You keep trying to pretend that this is an entirely economic issue when it is far more. It involved the wrenching away of the control of the economy from the British to a condition which could allow the development of a real market something the British took pains for two hundred years to prevent.
How many names can you call someone attempting to cover your deceptions? Keynesian Kenyan Marxist Statist Yankee Lincoln worshipper blah, blah blah.
Economies develop from people having foresight of coming conditions thus concurrent is just phase two of the becoming.
Causality must be proven through a scientific procedure. Economics attempts this but in not entirely successful due to its need to assume away most of the problems.
My statement wrt the USSR is not refuted by the correct statement that the labor theory of value (not of Marx's invention in any case) was flawed that doesn't change the truth that Marxian theory was not designed for a backward economy. It was seized by Lenin as a weapon to achieve and rationalize power and it only worked as long as the rulers were willing to kill millions. That willingness, Thank God, disappeared.
Taussig makes no definite conclusion about the utility of the tariff just states that it might not have worked as intended. Who argues with that? And he hedges even that with plenty of "appears" "perhaps" and "hardlys" and your quote ignores his other ambivalent remarks.
Of course, it is a lie that I made any claim that cotton industry was not established before the Embargo, Tariff and War. It was very small with most coming from home industries not factories with machinery. And it is also a lie that Taussig claimed it was not helped when your own quote says it was "perhaps" helped or would have not been any worse off without it. But these policies have nothing to do with Hamilton anyway being produced and controlled by men with only a shred of his understanding.
And where did I ever say it was entirely economic?
It involved the wrenching away of the control of the economy from the British to a condition which could allow the development of a real market
My concern is not whether it "involved" that but rather whether the protectionist policies of the early 19th centuries accomplished much of anything to that purported end. The volume of evidence indicates that they did not and in some cases such as iron they even worsened the situation.
How many names can you call someone attempting to cover your deceptions?
It is no matter of name calling to describe you as a Keynesian if you espouse the ideas of Keynes (which you did), to suggest that your views have a Marxian element if they contain the ideas of Marx (which they did), or to call you a statist or interventionist if you espouse state intervention in the economy (which you do). As to my alleged "deceptions," I will simply note that you have demonstrated none and thus dismiss that slur as another of your gratuitous remarks.
Economies develop from people having foresight of coming conditions thus concurrent is just phase two of the becoming.
No. Economies develop because of property ownership over a scarce amount of goods. Foresight comes into play as an attribute of economic interaction, that is to say an educated prediction or a case of speculation or arbitrage. It remains, however, that the knowledge by which we identify the driving agent of the economy - innovation - is such that it emerges ex post, or at best concurrent to the act and not ex ante, where it is necessarily speculative.
Causality must be proven through a scientific procedure.
No. A certain form of physical causality may be _observed_ as it happens through scientific procedure. All causality is not physical though.
My statement wrt the USSR is not refuted by the correct statement that the labor theory of value
It is indeed insofar as you credited it as the reason for the Soviet Union's failure when in fact the reason was much more fundamental and similarly affects all other forms of marxism as well.
(not of Marx's invention in any case)
...but still the fundamental underlying notion on which his theory is constructed and by which his theory is also inherently flawed in all forms and all cases at all times. To assume a labor theory of value is to necessarily deny yourself a viable rationing device for scarce goods.
that doesn't change the truth that Marxian theory was not designed for a backward economy.
Designed or not, marxian theory will fail in any economy because of a fundamental flaw within marxian theory, not with that economy.
Taussig makes no definite conclusion about the utility of the tariff just states that it might not have worked as intended.
You simply are not being honest, fakeit. Taussig has a very plainly stated conclusion about the tariff that begins on page 38 and is designated under a title identifying it as the conclusion. It reads in part:
Although, therefore, the conditions existed under which it is most likely that protection to young indus tries may be advantageously applied—a young and undeveloped country in a stage of transition from a purely agricultural to a more diversified industrial condition; this transition, moreover, coinciding in time with great changes in the arts, which made the establishment of new industries peculiarly difficult — notwithstanding the presence of these conditions, little, if any thing, was gained by the protection which the United States maintained in the first part of this [the nineteenth] century.
He could not have stated it more plainly - protection simply did not work.
And he hedges even that with plenty of "appears" "perhaps" and "hardlys"
Nonsense. He is writing in an academic style that naturally abstains from bold opinionated proclamations and declarative assertions. If he had written it in a style that made blustery opinionated statements not unlike the ones found in your posts around here his book would have been ridiculed in the academic community instead of becoming a classic.