Posted on 12/24/2009 9:01:44 PM PST by rabscuttle385
So...where did our jobs go?
“The deadliest war in our history was between two free-trade partners: the northern and southern halves of the United States.”
A fact CATO would prefer to ignore. And Germany was the main trading partner of France and Britain prior to WWI.
Citing the Morrill tariff reinforces Eel’s point, not yours. That tariff imposed no taxes on north-south trade. In order to fit CATO’s argument war should have broken out between America and a foreign power affected by the tariff, not between two sections of the United States.
“There was an embargo. When countries are dependent on each other economically, it is too costly to go to war. When they allow embargoes, protectionism, etc. to reign, hostilities are given a voice.”
“I don’t know much about history” - Sam Cooke, 1958
Rabscuttle is making reference to Commodore Perry compelling Japan to begin trading in 1854. Prior to that Japan was happily isolationist and not threatening anyone. Had they been left to stew in their own juices there might not have been a Pearl Harbor. You can’t embargo someone who is isolationist by choice.
Don't even believe the free trader if they told you. They classify 'frozen pizza' production as manufacturing.
And they won't answer what's to happened to the unemployed.
Don't even believe the free trader if they told you. They classify 'frozen pizza' production as manufacturing.
And they won't answer what's to happened to the unemployed.
“A fact CATO would prefer to ignore. And Germany was the main trading partner of France and Britain prior to WWI.”
Germany became increasingly protectionist during the Nazi regime. So did England. Most countries did during the Great Depression.
“So...where did our jobs go?”
Jobs are created and destroyed regularly in the economy. You may as well complain that all of the stagecoach driving jobs are gone, that all of the horse grooming jobs are gone, that all of the dung-gathering jobs are gone.
Does it bother your if your job is taken by somebody else in your town if they can do it more efficiently than you can? I imagine so—nobody likes losing a job—but would you think that the government needs to step in and stop your employer from trying to be as efficient as possible, at making a profit, and at providing goods and services to consumers at the lowest price possible?
Would it bother you if your job was taken by somebody in another country? Why? What’s the difference whether they are your neighbor or somebody in another hemisphere? That the work gets done, is what’s important. The increasing exportation of labor-intensive manufacturing is a sign of increasing prosperity, not decreasing prosperity.
Horsehockey. The jobs I’mt talking about still exist, they just exist somewhere else with a lower standard of living.
Let me explain it to you in little words and short sentences.
The Morrill Tariff affected international trade.
Trade between the States isn’t international.
Ergo the Morrill Tariff had no effect on domestic trade.
That should be easy enough for even you to follow. Well, maybe not. Get your dad to explain it to you.
” “You cant embargo someone who is isolationist by choice.” If you had read the link I provided you would have spared yourself the embarrassment of being wrong: “In 1940 Japan invaded French Indochina “
You know, if I didn’t already know you to be a dunce I would think that you were putting me on. Unfortunately you’re not. But let’s try this again, and see if I can make the explanation simpler for you. Maybe you’ll even learn a bit of history in the process, assuming that you are capable of learning, which has yet to be demonstrated.
Rabscuttle was making reference to an event some 85 years before FDR’s embargo and WWII. It was the opposite of an embargo. That means “not an embargo”, just to stress the point. That event was the forced opening of Japan’s ports by Commodore Peary in 1854.
This forced Japan to trade with the rest of the world, something it hadn’t been doing for 200 years. During those years of isolation Japan had posed no problem to its neighbors. Once Japan was roused from its splendid isolation thanks to a zealous imposition of trade, that all changed.
In appreciative imitation of Commodore Peary Japan first eyed Korea, forcing them to open themselves to Japanese trade. This led to conflict with China, and by 1894 Japan and China were at war. Japan sank the Chinese fleet and ended up with Korea and a chunk of Chinese territory as well.
Japan’s expansion brought it into conflict with Russia, which resulted in another war by 1905. Japan sank the Russian fleet, and basically established itself as the major power in the western Pacific. This led to a second war with China in 1937, and eventually the greater Pacific War that ended with atomic bombs.
So while it’s nice that you know about FDR and his oil embargo, maybe you should also consider that forcing Japan to open its markets didn’t turn out to be such a peaceful endeavor for the rest of the world. It was more like poking a nest of fire ants with a stick.
“Germany became increasingly protectionist during the Nazi regime. So did England. Most countries did during the Great Depression.”
Yes, that’s all very nice. But what I wrote was WWI. That’s the Great War, which took place from 1914 to 1919. I realize that your understanding of history is a bit hazy at best, so you may not know that a major European war took place nearly two decades before the Depression and the Nazi Party’s rise to power. Nice try though. Keep cracking those books.
Daniel T. Griswold is the associate director of the Center for Trade Policy Studies at the Cato Institute in Washington. Added to cato.org on December 31, 1998
This article appeared on cato.org on December 31, 1998.
Eleven year old article, eleven more years of lopsided anti-American, pro-global-communist Free Traitor agreements.
And look at the wonderful condition of our economy. You certainly can't blame it on the lack of "free trade" agreements, no protectionism to blame (at least not USA protectionism).
All these experts at Cato need to be hanged right alongside the Democrats, RINOs, and the Wall Street thieves.
The reality is that purist economic theories exist in vacuums, totally divorced from all the sectors of the real world they supposedly "study". Economists are totally useless, usually worse than useless, when the realities of business, markets, domestic policies, international relations, etc., don't match up with their theories.
Real life is more complex than their laboratories and think tanks.
Most of us who have bothered to get real educations actually have studied economics, but as an addition to other fields of study, not as a total replacement of such, along with total rejection of common sense and observation.
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.