Rothbard and Protectionism

[bitbutter]

Given your professed interest in humanitarian outcomes it's puzzling that you're not championing the use of sweatshops rather than denouncing it--Since i don't think it's controversial to suppose that the sweatshop wage improves the living conditions of the desperate 3rd world worker to a far greater degree than the protectionist wage benefits the local (to you) worker.

[paleocrat]

@bitbutter Is your life really so dull, Bit? Or was it nostalgia? Not a fan of colonialism or slavery, honestly. Call me trendy.

FTR - I left the Christian religion a year ago. I've been an atheist for that time, though I have "agnostic" on my Facebook. Long story. I was silent for the past year. No blog/vlogs; just reading, studying, networking. I only recently began talking about it publicly, especially on Facebook. It has been difficult, but I'm no longer afraid or ashamed.

[bitbutter]

@paleocrat Atheism: Wow, that can't have been easy. Props.

I came across this vid because it was recently posted on a facebook group i was taking a look at today 'the political economy of capitalism'. I see now that it's an old one.

Sweatshop labour isn't slavery. Employees in a sweatshop take judge employment there to be the best alternative available to them. The work is certainly grim by our standards, but removing that option harms people with very few options to begin with.

[TheNonAntiAnarchist]

If you're advocating protectionism, you're advocating the destruction of wealth. 'Nuff said.

[louiethegreater]

Well said, protectionism worked well for the U.S. for 200 years. You are totally correct about efficiency defined as cheap wages. You leave out these characters take on regulation. They constantly whine about the cost of regulation, as a comparitive advantage issue. Enviromental issues, worker safety, health and safety issues are mentioned as a determent to society instead of producing a clean resonsible envroment to live and worlk in.

[AussieAustrianBlog]

Had trouble working out what you were trying to say, but to put things simply....if you believe in protectionism, then supply/make all your own goods and services and see how that works out for you. The global division of labor benefits all who participate. I outsource everyday and am better for it!

[tyrantslayer999]

Economics Proverb: "You cannot take from the shallow end of the pool, place it in the deep end, and expect the water level to rise."

[evidenttruths]

"If that's efficiency, then damn efficiency to hell."

I love it..

[migkillertwo]

just one question: If Outsourcing is forcing workers into all these dead-end "mcJobs", then why have management jobs grown as a percentage of total employment over the past 3 decades?

[paleocrat]

Management means very little compared to what it did 30 years ago. In a service economy, management takes on a rather different quality.

Take Menards. I used to work there. They have tons of departments, each with its own "manager." These people were little more than supervisors, and their pay varied little from other wage-slaves.

With the concentration of ownership is at levels such as they are currently, managers are just as expendable (and trainable) as any other "customer service rep."

[migkillertwo]

That's certainly an interesting sentiment. Why then have so many middle class americans (those earning between 35,000-75,000 a year) moved into the upper class (>75,000) over the past 30 years? And its all in 2007 dollars (that is, adjusted for inflation)? Why are there fewer lower class families (those earning less than 35,000 2007 dollars) per capita today than 30 years ago? I encourage you to look up the Cato institute (you certainly are no stranger to Cato)

[paleocrat]

Census Bureau, Congressional Budget Office, Center for American Progress, Economic Policy Institute, Brookings, Institute for Policy Studies, Business Week, WSJ, and others are in unison.

Top 1% after-tax oncome: 176% increase. Lowest 9%: 20% increase. 42% of lowest quintile will likely remain. Top 1% own more than bottom 95%. Corporate CEOs make 500x that of their employees compared to 45x in 1980. Workers making $10 hourly must work 10,000 years to make what 1 of top-400 US CEOs made in 2005.

[migkillertwo]

1: Why worry about wealth being so concentrated when every quntile has become richer?

2: Have you checked out stefbot's video on this? The tax code has had a very large impact on the income of corporate executives.

[migkillertwo]

That being said, I encourage you to look up Johan Norberg and his book "In Defense of Global Capitalism"

[migkillertwo]

Why so much concern for YOUR neighbor Paleocrat? Why not concern yourself with the little girl in Vietnam who would have to sell her body to support her family because people like you are uncomfortable with Nike opening up another factory?

[paleocrat]

I didn't know you specialized in straw men! Cute.

A. Who said I am opposed to businesses opening up in other countries?

B. Why does having a greater sense of familial fidelity to those closest to me (family, local, state, nation, etc.) require me to take a position of total indifference to the international community and neighbors therein?

C. I almost puked from laughing so hard when you painted Nike as some altruistic, humanitarian, corporation. Good one!

PS- CCC Compendium: Common Good.

[migkillertwo]

"I didn't know you specialized in straw men! Cute."

You DID state that we should care about "our neighbors" and how they are hurt by free trade.

A: Businesses open up BECAUSE OF free trade

B: I didn't claim that you were indifferent to their plight. I claimed that you were elevating the importance of your neighbors and their plight above the plight of child laborers working in East Asia

C: They're not altruistic, but they DO help people in developing countries by providing better...

[migkillertwo]

...working opportunities than those available (subsistence agriculture). How you failed to grasp this much is beyond me.

[paleocrat]

Corporations have taken over agriculture, both here and abroad. They have destroyed the purity of food, treated animals inhumanely, ignore the dangers of their working environments, use toxic chemicals to maximize quantity over quality, add substances (including fragrances created by perfume manufacturers that are deemed "artificial flavor"), and lobby for deregulation of dangerous additives, both pre- and post-harvest/slaughter. They exploit farmers, here and abroad. Bad, bad, bad example.

[migkillertwo]

"Corporations have taken over agriculture, both here and abroad"

thank you State.

"destroyed the purity of food"

pray tell, what determines whether food is "pure"? That sounds like a bunch of new-age nonsense.

"treated animals inhumanely"

and subsistence farmers don't?

"toxic chemicals"

and small farmers wouldn't?

[migkillertwo]

"maximize quantity over quality" Demand for food has gone up. what determines the "quality" of food?

"exploit farmers" How do they "exploit farmers" if these "farmers"...

[paleocrat]

Anyone who has owned a dog knows this difference. "Filler food" lacks most any nutritional value. Quality food, meant to provide creatures with nutrition necessary for healthy living, is antithetical to filler food that merely satisfies urges of hunger. This is something quality food also does, but it additionally provides the creature with those things necessary to the development and health of its being.

I am close to the agrarian community, and have seen what Megafarms have done to farmers.

[migkillertwo]

Do you think more guns will solve teh alleged problem of "filler food"? Filler food is what the consumers want.

I think Milton Friedman said it best, people criticize the free market because it gives people what they want, not what a small group of people (that's people like you) thinks it ought to want.

[paleocrat]

So now you recognize the difference between quality food and filler food! Instead of balking at me for recognizing a very real distinction, you just defend Frankenfood. Gotcha.

What people want? If one presupposes the idea that what is good for society is nothing more than what it wills for itself, then sure. Or if one supposes that absolute individual autonomy is the aim and goal of the political economy, then possibly. But why assume either to be true? On what basis is it binding on anyone?

[migkillertwo]

"But why assume either to be true? On what basis is it binding on anyone?"

Its not prescriptive. I am not saying that people ought to like what they like. I am saying that nobody has the right to hold a gun up to anyone and say "You're not going to eat junk food" or "you're not going to produce junk food". More guns will not solve anything.

[paleocrat]

I know what you are saying. But you didn't answer the question. My question concerned why you presume the maximization of individual autonomy to be the aim and goal of the political economy. And why you believe this view of purpose of man and the political economy would be in any way binding on anyone or anything.

More guns don't solve anything if you believe that man is essentially good and that, in a magical sort of way, if left to themselves, their selfish interest will produce best results

[paleocrat]

Bureau of Labor Statistics: Real wages and salaries below that of 5 yrs ago. Debts at all-time highs. Mortgages... well, no need to go into detail on this one.

MGB Info Stats: 35% of new jobs are in ambulatory care and social assistance. 30% primarily in bartenders, waitresses, maids services for hotel/motel, entertainment and recreation. Most all required no college education.

Business Week's Susan Houseman exposes "phantom gains" used by corporations concerning productivity. Good read.

[paleocrat]

Why thank the state? Deregulation led to corporate takeovers, as family farmers were unable to keep up with Mr. Monopoly when it came down to machinery, expensive chemical treatment, the accumulation of land and animals, and the distribution megacenters.

Read the label for a processed McDonald's burger and one taken from an open range cow.

To deny the horrific living conditions of animals in corporate farms/ranches is a display of unadulterated ignorance. Watch a damn video.

[migkillertwo]

The reason you have the State to thank is because of farm subsidies. If you own a large megafarm, you get way more subsidies than a small-time farmer.

[paleocrat]

I have come to the conclusion that you argue for argument sake. I am convinced you don't have a damn clue about what you talk about 1/2 the time.

Example: Pray tell, what percentage of farms are owned by Corporations?

Even without subsidies, a deregulated market allows Daddy Big Bucks to plow over Mr. Family Farmer. The money is there, ownership of land, technology and means of production, and political power.

Stick with what you're good at. And don't just argue for argument sake. It sucks

[migkillertwo]

that's very cute paleocrat.

[paleocrat]

I was being quite serious. Having watched you stumble through your recent video only further substantiates my conviction that you are of the type that plays "fake it until you make it" and loves argument for argument's sake.

It is unfortunate, though, as there is no shame in recognizing intellectual limitations. Supermen know everything about everything, but folks like us typically know a lot about a little and a little about a lot.

[migkillertwo]

So no more discussion? You're just gonna attack the person delivering the argument?

Dont be a like the new atheists paleocrat.

[paleocrat]

Pointing out the obvious shouldn't be perceived as an attack.

I am willing to discuss matters with you, but I maintain the position that you, like so many others, are gadflies getting their jolly-rocks off by arguing for argument's sake.

[paleocrat]

I recognize my universal neighbors and my responsibilities towards them. But God didn't accidentally place me in Battle Creek, MI. CST talks a lot about nations, citizenship, and care for poor and developing countries. It has promoted the golden mean between national exclusivism and indifferentism. But it does so while recognizing an order of fidelity, from those closest to home to those furthest away.

A, B, and C will be dealt with in another comment.

[paleocrat]

A. Open up where? And what kind of jobs? Munufactures and textiles hit hard. Offshoring and outsourcing are rampant. Small businesses and localism died in the shadows of Corporations most benefiting from free trade. Good for the few, the wage-masters.

B. You are quite correct.

C. Let's bring this stuff stateside! Treat Americans like this. Pennies, most hours spent at work, often living in business-owned communes, and work environment that is borderline inhuman. Modern slavery/colonialism.

[migkillertwo]

"Open up where?"

East asia, Latin america, etc.

Further, what is the benefit of small business and localism? Profit, once again, is a key indicator of efficiency.

C: It couldn't be brought stateside because of the little inconvenient truism that workers get paid according to however much they contribute to the firm. If they're paid more they get laid off, if they get paid less the workers demand higher wages. You can't bring this stateside because American workers contribute so...

[migkillertwo]

...much more to firms than laborers in the third world due to the massive investment we've made in educating our workforce and in the massive capital investment corporations have made in our workforce.

[paleocrat]

How does the Kool Aid taste? The notion that the "good jobs" requiring an educated work force remain stateside while the menial jobs go abroad is as realistic as unicorns and centaurs. Here is a radio segment from my program that dealt with that specific myth:

watch?v=5VZOBWk6ljQ

Manufacturing, technology, law, and even medicine are being outsourced at alarming and offensive rates. But the future isn't entirely bleak. We still have those jobs listed by Forrest Research.

[migkillertwo]

1: The reason for outsourcing professional jobs is that some people abroad are getting education (or that we have bloated education standards). We still have a LOT of professional jobs here in the United States. Take for example medicine. People come from all over the world to get medicine in the United States.

"Jobs listed by Forrest research"

Which will, inevitably, cause one of two things

1: the spending power of the populace will decrease, thus ending outsourcing, or

2: wages...

[migkillertwo]

...for those jobs listed by Forrest Research will go up as the demand for those jobs goes up.

[paleocrat]

It is so cute how you place such absurd faith in the notion that it is merely a matter of supply and demand when talking about jobs. I mean, it would appear that demand for manufactures and textiles is way down! For if it were on the up and up, we would see these sectors expanding in the US. But we have witnessed millions vanish. Is it lack of demand? Of course not. The demand is as high as ever, and the jobs haven't really vanished. No, they just went somewhere else.

Good grief...

[migkillertwo]

Demand for manufactured goods is as high as ever? Wow paleocrat.

Demand for american manufactured goods has remained stagnant over the past 30 years. Of course, you should know that the amount of product produced per man-hour of labor has increased by 103% in the United States. This is the principal catalyst for the loss of manufacturing jobs in the United States. Too much supply, not enough demand.

[paleocrat]

Certainly! Manufactures haven't vanished from the face of the earth, just American soil.

Too much supply... so we fire Americans, run off to tax havens, hire kids and adult slaves, and then flood American markets with the goods formerly created here, hoping that those who used to create them will frequent Wally World to "Save Money. Live Better."

[paleocrat]

Ah, so on the one hand you tout the emphasis America places on education and the amount of money corporate America invests in education. On the other hand, these same benevolent corporations are sending jobs elsewhere. And why? Education in other countries?

Spending power decreasing results in less outsourcing? Americans rely on cheap goods because the dollar has tanked and real income is stagnant. Outsourcing causes a fire, then comes to the rescue!

Americans love Walmart. Made in China!

[migkillertwo]

"Spending power decreasing results in less outsourcing?"

it certainly would. Less income=less demand=less reason to supply=less outsourcing.

[paleocrat]

Less income = less demand. Sometimes. But it is not as rigid as you and other "economic law" advocates would have us believe.

EX. I make more now than I did in the Navy. But my demand for goods was much different then, as my priorities differed. And it wasn't that I couldn't buy. It was that I had to seek out cheap(er) goods.

Walmart and others relying on products made in sweat shops and child camps provide people to "buy more, pay less." But this only works if goods are made elsewhere.

[paleocrat]

Our workforce used to make what the world would take. We are now the service center of the world, functioning as a massive department store where the masses are confined to the life of a wage-slave to an ever-decreasing number of people who own capital, land, the means of production, and political power.

[paleocrat]

Profit is a key indicator of efficiency... or the result of large businesses flooding markets or underselling rivals. Exploitation of foreign workers (watch "The High Cost of Low Prices" for crying out loud!), tax havens, and lack of labor laws ensuring environmental safety also contribute to profit margins.

Your whacked out concept of efficiency is much like the atheists notion of Occam's Razor. Their explanation of things may have fewer contributing factors, but is far from sufficient.

[tumbleweedjoe]

*Wherever the

*between your

[tumbleweedjoe]

*too much

[paleocrat]

Your rebuttal should not be directed towards me, as I have but quoted the Magisterium's claims pertaining to itself. I have simply parroted its claims of competence, authority, and jurisdiction. I have not attributed to the teaching authority of the Church anything that She has not attributed to herself. Nothing.

Discussing the authority of the Magisterium and the claims it makes of itself is no different from debating a Protestant. Playing pick-and-choose, line-item-veto with the Magisterium.

[tumbleweedjoe]

Paleocrat, I am going to prepare a lengthier rebuttal to your reply and your worldview in the next few days. Starting soccer practice tomorrow so it may be two or three days. Not much can be said in the space provided by comment box because I have to much to say. For the record I am reading Mater et Magistra right now. Can you point me to a specific passage which authorizes the state to take from one individual, with or without his consent, and give to another? I am having trouble finding that.

[paleocrat]

Are you really reading Mater et Magistra? Maybe you just skipped over certain parts that condemn classical liberalism or promote (even demand!) state involvement in the economy. Let me help you.

#s 18 and 23 are hated by classical liberals. #s 35 and 36 also. And don't forget # 88.

And #52 explicitly states that the civil gov "must also have a hand in the economy." And don't breeze by #s 54, 56, 58, 60, 66, 114-116. Uh-oh, look out for #s 149-150, and 168!

A progressive tax??? #132.

[tumbleweedjoe]

Thank you for "helping me". Perhaps you would get further if instead of starting with bad faith assumptions, you engaged in a civil debate worthy of the scholastics. In any event, I am not asking you to "line my pockets" but engage in conversation.

Incidently, encyclicals contain various levels of teaching and cannot be read as if they were ex-cathedra pronouncments. Wherever this the Holy Father does economic analysis or makes empirical historical claims, he is speaking without...

[tumbleweedjoe]

...the protection of the Holy Spirit. That means that even if encylicals were the equivalent of ex-cathedra statements, they would be subject to critique at those points where the teaching is based on a misinterpertation of the relevant empirical data. I will elaborate on this in my rebuttal. In the meantime, perhaps your faith would benefit from looking at the contrast between the way your approach to thinking and arguing and that of Aquinas, Scotus, Etienne Gilson and Jaques Martain.

[paleocrat]

The editors of IHS Press and contributors of The Distributist Review have dealt extensively with Scotus and Martain, as well as their replacing the Magisterium in the hearts and minds of Catholics adhering to the condemned philosophy and various policies of the classical liberals.

Empirically demonstrating that the Magisterium is guilty of self-deceit and scandal for its self-attestations is quite a task. Even worse when the Magisterium decared the political economy to be moral theology.

[paleocrat]

"The first mistake of these people is precisely that of not accepting fully the 'arms of truth' and the teaching which the Roman Pontiffs... by means of encyclicals, allocations, and instructions of all kinds." Ottaviani

"We approach the subject (social matters of the political economy) with confidence, and in teh exercise of the rights which manifestly appertain to Us." Mater et Magistra #16

Why would you trade the wisdom of the Magisterium for the slop of the Austrians?

[paleocrat]

You trample where angels dread to tip-toe. If the Magisterium makes claims pertaining to its competence, authority, and jurisdiction, and then adds to it strong warning against those who would (like you and others) refuse to maintain an attitude "of loyal trust and filial obedience" (MM 241), "bringing discredit on the Church's teaching, lending substance to the opinion that, in spite of its intrinsic value, it is in fact powerless to direct men's lives." (MM241). Insubordinate, scandalous...

[paleocrat]

You presuppose classical liberalism, using it as the framework wherein, or grid whereby, you come to conclusions concerning the self-attestations of the Magisterium. This is bass-ackwards Catholicism. Augustine wouldn't believe in the gospels were it not for the Church, but you won't believe Her social teaching unless She passes the Austrian exam.

Sad to see Catholics approach the Magisterium with the attitude of Mises or Rand rather than Ottaviani in "Adherence to the Ordinary Magisterium."

[tumbleweedjoe]

Alright well we're not getting anywhere in the comments section. I wil eventually give you a run for your money or at least give you a big hearty Chestertonian laugh.

By the way, I dislike Ayn Rand almost as much as Murray Rothbard did. Also, bass-ackwards is an awesome hyphenated word, which i will have to make use of in the future. Good day.

[tumbleweedjoe]

If the pope, with the best of intentions, declares that there ought to be a legal minimum wage, and supposing this is implemented by distributists and that wage is higher than the market wage, the pope will have succeeded in involuntarily unemploying a portion of the population, an effect which must flow from such a policy because of marginal utility. Moral oughts must be evaluated in light of the laws of economics. Neither the ordinary or extrodinary magisterium is competent in the latter.

[paleocrat]

Already dealt with the authority of the Magisterium in my blogs and videos. So far, the only replies I've received from those like you is "nuh-uh!" Not impressive.

Value-less and impersonal "laws" are the standard which must be consulted (and submitted to) when dealing with value judgements pertaining to the personal choices and individual actions within the political economy? Dehumanizing the economy, one irrational mandate at a time! Medaille was right to point out naturalist tension here.

[tumbleweedjoe]

...libertarianism at all points. Rothbard wrote frequently about the neccesity of moral judgements and morality for a just society as does his greatest student, Hans-Herman Hoppe. Moreover, both stressed values that were essentially conservative and Christian.

[tumbleweedjoe]

On a more general note, your use of phrases such as "lining his pocket" or "would have us believe" is deliberately inflamatory. You speak in generalities in order to avoid giving specifics. Finally, you and all distrubutists continually confuse economics (what works to reach certain ends) with ethics (what ends we ought to reach and what we may or may not do to reach them.) Libertarianism political theory is more than just economics. As Murray Rothbard insisted, ethics underlies the case for...

[tumbleweedjoe]

"Take for example laissez-faire. The theory would have us believe that men and nations will prosper most under conditions wherein the state abstains from most, if not all, economic interventions into the free market where goods are freely exchanged." But this not what Woods was looking for when he asked for a theoretical statement. Does the Law of Comparitive advantage rest on moral assumptions? How about the law of diminishing marginal utility? Why cannot you grasp that these are not normative?

[paleocrat]

"The Political Economy as a Science," Chapter III of Medaille's book, deals with this issue at great length. In sum, theoretical statements about observations of human interaction are made within a presuppositional framework that always involves ethical judgments.

Comparative advantage. Deeming something advantageous presupposes an already established value judgement concerning what is and what ought to be. Not a good choice for your example.

[tumbleweedjoe]

Paleocrat: Thomas Woods challenged you to "give one theorectical statement from economics that contains a moral dimension." After hemming and hawing about the neutality of epistemology and throwing out the red herring that Woods is "in opposition to the popes" on various points (even though the ability of the popes to speak authoritatively on these points is precisely the point at issue) you finally (8 paragraphs later) give your "theoretical statement from economics". What is it?

[paleocrat]

Woods is most certainly in opposition of the popes. His defiance of the Magisterium's competence, authority, and jurisdiction when dealing with the political economy is as arrogant as it is a disgrace. Falling victim to the chastisement of Mater et Magistra 239-241 is certainly not something to be proud of, as it is not only to "fail in their obligation" to submit with "filial obedience," but to be guilty of scandal, "lending substance" to those who deny the Church's authority and wisdom.

[tumbleweedjoe]

In addition, Rothbard, although an agnostic, understood the Catholic faith better than you "third wayers" do and was able to distinguish between De Fide and De Luded, although you "paleos" and "traditionalists" cannot.

[paleocrat]

Rothbard and an unfortunate number of Catholics fail to recognize (or refuse to) the authority of the ordinary Magisterium. The encyclicals are part of this, and (as I have demonstrated quite clearly in videos and blogs that will now be linked in the "more info" sidebar) demand our faithful obedience. The Magisterium, contrary to the claims of balkers and squawkers at Mises, has claimed to have competence, jurisdiction, and authority, as economics has been categorized within moral theology.

[paleocrat]

I made good on my promise to post links in the sidebar. A number of them are blog entries written by John Medaille of The Distributist Review. I also include chapter III to his upcoming book. The chapter is entitled "The Political Economy as a Science." Two of the links are blogs I wrote, and the videos under them are from this site. The second blog and second video were done after Thomas Woods, Jr. had contacted me regarding my first blog and video. Plenty there for you to disdain.

[tumbleweedjoe]

...not because of your bloody intentions or goals. They are irrelevant. You guys do not understand the price system any more than Chesterton did. Your "theory (and I use the term with all possible charity) requires (whether you wish to admit it or not) an all-wise, all powerful "good" dictator (or commite of dictators). Your strategy for opposing the "servile state" is to create a "moral" and charitable servile state. Luckily your "theory" isn't even on the table of discussion anyway.

[paleocrat]

It requires an infallible Magisterium providing us with the framework and principles that must both underly and function within the political economy. As Catholics, having a Mater et Magistra is a given.

Establishing and maintaining a system wherein capital, goods, the means of production, and ownership is widely distributed (not redistributed) so as to minimize the concentration of these things into fewer and fewer hands (as is the current trend) is hardly the marks of a servile state.

[tumbleweedjoe]

"His argument may work against some people, but not against Distributists..." Nonsense. What you distrubitists fail to understand (along with your socialist compadres) is that the world has an objective order and your desires, the social outcome that you want to reach, cannot be reached by cooercive methods. "Protecting" a business, is praxeologically an morally indistinguishable from "Stealing" for a good cause. An act is right or wrong because it conforms in its nature to good or evil...

[paleocrat]

Your saying as much is contingent upon a worldview that maintains a definition of freedom, a notion of the role and function of the state, as well as a concept of the political economy and what would be accepted as ethical means towards ethical ends. Suffice it to say that our most basic and ruling assumptions are at enmity.

Praxeology assumes economics to be an inherently amoral positive science. Medaille has devastated this claim, so I will link it in the sidebar rather than reinvent wheels.

[evidenttruths]

In all my semesters at Lewis U, that is perhaps the most important idea of have taken from looking at economics and political systems from a philosophical standpoint - that economic efficiency really ought to mean nothing to us if we are to gain it by sacrificing social justice and utilizing our neighbor as a means to our economic end rather than ends within themselves.

[JohnnyFianna]

Well, I think most people would define economics as the reconciliation of nearly unlimited human wants with limited resources. The most common (and criticized) economic assumption is that of homo economicus, that man is a perfectly rational, utility maximizing machine. However, thanks to behavioral economics, he is the process of being replaced by bomo sociologicus, which seems to be a much better description of mankind. I do not understand what you meant by "ethical division of rewards."

[jmedaille]

Paleocrat, well-done. Keep up the good work. Let me suggest another line of attack, one based on MR's own principles. MR opposes protection because it involves force. Very well, let's analyze the transaction in terms of force. Suppose the offshore worker is a slave. Obviously, this is a case of force, and, unless we are pacifists, we may oppose one force (tariffs) to another (slavery).

Now, let us suppose that he is deprived by gov't or to land and capital. He is still a victim of force. etc.

[JohnnyFianna]

Yeah ^^ however is probably the ONLY line of attack you can use to support a tariff morally. It is still not an economic argument.

[jmedaille]

JohnnyF, If you are right, then MR is wrong, because MR makes the use of force an economic argument. If it is wrong for me, then it is wrong for MR. So you must accept both arguments, or reject both arguments (assuming, as I do, that you are intellectually honest), but you cannot accept one and reject the other for merely ideological reasons.

[JohnnyFianna]

Yeah, MR is wrong. Force is a quality and not economically quantifiable, the Austrians somehow get off identifying trends (crime, recessions, unemployment) and then go look, they are correlated with force (force usually being whatever they define it as)!

By attempting to reduce economics to a philosophy the Austrians attempt to arrive at the absolute conclusions one usually comes to in philosophy. This is why you will not find Austrian economics in any textbook, plus it doesn't really work.

[jmedaille]

I agree that MR was wrong; that does not make standard theory right. Economics is an Humane science that deals with material relations between men. As such, it rests on certain philosophic assumptions about man and right relationships (even if it cannot be reduced to those assumptions). Economics cannot be divorced from ethics, because without an ethical division of the rewards of work, markets cannot be cleared; this is a technical matter as much as a moral one. Force not a number, but a fact.

[Italiasalbion]

Our competitors punish their consumers when they buy our products and they reward their manufacturers when they export to America. Free Trade theory says, this is good, because it benefits Consumers (we get more stuff and it is cheap). However, the game isn't all about stuff; we need jobs, wages, benefits and good working conditions too! Free Traitors couldn't care less about that!

[Italiasalbion]

Look, a lot of the same idiots who became Free Traidors used to be Communists! Where all they freaking cared about was LABOR LABOR LABOR! Now, these basket headed unicyclists and armless trapeze artists want us to only care about CONSUMERS CONSUMERS CONSUMERS! There is a pattern here! They go from one extreme to another and demand FANATICISM from their DEVOTEES! Don't drink the Fool-Aid!

[Italiasalbion]

LABOR LABOR LABOR! should be WORKER WORKER WORKER!

[johnebii]

u r wrong. if relative efficiency was only about the costs of labor, the u.s. would do nothing. NOTHING. Please read Bastiat's Economic Sophisms. He goes into the consumer/producer element in great detail.

[Italiasalbion]

You appear to have been deceived.

[johnebii]

ALL protectionists subsidize politically favored groups at the expense of the masses. you see your philosophy 'protects'...who is it protecting? are low prices good when you buy a pair of jeans do you want to pay 20 or 40 $ low prices are good for the american people but yet we somehow want american producers to be 'protected' from lower priced goods. so yes, protected the producers-big corporations at the expense of people who want cheaper goods-the consumers (the masses)

[utubehayter]

Its a socialist's slight of hand - I am SHOCKED to see Paleocrat falling for it - even utilizing it. If Paleocrat does not agree with the rothbard, he should give Milton Friedman a chance to explain. I bet those great men would be turning in their graves when they hear these people.

Among Friedman, Mises and Rothbard, I am absolutely convinced that the govt that governs the least is the best govt. Although this places an enormous load on people. I think people are smarter than govt anyway.

[johnebii]

oh paleo in the first minute you're accusing of consumerism...as well-read as u r why no bastiat in economic sophisms he explains in great detail why economics MUST be viewed from the point of the consumer. as consumers we are sypathetic to one another, as producers antagonistic, i can't get into it all here just read the darn thing already.

[thorsmitersaw]

Arbitrary boundaries.

The "right" to point guns to raise your income.

Aquinas and his "just wage" theory is bunk.

"the common good". Yea. (state)Socialist.

violin playing

[Italiasalbion]

You should care about your fellow Americans.

[thorsmitersaw]

'You should care about people who live within a arbitrarily determined distance or within a border drawn upon a map by a conquering mob of goons with a flag.' - YOU

Yea, I'll get right on that...

[Italiasalbion]

The American Identity is being lost. However, it is not too late. America was founded as a British Colony. Eventually, it won its' Independence. Its' blood was English, Scotch and Welsh. Its' religion was Protestant. Its' Laws came from English Tradition. Its' language was English. That is The American Nation and Americans should "become" that for that is the nation's identity. This process is called, "Assimilation." It is humbling.

[paleocrat]

We use the word in opposition to those advocating credal nations. It would be our position that inequalities aren't accidental, that each institution plays a vital role towards to common good of the nation, and that each is in one way or another detrimental to the well-being of the whole.

It is the golden mean between radical individualism and radical collectivism.

[SSSLLLAAYYEEERRRR]

My mistake, sorry about that. I should not be so quick to judge. Keep up the good fight!

[SSSLLLAAYYEEERRRR]

"Also, I loved this video. My father is a protectionist as well as most of my family."

Sound like you are in line with this economic-layman Socialist.

[SSSLLLAAYYEEERRRR]

The government should control how big a business gets? Do you not see how that is an invasion of the freedom of not only the consumer but the owners' freedom. You can not believe it but Nobel winning economic theory does back Rothbard's claims. Protectionism hurts the economy in general. Protectionism = Nationalism. Strengthen the coercive power of the state to help those they choose. Read the Ethics of Liberty, Property Rights = Freedom. BTW what does Christianity have to do with economics?

[TehBANN3D]

Christianity is a God given choice. Economics is the study of choice and action. Christianity has a lot to do with economics.

[SSSLLLAAYYEEERRRR]

Christianity is a choice that affects one's morality and may effect how they spend their money. That is true but the catholic social doctrine should not come up in an economic discussion. It has no effect on economic theories and is not related to the economy or the role of government in the economy. Religion and economics are not inter-related fields.

[Italiasalbion]

They've turned Economics into religion.

[utubehayter]

More accurately Christianity is a God given choice to an individual - the only choice being - Is Jesus christ your savior or do you believe in Jesus and his teachings?

Economics is a study of the workings of the market - which include three factors - resources, production and distribution. All three involve choices but they are external to the individual consumer and internal to the producer, while Christianity has to do with internal choice only of that individual.

Christianity is NOT Economics

[TehBANN3D]

I would tend to disagree. The way markets work is based on voluntary choice of market actors. There is nothing a market is besides the aggregate sum of the means and ends of a given group of people. Economics is the study of scarcity, choice/want, and human action and what these factors lead to.

[johnebii]

I would say economics is a study of human nature and how it plays itself out IN the market in regards to production, consumption, distribution, etc. I think the science boils down to an examination of human nature and the behaviours that flow from that. That's why it intrigues me so much. Basically I see it more like TehBann3D.

[TechnoNubian]

Totally agree. The Bible says the wages of sin is death; meaning a man's continuing working for sin is PAID with death at judgement day. Ecclesiastes teaches not to hate the rich because God gave them their wealth and fulfull their hearts. Paleo has no Knowledge of God.

[SSSLLLAAYYEEERRRR]

How can you call yourself an anarchist when you are for state coercion. You can have your protectionist beliefs but do not lie and call yourself an anarchist. You clearly are not.

[Bakedpotato14]

In a sense I see Capitalism more dangerous than Socialism, at least with Socialism you know who is the oppressor. In a completely capitalist society you become a slave of the a mighty buck, nothing becomes more important and people hardly realize it.

Look at what is happening in places like Poland, during the communist regime they found strength by their faith, but with the recent influx of capitalism they have become less and less faithful.

[Italiasalbion]

All this ideological crap seems like it's just a replacement for religion. I think can replace this stuff with common sense and good morals, which of course, come from God. Which, The West used to respect.

[Italiasalbion]

However, The West no longer does. Hence, it would appear that The West is cursed. Still, it is a matter of degrees, which way will the future take us? I don't know, but a prudent man would prepare himself: strong family, devoted wife and children, savings, low debt, good health and self-defense. You know, the things the wise always do.

[utubehayter]

Less and Less faithful in church (not in religion) - but more and more prosperous and generous.

[StormCommander]

So what is your opinion on Mises?

[paleocrat]

Not a big fan. His economic system, as like Rothbard and many others, was the fruit of his godless worldview. Man, his nature, his purpose, his actions, and their notions of good and evil were secular to the core. This being the case, our views dramatically differ. This isn't to say that there are no similarities; it is only to say that there are extreme - and essential - differences.

I find it sad when Christians are more influenced by the godless than the faithful in matters such as these.

[Italiasalbion]

So do I!

[Speaker2idiots]

Thanks for sending me this, Italia. And thanks to paleocrat for speaking on the subject of economics from a *human* perspective.

Human beings are more than their economic utility, for crying out loud.

[Italiasalbion]

You're Welcome!

[StormCommander]

Can you give me any specific examples?

[thorsmitersaw]

I fail to see how theism is in anyway important in economics.

[Italiasalbion]

Look, it is important to all science! Look at Einstein, an idiot! The theory of Relativity is total crap! Then look at Darwin, what a bonehead! Come on, these people are idiots! They believe life came from rocks! ROCKS!! O.k., you have to be "brain damaged" to believe this crap! Then look at Freud! AGain, unable to cure anything!!! Yes, he may describe a few things accurately, but he can't fix a thing! Hence, the explosion in "happy pills" and dependency on therapists. Failures!

[paleocrat]

It only matters in so far as one allows their religion to influence their concept of man, ethics, how humans ought to act, the role and authority of civil government, the common good, etc. If one radically separates his religion from economics (something no Catholic has the right to do), then it would be of no consequence... or at least of very little.

[utubehayter]

And Christ told you to disbelieve Rothbard? Or Mises? Would it have helped you better if they both were baptist or evangelical preachers like Huckabee or Hagee?

Did Christ tell you to not do the best you can to help others? Or Did Christ tell you to shut your eyes to the reality and knowledge of the world as his God built it?

What is this voluntary blindness I see in people who claim to be Christian? Do you love enemy as you love yourself? How are you a Christian?

When reality has proved

[paleocrat]

You grossly misunderstand my position and, consequently, my remarks.

I am a Catholic.

I am a Distributist in that I adhere to the Church's social and economic teaching (CST).

I am hesitant with economics constructed and championed (by and large) by atheists because of my beliefs concerning man, nations, teleology, ethics, the concept of the common good, etc. In short, because I presuppose the truth of CST.

Hagee? haha He is the village idiot. Or is it village Judaizer? No matter.

[utubehayter]

Alright, I understand where you are coming from - but that still puts you incredibly close to communism - only difference is that you believe in God instead of Marx.

You should be hesitant with any economics, because the wrong sort of economics will work against your desired goals. And this is precisely what I am arguing. If you want everyone to own something - to be able to sustain themselves and live with dignity - Free markets are the only proven way.

What @ wealth concentration in Vatican?

[utubehayter]

This is precisely the problem with any organized religion (as in contrast with individual faith). A few take charge, claim to be the authorities, the rest follow because it is easier than to learn and understand themselves. As time passes by power gravitates towards the few - and then so does wealth and dignity. The rest suffer - but are too afraid to challenge the few or are simply too ideologically enslaved in their minds. Can any Catholic person afford to live the luxuries of the Pope?

[brainpolice2]

So you see no shame in artificially restrictioning competition to, in effect, keep everyone's prices artificially high and limit their choices by force? Because that's what protectionism is.

[paleocrat]

I have no problem recognizing the fact that nations, anarchists whining to the contrary, are organic. I have no problem insisting that there is middle-ground between radical individualism and radical collectivism. Sometimes individual rights don't make the collective happy, and sometimes restrictions aimed at the common good don't make certain individuals happy.

It is only "artificially" high is you presuppose your concept of natural. I content that there is no pure market price. None.

[TehBANN3D]

Yes there is. A market price is the price of a good in a market void of coercion (that is, the price is purely the collective whim of the consumer). Certainly in a mixed economy it's hard to imagine a "pure" market price.