Dude, you promote Americanism by living it, not by restricting it - freedom. Anything that can help us share our freedom in ways such as economic trade, is going to do more to preserve Americanism than implosion.
I also believe in man as an economic benefit and not as a liability. Some like to carry on about overpopulation, pollution, etc and always present each additional human living on the planet as something to loathe. I think 'national view' (like, 'world view?)
restart last sentence: I think your 'national view' (like 'world view'?) is tainted w/ some of this, 'man as liability' rhetoric. I think you need to concentrate on the pluses of man just a little bit more. lol
I see the pluses in man. But I am not naive to believe that man is an island or that nations are merely creedal constructions. I think that free trade has degraded man. I think it has torn at the heart of what was once great about America. I think that economists tend to minimize man to an economic unit rather than a citizen, and reduce the nation to a market. The impact this has on our view of man and the culture our forefathers passed on to us cannot be stressed enough.
If by restricting Americanism you mean conserving Americanism, then you got me. I most certainly want to conserve various elements of American history and culture. This is what makes me a conservative rather than a deconstructionist or libertarian.
Man is an economic benefit, and I don't loath large populations. My being a Catholic and wishing to contribute to a vibrant population proves as much. But men, history, culture, and values are bigger than the market. Economy is for man, not reverse.
My hero, the elitist, monopoly-loving, unpatriotic, culture-hating man called Milton Friedman, is perhaps the most influential figure of the 20th century when it comes to trade, and he's no Austrian. You're right that it would be a big difference if we had a static job market, which is a popular but wrong assumption. Otherwise, foreign labor & capital has same implications. The way to look at int'l trade is to remember the use and value of scarce resources
...because someone will always be displaced or hurt by these advances. For example, 1 farmer plowing 1000 acres in a day with the invention of the modern day combine (100's of % increase in Marg. product of capital), whereas it used to take 250 workers to get the job done in the same time. 249 people, with their children starving and their lives destroyed, sacrificed for the "monopolistic power" of 1 farmer??? The horrors of capitalism! How dare those ivory-tower economists advocate this!
The fact that you use this argument even after I dealt with it is interesting. The difference was that these advancements were evolutionary from within. These changes opened up new jobs for them in higher fields, here in the States.
This is a far cry from outsourcing and offshoring. These jobs aren't taken by other jobs that require workers to build and maintain the things that replace them. No, what replaces them is a cheap labor markets made up of foreign laborers.
Right on Johne. Like Mises reminds us, if you follow the logic to its ultimate conclusion, protectionism will never stop on its way to autarky. This is why I get really have to raise an eyebrow when Paleo says he believes in free trade, but only if it's "fair." Then really, he doesn't believe in ANY trade whatsoever (or innovation in technology, production,)...
George Washington didn't believe in trade? Alexander Hamilton didn't believe in trade? Abraham Lincoln didn't believe in Trade? TR didn't believe in trade? Adam Smith didn't believe in trade? Ah, nobody believed in trade until the Austrian atheists figured it out.
We had trade under the economic system under these men, and I endorse nothing other than the general principles they advanced.
Your comment is a straw-man. You're better than this.
Having grown up and watched the changes you describe for myself in my own community, I have to agree with everything you say. When I first got into manufacturing, it wasn't about the bottom line cost of an item, it was about it's quality and speed of delivery. Much more was paid attention to the employee base as well, knowing that unions were waiting in the wings to begin organizing. Today unions can't get started and it's all about the Temp worker and cheep/fast product or service.
one of these days i'm gonna have to call in and show you just how wrong you are about all of this but shortly here...if we wanna have regional and national identities, why not take it to it's logical conclusion. why not borrough identities, why not neighborhood identities, why not street identities, why not family identities and why not individual indentities? that sounds fine, but in this vid, when you speak of identity based around production. that means the pool of people producing what...
We do have such identities. Family identity is the most obvious case. Still, to ignore the importance and value of national, regional, or local history is a key ingredient in the suicide of civilizations. Cultures made up of a common history, a common language, common traditions, customs, and religions mark vibrant societies in history. The breakdown of these things was their demise.
Identity isn't based around production, but it's part of it, and helps maintain identity and independence.
well you seem to imply that if we have our goods produced elsewhere, we are giving up part of our identities. that's why i say you linked identity to production and that was the point i was making. production is not the most important element of individuals or society. it's standard of living which is ultimately consumption.
To some degree we do. Take Detroit, Trenton, and Battle Creek as three examples. All three places were producing locales, each of them had an identity based, in large part, upon the products they produced. With the loss of certain sectors came a change in identity. All it takes is a drive-though, of which I have done in all three. I happen to live in one.
Production is not the most important, but it is certainly an essential ingredient to independence and self-sufficiency. That is my claim.
you consume gets smaller and smaller. therefore prices go up and standard of living goes down. if you take this type of thinking to it's logical conclusion, no one would trade whatsoever, and no one would progress whatsoever. we would all produce everything for ourselves, after all, what more full employment? didn't the car throw 1,000s of horse and buggy makers out of work, and the wheel itself people that tranported goods on foot? full employment is not the goal; maximum efficiency is.
This is historically inaccurate. We had this type of thinking for over 150 years and we still traded with others. We sold abroad, and we bought foreign goods. You are creating a bogeyman here.
Efficiency is great! But To take the human, cultural, and national element out of the equation boils everything down to the market and consumption. This isn't a very well-rounded view of civilization. It is one of many factors to take into consideration, but it's not the trump card... or it shouldn't be.
I've been dealing with the dangers of free trade for months now. Labulldog has debated aspects of it with me, but others have remained relatively silent.
You know your comments are always welcome and respected on my program, even if we disagree.
I wouldnt call what we have laissez-faire capitalism. I think the government plays a big role in corperate power and coperate power plays a big role in government. Its corperate communism. They are trying to destroy the middle class and make us even more of the slaves we are.
America was made for ME.
Dude, you promote Americanism by living it, not by restricting it - freedom. Anything that can help us share our freedom in ways such as economic trade, is going to do more to preserve Americanism than implosion.
I also believe in man as an economic benefit and not as a liability. Some like to carry on about overpopulation, pollution, etc and always present each additional human living on the planet as something to loathe. I think 'national view' (like, 'world view?)
pairunoyd 4 years ago
restart last sentence: I think your 'national view' (like 'world view'?) is tainted w/ some of this, 'man as liability' rhetoric. I think you need to concentrate on the pluses of man just a little bit more. lol
pairunoyd 4 years ago
I see the pluses in man. But I am not naive to believe that man is an island or that nations are merely creedal constructions. I think that free trade has degraded man. I think it has torn at the heart of what was once great about America. I think that economists tend to minimize man to an economic unit rather than a citizen, and reduce the nation to a market. The impact this has on our view of man and the culture our forefathers passed on to us cannot be stressed enough.
paleocrat 4 years ago
If by restricting Americanism you mean conserving Americanism, then you got me. I most certainly want to conserve various elements of American history and culture. This is what makes me a conservative rather than a deconstructionist or libertarian.
Man is an economic benefit, and I don't loath large populations. My being a Catholic and wishing to contribute to a vibrant population proves as much. But men, history, culture, and values are bigger than the market. Economy is for man, not reverse.
paleocrat 4 years ago
Wrong. Read The Paleo Conservatist.
CoCC4America 3 years ago
Our current system is deffinitely unfair trade, but I am not quite sure on the best course of action we should take.
AzraelsJudgement 4 years ago
My hero, the elitist, monopoly-loving, unpatriotic, culture-hating man called Milton Friedman, is perhaps the most influential figure of the 20th century when it comes to trade, and he's no Austrian. You're right that it would be a big difference if we had a static job market, which is a popular but wrong assumption. Otherwise, foreign labor & capital has same implications. The way to look at int'l trade is to remember the use and value of scarce resources
About 30% done with Pat's book ;)
labulldog5 4 years ago
Elitist? Most tend to minimize the importance of jobs like farming, field work, and manufactures.
Unpatriotic? Most don't appear to even shrug at the sacrifice of national independence for global interdependence.
Culture? Most could care less, unless it involves hot-button political issues.
Monopoly-loving? Most wouldn't shed a tear for the dozens of local stores shut down to the construction of Wally's World.
KEY: This isn't absolute; hence, my use of "many" and "most."
paleocrat 4 years ago
...because someone will always be displaced or hurt by these advances. For example, 1 farmer plowing 1000 acres in a day with the invention of the modern day combine (100's of % increase in Marg. product of capital), whereas it used to take 250 workers to get the job done in the same time. 249 people, with their children starving and their lives destroyed, sacrificed for the "monopolistic power" of 1 farmer??? The horrors of capitalism! How dare those ivory-tower economists advocate this!
labulldog5 4 years ago
The fact that you use this argument even after I dealt with it is interesting. The difference was that these advancements were evolutionary from within. These changes opened up new jobs for them in higher fields, here in the States.
This is a far cry from outsourcing and offshoring. These jobs aren't taken by other jobs that require workers to build and maintain the things that replace them. No, what replaces them is a cheap labor markets made up of foreign laborers.
Big difference here.
paleocrat 4 years ago
Right on Johne. Like Mises reminds us, if you follow the logic to its ultimate conclusion, protectionism will never stop on its way to autarky. This is why I get really have to raise an eyebrow when Paleo says he believes in free trade, but only if it's "fair." Then really, he doesn't believe in ANY trade whatsoever (or innovation in technology, production,)...
labulldog5 4 years ago
George Washington didn't believe in trade? Alexander Hamilton didn't believe in trade? Abraham Lincoln didn't believe in Trade? TR didn't believe in trade? Adam Smith didn't believe in trade? Ah, nobody believed in trade until the Austrian atheists figured it out.
We had trade under the economic system under these men, and I endorse nothing other than the general principles they advanced.
Your comment is a straw-man. You're better than this.
paleocrat 4 years ago
Life is too short for politics. lol
bigl240 4 years ago
Having grown up and watched the changes you describe for myself in my own community, I have to agree with everything you say. When I first got into manufacturing, it wasn't about the bottom line cost of an item, it was about it's quality and speed of delivery. Much more was paid attention to the employee base as well, knowing that unions were waiting in the wings to begin organizing. Today unions can't get started and it's all about the Temp worker and cheep/fast product or service.
Boomer1949 4 years ago
one of these days i'm gonna have to call in and show you just how wrong you are about all of this but shortly here...if we wanna have regional and national identities, why not take it to it's logical conclusion. why not borrough identities, why not neighborhood identities, why not street identities, why not family identities and why not individual indentities? that sounds fine, but in this vid, when you speak of identity based around production. that means the pool of people producing what...
johnebii 4 years ago
We do have such identities. Family identity is the most obvious case. Still, to ignore the importance and value of national, regional, or local history is a key ingredient in the suicide of civilizations. Cultures made up of a common history, a common language, common traditions, customs, and religions mark vibrant societies in history. The breakdown of these things was their demise.
Identity isn't based around production, but it's part of it, and helps maintain identity and independence.
paleocrat 4 years ago
well you seem to imply that if we have our goods produced elsewhere, we are giving up part of our identities. that's why i say you linked identity to production and that was the point i was making. production is not the most important element of individuals or society. it's standard of living which is ultimately consumption.
johnebii 4 years ago
To some degree we do. Take Detroit, Trenton, and Battle Creek as three examples. All three places were producing locales, each of them had an identity based, in large part, upon the products they produced. With the loss of certain sectors came a change in identity. All it takes is a drive-though, of which I have done in all three. I happen to live in one.
Production is not the most important, but it is certainly an essential ingredient to independence and self-sufficiency. That is my claim.
paleocrat 4 years ago
you consume gets smaller and smaller. therefore prices go up and standard of living goes down. if you take this type of thinking to it's logical conclusion, no one would trade whatsoever, and no one would progress whatsoever. we would all produce everything for ourselves, after all, what more full employment? didn't the car throw 1,000s of horse and buggy makers out of work, and the wheel itself people that tranported goods on foot? full employment is not the goal; maximum efficiency is.
johnebii 4 years ago
This is historically inaccurate. We had this type of thinking for over 150 years and we still traded with others. We sold abroad, and we bought foreign goods. You are creating a bogeyman here.
Efficiency is great! But To take the human, cultural, and national element out of the equation boils everything down to the market and consumption. This isn't a very well-rounded view of civilization. It is one of many factors to take into consideration, but it's not the trump card... or it shouldn't be.
paleocrat 4 years ago
I've been dealing with the dangers of free trade for months now. Labulldog has debated aspects of it with me, but others have remained relatively silent.
You know your comments are always welcome and respected on my program, even if we disagree.
paleocrat 4 years ago
I wouldnt call what we have laissez-faire capitalism. I think the government plays a big role in corperate power and coperate power plays a big role in government. Its corperate communism. They are trying to destroy the middle class and make us even more of the slaves we are.
blakethepacifist 4 years ago
That is a fair assessment, Blake. I have nothing to add. Good call.
paleocrat 4 years ago