• Same story, different day...........year ie more of the same fiat floods the world
  • There are no markets
  • "Spreading the ideas of freedom loving people on matters regarding high finance, politics, constructionist Constitution, and mental masturbation of all types"

Free Trade Or Fair Trade?

Weatherman

In GIM since 2006
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 30, 2010
Messages
2,724
Likes
2,978
#1
Free trade has been one of the worst disasters to be inflicted on the American economy, and it is directly responsible for the massive unemployment problem in the USA. This article is a very good summary of the problems caused by the deal with the devil called free trade.
Snip:
Free Trade Or Fair Trade? 20 Reasons Why All Americans Should Be Against The Insane Trade Policies Of The Globalists

It is absolutely amazing how many Americans are still convinced that more "free trade" is the answer to our economic problems. The truth is that there is a vast difference between "free trade" and "fair trade", and in this article I will prove that all true conservatives and all true liberals should be completely against the insane trade policies of the federal government. Yes, we will always need to trade with other nations. Other nations make or have things that we need to trade for. Balanced trade relationships with other nations that have similar economies and that share similar values can be very beneficial. For example, our trading relationship with Canada, though not perfect, is generally beneficial to both sides. However, the United States also has dozens of trading relationships that are highly destructive to the U.S. economy. There are some predatory nations that are blatantly and openly cheating and everyone can see it. They are getting away with bloody murder and they are robbing us blind. The United States of America is being taken advantage of, and as a result thousands of good businesses are being destroyed and millions of good jobs are being lost. If you are an American and you are in favor of all of the unfair trade that is currently going on, then either you don't know much about economics or you actually want to see the U.S. economy be destroyed.

Congress has just passed new free trade agreements with South Korea, Colombia and Panama. The Obama administration has also made "the NAFTA of the Pacific" a very high priority.

Obama says that all of these new trade pacts will create more U.S. jobs.

Well, either Barack Obama is completely ignorant when it comes to economics or else he is lying.

When we merge our economy with the economies of nations where wages are much lower, it is inevitable that large numbers of jobs are going to leave the high wage areas (where we live) and go to areas where wages are much lower.

It also certainly does not help that we have the highest corporate tax rate in the world, that we burden our businesses with mountains of ridiculous regulations, and that we allow our "trade partners" to give their businesses a huge advantage by openly subsidizing them.

The way that the system is set up now, nearly all U.S. businesses are at a massive, massive disadvantage. In general, the only businesses that can compete effectively in this environment are the giant corporations that can offshore huge portions of their operations.

If you are a conservative, then there is no way that you should support our current trade policies. If you are a liberal, then there is no way that you should support our current trade policies.

However, if you are a "George W. Bush Republican" or a "Clinton/Obama Democrat" that believes in globalism and the establishment of a one world economy as part of a "New World Order", then it would make sense why you would want to see America deindustrialized and brought down to the level of the rest of the world.

But if you are a true conservative or a true liberal, then the following are reasons why you should be horrified by our current trade policies....

Here are his 20 reasons why free trade is a disaster. To shorten this post, I left out the supporting comments he offers about each reason, but those comments are well worth reading at this link.

#1 Other Nations Openly Manipulate Their Currencies In Order To Gain A Significant Competitive Advantage
. . .
#2 Millions Of Good Paying Jobs Have Been Shipped Overseas And They Are Never Coming Back
. . .
#3 America Is Being Deindustrialized At A Blistering Pace Thanks To Globalism
. . .
#4 (For Conservatives) True Conservatives Should Be Horrified That We Are Being Taken Advantage Of By A Hardcore Communist Nation That Hates Us
. . .
#5 We Are Endangering Our National Security By Greatly Enriching Our Biggest Potential Enemies
. . .
#6 China Brazenly Steals Technology From Anyone And Everyone That They Can
. . .
#7 We Should Never Trade With Any Nation That Has A "One Child" Policy
. . .
#8 Our Horrendous Trade Imbalance Has Allowed Other Nations To Accumulate Gigantic Amounts Of Our Debt
. . .
#9 Globalist Trade Institutions Are A Serious Threat To Our National Sovereignty
. . .
#10 Liberals (And All Americans) Are Supposed To Care About What Is Best For American Workers
. . .
#11 Liberals (And All Americans) Should Be Horrified By The Exploitation Of Slave Labor Around The Globe
. . .
#12 Liberals (And All Americans) Should Be Horrified By The Damage To The Environment Our Trade Relationships Cause
. . .
#13 Very Dangerous Products Continue To Flood Into This Country From Overseas
. . .
#14 The Globalization Of The Economy Causes Income Inequality To Grow
. . .
#15 Because Of All Of The Cheating And All Of The Predatory Behavior That Is Going On, Our Trade Relationships Have Become Incredibly Imbalanced
. . .
#16 Our Gigantic Trade Deficit Is Destroying Our National Wealth
. . .
#17 The Globalization Of The Economy Has Caused Unemployment In The United States To Explode
. . .
#18 As Our Cities Are Deindustrialized, Many Of Them Are Being Transformed Into Absolute Hellholes
. . .
#19 Without Good Jobs, An Increasing Number Of Americans Are Having To Turn To Government Assistance
. . .
#20 If Nothing Is Done, All Of This Is Going To Get A Lot Worse
. . .
http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/...t-the-insane-trade-policies-of-the-globalists
 

hoarder

Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Platinum Bling
Joined
Mar 30, 2010
Messages
11,028
Likes
10,821
Location
Montana
#2
First let's get our wording right. Free trade within our own borders is a good thing, little government intervention is needed there. INTERNATIONAL "FREE TRADE" is dangerous because issues of sovereignty and national security must be dealt with. The less international trade we have, the less risk of being controlled by entities beyond our borders.

The globalists like to lump both kinds of free trade into one.
 

Libertaurum

Freedom First
Platinum Bling
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
3,969
Likes
2,865
#3
Yes, by all means, let's get our wording right. What we have now is NOT free trade. It is managed trade. On top of that, many if not most national gov'ts subsidize some of their companies or industries.

Free trade is the only fair trade.
 

Carl

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Joined
Mar 30, 2010
Messages
3,882
Likes
2,812
Location
Texas
#4
Yes, by all means, let's get our wording right. What we have now is NOT free trade. It is managed trade. On top of that, many if not most national gov'ts subsidize some of their companies or industries.

Free trade is the only fair trade.
And in this free trade world of yours, I suppose there will be a single currency, no borders and one government to lend its legal support for it all?



.
 

Libertaurum

Freedom First
Platinum Bling
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
3,969
Likes
2,865
#5
And in this free trade world of yours, I suppose there will be a single currency, no borders and one government to lend its legal support for it all?



.
You are again confused, re-read my post. I was talking about "this regulated-trade world of yours", Carl.

Free trade does not require doing away with governments or borders, or establishing one single currency. Free trade would require only that borders serve to limit gov't jurisdictions rather than people's rights, and a free market in currencies.
 

Carl

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Joined
Mar 30, 2010
Messages
3,882
Likes
2,812
Location
Texas
#6
You are again confused, re-read my post. I was talking about "this regulated-trade world of yours", Carl.

Free trade does not require doing away with governments or borders, or establishing one single currency. Free trade would require only that borders serve to limit gov't jurisdictions rather than people's rights, and a free market in currencies.
And what does a "free market in currencies" entail?



.
 

Carl

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Joined
Mar 30, 2010
Messages
3,882
Likes
2,812
Location
Texas
#7
Let me ask you Libertaurum , if a group of people gather together to build something aren't they entitled to determine who gets access to it?



.
 
Joined
Mar 30, 2010
Messages
12,275
Likes
6,184
#8
And what does a "free market in currencies" entail?



.
Exchange as you wish at the rate that suits you. I guess it is similar to shopping price for ASE's or silver rounds. Buy when the deal appeals to you. ;)
 

Libertaurum

Freedom First
Platinum Bling
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
3,969
Likes
2,865
#9
And what does a "free market in currencies" entail?



.
It would entail repealing legal tender laws, allowing private mints and eliminating taxes on gains on gold and silver coins.

Just as people should be free to decide whether they want to buy imports or not, people should also be free to decide what kind of money they are willing to accept as payment.
 
Joined
Mar 30, 2010
Messages
12,275
Likes
6,184
#10
It would entail repealing legal tender laws, allowing private mints and eliminating taxes on gains on gold and silver coins.

Just as people should be free to decide whether they want to buy imports or not, people should also be free to decide what kind of money they are willing to accept as payment.
We can do that. The condition must be enforced at point of sale. No debt must be allowed to linger.
 

Libertaurum

Freedom First
Platinum Bling
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
3,969
Likes
2,865
#11
Let me ask you Libertaurum , if a group of people gather together to build something aren't they entitled to determine who gets access to it?
OT, but I'll respond.

Your premise is wrong; you didn't build the land. As you seem to understand, work, not violence, is the only rational basis for first claims of private ownership of land.

A country includes, and is actually mostly composed of, land which was never legitimately acquired or developed by any member of any group.

So, yes, if a group gathers and builds something they are entitled to determine who gets access to it because it is their private property. But no group can gather and legitimately claim ownership over land none of them ever owned individually, supported only by their ability to commit violence.
 
Joined
Mar 30, 2010
Messages
12,275
Likes
6,184
#12
OT, but I'll respond.

Your premise is wrong; you didn't build the land. As you seem to understand, work, not violence, is the only rational basis for first claims of private ownership of land.

A country includes, and is actually mostly composed of, land which was never legitimately acquired or developed by any member of any group.

So, yes, if a group gathers and builds something they are entitled to determine who gets access to it because it is their private property. But no group can gather and legitimately claim ownership over land none of them ever owned individually, supported only by their ability to commit violence.
Libertarium, How would you deal with squatters occupying the front and back yards of your home? Would you consider that an illegal intrusion? Honest question.
 

Carl

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Joined
Mar 30, 2010
Messages
3,882
Likes
2,812
Location
Texas
#13
OT, but I'll respond.

Your premise is wrong; you didn't build the land. As you seem to understand, work, not violence, is the only rational basis for first claims of private ownership of land.

A country includes, and is actually mostly composed of, land which was never legitimately acquired or developed by any member of any group.

So, yes, if a group gathers and builds something they are entitled to determine who gets access to it because it is their private property. But no group can gather and legitimately claim ownership over land none of them ever owned individually, supported only by their ability to commit violence.
Weak argument but I understand what you're driving at.

Why, do you believe, borders were created in the first place?

Which do you think is better:
1) Repelling invaders at your doorstep.
2) Repelling invaders at a politically concocted line that signifies a separation between two differing socioeconomic/political systems?



.
 

Libertaurum

Freedom First
Platinum Bling
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
3,969
Likes
2,865
#14
Libertarium, How would you deal with squatters occupying the front and back yards of your home? Would you consider that an illegal intrusion? Honest question.
Yes, and I would drive them out. Like I said, there are legitimate ways of acquiring private ownership of land. But getting together with other people and laying claim to land none of you ever owned, backed only by your ability to commit violence, is not one of them.
 
Joined
Mar 30, 2010
Messages
12,275
Likes
6,184
#15
Yes, and I would drive them out. Like I said, there are legitimate ways of acquiring private ownership of land. But getting together with other people and laying claim to land none of you ever owned, backed only by your ability to commit violence, is not one of them.
OK, What about invaders crossing the private property of ranchers that adjoins national borders? Another honest question. Ah, allow me to add that the "invaders" may well be committing felonies while they cross the land, murders, grand theft etc. What say you on that?
 

hoarder

Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Platinum Bling
Joined
Mar 30, 2010
Messages
11,028
Likes
10,821
Location
Montana
#16
World government is marketed to Libertarians as "moral universalism". Don't get flustered by their salesmen who speak in riddles. It has nothing to do with our freedom and they know it. They are only interested in freedoms that place rope around our necks.
 

Carl

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Joined
Mar 30, 2010
Messages
3,882
Likes
2,812
Location
Texas
#17
It would entail repealing legal tender laws, allowing private mints and eliminating taxes on gains on gold and silver coins.

Just as people should be free to decide whether they want to buy imports or not, people should also be free to decide what kind of money they are willing to accept as payment.
Yes, that system was already tried right here in the U.S. Turns out that the further one got away form the issuing agent the less value the currency had, didn't matter if the currency in question was 100% backed by gold.

Also, if this is to be done in coin, could you imagine the change purse people would have to tote around with them!

There is a benefit to standards, even in currency.



.
 
Joined
Mar 30, 2010
Messages
12,275
Likes
6,184
#18
World government is marketed to Libertarians as "moral universalism". Don't get flustered by their salesmen who speak in riddles. It has nothing to do with our freedom and they know it. They are only interested in freedoms that place rope around our necks.
No confusion here. Just working through an issue step by step. Hey, I share some views in common with Libertarians. I get flustered with National Socialism. ;)
 

EMP

Seeker
Seeker
Joined
Apr 12, 2010
Messages
382
Likes
119
#19
Trading freedom for fairness is pretty much the same as trading freedom for security, isn't it? You end up losing freedom in the end either way!
 

Carl

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Joined
Mar 30, 2010
Messages
3,882
Likes
2,812
Location
Texas
#20
Trading freedom for fairness is pretty much the same as trading freedom for security, isn't it? You end up losing freedom in the end either way!
Do you deal fairly in your business or do you take whoever you can for whatever they got?



.
 

EMP

Seeker
Seeker
Joined
Apr 12, 2010
Messages
382
Likes
119
#21
Do you deal fairly in your business or do you take whoever you can for whatever they got?



.
Irrelevant. Government's definition of "fairness" is never the common sense definition. Just look at Obama and his view of taxing "the rich" and an even higher rate because it's what he calls "fair". And no, I'm far from rich, but still would like to think that I might have the chance to become rich someday if I worked hard and had success.
 

Libertaurum

Freedom First
Platinum Bling
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
3,969
Likes
2,865
#22
"Fair" is what the parties involved decide. That's why they must be free to make their own decisions. Any other definition of what is "fair", specially one forced upon them, is unfair.
 

Carl

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Joined
Mar 30, 2010
Messages
3,882
Likes
2,812
Location
Texas
#23
Irrelevant. Government's definition of "fairness" is never the common sense definition. Just look at Obama and his view of taxing "the rich" and an even higher rate because it's what he calls "fair". And no, I'm far from rich, but still would like to think that I might have the chance to become rich someday if I worked hard and had success.
Irrelevant. Not talking about Berry, we're discussing business and trade.


.
 
Joined
Mar 30, 2010
Messages
12,275
Likes
6,184
#25
Yes, and I would drive them out. Like I said, there are legitimate ways of acquiring private ownership of land. But getting together with other people and laying claim to land none of you ever owned, backed only by your ability to commit violence, is not one of them.
Please forgive the double quote of your post but I thought of a few more relevant questions. I assume you "own" the home that you are justified in protecting. How FAR back can you trace what YOU consider to be fair title? Was that land, at some time in the past, acquired by means other than an exchange for value? In other words, was that parcel ever part of land that was "conquered"? Honest questions, again.
 

Libertaurum

Freedom First
Platinum Bling
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
3,969
Likes
2,865
#26
Please forgive the double quote of your post but I thought of a few more relevant questions. I assume you "own" the home that you are justified in protecting. How FAR back can you trace what YOU consider to be fair title? Was that land, at some time in the past, acquired by means other than an exchange for value? In other words, was that parcel ever part of land that was "conquered"? Honest questions, again.
Because many native tribes were nomadic or semi-nomadic, native settlements took up a relatively small area when compared with today's cities, so most live on what was unsettled land. Anyway, the point is, even if you rent, you have a right to decide which products you buy and with whom you will trade.
 

Libertaurum

Freedom First
Platinum Bling
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
3,969
Likes
2,865
#27
Yes, that system was already tried right here in the U.S. Turns out that the further one got away form the issuing agent the less value the currency had, didn't matter if the currency in question was 100% backed by gold.
So? I doubt that would happen today, given current technology, but if as a result of free trade it did happen, so be it. All it would mean is a potential market for currency exchange.

Also, if this is to be done in coin, could you imagine the change purse people would have to tote around with them!
No reason it must be done in coin alone. As long as fraud is illegal, certificates of deposit, redeemable upon demand, and their digital equivalents could all be used.

There is a benefit to standards, even in currency.
The only standard necessary would be that fraud be outlawed.
 

hoarder

Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Platinum Bling
Joined
Mar 30, 2010
Messages
11,028
Likes
10,821
Location
Montana
#28
"Fair" is what the parties involved decide. That's why they must be free to make their own decisions. Any other definition of what is "fair", specially one forced upon them, is unfair.
Is it fair for people to have world government rammed down their throats because they voluntarily allowed themselves to be deceived by world government salesmen?:flute:
 
Joined
Mar 30, 2010
Messages
12,275
Likes
6,184
#29
Because many native tribes were nomadic or semi-nomadic, native settlements took up a relatively small area when compared with today's cities, so most live on what was unsettled land. Anyway, the point is, even if you rent, you have a right to decide which products you buy and with whom you will trade.
Dancing around the question. Be honest.
 

Carl

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Joined
Mar 30, 2010
Messages
3,882
Likes
2,812
Location
Texas
#30
I want to get back on point (after side-tracking myself)

Carl said:
Let me ask you Libertaurum , if a group of people gather together to build something aren't they entitled to determine who gets access to it?
OT, but I'll respond.

Your premise is wrong; you didn't build the land. As you seem to understand, work, not violence, is the only rational basis for first claims of private ownership of land.

A country includes, and is actually mostly composed of, land which was never legitimately acquired or developed by any member of any group.

So, yes, if a group gathers and builds something they are entitled to determine who gets access to it because it is their private property. But no group can gather and legitimately claim ownership over land none of them ever owned individually, supported only by their ability to commit violence.
Of course you're right, we did not build the land.

But we, the occupiers of this land, sure as hell built the economy that resides within the borders of this land.

Now, don't you think we have a natural right to protect what we've created?


.
 

Bigfoot

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 3, 2010
Messages
2,838
Likes
2,944
#31
T
Irrelevant. Not talking about Berry, we're discussing business and trade.


.
The two are very much connected. Politics always has an impact on business. That is the issue here, that government should not manage business and trade, free individuals should.
 

Carl

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Joined
Mar 30, 2010
Messages
3,882
Likes
2,812
Location
Texas
#33
T

The two are very much connected. Politics always has an impact on business. That is the issue here, that government should not manage business and trade, free individuals should.
Yes I agree, we should always look through the forest of corporations strip-mining our economy to keep our eyes on the government to insure that us individuals, who are being raped and pillaged of our right to life, can trade amongst ourselves freely.

Tell me, do you always trade to your disadvantage?



.
 

Libertaurum

Freedom First
Platinum Bling
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
3,969
Likes
2,865
#34
Dancing around the question. Be honest.
The ownership history of the particular piece of land on which I live is irrelevant. However, the original work done on it would result in a legitimate first claim.

I want to get back on point (after side-tracking myself)



Of course you're right, we did not build the land.

But we, the occupiers of this land, sure as hell built the economy that resides within the borders of this land.

Now, don't you think we have a natural right to protect what we've created?
You have a right to protect whatever you yourself have created or legitimately own, so does everyone else. Whatever part of the economy you've built is yours and you should be free to protect it any way you wish. However, the whole thing isn't yours, so its not yours to protect. People who own their businesses also created part of the economy, and if they choose to hire someone, no one else should have a right to use force to stop them.

But, as you seem to acknowledge, no individual can rationally claim vast tracts of unsettled and uninhabited land, most of which he has never and will never even see, as his property, or as any part of the economy he built.
 
Last edited:

Libertaurum

Freedom First
Platinum Bling
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
3,969
Likes
2,865
#35
Yes I agree, we should always look through the forest of corporations strip-mining our economy to keep our eyes on the government to insure that us individuals, who are being raped and pillaged of our right to life, can trade amongst ourselves freely.

Tell me, do you always trade to your disadvantage?



.
How does free trade, according to you, imply that rape and pillage be allowed? If gov't protects individual rights, rape and pillage would probably be outlawed. If, however, by "rape and pillage" you mean things like offering employment or loans, or selling products or services, then your question would not be intellectually honest and would imply you don't believe in personal responsibility.
 

Bigfoot

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 3, 2010
Messages
2,838
Likes
2,944
#36
Yes I agree, we should always look through the forest of corporations strip-mining our economy to keep our eyes on the government to insure that us individuals, who are being raped and pillaged of our right to life, can trade amongst ourselves freely.
Can you give an example of a corporation strip-mining the economy? What do you mean by that? Who is raping and pillaging your right to life, and how are they doing it?
 

TimoneX

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter
Joined
Dec 19, 2010
Messages
2,633
Likes
1,422
Location
U.S.S.A.
#37
The federal government corporation is strip mining the right of Americans to protect and defend their own interests, families, and heritage. All in the thinly veiled guise of "freedom" for which they are very plainly opposed.
 

Carl

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Joined
Mar 30, 2010
Messages
3,882
Likes
2,812
Location
Texas
#38
Can you give an example of a corporation strip-mining the economy? What do you mean by that? Who is raping and pillaging your right to life, and how are they doing it?
Pick any one of the thousands of corporations that have moved their production offshore (Economic Rape) and are shipping products back into our economy, retailing at the same price as when the products were produced here (Economic Pillage).

Together, with the aid of government, these "free range" sociopathic economic dictatorships (multi-national corporations) are strip-mining our economy, depriving us of our right to life as it is expressed through economic activity.

They forfeited their right to participate in our economy when they packed up their marbles and left. Their shipping of products back into our economy deprives us of the entrepreneurial opportunity to rebuild productive capacity and replace what they took.



.
 

EMP

Seeker
Seeker
Joined
Apr 12, 2010
Messages
382
Likes
119
#39
Pick any one of the thousands of corporations that have moved their production offshore (Economic Rape) and are shipping products back into our economy, retailing at the same price as when the products were produced here (Economic Pillage).

.
Let me ask you something, Carl. Do you always trade to your disadvantage?
You seem to have a double standard here. Those corporations are being taxed and regulated excessively by the government, to the point that they have to move overseas in order to stay profitable. And you call that economic rape? That's like referring to getting laid off from your job as being economically raped by your employer! He's the one who gave you the job in the first place, and the corporations that were here in the first place and then moved overseas to stay profitable have the right to do that as much as your employer has the right to fire you.

You truly are an OWS member (Obama's whining sheeple). You speak with the same type of reasoning. You think that if a company goes into business, then you automatically have a right to it and can tell them how to run it and that they owe you something. They owe you, or anyone else nothing! If you were to open a business, what would be your incentive for doing so? Would it be so that your government can now tell you what to do and how to do it, and that you can't move over seas, or lay off people when needed, or even make a profit? Give me a break!!!
 

winslo

Seeker
Seeker
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
164
Likes
54
#40
These are the same kind of people who think that if some rich person all of a sudden were to have less money in his account it would by some mysterious way end up in theirs.