Posted on 08/19/2003 10:51:25 AM PDT by MonroeDNA
Edited on 07/12/2004 4:06:58 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
Whenever an expert touts a totally new theory, invention or miracle medicine, a healthy dose of skepticism is called for. The recent writings of Paul Craig Roberts fit the mold. He claims that two centuries of economic thought in support of free trade, dating back to Adam Smith and David Ricardo, have been overturned by new developments and his own unique insights. But reality is more straightforward, and far less ominous, than he depicts.
(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...
Pick a horse and ride it. I don't think tarrifs were used to keep people from selling war materials to Japan. And it would have had to be an EXIT tariff if so.
Tariffs should be used as taxes, not national security or other reasons. They wouldn't work well enough anyway. Different laws cover national security, rightfully so.
No problem harpseal. I can't judge Arne too harshly - I used to rudely flame a bit myself (you may recall a nudge from a certain Admin Moderator). As you know, these can be highly emotional issues - jobs, family support, esteem, foreigners, etc. - understandable the urge to vent. I just hope the Arnester comes around. I learned that if you don't insult people, you're much more likely to get an informative response.
And yea, you are becoming a leader of the Sane Trade Society. You seem to be moving step-by-step towards exerting influence on this issue. Stay the course.
Me and my big mouth.
You seem to be moving step-by-step towards exerting influence on this issue.
I hope so not for me but to get some results.
Stay the course
As long as I am draw breath
Was the quote you made clearly the trading with the enemy act was an interference with the freedonm of Americans to do business with anyone they they wanted to. I merely gave you a clear example to show how the absolute you posted has some real problems. You made the assertion I showed it false.
Tariffs clearly have been shown by quantitative analysis to have a net benefit to the USA in at least one case. A general historical perspective of protective tariffs over their more than two hundred years of being in effect in the USA shows them to be a positive factor in the growth of the USA.
Now those nations employing high tariffs China and India apear to also be enjoying very high rates of growth. I have repeated asked for a quantitative analysis showing at least one case where a tariff has provided a net harm. No one has been able to find one or post such evidence or any link to such evidence. If you can find one is those position papers the Cato institute sends you then please inform them they need to have it available of their web site because the lack of such analysis tends to make the thesis that Tariffs are harmful to the USA questionable to say the least.
The existence of a qantitative study using multiple regression analysis to show a net benefit does exist and although I do not have time to post links to others there are other such case studies.
Now logically one must conclude that since in multiple instances it has been shown that tariffs have a net benefit for the USA and those opposed to tariffs have sthe same tools available to them ie regression analysis. And those opposed to tariffs have as much access to data as everyone who favors tariffs I submit if it could have been done easily it would have been done easily. It would be out there flung in our faces. If the Steel Consumers council wanted to provide real proof they would have nbalanced costs against benefits and done the full work instead of just the cost side on the tariffs.
There3for teh lack of such easy availablity to such a study proves that sucvh a study showing a net harm from any one tariff is impossible.
Logic states a premise for which evidence refuting the premise is available is false. logic also says if a result should be there and it is not there the premise is false. Therefor teh premis that tariffs are harmful to the USA in all cases is definitely false ad is the premise that tariffis are often harmful and usually harmful.
Now my irrelevant logiclaly belief is that tariffs may be harmful in some cases but I can not even prove such harm
"Grasping at straws" award for the day.
Well two hundred years of American history disprove that thesis. We have had high and irregular tariffs from 1789 until the latest round of Gatt. Then with the steel tariff we started to move in the right direction. But if you are stating merely your opinin not asserting a fact You are clearly ewntitled do do so as your opinion.
By the way there was another thread last night when the persons solution was the break up of the USA into a number of seperate nations by force if necessary. He felt force would not be necessary. I did not go into a long and detailed rebuttal as what he posted was such that IMHO it was far m,ore damaging to the Free Trade agrument than anythging I could have come up with.
Tough to start with such an outlandish scenario (force used to break up the USA) and try to make sense of it. Yep, gotta let that one try to stand on it's own merits (or not).
If you seek to attack someone because of their beliefs or other things which don't go to the point made, it means you have no good argument to make about the point.<
Apparently this is where it all started btween you and I. I never posted to you and you "attacked" my statement.
The debate centers on what someone says, not on who they are.
How can you seperate the two? What someone says is a reflection of who they are. You, apparently, are irrelevant.
I didn't attack anything. I laughed at your laughable statement. I'm still grinning.
How can you seperate the two? What someone says is a reflection of who they are.
If someone tells you 2+2=4, do you think it is a reflection on who they are? It's easy to seperate if you care about the statement and not who says it. Liberals do it the other way all the time. They attack the messenger.
You, apparently, are irrelevant.
Who I am is irrelevant to what I say. If you can dispute what someone says, do so. If not, take the liberal way, look for a way to attack them.
I'm not sure what that means. But hey, cryptic comments are sure popular around here.
Was that some kind of insult? The first shot in a flame war?
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.