I must tell you that my original post regarding Willie Green looks terrible: it may be easily interpreted that I am launching a personal attack on someone's views that differ from mine. Given that, your criticism could've been much more harsh than the rather mild words you have used. Thank you.
I definitely do not attack hem for his views -- he can have them; this is America. And I do not try to curtail discussion on this board. This is not what we are dealing with here: track his past or present posts and you will not find a single positive comment about capitalism as such or conservatives. His posts are limited only to those that are designed to ignite our passions --- on the level of "them fat cat b---d CEOs are firing again." When dragged out into a discussion (which is not often), he reveals verbatim the socialist doctrine. Incidentally, I cannot take credit for the name "unionist plant" for Willie Green: it belongs to another gentleman on FR. He was equally astonished by the purity of socialist view point to which Green subscribes.
Taken together --- and you can see over time whether I am correct --- we are dealing here with a missionary that came to FR to educate us and protect us from our "conservative" errors. His posts reverberate with some because of the post-bubble psychology and concerns over the economy. But he is taking FR for a ride: he is not a conservative, and shows no interest in any other issue. I am merely attracting attention of other posters such as you. (Incidentally, just yesterday I received a reply saying, "I am glad other people are catching up with what Green is doing")
You made another point, which is also well taken that people are frustrated and concerned about the economy, and we should be patient with them. Your following observation is often justified as well: Instead of discussing policy honestly and refernceing facts and mathematics to butress their arguments all that seems to come forth from those arguing for the current unfair trade rules is invective and assertions that are unsupported.
In return, I will offer two points. Firstly, it is difficult to replace basic knowledge of economics and/or management when someone exhibits the lack thereof. Oftentimes I hear a blanket accusation of management of doing this or that -- and an imputation of evil motives as well --- and reply, "Your anger would be justifiable except that is not what happens." To the follow-up question as to what happens, I might reply briefly that, well, owners hire management, management is labor, and its compensation is determined by the market, etc. I would suggest, politely, to read up more on the subject. The reply is immediate: I am personally on the take (the last one was that I must be getting money from the Chinese); that I don't care about my fellow Americans (that's routine and mild); that I have blood of slave labor on my hands…. One thing you cannot ask your fellow Americans any more is to read…
No, I do not find the basic immorality justifiable by any concern over the economic situation. The ease with which people defame --- "fat CEOs," the "rich," and anyone that slows them down from expressing anger --- is an abomination. This is, after all is one of Commandments (incidentally, when I point that out it causes only more anger toward me but does not slow them down; nobody ever said, "Oh, I guess my words were too strong."). When it comes from the Left that wants to dismantle the institutions of this society, I am not surprised. But seeing disrespect of our basic values in self-proclaimed conservatives is an abomination.
Being a conservative means being anti-something: anti-immigration, anti-job-outsourcing, what have you… But you cannot ask these people to adhere to basic values and stop defaming someone and bringing false accusations. That is why they turn on you when you do that. Forgive me, but (i) it is hard to bring mathematical proofs in this climate. (ii) the proofs that one brings they do not want to process.
The foregoing clearly does not apply to you, which is why I replied to you at length. Thank you again for your post.
Clearly I am of the opinion that mathematical proofs are teh best evidnece. Just as clearly I have offered some proffs and am examining antother study at present that is very inconclusive the USITC study on the 2001 steel tariffs. Now I have asked every advocate of the current trade system to provide some evidence either of its net beneficial effect on the US economy (multiple regression analysis of both sides of the question). Or even one case of a tariff being harmful to the economy of the USA. It seems my research is closer to yielding the latter than any advocate of the current trade regimine.
Now to me it is clear we need tariffs as part of an overall plan which I have posted in many places. these tariffs IMHO should be limited to retaliatory tariffs and tariffs for specific defense industries. Yes we need a whole lot of othe rspecific steps too. But since this discussion is being limited to tariffs lets stay on pint. I advocate a much higher tariff on goods being imported from the People's Republic of China because of their currency manipulations, their high tariffs on normal goods, their technology transfer demands as a cost of doing business there and the hostility towards the USA expressed by Chinese leaders within the past three years.
I advocate higher tariffs for India becuase of their very high tariffs on American exports to their nation,and Currency manipulations. There may also be technology transfer problems with India but I have not documented that yet.
Such tariff impositions are not a cure all. I have a thriteemn pint plan posted in many places that addresses most of teh issues with the economy as a start. it includes fixes for Corporate Income tax etc.
Now clearly there are cases where corporate manageent does not act in a fiduciary manner with regards to the Shareholders. There are many reasons for this and this may account for some of the hostility you are seeing but I wish to stay on target with tariffs.