Economics General

You use a fiat currency controlled by the government. The federal reserve, in and of itself, isn't the problem. It's the fact that it's controlled by other interests besides the nation's.

Gee I wonder who could be behind this post.

probably not, but a garage full of shit ribbon and feminine hygiene products certainly would

Read the rest of it, dumbass. If it was controlled by the nation, for the nation it wouldn't be a problem.

Right printing money into infinity isn't bad at all…

Buy silver you cuck

And that won't happen if the organization is part of the federal government and run by duly elected or appointed individuals.

You can do the same thing with a gold backed currency, you know.

I'm not economically literate enough to debate you on this but I know that you're wrong. Can somebody help me out?

All of that except for the gold standard. Gold doesn't really provide anything good, is deflationary, and can be manipulated by outsiders.

Sure government fiat currencies can be inflationary if mismanaged, but like so many other functions of the government that doesn't mean it has to be. Gold, on the other hand, will be deflationary so long as your economy grows, and there's nothing you can do about it.

Only if you want to keep the currency stable. Your economy can grow just fine, but the currency will deflate as it does so. If it grows fast enough you'll get a deflationary spiral, and then you're fucked.

Well, I suppose you could say that there's no guarantee that the government will keep the currency stable instead of inflating it, but that's a bit like saying there's nothing preventing the government from being tyrannical.

All gold-backed currency really does is prevent inflation (generally, so long as the supply of gold doesn't rapidly increase). You could replace it with anything else that's just as rare and you'd have the same effect. You could even just write a law that says "You can only print X dollars."

In the end though that's a shitty system. You don't want the currency system to be rigid, otherwise you can't respond to crises.

So what should we do then?

I recommend a nationalised fiat currency. Read pic related. It explains it much better than I could

Link your fiat currency to your GDP or labor and then print responsibly. It's the best you can do.

Seriously, though, deflation is worse in every way than inflation. Your entire economy becomes deadlocked until you find new sources of lucre to fuel expansion.

RWDS
Basically these things are irrelevant until we remove niggers and merchants. Then look at how much gold you have. If none then do anons plan here.

exactly, if currency in circulation is linked to something like gold and can't grow alongside the economy, your currency will deflate and your economy will be fucked. What we need is a nationalised bank that issues interest-free currency to keep up with economic growth. The goal of the gov't bank should be to prevent inflation or deflation as best as possible, meaning it should expand or contract the currency supply depending on the economic conditions within the economy.

yep alot of ammo as well

Have a highly transparent Bureau of the Mint that prints currency only when needed and is tasked with keeping the currency stable. They would likely be a division of the Department of the Treasury.

This scenario only works when you don't have nonwhites in the US, of course. If you don't have that you're just going to end up back with a private bank that inflates the currency to high hell, or a commodity-currency that conveniently makes (((merchants))) the richest in society.

Exactly. I'm trying to figure out how the currency would be issued aside from loans though. Government purchases and wages are all I can think of. Maybe some sort of issuance scheme where families can just be given it? Some sort of universal "welfare" system that just gives out the currency evenly?

You introduce it through a nationally owned banking system. If the economy is growing, then people are going to need more capital for various reasons and will be able to get it through the federal bank.

If the economy is shrinking, you take the money out of circulation as it comes in to the government/federal bank.

That's just loaning, isn't it?

I was mostly thinking it would be given as interest on money deposited in the bank.

Not a very convincing argument.
Already have quite a few ounces of silver.

Long term "if all else fails I have something left to my name" investment. I'll likely put it in a bugout bag. It's not so much the quantity I'm looking at as the security.

Hello, that's something I've never heard of before.

All that minus the gold standard.
While a tried and true tactic to prevent inflation and counterfeiting, it is scarce enough to be vulnerable to control and manipulation.
Better some form of currency whose only value is as a medium of exchange. It would be adjusted with an issuing nation's population to maintain its value. If the currency leaves the country more will be printed, if it enters the country en masse amounts will be removed from circulation.
There would have to be some form of monitoring by the public to ensure that only the appropriate amount is in circulation at any given time. I imagine it may take the form of something similar to bitcoins.

For utilities though I would suggest that the connecting infrastructure (Pipes, roads, telephone lines) would be maintained by the state, but the infrastructure that provides the services (Servers, treatment plants) would be provided by private companies.

That seems a bit of a weird thing for a national bank to do.

Commercial banks giving interest I understand, because they actually make more money the more you deposit, since they have more to loan. Any interest payments they make you can in turn be utilized by them just like any of the rest of your savings, justifying an increased return. In this sense I'm not sure it should really be called "interest" and conflated with the thoroughly corrupt practice of charging money for the use of money.

I think I went off on a tangent there. At any rate, commercial banks making interest deposits on the savings you invest with them makes sense, since they're a commercial enterprise. I don't see a national bank as being the same thing (and I certainly have a dismal view of the government as any sort of entrepreneur). I don't see a national bank as one you deposit savings in. I'd see a national bank as one that purely gives out loans (be it to other banks, businesses, families, etc.), rather than one which stores money and runs a commercial enterprise.

To ask a slightly related question, one of the other problems I'm starting to see with fiat money like this is: how does electronic money work in a system like this? The only way I can see it working is as an entirely separate currency (or set of currencies). Like PayPal, essentially. You buy online money from them with real money, and it is their duty to guarantee it. That's about the only way I could envision online money working, because having government managed electronic money seems like a disaster.

How in the hell would you implement a thing like pic related?

Well, if you're the U.S. government, you own 28% before you set it to back the dollar. In fact you spend as much of the old currency as possible buying up land, trying to claim the valuable yet untapped land especially.

Now, if you're talking about purchasing fresh clay for the country, I could think of a couple slices of Canada or Mexico that wouldn't go amiss.

Nonwhite-free when annexed, presumably, yes?

Silver stands to give you the highest multiplier when PMs skyrocket. That's really my own argument.

Got 5oz gold, 1500ish silver, 2oz platinum and 1oz rhodium myself. I'm diversified, as well as chemically powered lead dispensers, non perishables, big lighters and an indispensable knowledge of biology, organic chemistry and medicine

Don't hedge on one thing ever

Bump for interesting discussion

The value of land varies hugely depending on its location, utility, and nearby infrastructure. This makes it impractical to to use to back a currency, because its value can change - it can be destroyed, e.g. if it becomes permanently flooded or the value can be enormous, e.g. the land under a skyscraper.

What land will back the currency? Would the government just buy up all the land in order to back the new currency, and what would it buy it with? A promise or piece of paper which is backed by the land it has just purchased? It doesn't make any sense (to me at least)

Land of course has value and implicitly backs the strength and power of a country (not the currency), but it is madness to suggest that it can back a currency successfully. Something much more uniform and universal such as gold, silver and other metals are much more sensible options to back a currency as their value is recognized absolutely anywhere in the world and has been throughout history. That's just the way it is.

youtu.be/SxTGW4Fz9Ds

Anyone else listening to this channel?
The world economy is looking very very bad.

On one side I welcome the happening but on the other I don't even want to know what kind of nightmare the economic meltdown and the NWO will bring (if it manages to get a hold).

My bank on the other hand mailed me a new credit card with a chip for quickly paying by holding it close to the reader.

I believe the German Rentenmark was used in 1923-24 to bring Weimar Germany out of hyperinflation, it was mostly land-backed.

A similar thing was tried in France but failed.

This is 'Dangerous Donald', otherwise known as 'Danger Don', otherwise known as MAGAman. He will make the economy much butter by removing friendly merchants and friendly merchant taxes. He will explain to America why their 'full' bag of potato chips can be opened to see like 4 chips in the bottom of a bag of preservative air, because of merchant economics. The global establishment considers Donald
DANGEROUS
Because he stands for JUSTICE and FREEDOM, where the GE stands for CORRUPTION and SLAVERY.

This man is your FRIEND.
He fights for FREEDOM.

Economy's inner contradiction summed up for you:

Good luck, humans.

...

Get with the current galactic common year you puny monkeys.

This is great, but the main cause of it all is not usury or bad central banks. These are simply consequences of the nature of economy itself and the way it shapes human social landscape as an infinite chase for profit.

close.
Nope. Just fair tariffs in response to other nations. Thus the tariffs might be high, but don't have to be.

jaymans.wordpress.com/2013/06/06/welcome-readers-from-portugal/

jaymans.wordpress.com/2015/07/07/national-prosperity/

thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2016/04/15/the-us-would-be-running-budget-surpluses-if-it-were-all-white/

thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2016/04/15/253/

A noticeable amount of problems with the economy can be traced to demographics.

Protectionism is a wrongheaded idea, it harms the GDP and it doesn't solve the technological unemployment problem. Are you ready to bring back Luddism too?

If you want to boost the middle class and you don't mind an interventionist solution, you are better off changing the tax code so that workers can increase their savings and buy stock from companies, so that they also benefit from the decreased cost of labor.

I don't need other countries putting our companies out of business and exporting our jobs overseas.

What does that have to do with anything?

Read Free Trade Doesn't Work by Ian Fletcher

I mean, it's not like protectionism doesn't work at all, it does bring back some jobs, for a while (until automation destroys them again), but virtually all economists will tell you that using tariffs to raise workers salaries is less efficient than simply paying the workers the difference with tax money taken from the very wealthy, who presumably benefit the most from free trade.

Most arguments against free trade are essentially about the distinction between the interests of workers (labor providers) and those of capitalists (owners of capital).

That's, by the way, the connection with Luddism. From an economic POV, a new trade partner is like a new technology. It's just a way to turn, say, crops into cars.

Even if working-class Americans were more harmed by free trade as workers than they are helped as consumers (which I don't think is the case), the obvious solution would be for middle class people to be part workers and part capitalists, so that their losses as workers (when they have to lower their salaries to compete internationally) are compensated with their increased capital gains. In practice, this doesn't mean they have to actually buy stock (that's their bank's job) it just means they need enough savings in their savings account so that, while they still have to work, a sizable part of their income is capital gains. This way, their interests are again aligned with the efficient use of capital, and they have nothing to fear from free trade, H1-B visas or increased automation.

I skimmed over it, especially the alleged rebuttals of Ricardo. I'll have to read it more calmly, but I found quite a few wrong assumptions about the "assumptions" of the RIcardian model. Such as "Dubious Assumption #4: Trade does not raise income inequality." That's NOT assumed! I also made a search in the book for "Ohlin" and got zero results. You can't discuss the effects of free trade in any technical depth without mentioning the Hecscher-Ohlin model.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heckscher–Ohlin_model

There's also discussion of long-term effects which are not specific of free trade, ie, they can be, and have been, used to defend central planning in general. They assume the government knows what's good for the people better than the people themselves do, and that it works in the best interest of the people better than they would by themselves. Same old.

Is that why nations that practice it do well and nations that don't lose their power and deindustrialize?

Britain became the world's most powerful economy… while practicing protectionism. Then they went for "free trade" (such a thing does not exist, just substitute "tariff abolition") and got fucked and deindustrialized while Germany and the US overtook them and became the first and second biggest industrial powers. Guess what they were practicing at the time. (Hint: it wasn't "free trade").

Explain how you come to the conclusion that a philosophy that has only led to the ruin of empires (for clarity, "free trade" ≠ free markets) is suddenly always good because it fits your theory? There is no country in history that has benefitted from "free trade." All growing industrial powers today use protectionism. All weakening and sickly powers (case in point: the US) practice "free trade." Funny how none of the supposed benefits of "free trade" have actually come to pass.

Your theory has no empirical backing, and thus is a completely useless theory.

It's also bunk in theory, because a free market cannot exist outside of one political realm with common laws, currency, and perhaps even people.

You're using economists as evidence? The same guys who have a worse prediction record than weathermen? Give me empirical evidence that this isn't bunk, not an argument from authority or an argument from consensus. I don't care how many economists have looked at the theory and said "Yes, that looks right," while never looking out the damned window.

Where does it say we can't have both? Both our trade and tax codes are fucked, and we need to fix both of them.

On Holla Forums we talk about the interests of the nation. This isn't Holla Forums. And "free trade" is certainly against national interest, not least from a national security perspective.

Is that why the US has record numbers of people not employed? And I mean the total number of people not working, not the bullshit "unemployed" statistic of the Federal Government that stops counting you as soon as you stop seeking work.

Yeah, who has anything to fear from brown hoards in the country?

What use is a model when it doesn't match up to reality? I know economists love their models, but basically none of the benefits they predicted have come to pass, rendering their judgement suspect and their advice worthless.

And yet you assume that the "consumer" is always right, with just as much evidence. That is: none.

I gave you evidence before, in that empires that follow your advice fail, and empires that do the opposite prosper and succeed. Economists and free-traders have exactly no empirical evidence for anything they suggest, and in fact have the opposite. It's because of bunk free-trade theory that Britain could have been starved to death by German u-boats in WWI. Because free trade had robbed them of agricultural independence. That's just one of many examples. Why do free-traders always assume there will be everlasting peace for their theories to work?

Silver is superior to gold. Know how it fucks up vampires due to it's purity? Same applies to the jew.

There's too much silver for them to corner it like they have gold, but there's also enough for the common man to have some form of wealth as well.

Fuck, that's a pretty good demolition of the Austrians and the closet-Austrian NRx crowd - though I wouldn't call it cuckoldry, since NRx types like Mencius "The Court Jew" Moldbug seem to think they'll be advisors to King Jeff Bezos the Third, CEO of United States Ltd

Actually, I'd say Free Trade is yet another scheme based on a Blank Slate narrative of humanity. In Free Trade World, a Dindu is totally the same as a Swede as so you should totally plot to call in hordes of Dindus. In Free Trade World, every nation has the same leanings regardless of national biology, so you can totally trust the Chinese.

I think the most important thing to do is to shrink the size of the government and put in place measures to keep the government to it's legitimate role.

This would involve decreasing the role the government plays in economic manipulation, as it always leads to one group of citizens being put before another.

I would support smaller more localized governance that can handle issues related to constituents they know and interact with.

Rebuilding the community is very important, so it rebuilding the family. This involves the dismantling of government incentives for single motherhood and unemployment.

If money gets its value from land, seems like it would foster a system of perpetual conquering and infinite annexation.

On one hand war for the money-handlers is always fucking retarded, but if its a system that encourages the genociding of inferior races off of their lands in favor of whites, sign me up.

If money gets its value from land, seems like it would foster a system of perpetual conquering and infinite annexation.

On one hand war for the money-handlers is always fucking retarded, but if its a system that encourages the genociding of inferior races off of their lands in favor of whites, sign me up.

Any third-world shitholes can implement protectionist policies, and many do, among other popular yet harmful economic policies.

The actual evidence I've seen is exactly opposite as you suggest. For instance:

heritage.org/research/reports/2015/12/2016-index-of-economic-freedom-yet-more-evidence-of-free-trades-benefits

But in general I prefer to focus on theoretical analysis, because there are so many other factors besides trade policy influencing a country's development. In general, a small country needs trade, while a big and resource-rich one can largely do without, but that doesn't make it a good idea.

You mean by practising colonialism? An actually isolated Britain would have remained a backwater.

What time period are you exactly talking about? Britain was dominated and impoverished by its very protectionist trade unions for a very long time.

There is no country in history that was harmed, in aggregatge, by lowering tariffs. All complaints have been about unequal dividends of trade.

Again, quite the contrary, but logical/mathematical consistency comes before any "data" are even discussed. That's how science works, any science. If your theory doesn't make sense theoretically, it can never be correct. Period.

The argument for free trade is unilateral and it works just as well whether the foreign trade partner is a model liberal democracy, a brutal dictatorship, robot country or zombieland.

And yet you ask me to believe in what some guy wrote in a book.

I don't have to give you specific examples, just look at the Heckscher-Ohlin model link I gave you. It predicts exactly what's happening in many first-world countries. The lowering of trade barriers, under some circumstances, can be bad for most workers in a specific country, but in that case it's good for capitalists in that country, which is pretty much what protectionists like Pat Buchanan claim. Are you seriously claiming that free trade is bad for big American corporations? That's why they push for it, right?

We can, but it would be a mistake. The benefits of free trade are that, in a bigger market, there's more opportunity for gains from the division of labor. If you can fix any adverse side effects by tweaking the tax code, why would you ruin it by erecting trade barriers?

The nation is made of people. The fat cats who benefit most directly and obviously from free trade are also American, so you have to be more specific. I assume that you vaguely want a strong and moderately wealthy middle class, and go on from there.

Military concerns are a bit beyond the scope of this analysis, but why exactly do you think so? Depending on the specific concerns, we can address them without using trade barriers.

That's because of the recession caused by the housing bubble bust and subsequent wrongheaded policies, combined with minimum wage and the welfare state. Nothing to do with free trade. Also, many people are working in the shadow economy.

I said "H1-B visas" and not "immigration", precisely because permanent immigration is a whole different issue.

(cont)

(cont)

The thing is, it does.

I don't, but you must be pretty naive to let the government tell you what your best interests are.

Easier said than done. Germany was in fact envious of Britain's colonial crop fields. For all practical purposes, they were part of Britain's territory, so it's a bit weird to claim that Britain had renounced its agricultural independence. At most, you can say that its food supply routes were not robust enough from a military standpoint, but that's a matter of opinon. In practice, you know, Germany lost the war.

I have, and while all of its criticisms are spot on, the multinational trade deals it criticizes are free trade in name only, its really a rigged statist game that grants unlimited arbitrage privilege to a few multinational corporations and elites and gives cheap labor countries like china unlimited access to the wealthiest consumer markets in the world (USA and Western Europe), while not reciprocating in the slightest, Japan does not allow us to export at all to their countries and most other nations involved in NAFTA, TPP, etc. have similar tariffs. These "free trade" agreements are anything but, it is just mercantilism making a comeback while Western negotiators (i.e. kikes) are too stupid/greedy/corrupt to recognize it as such. What kind of "free trade" agreement has 2000+ pages of regulations? The prescriptions of actual free trade are a sentence or two at most, enforce contracts, and protect private property, the end. Don't be fooled, TPP, NAFTA, etc. are not free trade at all, its like how neocohen congressmen can unironically say they support "free markets" while giving billions in subsidies and protection from competition to their corporate welfare clients.

This. Britian's official policy was mercantilism, the belief that trade is a zero-sum game so you have to fuck over the other guy as much as possible and take as much as you can from him. Britain's wealth was almost entirely from looting its colonies, or severely kiking other nations with usury, opium trade, etc. The SJW narrative that Western Civilization owes its prosperity at the expense of everyone else is partially true, at least for the British empire, and before you accuse me of being a shill/kike I should remind you that Britian is nothing but a Rothschilds vassal state, and the British are total objectively total cocksuckers, Burgers rebelled against them for very good reason after they tried to force the colonies under the heel of a Central Bank.

I would run it like anno 2070.

- Budget surplus with low to no debt.
- High re-investment in infrastructure and education.
- Most trade is conducted between cities, buying only what you can't produce yourself.
- Resources are seldom exported. Education and IP is kept on the cutting edge, so we not only engineer high quality, desireable products but every level of social stratification is involved in it's manufacture, from the guy who maintains the building facilities to the guy overseeing the IC laser soldering machines.
- Banks are nationalized.
- The government condones credit issuing bodies that lend money to other nations based on a fractional reserve banking model. However, even though it oversees the leverage and fraction ratio, it allows it to go as high as it wants, i.e. 20,000:1 or 100,000:1. However, only the government can lend to its own citizens. No bank can lend to our citizens. I would then set up organizations in other countries that would keep other politicians in line. So if there was ever a run on the banks, it wouldn't spark a war, rather, those who proposed my money lending scheme was "unethical" would be lebeled a crackpot, or racist etc. and I would continue to exploit them through collecting interest on lender money I made out of thin air.

You just completely side-stepped the point. I wasn't talking about third-world shitholes for a start; I was talking about massive empires and economic powerhouses. History proves time and again that protectionist nations prosper, while free-trade turns empires into dependencies. Secondly, if it is harmful why is it so popular? Nature roots out the weak and inefficient by virtue of outcompetition by the strong and efficient, and on the basis of that alone you have to think there is something to protectionism.

This paper needs its own post. Given below.

Not surprising, given that "free-trade" doesn't stand up in reality.

No. Colonialism had its hayday long after Britain reached its economic peak. Moreover, colonies added relatively little in terms of value by basically every measurement, rendering the notion of economic power being due to it completely moot. The two largest economic powers of the colonial era were the US and Germany. Both countries that had no overseas territories until after their industrial and economic growth had been strong for decades.

Yeah, an empire-less Britain would have been irrelevant, but it wouldn't have been industrially impotent, just like the empire-less Germany was the most feared power in Europe.

Up until their abolishing of tariffs in the 1820s, such as the Corn Laws. During the 1800s they steadily went from being the foremost industrial power to being third to Germany and the US.

Having the largest empire of the time and being the leader of industrial innovation is a funny way of saying "impoverished."

Is that why the US constantly has its national security undermined and has record unemployment? US defense companies are so dependent on foreigners now that China, Israel, and others continually steal secrets vital to the strength of the US military and US defense companies lobby against any action against this, because it would hurt them. When the US can't even stop doing business with countries that undermine our security, how is "free-trade" supposed to be good? This isn't even mentioning the huge trade deficits that appeared as soon as FTAs were signed, or the death of US industries as soon as tariffs went away. And I've already said something about how none of the supposed benefits of "free trade" have come to pass, given that the only people who seem to have benefited from it are the owners of industry. The average US citizen certainly hasn't felt any benefits.

Assuming that economic theory is sound (it very much isn't, as people have been pointing out for a century), it then follows that it must be compared to reality, where it falls flat on its face. Instead of revising theory, free-traders have simply plugged their ears and insisted the theory must be true.

That's a hell of an assumption. The basis of free markets is free competition, and you're delusional if you think I can start a business with an equal amount of ease anywhere in the world. Are you honestly telling me I could go to China, Mexico, or Pakistan and have just as easy a time starting a small business as I would in the US? You're nuts. Not only are the people radically different, so are the laws. There's a reason tax havens exist, or why Facebook has headquarters in fucking Ireland, or why basically no one starts any business in Russia. And, hell, some countries give out government funding to various industries. Do you honestly expect anyone to call that a "free-market"?

When have I mentioned any book? I'm stating things, not asking you to believe some guy. On the reverse, you're telling me to believe people who couldn't predict the behavior of a ball flying towards their faces.

So when I ask you for concrete evidence you give me a theoretical model? That's desperate. Look, name me one empire that grew powerful on "free-trade." I can name you country after country that has succeeded practicing some form of protectionism (not necessarily tariffs), but I have yet to hear even one example of a country that had a golden age during "free-trade."

I'm claiming exactly the opposite. They push for it because it allows them to undermine pesky things like "sovereignty," "laws," and "national borders." They are literally the only people to have benefited from "free-trade." They've gotten hugely rich off it.

I like how you've just assumed that "free-trade" is good because the model says it is. At least you provided something to be analyzed.

Which is undermined by unequal access to that labor and the fact that people can buy on other factors, allowing the possibility of an industrially impotent nation, which is bad for a number of reasons. Add to that the fact that this presumes that things like intelligence are not heritable (they are) and you end up with a shit situation of putting US workers on the same level as Mexicans or Mongolians, which is bad for the national health. I would rather have US workers richer than they should be at the expense of diminished profit margins for corporations than exist in a police-state forever on the brink of revolution by the unruly and dispossessed. The US economy is meant to work for Americans, no one else.

I would think it would be obvious that creating a super-wealthy class at the expense of everyone else is not working for the nation as a whole. Impoverishing one section of the nation to enrich another is not a good thing.

They really aren't. Economics is but one section of larger national policy, and it can't be examined on its own, since it has wide-ranging effects.

Foreign dependency (e.g. WWI Britain dependent on food from the US and almost starved to death), integration and loss of leverage (for instance, the extortion of the US taxpayer to make sure Mexico didn't collapse in the '90s, when a truly independent US would have been fine), decreased security (e.g. China forcing tech secrets out of US companies, easier espionage, etc.), and the necessary free movement of people.

No, we can't, given that they are caused by not having them. How are we to address the problems caused by free movement of labor without abolishing free movement of labor? How are we to address lack of independence without making sure our industries aren't outsourced no matter how much more competitive it might be?

Given that deindustrialization happened before 2008 and that the replacement with tech-sector jobs never happened, I highly doubt this. Given that the same thing has happened many other times throughout history, I highly doubt this. I'm not saying "free-trade" was the sole cause, but it's almost certainly a factor.

And we're supposed to be celebrating this breach of law?

H1-B visas are immigration. Do you honestly think we're getting Europeans via this method?

Not historically.

By the same logic you shouldn't like laws either, because it's the government telling you that you need to behave a certain way because it's in your best interest. There are pretty clearly times when the government does know and act in the group interest in a way you, as an individual, cannot see or do not want to ensure — that's why it exists at all.

I'm talking about the fact that they needed food from the US, not their colonies. It's one thing to ensure access to your own territory, entirely another thing to be forced to defend foreign land, trade-routes, and ships because you depend on them.

They were close to winning it, and only lost because the US entered. Entirely irrelevant to the discussion of free-trade though, except for the tangentially related fact that Germany was only so powerful and able to stand against the rest of Europe only because it didn't practice "free-trade."

Now for that article.

First of all, most obviously, it's a propaganda piece. It's so obviously biased in so many ways. It doesn't even try to be objective, as evidenced by how many times it praises "free-trade" or tells you how good or necessary it is. It's laughable that the only evidence they present to support this are things like "most economists agree…" or "this economist said…" Now, that doesn't mean I'll dismiss it out of hand, but you must realize this is far from an objective source.

Next is that it treats correlation as causation. Correlation can certainly imply causation, but based on the methods and proofs they've used it's unlikely.

Then there's the fact that the first things they list as "benefits" of "free-trade" is that world trade increased and "trade freedom" increased, which is simply laughable. That's like saying socialism is good because it increases the amount of socialism. It's not a confidence builder when that's their opening. "Trade volume" is not at all an indicator of prosperity. If I buy a toaster from China that I used to buy from the US that's an increase in trade volume even though nothing has changed except where the value is created.

Then there's the foolish comparison of trade between countries that puts Somalia and the US on the same tier, such as with this:
Nothing at all suggests that's because of "free-trade" and I'm sure that if you looked at a list of these countries with higher-per-capita incomes, lower rates of hunger, and cleaner environments before and after "free-trade" they would be identical. Comparing a nation of Europeans to a nation of Africans and then concluding that the difference is because of "free-trade" is lunacy. I'd be more convinced if they kept that same correlation between "trade freedom" when analyzing only European countries.

Man, and they just go on and on about how not having "free-trade" is bad because you don't have "free-trade," don't they? The US is supposedly "lagging" because trade is a smaller percentage of GDP, but that's a big like saying a company isn't progressive enough because it's still only 30% African. That is: it's a meaningless measure completely detached from reality, instead indicating nothing more than moral inferiority. A country isn't "lagging" because it doesn't depend on trade as much, and the fact that they assert otherwise is indicative of the fact that they see it as moral, rather than practical.

Then there's this:
Which is supported not by GDP figures, employment figures, GDP/capita figures, or anything of the sort. No, it's supported by an accompanying graphic of international trade. This whole thing is just chock full of circular reasoning.

More moral pandering, not supported by evidence at all, not even correlative evidence.

Then they finally present some evidence, the economic growth of Asia. This is pretty sad evidence for a number of reasons. Firstly, emerging from the depressive state of communism or retard policies that keep you below your threshold is not indicative of growth because of "free-trade." Second of all, this overlooks the fact that essentially all Asian miracle countries are essentially protectionist in some way, either because of actual tariffs, hidden dissuasions or penalties, or quiet laws and government programs. Japanese car sales, for example, are almost entirely Japanese (above 98% IIRC), and its hard to say this is because of the huge competitive power of Japanese auto-manufacturers when they are losing market-share everywhere else in the world. And, as said before, I and most people would find it borderline impossible to start a small business anywhere in Asia. This also ignores the fact that most Asian growth came from the looting of US industry.

They then have a list of FTAs that they tacitly tell you are good, among them the TPP, TTIP, and the WTO. This isn't an economic indictment of "free-trade," it's a political one. Those agreements have robbed nation-states of sovereignty, and if that isn't a warning against the pernicious ideology of "free-trade" I don't know what is.

I'll finish off with the absurdly loaded question that, unsurprisingly, ended with only 9% in favor of protectionism:
Wow, and only 9% said "Yes" to protectionism on that question? You don't say!

TL;DR: It's a collection of blind assertion after blind assertion, essentially just arguing that "free-trade" is good because economists say so and it leads to the good things they've assumed it does. The closest it ever comes to evidence is when it touches on actual data, but then explains that away by equating correlation with causation without any reason to do so.

Given that this is what free-traders advance to promote their ideology, is it any wonder that I'd be dismissive of their claims?

Well, at least you realize the disgusting agenda advanced in the name of "free-trade." Most free-traders claim that facing a one-way tariff into Japan but not out of Japan is a free market, which is laughable. I'd extend it further, however, to say that you can't have a free market without common laws and common currency, otherwise you end up with people getting rich not because they are more competitive but because they can game the system and exploit the loopholes the best.

I've never seen any evidence for this. The closest thing I can think of is the Indian saltpeter trade, but colonialism was almost across the board a loss for pretty much everyone except the natives.

That's also side-stepping the fact that Britain had reached its relative industrial peak before the heyday of colonialism, and that despite increasing colonialism it became less powerful and was eclipsed by two non-colonialist nations. Coincidentally this was also when it started practicing "free-trade."

1. If you have a gold-backed currency then the value of your currency can be increased or decreased by the countries that produce gold. Which happen to be South Africa and Russia. Want them controlling your money supply?

2. If you have an intelligent comment to make then make it. Otherwise your Chaim, Shlomo, Shill responses will just get filtered and you'll be talking to yourself.

Has anyone got that screenshot of the post explaining how national debt works?

And you missed my point, which is, if protectionism were such a magic prosperity bullet, we would see third-world shitholes pull themselves out of poverty by practicing it, because it's trivially easy to implement, unlike, say, improvements in technology, education, productivity and so on.

I dunno. If socialism doesn't work, why is it so popular? If Islam is retarded, why are there so many Muslims? If the American media industry is anti-white, why do whites support it? If junk food is bad for your health, why do so many people eat it? How about cigarettes?

More to the point, many free-trade advocates have done a poor job addressing or even understanding people's concerns. To some extent, some also fail to understand the underlying tradeoffs and conflicting interests. It's far from trivial. Some of the effects of free trade "feel wrong" (like, "if Robinson Crusoe would celebrate this, why do these workers decry it?"), but that's also true of the effects of new technology. Eventually I came to conclude that the only way to harmonise the interests of workers and capitalists withing a free-market society is for people to be both workers and capitalists (to a similar extent that they would be as land owners in an idealised primitive economy) and that savings are a proxy for the latter.

It does stand up, but the same hard data can be used to defend widely opposing views, particularly in economics, where there are no controlled experiments.

Not just irrelevant, it wouldn't have been nearly as rich without the cheap raw materials imports. Britain could focus on industrial development precisely because it didn't have to worry about agriculture.

You mean the 3rd Reich? Being feared doesn't prove much. North Korea is feared. A monkey with a razor blade is feared.

I see. Lots of things happened during that time period: the Industrial Revolution, American independence, American industrialization, the French Revolution, the Napoleonic wars, the abolition of black slavery.. all of them having a big (in some cases huge) economic impact. In comparison, the repeal of Corn Laws was a minor factor, and I don't see any clear evidence that it was bad for Britain. It was bad for farmers, but it was good for manufacturing workers. Yes, many farmers emigrated, mainly to the US and other former colonies, but that's not a bad thing. The anglosphere as a whole became more efficient, and this network of alliances and economic cooperation also had strategic military value for Britain, as seen during WW1 and WW2.

I was mostly thinking of the UK after WW2 when I mentioned the crippling effects of trade unions.

The unemployment thing, as I said, is a product of the boom-bust cycle caused by central banking, rather than international trade.

That's another matter. Trade with potentially hostile countries is a complex issue, there are advantages (like reducing the likelihood of war) and disadvantages (less room for diplomatic pressure), which are in fact two sides of the same coin. But trade with friendly countries doesn't pose such problems, and yet free trade opponents are against that too.

(cont)

(cont)

In some cases, it makes sense to eliminate those industries. For instance, high-pollution industries. If the Chinese don't mind the pollution, let them have it. Other industries, I agree that people shouldn't be forced to get a college degree just to be employable (college is another bubble, BTW). I do see a reason for concern when American manufacturing workers become unemployed, but it should be seen in a wider context that also includes technological unemployment. Instead of tariffs, it would make far more economic sense, and it would be a more general solution, for American workers to have some of their income as capitalists.

Well, they have benefited from cheaper consumer goods. If your job is not of the kind being outsourced, you benefit greatly.

thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2016/05/09/debunking-a-denier-part-3-race-and-history/

thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2016/04/15/the-wealth-of-colonizers-or-lack-thereof/

Go post your SJW trash somewhere else.

thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2016/05/09/debunking-a-denier-part-3-race-and-history/

thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2016/04/15/the-wealth-of-colonizers-or-lack-thereof/

Go post your SJW trash somewhere else.

Double post. Whoops.

On the contrary, even RIcardo's original model is "sound". The problem is, it's only realistic for an economy of independent self-employed producers, because it assumes only one factor of production: labor. That's why it was later refined into more complex models, like the heckscher–ohlin model, which considers labor and capital, and several other models. Heckscher-Ohlin is complex enough to reflect the complaint that, at least in the short run, capitalists may benefit while (all) workers may be harmed by free trade (or vice versa, depending on details). So it's not like economists deny that possibility. They just say that the benefits outweight the losses, that every kind of economic progress leaves winners and losers, and that the issue should be to what extent the winners should compensate the losers. For instance, see:

oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2016/03/case_for_free_trade_confirmed.html

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compensation_principle

Not at all, see above.

No, that's what economists mean by "the case for free trade is unilateral".

No such assumption is made.

Nope.

No, the "free market" we are discussing is the American market. China might as well be a black box that gobbles American crops and spits out cars and other consumer products. That's how economist analyse whether free trade is good or bad for Americans at the most abstract level. That's why it's often likened to new technology. Of course, the analysis can also be more detailed and more specific to the foreign country we are worried about, but most general conclusions about free trade are reached before that stage.

Because the model is compatible with all the observed facts protectionists bring up, such as massive damage to the American working class, while corporations get richer than ever. Why discard it and start over, then?

Sorry, it was someone else ITT. He recommended the book "Free trade doesn't work", by Ian Fletcher. It's in the list of Holla Forums recommended books. I skimmed through it and I may read it at a later time, but I'm not impressed by its intended rebuttals of Ricardo et al. Its historical notes and arguments may be interesting, though.

Some of the examples you give are often cited as examples of free markets and free trade success. There are too many concomitant factors to decide one way or the other.

Good. I'm claiming that changing the tax code so that the gains from free trade are enjoyed by more Americans makes far more sense than eliminating those gains.

That model, and more complex ones, are used by economists to analyse and discuss the effects of free trade. So far, their conclusions are against protectionism, all things considered.

As I said, trade barriers are not the only, or the best, way to preserve American jobs. American workers can afford to lower their wages if they don't have to pay so much in taxes and/or they have an additional source of income (such as capital gains from their savings). Think of it as something like an UBI, but so small that people still have to work.

That seems a wise choice. You can get there without protectionism.

I agree.

freenortherner.com/2016/05/08/economic-options/
archive.is/x0Go0

...

It's better to make the goals explicit. Speaking of "the nation as a whole" is sometimes a useful shorthand, but it can also be misleading. For instance, if every citizen agrees that the nation should be split in two, that's good for every person involved, but bad for "the nation as a whole", because it dies and two new nations are born. Some nationalists would defend the interests of "the nation" even at the expense of every citizen.

But it's really a different debate. If your argument for protectionism is national security, then you can accept that protectionism is economically worse than free trade, and count the loss as a form of military spending. And then we can compare it to alternative strategies, such as free trade, war-proof international agreements and a powerful army to enforce them. Or free trade with a network of powerful allies. That's exactly how Britain won both world wars.

A legitimate concern, but there's, on the other hand, the beneficial effect of alliances, mentioned above. It's a tradeoff.

I wasn't aware of that political development. It doesn't sound very "free" to me, and I wouldn't advocate it. If Mexico falls, the US should simply seek other trade partners or switch to internal production.

Again, there are complex tradeoffs along the isolation-engagement axis, but free trade with allies should be fine.

Why do you think it's necessary? Trade is good in itself, you don't need to combine it with migrations.

They are caused by a combination of factors. I discussed the tradeoffs and alternatives above.

But not the mass unemployment.

Boom-bust cycles also have.

Yes, and there's an interplay of both factors. My point is, it's far from trivial to know how America would be if it had a good banking system and free trade, or if it had a boom-bust cycle and trade protectionism.

No, but it has an impact on the actual unemployment rate.

It's my understanding that H1-B visas are temporary, ie, the workers don't get to stay, become citizens, vote, and so on. If that's indeed how they work, that's a crucial difference in comparison with permanent immigration. If that's not how they work, then they can be lumped with regular immigration.

No, I'd say it's mostly Indians. Just a guess.

No, I support the laws because they limit what others can do to me. I accept the price of having limits on what I can do (to others), but that's just the price I pay, not the goal. That's not like asking the government to remove freedoms from me, to tell me what to do with my money, as a goal in itself.

(cont)

(cont)

Logistically is not that different. A sea is a sea. If your land is not continuous, you have the same problem.

And the US entered because it had close ties, including trade, with Britain and other European countries. So, trade with the US helped Britain.

It's relevant because trade had an impact on the alliances.

So the German people were not superior in any way? They weren't smarter, worked harder..? Are you saying its whole strenght was based on something as mundane and burgeois as trade policy? Hitler would hang you for this :^)

Besides, Germany entered WW1 and WW2 obsessed with lebensraum, ie, land and natural resources. Doesn't sound like they were comfortable with being isolated in their land as it was.

Bamp for quality

lol, cool meme 3/10
Don't mention the fiat money

I'm into forex but I trade bitcoin.

tradingview.com/chart/BTCUSD/

bitmex.com/
Here you can use leverage.

testnet.bitmex.com/login
Paper trading version.

still waiting for it to get back to 470+

That isn't my point. My point is that ‘’”free trade”’’ is not a magic prosperity bullet. Protectionism at worst empirically has no detrimental effects when implemented rationally, but that doesn't mean that it will create prosperity or is always needed for it.

This is flawed reasoning. The third-world couldn't pull themselves up even when given modern industry (as decolonialism proved), so the fact that protectionism hasn't helped them is a non-point. Applying what works or doesn't in the third-world has basically nothing to do with the first.

Not all of those are applicable, as we're talking about vastly different timescales. Many of those things you mentioned will cause the people who practice them (and thus the practice itself) to die out, whereas something like protectionism has had centuries to prove detrimental and yet has not done so. Moreover, to be an accurate criticism this must assume there is only one way to survive (the civilized or "optimal" way), which is false. This allows things like Islam and socialism to be sub-optimal without being detrimental. Now it could very well be the case that protectionism is a sub-optimal way of doing things, but that isn't my point. My point is two-fold: firstly that, contrary to the claims of economists, protectionism is not detrimental to the economic wellbeing of a country, and secondly that "free-trade" (again despite the claims of economists) is detrimental, small effect or no.

Not by most evidence. Again, none to little of the benefits that "free-trade" was promised to bring have not materialized, and to the extent they have they are far from solely attributable to "free-trade." Most would probably be more attributable to technology or previous wealth.

A product of empire is hardly anything to do with "free-trade." Having agricultural colonies is far from the same thing as buying your food from foreign powers.

That's an argument for lebensraum, not "free-trade."

No, I meant second, when the German states overtook Britain in industrial and economic power, and then posed enough of a threat to Europe for France, Britain, and Russia to get cozy, when all had been historical enemies and recently at war. Your point about being feared is, frankly, facetious when it is general knowledge what a formidable power Germany was after unification, as proved during two world wars. Comparing them to North Korea is being dishonest.

(cont.)

My point wasn't just about the Corn Laws. Those were just the first in the British era of "free-trade," which was my point. During that era the British lost their supremacy. While it could be due to loss of territory, that seems unlikely given that they massively expanded the empire. All those other events also happened to other countries and yet did not have the effect of lessening their power, which would rule them out as causing Britain's.

I think you're using the word "alliances" a bit too loosely there. Calling your colonies who are technically under your rule "allies" is really a stretch. The only real ally was the US, and I wouldn't attribute that alliance to "free-trade."

That was after a century of "free-trade" policies, loss of territory, and really doesn't have anything to do with "free-trade."

The fact that other countries have been practicing very un-free trade against us and effectively industry-poaching would speak against that. Moreover, there is no way to definitively prove that it was solely due to central banking.

All countries are potentially hostile. To become dependent on any is the height of foolishness.

Literally has never happened. Trade has never reduced the threat of war; if anything it's increased it. Most of the major wars have been between dependent trading partners.

Because the only nation guaranteed to be friendly is one that you control entirely. And then it's no longer a separate country, rendering the notion of "international trade" nonapplicable.

The only actual benefit of international trade is either if you're trying to undermine a country or trying to merge two countries. Completely unrestricted trade between the US and Canada would be a first stepping stone to merging them, for example.

Some. Not all. I agree with killing off obsolete industries, but we don't do that by exporting them.

You could have chosen a better example. Exporting the pollution doesn't help anyone; we still have to share the planet, and incentive to solve the problem amongst people who have the ability to has been greatly diminished. That's like claiming any moral problem with profiting from slavery is absolved so long as you profit indirectly. Out of sight and out of mind doesn't solve the problem.

Not provable, and to the extent that it is it is mainly attributable to technology.

You're not selling it very well. Something doesn't become "okay" so long as it hurts other people instead of you.

I wasn't even just talking about Ricardo's model, I'm talking about how shaky the whole of modern economics is in so many ways. But I'm not about to have a whole debate on that topic. At any rate, there are many pertinent criticisms which are easy to find, and even a cursory analysis makes obvious how shaky economics is. I'd recommend the book Debunking Economics, as it does a lot to critique neoclassical economics.

And, to state again clearly, I'm not arguing theory here. I'm arguing real world results, and real world results don't support "free-trade." Even an examination of facts doesn't support the theory, to the large extent. How is trade supposed to be "free" when it undergoes a tariff one way but not the other? How is it supposed to be free when there are differing levels of government interference within the "international market"? Even within the framework of its own theory "free-trade" in the majority of cases should not be practiced, and yet duplicitous economists promote it universally anyway.

That doesn't refute what I said at all. Facts clearly do not support the theory as-is (which as many dissenting economists have noted is not even sound in the first place), and the current state of it has not addressed this. Minor revisions that still leave it as an inaccurate model of the real world do not prove the willingness of free-traders to learn.

If you don't make that assumption, then that allows the possibility for monopoly. Competition is fundamental to current economics, and you cannot guarantee lower prices without competition.

Industries don't just spring up out of the ground, and to let yourself be led to that point is profoundly stupid. You'll end up with civil unrest and possibly revolution before you can develop anything to stop it. To leave yourself vulnerable to that for the sake of theoretically (but not empirically) cheaper goods is boneheaded.

Compatible and yet it fails to accurately predict national economic success. A fully racial analysis disregarding economics entirely would give a more accurate result than current economics.

For the reasons given above, but also, and perhaps more importantly, because it is used to enshrine and defend this ridiculous state of affairs. "Free-trade" whatever way you spin it is incompatible with the notion of national sovereignty, and national sovereignty trumps theoretically cheaper toys.

And that would be dishonest citation in the majority of cases, especially when the "free-trade" is only after the majority of wealth and power generation.

If you cannot decide between the two why state with such certainty the ridiculous proposition that protectionism kills countries when the only "evidence" for such a conclusion comes from a model which wouldn't even support it?

I'd rather go for something that's worked in practice, rather than something that can only be proven to be good in theory. Given a choice of living in protectionist or post-protectionist America (disregarding technology, racial issues, and culture), I know which I'd prefer.

All things except the real world. And, again, even within current economics there is nothing conclusive against protectionism. The best you might say is that, according to the theory, it is less efficient, but that's a bit like saying that because not everyone drives a Ferrari they must have absolutely terrible driving lives.

And there is nothing that says you can't choose both them and other measures.

And it would be even better if they didn't lower their wages and paid less in tax. Why fumble for a new theoretical solution when there is a tried and true method?

I can also defend myself against a burglar without a gun, but a gun makes things safer and easier. Why wouldn't I choose the gun?

Only if you accepted the premise of debating protectionism on purely economic grounds, which would be foolish. Economics as a whole should never be argued on purely economic grounds, because that would make it useless.

That is one of the benefits of it, not the only benefit. Or, more accurately, it is one of the weaknesses of "free-trade," which I am criticizing.

I accept no such thing, only that "free-trade" has observable and significant detriments whilst only having theoretical benefits. I don't have to conclude that "free-trade" is economically beneficial in order to say that it erodes national sovereignty. That makes no sense.

You either erode national sovereignty or you don't. "Free-trade" erodes national sovereignty — that is unquestionable — and there doesn't need to be anything said besides that. To extend it further as you are doing is to go past any criticisms of "free-trade" and into a different area entirely.

Trade does the opposite of ensuring peace, especially "free-trade."

International agreements erode national sovereignty and are not war-proof. Moreover, you're a fool if you believe any international agreement is "war-proof." This also has made the tacit assumption that war is bad, or that peace is the end goal, which it isn't. My criticism was that "free-trade" is an irrational policy to survive conflict, not that it is an irrational strategy to prevent conflict. A desire to be able to win wars is not the same as a desire for never fighting them.

No, globalism is cancer. How is "create an international police force" the solution to "stop the erosion of national sovereignty"?

That's just a precursor to forming a larger country of the constituent parties, which is really just a way of saying "acquire more resources." It's a legitimate strategy, but irrelevant to the discussion.

Britain's allies weren't due to trade, for a start, and "not dying" hardly counts as "winning." The US and USSR won the war; Britain survived it.

It's a cost with no benefit. Dependency doesn't cause alliance; it's more likely to do the opposite. Interdependency included.

Yeah, that's the thing, that isn't an option with "free-trade." "Free-trade" — as you pointed out — causes interdependencies, to the point that if the Mexican currency had collapsed it would have taken the dollar with it. That's the situation that allowed Mexico's extortion. An independent US would have been able to seek the goods it wasn't reliant on elsewhere, but "free-trade" prevented such an ability. Similar things are going on right now with US currency reserves held by foreign nations, and because of "free-trade" we can't afford to say "no."

That sounds pretty protectionist, mate.

I have yet to look into the full arguments, but a preliminary one I would make is that if you cannot freely trade the resource of labor (according to economic theory) then it isn't truly free-trade. That's a definitional argument, and another I would make is that in order to realize the full (supposed) benefits of free-trade, labor and other resources must be allowed to freely flow so that they can wind up where they are most efficiently utilized.

Yes, it did. Unemployment grew substantially after 2008, but it was already thriving and healthy beforehand.

And what's your point? "Free-trade" has almost certainly caused unemployment, loss of wealth, etc., etc. in previous times (without busts or booms, I might add), rendering your statement irrelevant.

(cont.)

Now that's a false dichotomy if I've ever seen one. Historically we know what the US looked like with protectionism and a decent banking system (amazing) and what it looked like with a central banking system and "free-trade" (terrible). You cannot conclude from this information how influential each of those factors individually were.

How have you managed to remain uncynical? Letting them in on any basis these days is effectively permanent immigration.

Any presence of nonwhites at all is bad and should not be celebrated or encouraged.

Nonwhites, at any rate.

Good thing tariffs are discretionary then. Your criticism more aptly applies to income tax.

Yes, which is an argument against having a far-flung empire instead of a close-knit one. It's not an argument promoting the inevitable foreign dependence of "free-trade."

That wasn't why the US entered at all. US trade was barely anything, and (without being too cynical) the sinking of US vessels and the killing of sailors was more motivation for war than any lost revenue. Add to that rumblings from Mexico and you've got a Congressional declaration of war. To be fully cynical, though, the US entered the war mainly because vested interests encouraged them to, and outrage about killings was merely justification. I'd be surprised if concern over lost revenue even factored in.

Being independent would have helped more, and the US would have entered without any trade at all, in all likelihood.

A minor and likely irrelevant impact.

I'm saying that their chosen system of trade didn't detriment them, and might even have helped them. To claim that Germany became second in the world in spite of protectionism seems absolutely ridiculous.

I'm neither a NatSoc nor a Germanophile. They were merely the relevant example to contrast to Britain, being roughly the same size and composition and character.

That's hardly the same thing as trade.

Holla Forums doesn't have an eco thread often, but when it does, it's great.
Bump for relevant elaborated opinions.

They are actually the same thing. If you don't have free trade you are regulating the market and there is no free market. These are both Ricardian pillars that have these lame and manipulative qualifiers. Whatsamatter? Doncha like freedom?

What we had in Adam Smith's day was pure theory though based on his nation wrecking moral philosophy (even Smith was a globalist who hated his own people; basically a proto-Communist). What we have under Neoliberal trade policy is the recognition that Free Trade is a nation wrecking policy and that's why its' implemented.

You are right, but it doesn't need to be as the "Free Market" acts as a eugenic filter which preferences people with the inborn traits that are conducive to Shopkeeper Morality and so over time will diminish other types. Of course the problem being that it doesn't do it at the same rate everywhere, and it doesn't effect those societies that don't practice it resulting in Capitalist societies having filled up with atomized xenophiles. Other societies still have their members with a warrior mentality that have sharp friend/foe recognition ability and police the boundaries of the ingroup and rule over their roost. Soon they will be ruling our roost as well unless these bourgeois fuckwits can be put on a leash again.

Bingo! Economics as a field is not a science. It should be properly categorized as a department of moral philosophy. A scientific field cannot make normative ethical claims (what is 'best' or 'desirable') which Economics does as its' raison d'etre.

Economics as a field is inherently universalist and globalist. Adam Smith opposed notions of national honor, and had this Liberal pacifistic superstructure that dictates "war" (read: basically all violence) only happens between national governments and his entire schema is essentially an "anti-war" one. Our current model of "diversity" spins off from this 19th century Liberal reasoning.

No, they aren't. An international market is vastly different from a domestic market. One does not require the other to be free.

That begs the question of what "the market" is, and any sensible answer to that will begin by differentiating between that which is inside the nation-state and that which is not.

This is all obfuscation anyway, because we're only arguing about terms.

I will tepidly ask you to explain your reasoning.

Hey, that's what I've been arguing.

You're preaching to the choir here.

How so? I suppose it depends how you define economics, but economics I see it doesn't (shouldn't) have a moral aspect.

Definitionally they are. If people aren't free to do with their capital what they please it isn't a free market. That includes trading internationally. The restrictions on any trade at all by a government precludes the existence of a Free Market.

I'm not making a normative claim here. I'm saying what it is, not what it should be.

It is in fact, but not under Economic Liberalism which dictates that multiple markets only exist either due to regulation or technological/geographic barriers. Free Trade and Free Market are different policy names that mean the same thing and come out of the same framework.

Yeah, but the existence of "nation-states" isn't a part of the field of Economics under are viewed as pernicious and undesirable entities that should be abolished under the philosophy of Economic Liberalism, so even asking the question isn't Economics and asking the question to Liberal philosophers basically gets the answer "Fuck off".

We are only arguing about terms but those terms actually have meanings and if you let people push this "Free Market" term you are just leaving the door open to "Free Market" arguments which include the whole of Economic Liberalism. You've got to take the fight to its' root otherwise you are just trying to offer a rational critique to a group of sophistical fanatics whose views aren't amendable to reason. If you are pushing the term "Free Market" as something good you are basically allowing them a rhetorical foothold to larger audiences, which is really what this discussion is about. They are free to use their rhetoric to the public while your highfalutin dialectic directed towards them is the only argument that stands. They can still point to their own critics on the Right who admit that "Free Markets" are "good" while "Free Market" is just a byword for the entire Neo-Liberal platform. Domestic market liberalization needs an entirely new nomenclature which separates it from the Liberal prescriptions of the past.

You can read The Wealth of Nations for yourself. It is anything but an economics text and reveals that his economics are deeply rooted in philosophical Liberalism and takes it to new heights. He claims that Economic Liberalism is impossible in his contemporaneous Britain because of a moral system which promotes notions of national belonging and honorable behavior which wasn't conducive to economic activity being the sole organizing principle of the world, and his system is beyond merely international. He's basically describing his ideal human being as the New Soviet Man. The first Capitalists were lunatics of the far left. Adam Smith and his fellow travelers lost these moral arguments initially but the narrative came to become that "it's just science dude" like we see with so many leftist normative moral claims. Of course it is clear that these economists are putting forward a moral system as their first principle and the economics are the tool to their implementation. Marxism is a critique of Liberalism, not a sweeping away and building on a new foundation. The critique being that Liberalism doesn't deliver the good, but Marxist and Liberals indeed always wanted the same goods delivered in the end.

It shouldn't, but it was founded upon those morals which basically aren't amendable because moral philosophy isn't a part of the field. Similar to how materialist philosophies are inherently not a part of theology. Which is why you get those kinds of tautological constructs that you rebutted up thread like "Free Trade is good because it results in trade freedom!".

...

Like an idiot.

Holla Forums is a fucking retard when it comes to anything money related, economics, or finance. That's why they sit in their basements pretending to be rain man when they can't rain man out of shit.

Getting economics advice on here is like trying to pos your neg hole.

No gold standard. Instead of choosing something for legal tinder let standards of exchange be determined by the domestic free market.

Free domestic markets, free banking, and competing currencies (with any government issued currency consisting of specie ONLY, no notes backed by gold or otherwise). No regulations, only fair and even enforcement of laws against murder, fraud, assault (including assault on the lungs by air pollution, etc), destruction of property (including via dumping/pollution, etc). Would further allow homesteading and private ownership of land under water. Making those lands private property would create an incentive to keep them clean and prosecute/sue polluters.

No government entity is allowed to issue debt. They are to maintain treasuries from which they will fund any expenditures or public works projects. Taxes on income are forbidden at all levels, as are property taxes. If local and state governments want to raise money, they must do it through other means, like use taxes, poll taxes, or sales taxes.

I would have high tariffs as a default, but with any cooperative nation that adopts policies similar to ours getting access to our markets at a reduced rate or free (our companies must also have the same level of access to their markets).

In addition, for government funding, I would have our military act as a defense oriented mercenary force. As such, soldiers would be much more highly paid, with vets expected to pay their own way after they get out (though there would be workman's comp or equivalent PRIVATE insurance if they are injured or maimed in battle). Will also lease out nuclear deterrents to even the tiniest of nations. This will end war while also pulling a huge amount of income into the US–probably equal to 1-2% of world GDP.

If you have to ask if it's a scam, it's a scam.

Wrong. Your economy's NOMINAL size might be limited, but the real size is measured by the goods it produces. Prices simply fall as more goods are produced. Literally the only alternative is having a (((parasitic class))) that literally steals all production gains via redistribution (in our case, by money printing and distribution of said currency to (((them))).

You can't back currency with land. Land isn't fungible. France tried to do this and it was a spectacular failure.

Deflation is a bad thing. I don't know why you goldbugs think it's amazing.

That's a flat-out lie. You know it's possible for a currency to keep the same value instead of inflating or deflating, right?

I suppose that gets into an argument over how free someone can actually be in practice. I do not believe there can be any such thing as a free international market because it is not an even playing field; it's a battlefield. There is no higher that makes sure people play by the rules, and when they don't it's not a free market anymore. I just really don't see how you could possibly have a free international market. Sure, in theory you could have it, but in practice it would be improbable to the point of not being worth considering. And if you've accepted that free international markets are an impossibility, defining them as necessary for any sort of "free market" makes no sense and renders the phrase useless. The only truly useful and sensible use of the term "free market" is in regards to a domestic market.

It must be noted too that this is only under a particular definition of free market. Other people (including myself) do not define it so, making this discussion fairly useless.

I suppose that's how they define it, but it's a definition I object to, given how vague the term "market" is.

While true, that's a bit meaningless. It's like saying that National Socialism leaves the door open for Marxist socialism.

Amen to that.

Ah, I see what you're getting at. This is actually something I've been thinking about a bit, although more in regards to the term "interest." It seems foolish to me to put compound gains on bank savings and irrationally increasing debt on the same plane by calling them both "interest." One makes money itself, the other is merely a device to cheat people into slavery.

Go open your border to beaners and dindus.

In the examples you bring up there's a plethora of other factors (already mentioned) influencing the economy, other than trade policy. Your emphasis on trade policy makes me think you see it as the main factor.

Protectionism never helps make a country richer. Never. At best, it can change income distribution in a politically convenient way, but that's a silly and wasteful way to achieve something which can be achieved with fiscal policy or just a one-time wealth transfer, without the inconvenient side-effects of trade barriers.

Depending on details like the size, population and resources of the nation, protectionism can be from suboptimal to fatal.

No, I said "if protectionism were such a magic prosperity bullet" (which it isn't) you would see its beneficial effects in third-world countries too.

A legacy of modern infrastructure is useless without the political-economic environment to maintain and expand it. See how fast the resource-rich Venezuela is plunging into poverty.

Third-world shitholes fail precisely because they DON'T implement the policies that work. The main source of poverty are constant tribal wars or the threat thereof (yes, war is bad for business), pervasive crime and corrupt governments with shortsighted confiscatory policies. Of course, culture and average IQ play a big role, but mainly to the extent that they determine the political-economic environment. That's precisely why many of those countries were much better off under colonial rule, even though the workers were the same people.

I'm not sure what you mean by "detrimental" here. Islam and socialism needn't be fatal, but they sure are detrimental (ie, harmful) to any society. Also, if you have two options (free trade Vs protectionism) what's the difference between calling one of them "suboptimal" and calling it "detrimental" in comparison to the other one? I'm guessing you call it "suboptimal" when it achieves what it sets out to do (even if there are better ways to do it), and "detrimental" when it fails to do so. But then it depends on what the stated goal is. For instance, a radical Islamic government does achieve its goal if that goal is just shariah, but if they think shariah will bring prosperity, they will fail miserably. Socialism may succeed in getting rid of wealth inequality (in practice not even that, quite the contrary) but only by making everyone poor. Protectionism makes a country less economically dependent on the outside, but that doesn't mean it makes it wealthier, stronger or safer from foreign attacks, in comparison with a policy of free trade, with an adequate military and foreign policy.

How do you know how much each factor contributed? So, you bring up examples of protectionist "success" and free trade "failure" while ignoring such details as the Industrial Revolution and several others I mentioned, but then if you see a country doing well under free trade, you are quick to dismiss it out of hand as something caused by other factors. That's one reason I haven't even bothered to bring up such examples, so abundant in economic history, at least according to the mainstream narrative. I'll just say I haven't seen a country celebrate a trade embargo.

When Britain had a huge empire, it didn't need free trade with outside parties that much. But once its colonies became independent, trade became the only way to obtain relatively cheap agricultural products, so that workers could focus on manufacturing.

That's an argument for cheap crops. Getting more lebensraum is easier said than done, but any government can change its trade policy.

(cont)

(cont)

Okay, I can't comment much on that period, except to say that Germany was undergoing its own Industrial Revolution. Much of the economic boost came preciseley from the abolition of tariffs and other trade barriers between the several states. You will object that this was part of a nation-building project, but the point remains that a bigger market (other factors being equal) is more efficient.

It's not a point about Germany of that time period, it's a (minor) point about your usage of "being feared" as a metric of wealth and success. Of course I'm not comparing Germany with North Korea. Don't be so touchy ;^)

Not only was he right, but even worst: nobody ever understood him; that's literally what the Left is for: making everything subversive Marx wrote (the Jewish Question, Das Kapital, critic of the Gotha Program, etc.) look like retarded progressive shit. It's either been mistranslated (Leninistfags are the best at faking original scriptures) or wholly misunderstood through a politically correct lens.

But now it's too late for tears user.

bloomberg.com/news/videos/2016-05-13/why-the-u-s-retail-sales-numbers-are-a-bit-suspicious

And this is how they swindle the goyim into thinking the economy isn't collapsing.

I'll be fine, but my mother and younger sister are whom I'm worried about.
I hope Golden Don can lessen the blow by bringing back some goddamn jobs.

Jesus fuck, dude. Start with pic related and go from there

market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=231377

America will most likely collapse within ten years. Make sure you are not in a major city, that you have guns and ammo, that you are well connected and liked in your community, that you have some skill to offer others, etc. Forming proto-rwds with trustworthy friends is also advisable.

Debt-free fiat money, no national debt, treasury/congress in charge of monetary policy, tax economic rents then tariffs at levels to maximize revenue (not protectionist except for cases related to defense), get rid of non-tariff trade barriers (again, except in cases that are of interest to national defense), national military service(training, given rifle at end), women lose the right to vote, population stabilization, replace welfare with an incredibly low (8K/year) mincome for those that participated in national service and no welfare for others, sterilize blacks and browns

Yep.

also want to add either
1. Some way to nationalize usury without the fuck ups of nationalizing industries (ever ridden on amtrak?)

or

2. Having a large fraction of the money supply that legally can not be used for the backing of interest baring loans

This would be in a 100% reserve system proposed by people like Bill Still and the Chicago plan

What would be the point in that? There is no reason to have usury at all.

Don't know about the Rentenmark, but the Reichsmark worked very well at reviving the economy in a similar way.It was not land backed but infrastructure backed. Hitler built up infrastructure and valued it no matter what at a fixed amount of Reichsmarks. The value added to the economy by these projects would determine their value.

Modern Monetary Theory is right in one very important aspect, fiat money has value because you pay the government in it (taxes, fees, legal suits). However the monetarists are still right that the quantity of money matters, it's just not the only thing that matters.

Taxing land value (ie a property tax on the unimproved value of the land) is an efficient way to collect taxes and have governments collect the value they added via infrastructure.

At the end of the day, money a tool to measure things, like a ruler. My shoes are a certain length and a certain price, these measurements just tell you something different about the item. Just like weights and measures, money is the domain of governments. Therefore, they should get all the benefit of increasing the money supply, with a 100% reserve banking system and taxes on economic rents like LVT.

Governments aren't very good at running businesses, so I worry about how they would run a bank. Remember, colonial Pennsylvania did well with colonial script because German agrarianism but all the new england states had massive inflation because they wanted to fund their utopia. What kind of people more closely resemble the mind set of those who would run a nationalized bank today?

The idea behind #2 is that usury still exists but that the debt burden can never exceed the money supply.

ex.
Money Supply: $1000, 100% reserve system
$500 can be used to back loans
$500 can't
Even if all of the first $500 is invested as loans at 99.999999999% simple interest {:^)}, there is enough money left in the system to pay back all obligations

Realistically, you would have interest rates from 4% to 15% for safe to absolutely retarded risk levels. With 50% out of play for creating loans, but in play for paying them off, things shouldn't get too shitty debt wise.

1. There is no risk in loans. With Fiat money you are not lending anything real. It is all book keeping.

2. You don't need banks at all. They are totally pointless.

3. Saving money is criminal and degenerate.

You smoking crack nigga

1. You may not be loaning anything real but it can be traded for real things because the taxman's bullets are real. If I give money to brown people for their rims vs a white man for a business the economy will act differently. The second option might actually increase the value of the currency because MV=PY

2. Somebody needs to be able to say no to jamal and yes to sven svorgensen for the loan application

Derive the power of the state from a corporation's ability to coin money. This money is paid out by the state for labor and goods, and will be accepted by the major corporation in order to establish value. The state will be able to pay out the same amount of money as the economy grows by, and may not need to coin new money at all, as it is profiting from the nationalized industry. People must agree to become citizens, subject to the law and such, in order to benefit from the existence of the corporate-national state. Other than that, lassiez-faire.

Things to invest in: Bullets, air-sealed cigarettes, alcohol, tools, generators, butane, survival electronics, non-perishable food.

HAHAHAHA RETARD

Saving money is, in fact, very degenerate. Money is only useful if it is spent. Credit is preferable to savings in every way.

Yet none of what you say here necessitates usury.

That's the government, the sole authority of money and credit in a decent nation. And Jamal will be in Africa so he is irrelevant.

What? Can you explain it to a retard?

Monday: $MTG
BUY THE DIP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

er…

MGT

mtg is a shit