Replies

Because the federal government is not charged in the Constitution with overseeing business or the economy. Just as it's unConstitutional for the fedgov to be in education so it is with business.

If you have not noticed the distinction made on this thread between free markets and "Free Trade" that is where a lot of confusion lies. It is a natural consequence of our intended Constitutionally protected liberty to engage in free market principles.

But "Free Trade" is not simply a principle of economics, as 'free market' philosophy is, it is an ideology that must be supported through a structural form of governance. It is not possible to have two structural forms of governance simultaneously. The principles of individual liberty, freedom and the pursuit of happiness are at odds with the corporate "Free Trade" goals of maximized profits, maximized trade and maximized use of "human capital" as the government sees it.

The original intent was for the fedgov to protect Americans so that they could do business in the manner in which they chose. "Free Trade," as the term has come to mean through NAFTA et al, is government designed business. Not too far from communism at all.

Whew. Ok. Thanks for making your position clear.

In principle, I actually agree with you on a couple of points. I don't believe that the fedgov should be in education OR business. But at this point, that is pie in the sky theory stuff. We HAVE to deal with things as they currently exist. We can damn FDR or LBJ all we want, but their choices (and the choices of those generations in electing them) have consequences that have left us in the situation we are in today.

So how do you propose we create "free markets" today without help from the fedgov? And just because the fed gov has a vested interest in max profits, max trade and max use of human capital as they see it—does that mean that we are required to participate?

If not, how is it at odds with individual liberty, freedom and the pursuit of happiness?

But "Free Trade" is not simply a principle of economics, as 'free market' philosophy is, it is an ideology that must be supported through a structural form of governance.

Now I'm confused--- I hadn't seen this post of yours. How can you support "open" trade while being against "free" trade? It seems to me those two terms mean precisely the same thing.

Free trade is definitely based upon the same principle as free markets. Subsidizing businesses by protecting them from overseas competitors never helps any nation's economy.

If it did help the nation's economy, we should expect subsidizing businesses by protecting them from competition between states and cities to make those cities with the most protectionist measures to flourish.

If even one of those notions--- if protectionism helped cities OR nations were correct, the measures taken to protect the auto industry in America would have borne some fruit. Detroit would still be the prosperous city it was 40 years ago, Coleman Young would have been a success as its mayor and the American auto industries would be stronger than ever. But this has not happened.