happen (no other reason to get involved).

There was an analysis linked to in a Pat Buchanan article, by Robert Pape, dealing with the semi-linear relationship between the economic base of a nation and its actual military power. Pape outlines how these two factors are always in near relation to one another, and the receding US economic power is going to result in a loss of American military power around the world. If you crunch the numbers for the costs of overseas occupation, and consider where the money is coming from, you’ll be staring right at a big part of the problem.

So sheer Willpower is not worth much in a world where the ability to service, maintain and transport large numbers of tanks/aircraft/ships/munitions/food is central to the functioning of armies.

First off, thanks very much Frank for your replies to me - the info is good.

Frank wrote:

the ability to produce cars is important because the state can use this capacity to produce tanks and other machines of war. America’s manufacturing capacity was advantageous during WWII.

In other words, its important to maintain some manufacturing equipment, however defunct and old-fashioned, so that the state can seize it in times of war. What kind of justification is that for the maintenance of a manufacturing base? “Just so it can be seized in times of war.”

What kind of output is this manufacturing base having during the 98% of time which the government is (hopefully) not on a war footing? Is it producing anything that can be sold?

One has to have some baseline respect for the capitalist system which is the primary reason why the western world has been affluent for 150+ years. Maybe some measure of protectionism can be worked in, some aspects of group socialism (also called national socialism), as an antidote to the excesses of triumphant sharks, short-termists and CEO-individualists, but capitalism and the free market have to be respected in my view as the origins of our prosperity (and the prosperity of Asia, and indeed apparently any other kind of prosperity based on trading and markets).

Posted by Jupiter on Wed, 11 Mar 2009 18:25 | #

exPF

The author of the book “Kicking away the Ladder” directly challenges-with strong statistical reasoning to back his case up-the view that free market anti-proterctionist policies were and still are the basis of the Wests and Japans wealth.

Posted by Gudmund on Wed, 11 Mar 2009 18:42 | #

Jupiter is right on about the Republicans.  They had their chance to be an explicitly White party, which would have sustained them but instead they went on with their brain-dead policies of wooing immigrants and listening to Jewish neocons.  They are screwed, and I don’t care.

Scrooby’s point about race & economics is correct as well.  I.E., Vdare published economic studies on East Asia and found that Diaspora Chinese are the economic gurus in almost every case (S. Korea, Japan).  Indonesians, Khmer and others cannot compete well with the smarter and more industrious Chinese.

We can see that America’s groups are distributed similarly: black = low output, high levels of poverty in almost all cases, only politically powerful thanks to affirmative action; hispanic = mostly unskilled laborers, only political/economic power where they are a majority; Whites = high output, diverse skills ranging from skilled and unskilled labor to highest positions in science, business, gov’t, etc; Asians = similar in output to Whites.

Clearly the current system is least equitable to Whites because they produce much but get taxed prohibitively on what they make.  If Whites had the ability to organize, we could freeze most of the present welfare state nonsense by refusing our output until the system is more equitable.  We have chips to bargain with and need only the balls to use them.

Posted by Frank on Thu, 12 Mar 2009 03:02 | #

Something else to consider with regard to PCR article:

Put simply: the justification for buying cheaper cars is that Americans could use these to save money and thus invest in more rewarding productive capacity and research.

The problem is that there wasn’t much investment in the US. Investment went overseas too, along with America’s research. So, the US lost its capital and its research.

What kind of output is this manufacturing base having during the 98% of time which the government is (hopefully) not on a war footing? Is it producing anything that can be sold?

Obviously, this stuff would be sold.

One has to have some baseline respect for the capitalist system which is the primary reason why the western world has been affluent for 150+ years. Maybe some measure of protectionism can be worked in, some aspects of group socialism (also called national socialism), as an antidote to the excesses of triumphant sharks, short-termists and CEO-individualists, but capitalism and the free market have to be respected in my view as the origins of our prosperity (and the prosperity of Asia, and indeed apparently any other kind of prosperity based on trading and markets).

Capitalism does not = free trade. Global capitalism = free trade.

—-

Ultimately the goal is to increase productive capacity, raw materials, and research (which would be kept within the state). There are other concerns too, such as health and happiness, but I’m trying to emphasize that consumption is not the ultimate goal.

—-

“Just so it can be seized in times of war.”

Well, we can see with the crisis we’re entering now that the US will soon only be able to buy what’s made in the US.

And were the seas unsafe due to war between, say Canada and Japan, the US might not be able to trade with China. Or… if China erupted into a period of turmoil, the US might lose access.

The US has become dependent on its trading partners, and if something happens to one of these foreign states, the US is hit hard. As such, it’s in America’s interests to meddle in foreign affairs. And as this interdependence grows, it’s only natural that global institutions will arise to regulate them. The globalism will fail, but it’s the next step.

—-

It’s understandable that Americans, living under an evil empire that hates them, would embrace a globalist cult. However, the ideal is to have a nation-state which would not be the enemy of those within.

Posted by Frank on Thu, 12 Mar 2009 03:16 | #

Now that East Asia and India have developed somewhat, they’ll be consuming resources that would otherwise be for us to consume.

And now that Americans have exported their productive capital, they’ll have to work extra hard to rebuild it here in the US. It’ll take 20 years to rebuild it all, though of course the US is headed for civil unrest which is a far greater concern.

And the US has exported its research and even fallen behind in research.

If keeping to free trade, the US will simply export its natural resources and import superior East Asian goods.

If keeping to protectionist trade, the US would import machinery and other capital and export what it could (raw materials at first) and slowly rebuild its economy.

—-

The goal is similar to what the cultist said above:

You are talking about lending for consumption. Lending for consumption = a future contraction….Also, nobody is ‘hoarding’ money. They are lending it to governments….the banks do not sit with piles of cash in vaults, but buy ‘safe’ assets according to Basel II requirements. ‘Hoarding’ is an emotive word for saving and investing. When money is not being consumed (whether by governments or consumers) it is used to invest in new business ventures. This is not hoarding.

And so, investment, research, and raw materials are desired ultimately.

Any generation that grows soft or foolish as ours has and trades all of its research and capital for short term consumption (incl. senseless war) is then set back and forced to rebuild it all over again.

And had the US not built the economies of Asia, it would have no competition there. Goods produced here would be in high demand throughout the world because no one else could produce them. And resources would be more widely available since everyone would want to trade them for our goods.

—-

You can’t understand national economics without forgetting the individual and looking at the state. The cultists get you by saying we’re all individuals. We are not individuals; we are members of a nation. And that nation is ruled by an evil empire.

Posted by Frank on Thu, 12 Mar 2009 03:24 | #

Last post on this:

protectionist trade is good whether one is a consuming individual or a loyal nationalist.

However, I was arguing as a loyal nationalist because that’s what I am, or would be if I lived in a nation-state.

Ultimately protectionist trade does encourage increased future consumption if state policy doesn’t interfere, because protectionist trade encourages investment and increases demand for goods made within the state, thus giving it more rewarding trades.

—-

If the US sticks with free trade, East Asian states will be able to consume more if they choose to.

Just the same, a fisherman who buys a fishing boat instead of buying booze will be able to afford more booze in the long run from the increased investment he receives. And if he never spends this money, he’ll continue to receive more and more and more. It’s up to him what he does with this.