Comments on: Globalism vs. Americanism

By: Andrew G. Van Sant

Andrew G. Van Sant — Sun, 20 Sep 2009 03:20:21 +0000

I was among the 200 or so people present at the official launch of the Asheville Declaration. I knew we were doomed when I noticed that the label on the Confederate Battle Flags handed out by the Southern Party said "Made in China."

By: M.A. Roberts

M.A. Roberts — Sat, 19 Sep 2009 13:22:07 +0000

Tom Piatak #24: "Of course the “Austrian school” is devoted to the free trade being practiced today. Its proponents loudly and angrily denounce anyone who advocates the use of the tariff (or similar measures, like a border adjusted VATT) to preserve manufacturing jobs in the United States. Tariffs on goods coming into America have never been lower than they are now, which is why manufacturing jobs continue to disappear. And the “Austrians” have no solution for this, since they don’t regard it as a problem. Austrian economics is fully compatible with globalism; in fact, globalism is the logical end result of “real free trade,” which its proponents, in their more candid moments, have always admitted. As Bastiat said, the goal of free trade is the “peaceful, ecumenical, and indissoluble union of the peoples of the world.”"

Exactly!

By: Clyde Wilson

Clyde Wilson — Sat, 19 Sep 2009 12:48:07 +0000

Tom at #55. I am with you that we need to see to the country's industrial base and present policy is very wrong. I think the VAT adjustments brought forth by Mr. Hartman and Chronicles may well be of great merit. What I object to is Mr. Buchanan's blithe assumption, made here and many other times, that past American prosperity and industrial might were due to tariffs. This is bad history and bad economics. Further, let is suppose that we see an increase in our industrial capacity through good policy. The corporations will import their engineers and skilled workers from the bottomless pit of Asian manpower. "America" will show better statistics but America and Americans will not be helped very much. (The way chasing bandits in Afghanistan is"defending Amnerica.)" This is no longer the country it once was.

By: John Seiler

John Seiler — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 16:48:11 +0000

If high tariffs are imposed, California's economy will be ruined even more than it already is. 10 million Californians will flow out, reverse Okies, settling next to you, teaching your daughters Valspeak and your sons surfing. Like, you know?

By: Tom Piatak

Tom Piatak — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 16:16:56 +0000

Prof. Wilson, the question is not whether all was right with the 19th century GOP, but whether tariffs, or somehting like them, like a border adjusted VAT, might help stem the decline of manufacturing in America. Despite the theory of free trade economists, the historical record shows that they did work: behind tariff walls, we not only funded the (small) federal government, but also became the greatest industrial power on earth. Protectionism helped make Germany an industrial power as well. By contrast, Britain stubbornly clung to free trade during her long decline. Today, history seems to be repeating itself, as rising Asian countries, which protect their home markets by a variety of means, are beginning to surpass the United States, which is clinging to free trade dogma as stubbornly as Britain did. I am not suggesting that tariffs will cure all our economic problems, but continuing our current trade policy--which features the lowest tariffs in American history--is a sure road to ruin.

By: Clyde Wilson

Clyde Wilson — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 15:49:09 +0000

The notion that tariffs were designed to protect American labour has always been a fraud, a propaganda ploy for public consumption. At the same time that the Lincolnites put in the "protective tariff" that lasted until FDR they also passed a contract labour law by which the government facilitated bringing in gangs of low-paid labour from Europe and China. If one wanted to protect American labour then it was necessary to control immigration, which labour leaders then understood. The industrialists also spearheaded abolition of slavery in the South because they believed
that cotton could be produced more cheaply with "free labour."
At the same time they pushed for giving away as much of the public lands as possible for free, mostly to themselves, because land sales were the second largest source of government revenue. Decreasing the revenue from lands gave an excuse for increases in tariffs and other taxes to benefit the plutocracy.
The history of American state capitalism goes back a long way and to restore Harding/Coolidge protectionism is too superficial a remedy.

By: Clyde Wilson

Clyde Wilson — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 12:39:47 +0000

#47. The language about protection of manufactures in the early law was merely an appeal to "incidental protection." The purpose of the tariff was revenue, sufficient to eliminate the need for any other taxes. Obviously, past a certain point, an increase in the tariff results in a decrease in the revenue, since the purpose of a "protective tariff" is to reduce imports and shift consumption to domestic manufacturers, who are thereby guaranteed sales and a margin of profits up to the cost of the tariffed import. The tariffs were revenue tariffs up until 1828, when, after intensive lobbying and bribery by the industrialists, along with intense propaganda about "Americanism," a near 50 per cent tariff was instituted with a long list of items individually tariffed as designed by the industrial lobbyists for specific advantages. Except that raw materials and specilised products imported by the industrialists were EXEMPt from any tariff. Very obviously such legislation is partial and counter to free enterprise. Among other things it discourages new competitors, foreign or domestic, to established tariff-protected corporations. "Tariff protection" inevitably means bribery and deception in the design of complex legislation. What is now falsely called "free trade" is just another example of the evil inaugurated by the tariff protectionists of the 19th century. If one believes that free enterprise is generally the most fair and productive form of economic activity, then one may assume that the tariffs of the 19th century actually retarded American expansion, great as it was because of the energy of the people and the great natural resources. How can charging everyone higher prices lead to greater prosperity? It can only shift money from the consumer to the protected producer.

By: C Bowen

C Bowen — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 01:51:21 +0000

I am all for reducing restrictions on native labor protections--there are plenty of good manufacturing/textile jobs the 12-18 crowd should be doing here at home, so moms can be home with their children, hundreds of thousands saved on college accreditation, and immigrants/cheap labor need not be imported.

If a tariff is required to employ the idle, then so be it (even if I doubt it.)

But I suppose it's easier to wave a flag then lay it all out.

#47 If you want to make the case that the dubious imposition of the Constitution in place of the Articles is legit, and defend one of the first pieces of legislation--go right ahead, but appreciate how silly it looks to argue that the generation who fought for independence had in mind, replacing one oligarchy with another.

I lean Loyalist, contra Dr. Wilson, but he defends the honor and intellect of the people of that generation.

By: Chris

Chris — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 01:34:41 +0000

Mr Seiler, the Chinese probably couldn't afford the pacemaker in the first instance. There is little demand in China for American high-tech goods yet there is seemingly unending demand in the US for cheap Chinese junk.

It should also be added, that China, Japan and South Korea are mercantilist countries that put substantial upfront and hidden barriers to goods being imported into their countries while the US opens its borders to all of their goods. At the very least this inequity should be addressed.

By: John Seiler

John Seiler — Fri, 18 Sep 2009 01:20:09 +0000

This has been a great discussion. I want to bring up something people maybe haven't thought about: American exports. Yes, there area a lot of them, although overshadowed by the massive imports. I happen to live in a place, Orange County, Calif., that exports much more than it imports. Our top exports are medical devices, and communications switching devices (Broadcom and Conexant being the biggest companies), in both of which areas we lead the world. Major manufacturing for these firms is done right here and around Southern California. So, if we get in a trade war with China, or whichever country, and they put up tariffs on America, then we'll get hurt first and worst. Pat Buchanan mentioned "the Chinese outlet store in Albany known as Wal-Mart," a great turn of phrase. But in China it's common for the grandparents to take care of the children while the parents work. What if grandma needs a pacemaker from Orange County, but can't get it if a trade war starts? She dies, the family's situation is badly damaged, and an Orange County pacemaker worker is standing in an unemployment line. Unemployment here already is at record levels. Do you want to make it worse? The situation is similar to before 1861, when the North benefited from tariffs that were paid by the South. That dispute was decided by untold violence. This time, it will be decided by who pays the most bribes to Obama and the other Democrats and Republcians. I suppose that's an improvement.