Posted on 12/06/2014 8:50:25 PM PST by Lincolns Economics
Adam Smith's free market economics--built on subsistence wages--were dangerously defective, argues the cited link. American protectionists of the 1700 and 1800s understood the implications of failing to distinguish between free domestic markets and international free markets.
Clinton, the “man of the people” opened up economic trade with China which wiped out American manufacturing, union and jobs.
Democrats will throw their constituents under the bus in a heartbeat if it mean political contributions.
And W did more of the same...
The “elightenment intellectuals” were minions of international banksters.
Adam Smith was a great man. His insights continue to be correct.
The last time you posted I asked you to read post #64 at this link -
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/3109294/posts?page=64#64
You did not respond, and given the nature of your post today, I’m guessing you either did not understand or you are ignoring the letter and spirit expressed in that link.
Which is it?
What prevented you from posting the full content here?
It's possible I've read a stupider sentence in my life, I simply can't remember when.
A thought provoking article. However this old economics prof has some questions. Engaging in global markets is inevitable as domestic markets cannot provide all the goods and services wanted or needed by society. Global markets also increase the demand for domestically produced products. Look back at the Great Depression when the Smoot-Hawley tariffs virtually closed foreign markets to domestic producers. Due to the economic downturn domestic markets in the 1930s did not supply enough demand for full production, but some foreign markets could have. While we often lament that cheap foreign imports hurt US jobs, these imports allow us to enjoy a better standard of living.
I apologize. I read it yesterday before I posted and admit I’m now thoroughly confused where I should be posting. I thought I was suppose to post under the blogs/personal categories. Is this not where I posted or did I misunderstand? Does the “topics” selection force me into the wrong category?
I’m new to FR, so if you could direct me to proper place (send url), I will delete all my misplaced postings (assuming deletion is possible). Feel free to delete all of my posting if this is easier for you than me.
If on the other hand blog links are not permitted, please delete all my postings. I will not post anymore as a result. Sorry for the confusion. thank you
The Great RJ.
Thank you for the thoughtful reply. Critique is definitely welcome. I’ve devoted six years and 200 plus textbooks to the effort. It’s refreshing not to immediately be called a moron without a technical explanation (a bit disappointed in some of my fellow conservatives). Admittedly, the argument is simplified and pushes aside the reality of geographically limited goods, etc. The original model was built on a very simple assumption: there is only one economy. The idea here was to first establish how I perceive money/industrial production interact.
I have done extensive reading on the history of American tariffs and therefore conclude it was a strawman. In other words, if tariffs cause harm, then the history of America should be one of depression (simply said). I view depressions typically due to speculative busts in supply limited assets (real estate/stocks) which can rapidly change prices overnight causing wealth destruction. I see this as an inversion of neoclassical price flexibility (i.e. flexible prices cause depression/don’t fix them). If stocks and real estate were a cost of production prices there would be no busts so to speak.
I have to run at this moment (not all your questions answered, written in haste), so if you’d like to discuss further I will get back to you. I might be booted off FR though (blog links might not be permitted—awaiting clarification). New to FR. thank you
I’m still learning how to properly post on FR. I thought the link at the top was acceptable, but I’m waiting clarification from FR as to whether or not I may link/repost personal blogs. Was hoping to start a new economic debate in the conservative community. I may be out of luck. Thanks for the interest though.
It is considered rather bad form to direct traffic off site
to read something you’ve written yourself.
If you are the author, you can post the whole piece right here.
Looking forward to your further full-text submission.
Filling out the fields correctly will automatically produce a link to your blog.
The issue at hand is your not posting your full content.
We are not a hit-farm or a source of free advertising for everyone who writes blog posts.
Mr. Robinson’s comments should be crystal clear. He went into great detail.
Post in “Bloggers.” Post your article in full. Don’t excerpt it. The link to your blog will go in the header and people can go there if they are interested.
It boils down to this - Don’t use FreeRepublic as clickbait for your blog. Share what you have in full and all will be well - that is if your ideas can stand scrutiny.
Who were their patrons and employers ?
Who was a patron of John Locke, for example ?
Research the relationships between wealthy elites, the British East India Company, the Bank of England, international banking firms, international banking families... and the beloved “intellectuals”.
The intellectuals became famous and succeeded in their careers if and only if the financial elites of their day liked their work product. Which makes sense. Why would someone help an intellectual’s career or pay them if their writings were contrary to the sponsor’s purposes ?
Historians exclude from their writings or minimize the little nasty conflicts of interest, to make the intellectuals appear to be geniuses whose viewpoints are pure as the driven snow.
The truth is ugly on this subject, but the truth is what we should be looking for.
It is not that ALL business and trade is “bad”. It’s that criminal immoral conspiracies are bad.
And I suppose next you’ll tell me all these “banksters” just happened to be Jews, right?
Hey muir - every Jew is not a banker.
Did you know that ? It’s amazing. Some Jews are actually not bankers.
Oh, and the Rockefeller family.
Uh, they started out nominally as Baptists. Not really “Jewish” that much.
Some of the most dedicated and destructive financial elites are nominally Presbyterian. You know, opium and slave traders on a massive scale that made some of the most powerful and influential fortunes in America. But do I “have in in for” Presbyterians as a whole ?
And you know what, any globalist top-echelon financier who happens to be Jewish - if they do things like play nations against each other and incite pre-planned wars - they’re not really godly people, regardless of whether they are nominally Jews, or what their professed religion.
Baptists who pre-plan wars and revolutions aren’t really abiding by the Bible, now, are they ?
It’s not about anti-Semitism (though that’s the IMMEDIATE fallback of the propgandists of elites when they sense the danger of truth leaking out).
It’s about evil elites happily desiring the slaughter of “sheeple”, whether it be by abortion, war, sickness, whatever. Very few people have the means and the gall to effect things like wholesale slaughter and slavery, etc.
The financial elites’ god is their power and wealth; that’s who they serve. That’s why they ultimately are secular humanist. They want to remake religion - as they do most everything else - to their own liking, and annoint themselves as their own god. They know what’s best for the sheeple, who should eat what, when wars should be fought, when there are too many sheeple and some need to die, etc.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.