Replies

The economic ignorance of that paper's authors is further evident in the following passage:

Hmmmm? Seems to me that on Friday your dismissed them because they were "economists" (like Tommy DiLusional) not historians. Now you say they don't know anything about economics because you don't agree with their interpertations of Confederate customs inspections which even if they are wrong, has nothing to do with the question at hand.

But with all of your rants and attacking the messanger bluster, you have done absolutly nothing to show where they are wrong in saying that the Confederate tariff was indeed a protectionist tariff which blows the legs off the Lost Cause Myth that the war was about tariffs, not slavery.

You are grasping at straws. The war was about slavery, not tariffs.

Hmmmm? Seems to me that on Friday your dismissed them because they were "economists"

No I didn't. On Friday I consistently criticized their lack of economic credentials by noting that they were historians rather than economists. Here is the exact quote from post #350:

"Also for the record - the authors of that paper are not economists but rather historians. They lack the credentials and background to properly calculate and analyze the protective effects of a tariff."

Now you say they don't know anything about economics because you don't agree with their interpertations of Confederate customs inspections

It is not only a matter of disagreement but also and more importantly a matter of their ignorance of the matter. They stumbled upon the CSA's continuation of the 1846 Warehousing Act - a measure that significantly BENEFITED merchants - and, not knowing what it was or how it worked, attempted to pass it off as a protectionist trade impediment.

which even if they are wrong, has nothing to do with the question at hand.

It has everything to do with the question at hand. One of that paper's arguments is the absurd claim than "onerous" import regulations created a bureaucracy barrier to trade thereby enhancing the protectionist agenda that they ignorantly allege against the CSA.

But with all of your rants and attacking the messanger bluster

I'm in no way attacking you on their message. That is why I pointed out that the passages to which I responded were in your link. I am however challenging the credibility and arguments of that paper. That is perfectly legitimate considering that you posted it into this thread in hopes of using their arguments to further your side.

you have done absolutly nothing to show where they are wrong in saying that the Confederate tariff was indeed a protectionist tariff

To the contrary. I've already posted statistics many, many, many times showing that the CSA tariff, by comparison to all the major US tariffs up until that time and day, was the lowest in half a century. I've also shown that the authors of that paper, be it through ineptitude or willful dishonesty, artificially inflated their protectionist characterization of the CSA tariff on the whole by emphasizing its upper outlier. I've shown that they ignored from consideration several major pieces of evidence that indicate the presence of a significantly stronger free trade faction in Virginia government than the protectionist minority they quote to make their case. And now I've shown that comprehension of underlying trade economics is generally lacking from even the most basic elements of their argument.

You may not like those facts and you certainly have not given much effort to rebutting any of them but there they are, unrefuted and, IMHO, irrefutable.