Posted on 09/05/2011 9:49:48 PM PDT by Bratch
The UK has not been able to feed itself since the Napoleonic wars. It’s population grew rapidly from 4 million in 1600 to 41 million in 1900 (it was 9 million in 1800) — very rapid growth.
there was no Western Roman Empire in the sixth century -- it ended in the 400s....
Depends on which part of Black Africa you talk about -- Somalia is a basket case, yet Tanzania and Kenya and Uganda and Rwanda are doing well. Even Somaliland is progressing
you are right about the flash-mob tactics
Yeah, I know: that was my point. :)
aha :)
One of the succesful arguments for the 16th Amendment was that tariffs gave American business an unfair advantage. They got a protected market, but didn't have to pay any tax for the privilege. The income tax was sold as a way to level the playing field - as a way of making businesses pay for the privilege.
I know what happened to the U.K. afterwards, but that can be ascribed more accurately to the enactment of the Welfare State. The U.K. rioters were not rioting because the U.K. eliminated tariffs: they were rioting because their entitlement mentalities, fed by decades of socialist propaganda, told them that they had the right to loot.
Fact is, free trade - from the geopolitical standpoint - is a way of buying friends and allies. The German customs union - the Zollverein - was forty years ahead of the German Empire being formed. You can see the same tendency in the E.U. right now: customs union, currency union, political union. Even if no political union results, free trade still brings nations closer together. That's why D.C. is full of free traders. They know that free trade, with America as the biggest market in the world, means that foreigners will be more well-disposed to America than otherwise.
Do you know what the view of NAFTA is amongst Canadian free-trade skeptics? They're convinced that:
a) the United States got the better of the deal, and took Canada for a ride;
b) the U.S.' secret aim is to buy up Canadian resources and water;
c) it's part of a secret plan to make Canada the "51st state" - i.e., for the United States to take Canada over entirely.
They're quite convinced that the U.S. got the better of the deal.
a well-thought out post, thank you.
I've long been tempted to use that fact to confound Darwinists with high I.Q.s. In Darwinism, "survival of the fittest" is measured by differential reproduction rates. That's all: all else is opinion.
Given that, which subset of the population is currently fittest by Darwinian standards?
I never had the heart to use it on them, but it's a good acid test to separate the Darwinists from the Social Darwinists.
You may be interested to know: more than twenty years ago, James Dale Davidson and William Lord Rees-Mogg said that Communism benefitted the West by acting as a global set-aside program. Just as agricultural set-aside programs kept crop profits up by restricting supply, Communism kept manufacturing profits up by ruining the industrial base of Communist countries. There was no way in Hades that Communist manufactured goods could ever outcompete those of the States in the global marketplace.
It wasn't just the U.S. that benefitted from that set-aside; Western Europe and the rest of the free world did too...once their industrial base was no longer flattened. Communism ruined potential competitors, which lowered the competitive pressure on free-world manufacturers.
They used that argument to predict another Great Depression for the 1990s, which we've avoided.
As an aside, the nation that "war benefits the economy" is a conceit only holdable by residents of countries that were not turned into battlefields.
Glad to. It explains the paradox of the political class, who instinctively dislike the free market, being so gung-ho for free trade.
Also, I was glad of the opportunity to show what the other side of the border is like. :)
I am interested to know that -- I did not know it earlier. Am copying a few FRiends who are equally interested in gaining more knowledge
Thank you, daniel!
Davidson and Rees-Mogg have a point -- communism and socialism kept enslaved Eastern Europe, Russia, China, India, South-East Asia, etc.
you are also correct that the entire "war benefits the economy" is a conceit only holdable by residents of countries that were not turned into battlefields. --- I live in Warsaw now and we non-Poles never realise the level of destruction wrought on this nation (and others) during WWII. Warsaw was levelled -- pictures of it show a gigantic pile of ruin. Much of Poland was devastated by being the battlefield for two giant armies to run across. On every street corner in Warsaw one sees a monument saying "here on xxx date, Nazis killed yyy number of poles". The country was devastated, a quarter of it's population (Gentile and Jewish) was obliterated, it's industries destroyed, it's senior intelligentsia systematically targetted by the Nazis and the Soviets (think Katyn).
It took the Poles 40 years to recover (the Western countries with the exception of Germany was not devastated nearly as much), and the recovery was of course slowed down by communism
Again, glad to, Cronos. One thing can be said about the Poles: they're survivors. What we North Americans call "hell," they call "history."
Why is Pat Buchanan considered part of the Right, again?
2 points from an Australian perspective:
namely, the British Empire.... I know what happened to the U.K. afterwards, but that can be ascribed more accurately to the enactment of the Welfare State. The U.K. rioters were not rioting because the U.K. eliminated tariffs: they were rioting because their entitlement mentalities, fed by decades of socialist propaganda, told them that they had the right to loot...."Unions"
I was living in the UK when Margaret Thatcher took over from Labour PM James Callaghan. Still quite young at the time, I distinctly remember when Thatcher introduced tough economic measures, especially those against the unions. Massive riots ensued; the likes of which we, once again, recently witnessed. Although, I don't think recent riots in England were only due to economic conditions.
During Thatcher's time, her actions resulted in quite a few British union members & leaders moving to Australia. Later, the union influence & power play in Australia became known as "the British disease".
free trade still brings nations closer together. That's why D.C. is full of free traders. They know that free trade, with America as the biggest market in the world, means that foreigners will be more well-disposed to America than otherwise.
Yes. During John Howard gov't in Australia, he advocated free trade & signed related agreements with the US. His reasoning was exactly what you mention. Free trade w/ the US tends to benefit those nations w/ smaller market economy; provided regulation is also kept in check & larger economies don't put up barriers to entry for foreign traders.
. Need tariffs, quotas on imported goods, NOW.
Also need to reduce regulations , taxes and reduce government and abolish unions.
China is growing at 10% per year and changing from a 3rd world country to an industrialized country. U.S. is in decline cause everything is made in China not here.
Trump was the only one that said anything about China or OPEC.
Smoot-Hawley had little or no impact on the great depression. So quit with the free traitor lies on this thread.
"What happens if we focus on exports alone? Exports were $5.9 billion in 1929, and had declined to $2.0 billion in 1933, for a -$3.9 billion decline. This $3.9 billion decline was roughly 3.8% of our 1929 GDP, which had already declined by a whopping 46% over the same period of time. Thus, of the -46% GDP decline, only 3.8% of it was due to a fall in exports. "
From the Smoot Hawley Fairy Tale
That is depressing...
Still? I retired in 1999 as a CNC operator at a pay rate that you wouldn't believe if I told you and with all the over time I could stomach.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.