PDA

View Full Version : Free Trade



Chris
06-11-2012, 10:47 AM
Free Trade: The Litmus Test of Economics (http://lewrockwell.com/north/north1153.html)
Free trade is the litmus test of economic reasoning. It has been ever since David Hume wrote his 1752 essay on commerce.
Foreign trade, by its imports, furnishes materials for new manufactures; and by its exports, it produces labour in particular commodities, which could not be consumed at home. In short, a kingdom, that has a large import and export, must abound more with industry, and that employed upon delicacies and luxuries, than a kingdom which rests contented with its native commodities. It is, therefore, more powerful, as well as richer and happier. The individuals reap the benefit of these commodities, so far as they gratify the senses and appetites. And the public is also a gainer, while a greater stock of labour is, by this means, stored up against any public exigency; that is, a greater number of laborious men are maintained, who may be diverted to the public service, without robbing any one of the necessaries, or even the chief conveniencies of life.
His friend Adam Smith made it the touchstone of economic logic and policy. His great work, The Wealth of Nations (1776), challenged the mercantilists, who believed in the mixed economy: free markets, legal monopolies, and tariffs.

Mercantilism is the default setting for most people. It is based on trust in state power....

And who is the source of this view in America? Tax-Loving Conservatives (http://lewrockwell.com/north/north1152.html)
This may sound odd. Conservatives don't love taxes. They want lower taxes. Right? They want lower taxes and smaller government.

I wish that were true. It isn't.

Alexander Hamilton was a crusader for higher taxes and a larger national government in the 1790s. He wanted higher taxes in order to raise money for a higher federal debt. He wanted higher federal debt because he wanted investors in government IOUs to commit to the survival of the United States. Free market economist Thomas DiLorenzo has summarized Hamilton's position, which he accurately identifies as crony capitalism.
In a lengthy "report" to Congress on the topic of the public debt Hamilton said that "a national debt, if it is not excessive, will be to us a public blessing." He would spend the rest of his life politicking for excessive government spending – and debt. The reason Hamilton gave for favoring a large public debt was not to finance any particular project, or to stabilize financial markets, but to combine the interests of the affluent people of the country – particularly business people – to the government. As the owners of government bonds, he reasoned, they would forever support his agenda of higher taxes and bigger government. (He condemned Jefferson's first inaugural address and its minimal government message as "the symptom of a pygmy mind.") No wonder one historian entitled his book on Hamilton American Machiavelli.
In 1791, he persuaded George Washington and then Congress to transfer to a group of private investors the right to set up a central bank that was not answerable to Congress or anyone else in government. The Bank of the United States had the right to create fiat money out of nothing, lend it to the government, and keep the interest paid by the government. This was the supreme institution of crony capitalism in America from 1791 to its expiration in 1811.
He was also a big supporter of tariffs. Tariffs raised the money the government needed to pay interest to the Bank of the United States, which was independent of the government of the United States. Tariffs were taxes favored by big-government conservatives. They still are....

Beevee
06-11-2012, 01:14 PM
Free trade:

Is that the thing that permits Canadians to purchase as much goods from the US as they want, provided those goods were in whole manufactured in the US?

Why then, when I crossed back into Canada and my purchases were scrutinised by Canadian Customs and questioned because I had bought a copious amount of cheese, was I told, 'Free trade doesn't mean you can import as much as you like'!

Chris
06-11-2012, 03:12 PM
Free trade:

Is that the thing that permits Canadians to purchase as much goods from the US as they want, provided those goods were in whole manufactured in the US?

Why then, when I crossed back into Canada and my purchases were scrutinised by Canadian Customs and questioned because I had bought a copious amount of cheese, was I told, 'Free trade doesn't mean you can import as much as you like'!

That's called managed trade.

Peter1469
06-11-2012, 04:10 PM
And if the Chinese government subsidies a Chinese government owned business so it can sell a widget in the US for 50% of its value, that is not free trade.

Chris
06-11-2012, 04:25 PM
And if the Chinese government subsidies a Chinese government owned business so it can sell a widget in the US for 50% of its value, that is not free trade.

No, it's managed trade.

Peter1469
06-11-2012, 04:29 PM
No, it's managed trade.

Exactly- for China. For the US it is unfair trade. Especially if Americans lose jobs over it.

Chris
06-11-2012, 05:40 PM
Exactly- for China. For the US it is unfair trade. Especially if Americans lose jobs over it.

The US and China don't trade. They are not people for whom things might be unfair. Anthropomorphizing nations like statistical aggregates loses sight of the fact people trade for what they value and thereby generate wealth.

Peter1469
06-11-2012, 05:58 PM
The US and China don't trade. They are not people for whom things might be unfair. Anthropomorphizing nations like statistical aggregates loses sight of the fact people trade for what they value and thereby generate wealth.

I get your point about governments not trading.

What about Chinese owned companies trading with privately owned US companies. Where the Chinese government subsidies its company to undercut and kill US business? China is certainly in the trade mix.

Beevee
06-11-2012, 06:08 PM
Exactly- for China. For the US it is unfair trade. Especially if Americans lose jobs over it.

I don't recall Americans complaining in the '50's and 60's when the U.K. lost most of it's industrial base to the USA.

Chris
06-11-2012, 06:12 PM
I get your point about governments not trading.

What about Chinese owned companies trading with privately owned US companies. Where the Chinese government subsidies its company to undercut and kill US business? China is certainly in the trade mix.

We could compare bailed GM moving volt production to China.

But we've already agree such trade is not free trade.

Peter1469
06-11-2012, 07:13 PM
We could compare bailed GM moving volt production to China.

But we've already agree such trade is not free trade.

Likely will not be free, based on past Chinese conduct.

Peter1469
06-11-2012, 07:14 PM
I don't recall Americans complaining in the '50's and 60's when the U.K. lost most of it's industrial base to the USA.

A big reason for that was the UK need to rebuild after WWII.

Did the US subsidies its industry with the intention of killing industry in the UK?

Chris
06-11-2012, 07:39 PM
Likely will not be free, based on past Chinese conduct.

Yes, I think we agree on that. But isn't the converse true? Is our subsiding GM any less managed? And I think that was beevee's point about our not complaining when the situation was reversed.

Peter1469
06-11-2012, 08:44 PM
Yes, I think we agree on that. But isn't the converse true? Is our subsiding GM any less managed? And I think that was beevee's point about our not complaining when the situation was reversed.

I have never expressed support for subsiding GM. Although that is not comparable to what China does with its state owned corporations.

RollingWave
06-12-2012, 09:26 PM
For a poor country that starts off with very little, a signfiicant degree of government intervention to get certain key industries off it's feet is probably needed. given that the liklihood of it's private sector having the capital (let alone the known how) to start anything beyond the basic level industry is extremely low at best. that isn't saying that all industries the PRC subsidize are like that of course, but the background logic is that.

Beevee
06-12-2012, 10:00 PM
A big reason for that was the UK need to rebuild after WWII.

Did the US subsidies its industry with the intention of killing industry in the UK?

Don't confuse rebuild with paying off it's lend lease program. Nothing the US does is without exacting a price.

Deadwood
06-12-2012, 10:13 PM
No, I think free trade is where you you don't have to pay anything at all...

You know, like the 60's, free love, free pot, free trade.....

Groove on that......

Ah, for the record.....neither Madison nor Hamilton was a Republican. The party wasn't formed until long after both men were dead...and btw...Hamilton's only official position with the government was as treasury secretary who was forced to resign in disgrace........the Monicagate of its day I gather.

So citing the economic beliefs of long dead people has absolute squat to do with today.

Chris
06-13-2012, 05:36 AM
Some of the principles still apply.

MMC
06-13-2012, 05:40 AM
Some of the principles still apply.


What would you say are the Top 3 Chris?

Peter1469
06-13-2012, 04:46 PM
Don't confuse rebuild with paying off it's lend lease program. Nothing the US does is without exacting a price.

I doubt that the UK expected a grant as opposed to a loan.

Beevee
06-13-2012, 05:01 PM
I doubt that the UK expected a grant as opposed to a loan.

Probably not, but they didn't expect to lose their empire as part of the repayment either.

Peter1469
06-13-2012, 05:34 PM
Probably not, but they didn't expect to lose their empire as part of the repayment either.

Their empire was already lost. Post-WWII had no affect on that. And it was a remarkably fast fall. Maybe 70 years from its largest to the collapse???

RollingWave
06-13-2012, 10:29 PM
From a pure geographical POV the UK itself is nothing special, their current wealth is already still beyond what you'd generally expect of that relative geographic region anyway (doesnt really control a huge trade lane, doesn't have good agricultural land, only modest natural resource etc). hell until the industrial revolution the population of the entire British isle was only about 1/3-1/4 of that of France, today it's about even.