Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Red Jones
This article has enough in it to be the basics of a graduate level course in economics which is what I think might be planned for it. It should excite the intellectuals IMHO as is. With a lot of work and more research it could be developed into an interesting book. But to market it to the masses it needs to be re-written in a very shortened form.

-------------------------------

This is an offshoot of a comprehensive course at the graduate level or above which now euns about 1,000 pages and at times touchs on economics. The series has been running at zolatimes2.com for nearly four years. About 40% of my readers are M. D.s or Ph.D.s. There is another 30-50 page paper that goes with this, but which isn't on paper yet. It isn't easy reading.

This particular paper is at odds with my editor's economic views, so I am constructing my own web site to archive it.

RLK

20 posted on 10/28/2002 5:44:41 PM PST by RLK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]


To: RLK
I have a practical solution to propose. I first got this idea from Dick Gephardt in 1984 when Gephardt ran for president. He touted this idea.

We should have tariffs on a sliding scale. A law passed in congress should govern the process. When we have a trading relationship with a nation where they buy approximately the same quantity of goods and services from us as we buy from them, then we should not tax that trade relationship at all and tariffs should be zero on their products. But if they export to us just 50% more than we export to them, then we should put some kind of a tariff on their products. If they export twice to us what we export to them, then we should put on a much bigger tariff for that country, etc. For countries like China that export to us 5 times what we export to them, then in my mind the tariff should be 100% or even 200%.

Under these conditions the Chinese would immediately find American products to buy en masse. They would adjust their expectations and play under the new rules in order to develop their economy.

If we pursued this type of a policy, then the american economy would be buffered from the fallout. The less competitive manufacturers would still fail, but not nearly so many of them. We would be able to keep manufacturing industry here. We need this for both military and economic security.

I also think we should slap tariffs on countries that don't meet what we consider to be reasonable human rights policies. A Vietnam or a China that arrest people for possessing bibles should face a tariff just for that. Saudi Arabia that doesn't allow christians to meet should get the same.

We should re-adjust these tarrifs once a year. Then we should give all the money to the citizens in the form of tax rebates, a one time payment that is proportional to the amount of payroll taxes that the individual paid.
29 posted on 10/28/2002 6:55:02 PM PST by Red Jones
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies ]

To: RLK
I've been waiting for someone to put it into words in an organized and detailed article. I can see it get to the point that many can't buy even the cheap foreign products. Then we wouldn't be secure as a cash cow anymore in a world of ugly Americans.

This is from another article on FR.

On November 7, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the conference report on the 2004 Defense Authorization bill (H.R. 1588) with a much weakened version of its "buy American" program. Under the original proposal as crafted by House Armed Services Committee Chairman Duncan Hunter (R-CA), all critical components in a weapon system would have had to be American-made and the overall system had to be 65 percent American. Those two requirements were eliminated under intense pressure from the Bush Administration, whose commitment to the recovery of American manufacturing has now been clearly shown to be phony.

One of these days, one or several of those new manufacturing countries which provide our defense requirements may just decide it or they might like to live in America. All of America. If there's an America left after reading your logic.

60 posted on 02/12/2004 8:22:19 PM PST by William Terrell (Individuals can exist without government but government can't exist without individuals.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies ]

To: RLK
Sorry to see you're not posting anymore.

I'd never have discovered your writing if not for FR.

I'll have to make do with reading your work on Zola and elsewhere.

Good luck and thanks for the hard work.
61 posted on 02/12/2004 8:52:19 PM PST by primeval patriot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies ]

To: RLK
This appears to be a very good article but it's a rough read in a web browser. I suggest that you format it for easy reading and then create a pdf file. You could post a link to the file and we could copy and print it.
100 posted on 02/15/2004 3:10:47 AM PST by Colorado Buckeye (It's the culture, stupid!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson