Bailouts and Aid for US Companies are Not 'Free Trade'
It would be almost funny, were it not so tragic, to watch all these insolent free-trade fanatics fall all over themselves implementing all sorts of economic band-aids like 'bailouts for companies' and 'aid for companies' that contradict free trade, in attempts to save the credit/banking and automobile industries.
The bailouters and aiders dare not even mention the possibility of resorting to tariffs, because if they did, they would be admitting that they have been wrong about free trade. Instead they enthuse over US govt "bailouts" and "aid" for US companies, because they think that such terms can mask the fact that they are contradicting the free trade doctrine (and probably their free-trade agreements), and their previous free-trade fanaticism, which involved such huge levels of insolence for those who dared to disagree with them--despite the fact that their so-called free trade was filled with defects such as:
Us tariffing them less then they tariff us; obliviousness re the distortion caused when one nation hates the other more than the other hates it; a lack of concern for hidden subsidies and hidden tariffs used by competing nations; naivete re foreign nations manipulating currency values to take advantage of other nations; amnesia re the obvious distortion produced by wage levels in one nation being higher than another; the folly of failing to appreciate multiplier effects as labor spends its wages buying from their fellow citizens who in turn also spend and invest etc.
As if a situation featuring every national government "bailing-out" and "aiding" companies of their own nation, was a classical expression of the "free-trade" these idolaters of so-called free trade have historically so ferociously propounded.
How can these people simultaneously insult those who oppose their so-called free trade doctrines, and at the same time proceed to spend trillions of dollars, "bailing-out" and "aiding" certain pet companies?
"we kint admit thet we were wrong about free trade an' increase tariffs. Now we'll jest use bailouts an' aid fo' pet companies, an' pretend thet by doin' this hyar we is still bein' th' wise free traders thet we haf allwus been, as enny fool kin plainly see." (take that, Free-Trading Larry Summers Worshipping Harvard Crimson, of the Harvard that employed hundreds of teen-aged girls who never went to college instead of me, the Harvard grad Harvard man)
Sufficient tariffs (foreigners should be allowed to choose between exporting to us and setting up plant in our nation), inviting foreign producers to produce in our nation, compared to bailouts and aid are less likely to act as incentives promoting incompetence and corruption.
Another almost laughable facet of the matter is that some companies are considered 'too big' to be allowed to fail, whereas other companies are considered 'small enough to be allowed to fail'. It defies belief that persons who are above the level of moron in intelligence should think this way. Obviously, twenty companies with a billion dollars in sales each, are the equivalent of one company with twenty billion dollars in sales. So then how can one billion dollar companies be considered 'small enough' to be allowed to fail, whereas the one large company is considered to be 'too big to be allowed to fail'. This kind of favoritism, this kind of thinking is an extreme contradiction of the free-trade doctrine and the elements of the free-trade doctrine that are wise and reasonable or point in the direction of wisdom and reason.
"Uhh, duh, Dehe are twebuhnty c'panies dat each habe a billion dollars in sales. Dese twebuhnty c'panies put togedeh habe twebuhnty billion dollars in sales but dat is not ekal t' one c'pany wid twebuhnty billion dollars in sales, duuhhhh, cuz twebuhnty times one 'n one times twebuhnty are not the, ERRRR, same ding".
Then you have the problem that we are all being asked to bail out automobile companies in the Detroit Michigan area, as we were previously told we should bail out banks in the New York City area. In contradiction to this, for a long time I have been interested in the idea that the way to get the economy of Massachusetts (the state in which I reside) going, is to produce a situation where the people of Massachusetts make the cars that they use. What is there in this bailout for Detroit Michigan, thatgives us in Massachusetts even a fighting chance to produce some of the cars that we use?
I do not have hundreds of people working for me like these "free-traders" who are into government bailouts and aid for their nation's big companies do, you would be wise to take such into account when comparing my words with theirs; I am at a disadvantage. Anyway from my perspective, it appears that these free-trade & bailouts & aid worshipping creatures would be taking a step forwards if they were able to admit that what they are now advocating, bailouts and aid, is not free-trade, and so therefore now they are no longer justified in opposing the lowly and maligned art of utilizing tariffs on imports. Tariffs have a proven history of producing economic growth. Many of the most intelligent and respectable statesmen and thinkers of the past have lined up behind tariffs. Not so with national government "bail-outs" and "aid" for 'special', 'too big to be allowed to fail' pet companies.
Tariffs can be reasonable when they accurately compensate for the lower costs of production faced by foreign producers, so that the tariff covers the difference between the lower costs of production enjoyed by foreigners and the costs of production in the home nation. Tariffs can serve to entice foreign automakers to produce their automobiles in the our nation while employing our citizens.
True it is possible that unions can take advantage of the rest of the population by forcing employers to pay them exorbitant wages and benefits, the cost of which is passed on to the consumer; but the present situation in the nation is closer to the ideal situation which basically features for the entire work-force one high minimum wage, than it is to the distorted situation featuring unions taking advantage of consumers. In the present situation, there exist in the world highly competent foreign auto producers whose existence and competition provides a natural barrier against price-fixing on the part of US auto manufacturers.
True, for years third world nations suffered economically due to their inability to export; but now our nation has bled itself almost to death via trade deficits (the nation's economy is now based on impermanent foundations such as money borrowed from foreigners and money on hand due to sales of assets to foreigners) that have given the third world a fighting chance.
Now in the present due to technological developments, the third world is capable of attaining prosperity without depending on exports to generate such prosperity. Third world nations that screw themselves up by failing to attain to a prosperity that is easily attainable, have themselves to blame for failing to attain to prosperity; it is difficult to defend the idea that meddling in foreign nations's affairs to rectify their inability to attain to attainable prosperity should be a high priority for our nation.
Scriptures written for the guidance of all nations, declare that persons should do their best to provide for their families and to not betray their nation. Those who betray their nation generally speaking, are also betraying their families.
The details of our constitution may with the passage of time and changes in human society become somewhat out of date, but the general intent of the constitution as expressed in the preamble stands the test of time: the constitution states that two basic purposes of the constitution are to promote the general welfare and to "secure blessings" for the posterity, meaning the descendants of the people.
Our nation has the potential to bring all kinds of fun and joy and good spirits and material and spiritual prosperity to the rest of mankind, but we cannot do this if we are living in poverty (we cannot do this if we are led by those who desire to materially and spiritually damage mankind but that is another subject).
@2008 David Virgil Hobbs
The bailouters and aiders dare not even mention the possibility of resorting to tariffs, because if they did, they would be admitting that they have been wrong about free trade. Instead they enthuse over US govt "bailouts" and "aid" for US companies, because they think that such terms can mask the fact that they are contradicting the free trade doctrine (and probably their free-trade agreements), and their previous free-trade fanaticism, which involved such huge levels of insolence for those who dared to disagree with them--despite the fact that their so-called free trade was filled with defects such as:
Us tariffing them less then they tariff us; obliviousness re the distortion caused when one nation hates the other more than the other hates it; a lack of concern for hidden subsidies and hidden tariffs used by competing nations; naivete re foreign nations manipulating currency values to take advantage of other nations; amnesia re the obvious distortion produced by wage levels in one nation being higher than another; the folly of failing to appreciate multiplier effects as labor spends its wages buying from their fellow citizens who in turn also spend and invest etc.
As if a situation featuring every national government "bailing-out" and "aiding" companies of their own nation, was a classical expression of the "free-trade" these idolaters of so-called free trade have historically so ferociously propounded.
How can these people simultaneously insult those who oppose their so-called free trade doctrines, and at the same time proceed to spend trillions of dollars, "bailing-out" and "aiding" certain pet companies?
"we kint admit thet we were wrong about free trade an' increase tariffs. Now we'll jest use bailouts an' aid fo' pet companies, an' pretend thet by doin' this hyar we is still bein' th' wise free traders thet we haf allwus been, as enny fool kin plainly see." (take that, Free-Trading Larry Summers Worshipping Harvard Crimson, of the Harvard that employed hundreds of teen-aged girls who never went to college instead of me, the Harvard grad Harvard man)
Sufficient tariffs (foreigners should be allowed to choose between exporting to us and setting up plant in our nation), inviting foreign producers to produce in our nation, compared to bailouts and aid are less likely to act as incentives promoting incompetence and corruption.
Another almost laughable facet of the matter is that some companies are considered 'too big' to be allowed to fail, whereas other companies are considered 'small enough to be allowed to fail'. It defies belief that persons who are above the level of moron in intelligence should think this way. Obviously, twenty companies with a billion dollars in sales each, are the equivalent of one company with twenty billion dollars in sales. So then how can one billion dollar companies be considered 'small enough' to be allowed to fail, whereas the one large company is considered to be 'too big to be allowed to fail'. This kind of favoritism, this kind of thinking is an extreme contradiction of the free-trade doctrine and the elements of the free-trade doctrine that are wise and reasonable or point in the direction of wisdom and reason.
"Uhh, duh, Dehe are twebuhnty c'panies dat each habe a billion dollars in sales. Dese twebuhnty c'panies put togedeh habe twebuhnty billion dollars in sales but dat is not ekal t' one c'pany wid twebuhnty billion dollars in sales, duuhhhh, cuz twebuhnty times one 'n one times twebuhnty are not the, ERRRR, same ding".
Then you have the problem that we are all being asked to bail out automobile companies in the Detroit Michigan area, as we were previously told we should bail out banks in the New York City area. In contradiction to this, for a long time I have been interested in the idea that the way to get the economy of Massachusetts (the state in which I reside) going, is to produce a situation where the people of Massachusetts make the cars that they use. What is there in this bailout for Detroit Michigan, thatgives us in Massachusetts even a fighting chance to produce some of the cars that we use?
I do not have hundreds of people working for me like these "free-traders" who are into government bailouts and aid for their nation's big companies do, you would be wise to take such into account when comparing my words with theirs; I am at a disadvantage. Anyway from my perspective, it appears that these free-trade & bailouts & aid worshipping creatures would be taking a step forwards if they were able to admit that what they are now advocating, bailouts and aid, is not free-trade, and so therefore now they are no longer justified in opposing the lowly and maligned art of utilizing tariffs on imports. Tariffs have a proven history of producing economic growth. Many of the most intelligent and respectable statesmen and thinkers of the past have lined up behind tariffs. Not so with national government "bail-outs" and "aid" for 'special', 'too big to be allowed to fail' pet companies.
Tariffs can be reasonable when they accurately compensate for the lower costs of production faced by foreign producers, so that the tariff covers the difference between the lower costs of production enjoyed by foreigners and the costs of production in the home nation. Tariffs can serve to entice foreign automakers to produce their automobiles in the our nation while employing our citizens.
True it is possible that unions can take advantage of the rest of the population by forcing employers to pay them exorbitant wages and benefits, the cost of which is passed on to the consumer; but the present situation in the nation is closer to the ideal situation which basically features for the entire work-force one high minimum wage, than it is to the distorted situation featuring unions taking advantage of consumers. In the present situation, there exist in the world highly competent foreign auto producers whose existence and competition provides a natural barrier against price-fixing on the part of US auto manufacturers.
True, for years third world nations suffered economically due to their inability to export; but now our nation has bled itself almost to death via trade deficits (the nation's economy is now based on impermanent foundations such as money borrowed from foreigners and money on hand due to sales of assets to foreigners) that have given the third world a fighting chance.
Now in the present due to technological developments, the third world is capable of attaining prosperity without depending on exports to generate such prosperity. Third world nations that screw themselves up by failing to attain to a prosperity that is easily attainable, have themselves to blame for failing to attain to prosperity; it is difficult to defend the idea that meddling in foreign nations's affairs to rectify their inability to attain to attainable prosperity should be a high priority for our nation.
Scriptures written for the guidance of all nations, declare that persons should do their best to provide for their families and to not betray their nation. Those who betray their nation generally speaking, are also betraying their families.
The details of our constitution may with the passage of time and changes in human society become somewhat out of date, but the general intent of the constitution as expressed in the preamble stands the test of time: the constitution states that two basic purposes of the constitution are to promote the general welfare and to "secure blessings" for the posterity, meaning the descendants of the people.
Our nation has the potential to bring all kinds of fun and joy and good spirits and material and spiritual prosperity to the rest of mankind, but we cannot do this if we are living in poverty (we cannot do this if we are led by those who desire to materially and spiritually damage mankind but that is another subject).
@2008 David Virgil Hobbs
posted by David Virgil at 7:09 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home