Latest topics
» Trump Card, LLC
Fri May 06, 2016 4:56 am by Admin

» ICYMI: Sen. Ted Cruz and Rep. Paul Ryan: Putting Congress in Charge on Trade
Sat Nov 21, 2015 4:36 pm by Erin Adkins

» Glenn Beck Media Scam Artist and Political Provocateur
Fri Nov 20, 2015 11:51 pm by Admin

» PNAC - Project For a New American Century
Mon Nov 09, 2015 4:47 pm by Admin

» Cheri Jacobus
Fri Nov 06, 2015 10:30 am by Admin

» Marco Rubio - An American Betrayal
Thu Nov 05, 2015 9:59 pm by Admin

» Club For Growth Operations
Mon Nov 02, 2015 4:06 pm by Erin Adkins

» Club For Growth
Mon Nov 02, 2015 3:46 pm by Erin Adkins

» Adam Stoll - Bask Media, Inc.
Mon Nov 02, 2015 12:46 am by Erin Adkins


A Word About Free Markets

View previous topic View next topic Go down

A Word About Free Markets

Post  Erin Adkins on Fri Oct 23, 2015 7:07 pm

I was working on Trump Foes, Club For Growth and I had to stop a second and say a word about FREE MARKETS because the first donor to CFG is a big free market fan.  That's great.  I am too but if you're going to be picking the best candidate for President, that candidate better be able to fix the problems with that free market because we've got problems now that were never anticipated with the concept of NAFTA.  To make matters worse, TPP is a radical extension to NAFTA that strips the U.S. Constitution bare naked and furthers the goal of Globalism under the rules and practices of Imperialism.

For definition's sake, FREE MARKETS:



dictionary.reference wrote:a capitalistic economic system in which there is free competition and prices are determined by the interaction of supply and demand.

Merriam-Webster wrote:an economic market or system in which prices are based on competition among private businesses and not controlled by a government.

and the longer version that's no so simple at the Economics Library where the key point is made that: http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/FreeMarket.html


Murray N. Rothbard wrote:This means that the key to the existence and flourishing of the free market is a society in which the rights and titles of private property are respected, defended, and kept secure. The key to socialism, on the other hand, is government ownership of the means of production, land, and capital goods. Under socialism, therefore, there can be no market in land or capital goods worthy of the name.


We know that Sanders is a Socialist so the words of Murray Rothbard should make your blood run cold if that guy were ever elected.  He wants to take control of all your assets and distribute it his way.  There's no more free market in that scenario.  The government just takes over and you're at their mercy for everything.  When they run out of money, and remember we're broke and already in $18T dollar debt, you're on your own anyway.  To make matters worse, Sanders proposes freebies that will incur another $18T debt and he has no idea where he's going to get the money he's promising.  Truth is, it doesn't exist.  He's a politician looking for votes from people who don't know any better and believe in fairy tales.

Trump's position is that free markets are good, but when others in the NAFTA agreement aren't respecting our economy and hijacking it with devalued currency (China) and manipulation of goods, private property is not defended or secure.  American companies like Ford, who can't compete in their own country are moving out entirely and going to Mexico where labor is cheap.  The security of jobs is then an obvious concern.

The naysayers are interestingly not Economists, but opinion writers, like
Charles Lane @ChuckLane1 who resign themselves to NAFTA and take the position that there's nothing you can do about it, just deal with it.  He doesn't mention that he links back to a biased-Mexican reporter who probably never told you about human feces found in Mexican crop fields.

Donald Trump takes the position that there is something we can do to not only bring back the balance of fairness but stop our economy from falling into further debt.  Trump says that if we don't take action, the only prospect is to continue to pay China, with no end in sight, while they flood our economy with cheap goods and the balance is in their favor because we let them do it.  He calls it a "magic act" because we continue to borrow money from China while they continue unfair "free trade" deals while manipulating their currency.  What remains is the incurring debt to China where our assets are collateral.  He points out that it's not just China, everyone else now sees how easy it is to get over on the United States and jumped on the same wagon.  We're headed for an even worse collapse.

The "magic act" concerns me because in Economics we learn that the best way to kill a country silently is to take a free people and saddle them with debt.  It's not the government who has to pay it off, the share is distributed among every single citizen.  Look at any debt chart out there.  When the economy fails, your assets are then captured when the market busts.  The government prints money out of thin air just to stay alive another day.  They keep the economy floating on imaginary lines with low interest rates, but that's just causing another bubble and we all know what happens when those burst.

What I don't understand is why all these conservatives are quick to raise the free market banner but have no interest at all in securing and defending it from foreign manipulators which is a prerequisite to the free trade system.  Who's job is that?  The government's job is to make sure your job, our economy and free trade is not only balanced but secure.  They create the atmosphere where the people are able to prosper.  If they do nothing in the face of outside or inside corruption, you suffer and are powerless to stop it without your elected official's help.

In the case of Ford, they just throw up their hands and move out where they can find a profit because under the this current incompetent Obama administration, it's not competitive or fair.  Ford has seen other automotive industries face the prospect of bankruptcy and needing government bailouts to stay alive.  They know it's just another debt we don't need.

The problem needs to be solved and all agree the answer is not the TPP (Trans-Pacific Partnership) which is NAFTA on steroids and quite honestly, global government that diminishes your sovereign rights or takes them away completely at the international level.  So while all you free market thumpers are out there screaming who is the better conservative and demanding that your children's future be protected and secure, maybe you might want to think about who is offering them a future and who is saying we have NAFTA, just deal with it.  Even if they know NAFTA is part of the problem, it's like a leaky faucet they refuse to replace for absolutely no reason except some people like to live with old, antiquated broken stuff.  Except for TPP, they'll consider that in secret and run when WikiLeaks tells everyone what's in it.

Sometimes I just don't think people think this stuff through enough and that's because they join groups and repeat whatever the leader says, critical thinking be damned.  That includes stupid politicians, too.

I'm not saying that the other candidates are bad but Lane isn't making his case for conservatism by trying to marginalize Trump with the Protectionist label which is only a talking point with no substance.  It only serves to divide and that's the absolute worst attitude to preach right now.  It's immature and coming from a Harvard law student, I have to wonder if he's not manipulating emotions for the sake of his own agenda and not looking at the bigger picture of the damaged atmosphere he's helping to create.  Or maybe that's his objective, who knows?




STATISTICS

Some numbers came in tonight at the Miami, Florida Trump Rally during Donald Trump's speech.  He reports a trade imbalance of:


  •  45B - Mexico

  •  70B - Japan

  • 400B - China


That's a net deficit of approximately $515 billion dollars that the United States is losing in trade demonstrating that the free market definition isn't working.

Trade Deficit wrote:
A trade deficit, which is also referred to as net exports, is an economic condition that occurs when a country is importing more goods than it is exporting. The deficit equals the value of goods being imported minus the value of goods being exported, and it is given in the currency of the country in question.


The United States has been running consistent trade deficits since 1976 due to high imports of oil and consumer products. In recent years, the biggest trade deficits were recorded with China, Japan, Germany and Mexico.


You can see how devaluating a currency would complicate this problem.

Currency Devaluation wrote:
"Devaluation" means official lowering of the value of a country's currency within a fixed exchange rate system, by which the monetary authority formally sets a new fixed rate with respect to a foreign reference currency.

This means when an exporter goes to sell their goods to that country, they are going to receive even less for their goods.  That's not even counting the high taxes they have to pay that country.  This is manipulating the world market and it's not even close to being a "free market" under these conditions.

Using Protectionism as an offensive label to defend this imbalance is counter-intuitive to Rothbard's explanation of defending and securing free trade, which he says is "the key to the existence and flourishing of the free market" in a society. 


Protectionism wrote:The theory or practice of shielding a country's domestic industries from foreign competition by taxing imports.

As you can see, none of what Charles Lane espouses makes any sense.  In choosing your candidate, whoever that is, please keep these points in mind and get honest answers you should already know the MSM is not going to tell you.


Last edited by Erin Adkins on Sat Oct 24, 2015 11:50 am; edited 14 times in total
avatar
Erin Adkins

Posts : 25
Join date : 2015-10-04

Back to top Go down

A Word About Charles Lane

Post  Erin Adkins on Fri Oct 23, 2015 7:32 pm

Charles Lane writes for the Washington Post and was educated by Yale Law School and Harvard College. He is a member of the sometimes loathed Council on Foreign Relations but forgot to include links to their site that also include concerns regarding an outdated NAFTA.

Why any conservative would even be quoting this man is unbelievable based on a very lackluster presentation and an opening argument that starts out about Donald Trump's hair.  The mainstay of his garble is the "possible" loss of jobs but he shows absolutely no statistics to back up his fear-mongering (probably because Economics Professors wouldn't even agree with him).  He doesn't have any counter-solution to unfair "free" markets and he offers none.

The conclusion is, this article he wrote is not based on facts, but his opinion that Trump is bad, but he can't tell you exactly why, just take his word for it.  He has no idea what to do about the problems Trump lays out but hey, NAFTA, deal with it.  It's the "law of the land, like it or not".  Actually, it's an agreement that can be modified.  Then he goes on to say that tariffs violate the Constitution when they do nothing of the kind.  In fact, the U.S. Supreme Court raised questions about the constitutionality of certain provisions in the North American Free Trade Agreement that Charles Lane completely ignored. That's hard to swallow coming from a Yale student with a two-toned education that's supposed to impress us.  Instead, we're walking away completely unimpressed with his sourpuss face and defeatist attitude.
avatar
Erin Adkins

Posts : 25
Join date : 2015-10-04

Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum