Sowell: Last Chance for America? Part II

Creators Syndicate ^ | March 2, 2016 | Thomas Sowell

[jazusamo]

The worst political blunder of all time, according to scientist Freeman Dyson, was the decision of the emperor of China in 1433 to cut off his country from the outside world. In the wake of that decision, China lost its position in the forefront of human achievements and fell behind, over the centuries, to become a Third World country.

Before the end of this month, the United States of America may break that record for the worst political blunder of all time. Professor Dyson attributed the Chinese emperor's blunder to "powerful people pursuing partisan squabbles and neglecting the long-range interests of the empire." That can be our path to disaster as well.

After the results of "Super Tuesday," we find ourselves with front-runners in their respective parties who each could, as President of the United States, take the decline of America under the Obama administration, even further down, to a point of no return.

As Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton was in charge of the foreign policy that destroyed governments in Egypt and Libya that were no threat to America's interests or allies, and plunged both countries into a turmoil from which only Egypt managed to rescue itself, while Libya has become another hotbed of terrorist activity.

Yet Secretary Clinton is running on her "experience" — even though it is an experience of unmitigated disasters for America, around the world. Her e-mail scandals and lies are important mainly as symptoms of her utter disregard of anything other than her own financial and political interests.

[patlin]

I wish people would go home and read their bibles. The Word of God says that every government, because they are given to us by God, has the duty to collect taxes in the way of duties, imposts, and excises. These are all Article 1 constitutionally ratified taxes, they are good taxes as hey are from God.

For more, read comment 59: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3404447/posts?page=59#59

[fr_freak]

Whoa - missed that one. My mistake. That puts his current columns against Trump in a clearer light, although his endorsement of Cruz seems kind of half-hearted.

[pookie18]

Agree re his half heartedness, but he made his choice...

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

If only Sowell would have taken the advice of FReepers 8 years ago and ran for President, Trump would be happily building hotels somewhere today and Barky would be just another worthless Senator.

That train left long before 2008; by then Professor Sowell was already in his late seventies.

I loved Jack Kemp back before Dole nominated him for VP back in ’92, but Kemp proved himself to be a terrible choice for VP that year, and destroyed his national reputation by declining to defend the white middle class against Gore’s slander.

In 1992 Dole whined about Democrat calls of “racist,” going so far as asking anyone who was a racist to walk out of the ’92 Republican convention. Which of course did no good. What Dole shoulda coulda would nota done in ‘92 was to nominate Sowell for VP, while Sowell was still in his early sixties.

Jaz: I do not always agree with Sowell’s preferences of politicians either, tho I tend to agree in this case since like him I prefer Cruz. Sowell is a lot more critical of Nixon than I am; in 1960 he was the best presidential candidate on offer; for example the Bay of Pigs would not have gone the way under Nixon that it did under Kennedy. And Nixon warned Ike about Vietnam, and would not have done what Kennedy did, opening a can of worms by overthrowing Diem.

Even in ’68 he was IMHO better than McGovern.

[jazusamo]

Thanks, cIc. I value your opinions and like you preferred Cruz over Trump but have gradually changed my view on both.

I couldn’t agree more about Nixon and to this day don’t believe he was the crook he was made out to be, his actions pale in comparison to what has taken place in latter years.

[randita]

We are in the midst of a revolt of sorts. As is so often the case, when a revolt occurs, a lot of good stuff gets torn to shreds along with the bad stuff.

There is certainly a lot of bad stuff that needs to go bye-bye, but Thomas Sowell, the National Review, and other respected voices of conservatism should not be among it.

We need to be a lot more discerning than that or chaos will ensue.

[absalom01]

With all due respect, Free trade is a Libertarian concept, unless you think that Milton Friedman was a "socialist/communist". Seriously watch that youtube clip in the link: while I'm sure that it won't convince you, perhaps it'll help clarify the thinking behind opposition to tariff and other barriers to trade.

That short clip addresse the counter-argument to your position, so I'll defer to Milton on the merits. That said, your post illustrates an important feature of the current Republican primary campaign: Trump has revealed a large, populist faction within the Republican party that does not share, and in fact objects to several key policy points that have been a part of the broad conservative/libertarian consensus for a couple of decades. And more than that, reveals a split amonbg religious voters that has long been ignored by the media and most pols (and polls, for that matter). By that I mean, that among self-identified "religious" voters, while we would agree on a broad range of social issues ("gay" "marriage", abortion, etc.), we have long NOT agreed on issues of economic liberty.

I don't know where it's going to shake out, but at least it's not going to boring.

[Mark was here]

Are you saying that there is no such thing as a bad tax, or a tax that is counter-productive, because all taxes come from God? I think not giving to Cesar what Cesar asks, put the responsibility on Cesar for the request to be wise, just as the responsibility is on God, for what God asks for to be wise. You must recall that God gave Man the option to be fallible, with the responsibility to make good decisions. The only get out of jail free card relates to Salvation, not fiscal policy of governments.

Just my 2 cents from a backsliding Presbyterian.

[Shimmer1]

Laughing, yeah, we do, that’s why I’m NOT in favor of Donald Trump!!!

[patlin]

Well, if Americans educated themselves, so to make sure their reps they send to DC actually obey the law and then these reps make their employees of the several agencies they created, to obey the laws, the word “tax” would not be a bad one now would it. We Americans only have ourselves to blame because of our ignorance as to what the taxing power of Congress is, what the actual tax laws say, as well as our ignorance in applying the tax laws to that which the law says is tax free.

We do not live in a “Caesar” nation, we live in a Republic, where, if one took the time to actually know the tax laws as our grandparents & great grandparents did, we would not be suffering the self inflicted abuse from constitutionally created agency called the IRS.

There can be no nation without government and the government must have a way to support itself. We have such a government & tax system, it is simply the ignorance of the electorate that has caused the constitutional tax system & its agency to become the beast by feeding it what the law says is not on it's diet.

[yuleeyahoo]

I am still trying to figure out how the people who put us in this situation should be the ones who we trust to get us out of this situation.

[patlin]

Milton Friedman was not a financial saint, he was wrong on many things and he admitted it himself. His biggest regret, re instituting the “withholding” tax law. Why? Because he knew that it would be misused and over time, by fiat, it would bury the true meaning of the constitutional income excise tax. Friedman admitted this fact during testimony before Congress in 1939 and later he wrote of his regret in helping to re-institute the withholding process. But after seeing the error of his way, did Milton go public and admit his error? NO! Instead he instead chose to keep silent at the expense of hard working Americans who are duped into thinking that “everything that comes in” is taxable when his own testimony before Congress says otherwise!!!

“By their fruits you shall know them”

And as I said before, nothing in this world is “free”, especially trade. Trade is a product of capitalism and there is a cost to both parties (nations) involved and to cover those costs, the Constitution gave Congress the authority to put tariffs on imports.

My guess is you have never run a business. I have & do, therefore, I'm guessing you really haven't had to deal with such things personally, that is, making deals (trade or otherwise) with another party so that you bottom line does not go in the red.

[JediJones]

The deal wouldn’t be made if there was a “cost” to both persons, only if there was a benefit to both persons.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with a “trade deficit.” We are a richer country, so naturally we are going to spend more buying imports than other countries spend buying our exports. Individuals wouldn’t be buying stuff that “hurt” them. That just makes no sense.

Congress has the power to tax lots of things. That doesn’t mean creating new taxes/tariffs is good. The only reason to impose a tariff or block trade would be to punish a country who was violating international law or treaties.

[patlin]

Is there some part of there is a cost our government incurs when another nation brings their products here? Do you think the payroll for inspectors, etc. comes form some miraculous ‘free trade’ tree?

I am not talking about how much trade is done, I am speaking of the “costs” of trade. Capiche?

Because we, as Americans, incur the costs on BOTH ends, that is what Trump is seeking to correct. Not a tit for tat, you can sell this in our nation and I get to sell the equivalent amount in your nation.

[central_va]

Sowell is a Free Traitor™. Who didn’t know that?

[central_va]

Your post was spot on. A+.

[patlin]

The vast majority of the American electorate of this nation has so long ago tossed common sense out the window, they can no longer see common sense when it is presented to them. Trump isn't talking isolationism, he is talking "common sense trade".

Section. 8. The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;...

...To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations,...

...To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; — And

...To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

[absalom01]

Whether Friedman was perfect is not the issue. Of course he wasn’t, being human. I’m certainly not a fan of automatic withholding, or of the income tax for that matter, for some of the same reasons that you and I seem to differ on tarrifs: both offer excessive opportunities for the state to favor one group of individuals over another, which is not something that we should want the state to be doing, at least if we’re going to be calling ourselves conservatives, and have that mean anything.

Your point about business is exactly why an individual would object to having a state actor impose heavy tariff barriers at a border: it impedes the freedom of economic choice at an individual level, favoring one industry or group of companies or unions over others, including consumers, other unions or non-unionized labor. It invites exactly the crony capitalism that has marked the Obama administration. Trying to analogize “nations” (by which I again you mean “states”) to individual actors who by definition cannot resort to coersion gets it exactly backwards. And while I don’t see the relevance beyond analogy, one reason that I object to these arbitrary tariff barriers, and demagogic attempts to justify them is exactly because I’ve run a business that employs American citizens, most of them rather well compensated for the past couple of decades without the Government putting its thumb on the scale to my benefit. I’ve certainly seen others in related areas of commerce lobby for, and receive various forms of government subsidies or favorable treatment, and it, frankly, ticks me off. Same goes for the phony H1-B visa scams of Silicon Valley (which is where I part company with the Libertarians).

And not to put too fine a point on it, “trade” existed long before Capitalism: it’s a frequently made Libertarian point that the right to exchange goods and services without undue interference from third parties is a fundamental human right. I think that they’re correct in this view.

Let me ask you this: in what sense do “states” trade with each other? If a Mexican glass factory, say, is willing to sell me a few truckloads of window glass that I need for a building, and I elect to purchase from the Mexican factory instead of one in Pennsylvania, and use it to build a building that is in part sold through a REIT to investors in Japan and the UK, where does the government of the US, Mexico, Japan or England come into the transaction? Why should they get a cut when they’ve done nothing, taken no risks, expended no effort in the deal?

Those in favor of high tariffs, (I guess that’s you?), would say that we need a high tariff barrier to protect the US glass manufacturer and their workers from those awful Mexican glass people. After all, as Friedman points out, there are visible beneficiaries. But what you don’t see is all of the follow-on consequences — in this case buildings that don’t get built, REITs that don’t get sold, construction workers who don’t get paychecks...that list goes on forever.

But, just because of this, you still see people arguing for high tariffs: you can see the benefits of the tax, but the benefits of not having the tax, while large, are not immediately visible. We pay with lower growth rates, less economic activity, and less freedom.

I’ll stick with David Ricardo, Milton Friedman, and the Austrians on this particular point. I just find it a bit surprising to see that this long-standing Republican consensus in favor of “free trade” (i’ll leave it in scare quotes since you seem to object to the them). Things change, of course. Teddy Roosevelt’s Republican party stood rock-ribbed for the cause of Protectionism, so the wheel turns.

And yes, let’s try Smoot-Hawley worked so well the last time, let’s bring it back, by all means!

[Rum Tum Tugger]

Over the last 25 years we’ve had nothing but incompetent boobs as president - slick willy, dubya and obozo. That’s the worst triumvirate in the history of the U.S.

TRUMP HAS TO BE A BETTER PRESIDENT THAN ANY OF THOSE 3 SLIME BALLS.

[patlin]

When you say ‘states’ are you referring to the ‘states’ of the Union? This is not the subject here. Congress was not given authority to put tariffs on commerce between the ‘states’, it was given authority to put tariffs on commodities coming into the country from foreign countries.

And as to ‘trade existed before capitalism’, I suggest you go back and read your bible as capitalism is what brought trade into existence. Without capitalism, trade ceases to exist, just check the history of the communist isolationist nations, their histories are quite extensive on the fact that without capitalism & it's trade that stems from it, nations are destroyed from within.

You are simply stuck on a ‘myth’ called ‘free trade’ that did not exist prior to this modern day. Every nation is free to trade, however, that does not mean the cost of it is free and that is where you are stuck.

And for the record, I admire a lot of what Sowell and Friedman write, however, they are mere humans, and thus, they are not perfect as noted in Friedman’s walk back of his former position on withholding that has cost us much of our personal wealth.