Most people's goal is to further their own interests, especially their own economic interests. This is their primary focus, and the fact that their efforts to further their own interest may have adverse impacts on others is not their primary concern.
But your original claim, or the author of the post you linked to, was that the north was raping the south by forcing the south to pay them for shipping and insurance and brokerage charges.
Which were artificially inflated beyond the market norm because of laws forcing them to use the North's shipping, banking, warehousing, insurances and other services.
If it's Europe who is doing the raping and not the north then where is the south any better off? They're still getting raped.
Well certainly, if the raping were being continued by Europe, but because the Europeans would have to compete in a free market, they couldn't get away with raping them. If the Europeans were gouging the way the Northerners were gouging, they might as well keep using the Northerners.
What would have happened is that prices would have fallen to a market sustainable rate, and it is axiomatic that this would have been cheaper than a rate artificially created through government mandates.
This is basic conservative economic theory. When government artificially creates demand, prices are higher. When markets set demand, prices fall to the lowest amount possible. Government creating artificially high prices is the very nature of "Protectionism."
For costal shipping only, U.S. port to U.S. port. Would the South scrap the Navigation Acts entirely?
Secession scrapped the existing Navigation act, (and the warehousing act, and various other acts.) and as to whether the CSA would have reconstituted their own version of it, I have no idea, but I think that if they were of a mind to do so, it would have been after they had a reason to do so, i.e. protecting their own domestic shipping industry, which as we have all noticed, was virtually nonexistent at that time.
You have no way of knowing if that is true.
Basic free market economics says that it is.
If the exporters of the south were used to paying X dollars per ton to ship their cargo then why wouldn't the European shippers charge the same?
Because the Europeans have to give them a reason to use their ships instead of Northern ships. They have to do it cheaper, or the Confederates would simply continue using the previous shipping system.
From the southern standpoint, yes it was.
So the people who want to justify the invasion and hundreds of thousands of dead keep telling us, but the basic fact of the continuation of slavery in the USA absent secession, contradicts this claim.
And how is complaining that the north charged the south too much for insurance, transportation, brokering, and such and then saying that allowing the Europeans to charge the south too much for insurance, transportation, brokering and the like furthering the south's own interest. Pay Peter or pay Paul, you're still paying. It would have been in their own interest to establish those industries in the south but ther interest just wasn't there.
Which were artificially inflated beyond the market norm because of laws forcing them to use the North's shipping, banking, warehousing, insurances and other services.
What was the market norm and how do you know it was inflated beyond it? And I know about your crazy claim about the law requiring northern ships but what law required them to use northern insurance firms, banks, warehouses, insurance, and other services?
Well certainly, if the raping were being continued by Europe, but because the Europeans would have to compete in a free market, they couldn't get away with raping them.
If the north is denied access to the market then how is it a free market? And wouldn't European costs be higher since they would have to send their own costal packets over and establish their own offices for insurance, banking, and warehouses, and build their own warehouses, and all the rest?
This is basic conservative economic theory.
Not the way you describe it.
Secession scrapped the existing Navigation act, (and the warehousing act, and various other acts.) and as to whether the CSA would have reconstituted their own version of it, I have no idea, but I think that if they were of a mind to do so, it would have been after they had a reason to do so, i.e. protecting their own domestic shipping industry, which as we have all noticed, was virtually nonexistent at that time.
Given what you know, or what you imagine you know, what would a Confederate Navigation Act look like from day one? What about the Warehousing Act which, if you did away of it, makes your crazy claim of landing goods in the south and then sending them north even crazier?
Basic free market economics says that it is.
Where does free market enter into your scenario? You're replacing one monopoly with another, and ignoring the lack of economic incentives for European shippers to enter into the U.S. cabotage market?
So the people who want to justify the invasion and hundreds of thousands of dead keep telling us...
And which those who are completely wedded to the lost cause myths ignore.
“ Which were artificially inflated beyond the market norm because of laws forcing them to use the North’s shipping, banking, warehousing, insurances and other services.”
I know you claim that the Navigation Act of 1817 forced Southerns to use Northern shipping, which of course it did not, but where do you find clauses to force all the other stuff?