Archive for the For Free Trade Category

Trump/Russia Collusion: an overview

Posted in For Free Trade, For God with tags , , , , , , , , on March 18, 2018 by cavalier973

Go here. There are links within the article (each named “Go Deep”) that go to more in-depth articles on particular subjects.


You have a patriotic duty to be robbed.

Posted in For Free Trade with tags , , , , , on March 14, 2018 by cavalier973

The Protectionists/mercantilists have a curious philosophy: the free market can only work with heavy government intervention. They have the long-discredited belief that manufacturing creates wealth, while trade is a zero-sum game which always “loses jobs” for “our side” to the perfidous foreigners who are selling us goods and services.

They claim that Free Trade is somehow unpatriotic, because apparently they believe that the product of citizens’ labors belongs to the collective, and only the government can properly determine what standard of living each citizen should enjoy. What is amusing is that the Protectionists/mercantilists claim that Free Trade is “Marxist”.

The problems that Protectionists/mercantilists ascribe to Free Trade are actually the result government intervention, which they propose to increase. Deregulation and reduction in government spending and taxation are the true remedies to economic problems, which is why I’ve been hopeful about Pres. Trump’s administration, so far. His unpatriotic push to increase taxes on American citizens will reverse whatever good he has done to this point.

The protectionists/mercantilists have the mistaken believe that a shortage of available goods and services results in a higher standard of living.

From Bastiat: 

“Which is preferable for man and for society, abundance or scarcity?

“What!” people may exclaim. “How can there be any question about it? Has anyone ever suggested, or is it possible to maintain, that scarcity is the basis of man’s well-being?”

Yes, this has been suggested; yes, this has been maintained and is maintained every day, and I do not hesitate to say that the theory of scarcity is by far the most popular of all theories. It is the burden of conversations, newspaper articles, books, and political speeches; and, strange as it may seem, it is certain that political economy will not have a completed its task and performed its practical function until it has popularized and established as indisputable this very simple proposition: “Wealth consists in an abundance of commodities.”

Do we not hear it said every day: “Foreigners are going to flood us with their products”? Thus, people fear abundance.

Has not M. de Saint-Cricq said: “There is overproduction”? Thus, he was afraid of abundance.

Do not the workers wreck machines? Thus, they are afraid of overproduction, or—in other words—of abundance.”

“‘Marxist’ Free Trade”

Posted in For Free Trade, Uncategorized with tags , , , , , on March 7, 2018 by cavalier973

So, President Trump is indulging his neo-mercantilist demons, by proposing that a 25% tariff be imposed on foreign-produced steel, to “protect American steel companies”.

Were it simply a measure by the President to raise revenue for the government, it wouldn’t be quite so exasperating, but the claim that an increase in taxes somehow helps the American economy, and Americans in general, is maddening.

If one reads the sites of the Neo-Mercantilists/Protectionists, one may run across the phrase “Marxist Free Trade”. The idea behind the phrase is that an unfettered market leads to Marxism, based on something Karl Marx said, claiming some such nonsense.

In reality, it is the Neo-Mercantilist/Protectionists who let the communist camel poke its nose under the tent flap, by promoting a policy of government intervention in the economy to raise the income of a certain group of Americans by requiring all Americans to enjoy a lower standard of living.

If President Trump had been honest and proposed, for example, legislation that resulted in people earning $35,000 a year lowering their standards of living so that a small group of people can increase their incomes from $50,000 to $55,000, then people would likely give the legislation the stink eye. And yet, that’s exactly what he is proposing, but because it is couched in false patriotism, then people don’t automatically reject such a policy.

One of Trump’s advisors claimed that the 25% increase in steel prices would only result in a fraction of an increase in the cost of cans of soup, as an example. The problem is that the advisor specifically mentioned Campbell’s soup company. Such a large company may of course be able to absorb the increased cost, or pass the cost to its customers, but “players at the margin” may not be able to do so. Bob’s Soup Company may go out of business, because it is already operating a extremely low margins. With one less competitor in the soup market, we can expect the prices of soup to rise and/or the quality to be lowered. That’s how the market works. Protectionists seem to have a magical thinking about market forces, and expect that costs will be born by “someone else”, and not ourselves.

One last thing, about Free Trade generally: Free Trade is not only the economically advantageous policy, it is the moral policy, because with Free Trade a person can dispose of the product of his labor as he deems best. Protectionism requires that person to dispose of his income in ways that the Protectionists approve. This is a violation of property rights, and a form of theft.

I was happy with the Trump Tax plan that passed late last year, despite its flaws, and considered voting for him in 2020, if he ran for re-election. This tariff could negate the benefits of the tax plan, and my support.

Roy Moore and the GOPe

Posted in For Free Trade, For God with tags , , on December 1, 2017 by cavalier973

This article makes a point I hadn’t thought of concerning the Republican Establishment’s opposition to Roy Moore: Moore’s win will signal to other potential populist candidates that Republican Establishment politicians are vulnerable.



Also, why the accusations against Moore aren’t actually credible.

Info about the “Olde Hickory House”.

A message to some students of Oxford University

Posted in For Free Trade on September 3, 2017 by cavalier973

Kid Snippets

Posted in For Free Trade with tags , , on August 27, 2017 by cavalier973

These are some clever videos of adults acting out recordings of children playing/conversing:

My wife’s favorite: Math Class

My favorite (so far): Fast Food Drive Through

Lee and Lincoln

Posted in For Free Trade, For God with tags , , , , , , , on August 27, 2017 by cavalier973

It has become trendy recently for “conservative-types” to declare that Gen. Robert E. Lee was a “traitor”, probably in response to the call by leftist-progressives to remove statues honoring Confederates. An interesting charge; Lee would certainly have disagreed with the underlying assumption that the Federal Government owned his allegiance to a greater degree than his home State of Virginia, but the self-described conservatives seem to have swallowed the narrative that the Federal Government somehow owns all of us, and so any action taken against that government is wrong, and immoral, and treasonous.

I would be curious to know if these supposed conservatives think that Gen. Lee should have been executed for his “crime”. If not, then they don’t consider treason that bad of a crime. If they think he SHOULD have been executed, then they are in conflict with the actual victors at the end of the war, who decided not to execute, permanently imprison, or otherwise severely punish the “traitors” of the South, apart from requiring oaths of allegiance, and preventing them from being elected for political office for a little while (many of the same people who effected Southern Secession were right back in power only a few years after the end of the Civil War).

Anyway, if we grant the supposed conservatives’ charge that Gen. Lee was a traitor, then so was Gen. Washington, and since the supposed conservatives are crying a river of tears over the thought of statues of Washington being removed, then, again, it’s not apparent that these same people consider treason to be that bad of a crime. Gen. Lee’s real crime, I guess, is being on the losing side of a war.

Also, Slavery. Slavery, Slavery, Slavery, Slavery. “Just say Slavery”. Ooh! The Slaves! The South had Slaves! And Slavery!

Interestingly, while defense and maintenance of Slavery can explain why the South seceded, it does not explain why the North invaded. In addition, even if the North had invaded the South for the express purpose of freeing the slaves, the war would still be more immoral than slavery, just like murder is more immoral than kidnapping and theft. But, that’s a different topic. Right now, we’re talking about treason.

Let us look, then, at the Constitutional description of treason in Article III, Section 3, Clause 1:

“Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.”

Okay; Gen. Lee did none of that at the beginning of the war. Neither did Jefferson Davis, nor Beauregard, nor any of the Southerners. The South did not invade the Northern States. Not at first, anyway. Lee’s attempted invasion into the Northern states happened long after the war started, and was not done in an attempt to conquer the Northern States, but to provide material relief (food and supplies) to the Southern armies, so that doesn’t really count. Had the North not invaded the South, first, in other words, then Lee would not have marched his armies into Maryland and Pennsylvania. Also, the Southern firing on Fort Sumter, which was in Charleston Harbor, can hardly be described as levying war against “the States”.

You know who did “levy war against THEM [i.e., the States]? Abraham Lincoln. Deploying troops to the fort for the purposes of collecting tribute was the original act of war. The counter-argument by supposed conservatives is that the Federal Government “owned” the fort, and so had eternal rights to its usage. Eh.

Imagine, if you will, that the United Nations started agitating for the United States to cough up more money. The United States refused, and declared that they will withdraw from the UN. The UN, in response, deploys troops to the UN Building in New York City, with the stated intention of collecting the fees, duties, and tributes that it claims the U.S. owes. The United States orders the U.S. military to fire on the building. Which side initiated hostilities?

Hint: It was the United Nations.

If the supposed conservatives claim that this imagined scenario is “different”; that the United States was not supposed to be a collection of independent nations that formed an alliance to effect actions for the common good of them all, and that the Constitution was instead an eternally binding compact that formed a single nation from component parts, then they demonstrate that they are interpreting Southerners’ perceptions of “the Union” through the prism of their own Federal-Government-worshipping understanding and biases.

Nevertheless, it’s politically expedient (in the minds of the supposed conservatives) to declare that “slavery, Jim Crow, and the KKK” are all elements of the Democrat Party. Please. The Dems purges those elements from their party long ago, so the charge is irrelevant. What these supposed conservatives are really doing is alienating potential allies: limited-government adherents who are also people who honor Southern heroes like Gen. Lee for their sustained fight against Federal tyranny. “Fine! Who needs you, anyway?” might be these supposed conservatives’ response, but they’re never going to get the America they want until they first acknowledge that the men of the seceding South were the Good Guys.