Posted on 04/09/2025 10:37:44 AM PDT by marcusmaximus
Capitalism + globalism = poverty
Capitalism + nationalism = prosperity
I’m sorry, but capitalism simply is not compatible with the idea of the government requiring it to operate solely within borders.
That was Hitler’s cockamamie plan for his brand of socialism. The Krupps, the Thyssens, the corporations all existed. The Börse Berlin existed. Private companies existed. They hired workers. Workers got paid a salary.
I mean, throw a Godwin’s Law flag if you want - I’m not calling you a Nazi.
I’m simply saying that I’ve read enough of the history and I’m rational enough to separate the Holocaust and the warmongering and all the other evil crap from the basic economic idea and you’re left with Strasserism. And Strasserism is socialism with nothing more than a nationalist tint to the socialism.
Do you realize almost every founding father was a protectionist? Do you realize the British Empire was built on the back of Mercantilism? I'd say history has settled the question, you are wrong.
Not true.
And indeed - several of them flip-flopped.
But generally?
Hamilton was a protectionist - but there limits. In a new nation, he wanted tariffs towards 2 ends: 1)Federally assume the colonial debts - and they needed revenue, and 2)foster nascent industry in a fledgling nation. The very first piece of legislation under the constitution - the 1789 tariff - was his baby.
Madison was more balanced - the death of the original ‘Federalist’ party was really a breach between Madison (and Adams, to some extent) and Hamilton.
Adams was more fretful - brilliant guy, but he was primarily worried about the implications on foreign policy and always like the British more than French.
Jefferson was a free trader through and through.
Washington? I have lots of respect - as anyone does and should - for him as a leader, but he wasn’t a deep thinker on theory or policy and all for the better? He was more free trade than not - most southern planters were free traders; it was mostly the northerners at that time that were protectionists, but he just wanted a pragmatic, balanced approach that would avoid discord. That’s why he was the perfect man to be the first POTUS. He recognized getting consensus was far more important than any ideology or theory.
Thomas Jefferson’s stance on trade is a bit nuanced. While he supported free trade in principle, his presidency saw the implementation of the Embargo Act of 1807, which essentially halted all foreign trade. This was an attempt to avoid war and pressure Britain and France to respect American neutrality during their conflict. Ironically, this act contradicted the ideals of free trade, as it restricted commerce significantly.
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.