Thread: Free Trade vs Protectionism

Originally Posted by Porras

I would say that 90-100k a year puts you in the 'not rich' category, though you'd have an easier time changing that than most. For the most part, people don't get rich from wages. Rich people are the ones who have so much that they're given enough money to live comfortably off of just because they have that much. Coincidentally, if you make 90-100k a year from dividends, then you're rich.

That is not a bad way to put it, to generate $90-$100K a year from dividends (and other returns) would take a sizable investment portfolio one may conclude is "wealth." But I am not so sure that means they should be the target of new taxes, as in exclusively hold this group responsible and ignore the rest of the broken tax code.

Originally Posted by teaser47401

Ok John you threw me for a loop there. High paying union jobs is what I’m all about ... Can’t have them when people are willing to work for next to nothing overseas and the government lets their products in without penalty.

"Without penalty" is what freedom is all about. By having a coercive agent penalize a man overseas who is so desperate he'll work for next to nothing is cruel, hurts the little guy and is not the American way; it's not what made America great.

Originally Posted by Porras

I would say that 90-100k a year puts you in the 'not rich' category, though you'd have an easier time changing that than most. For the most part, people don't get rich from wages. Rich people are the ones who have so much that they're given enough money to live comfortably off of just because they have that much. Coincidentally, if you make 90-100k a year from dividends, then you're rich.

Make 100k in Los Angeles or New York, you're probably not in very good shape. You might have a 1000 sq ft apartment that's costing you half your income.

Make 100k in Alabama, you should have a fair bit of disposable income in invest into property, business ventures, or just plain save. While having a 2500 sq.ft. house and 2 SUV's.

Originally Posted by JohnLocke

"Without penalty" is what freedom is all about. By having a coercive agent penalize a man overseas who is so desperate he'll work for next to nothing is cruel, hurts the little guy and is not the American way; it's not what made America great.

Most people just plain don't understand what freedom is John. It scares them.

John Locke, “"Without penalty" is what freedom is all about. By having a coercive agent penalize a man overseas who is so desperate he'll work for next to nothing is cruel, hurts the little guy and is not the American way; it's not what made America great.”

If imports are brought into this country free of taxation and safety regulations, why shouldn’t American goods share those same freedoms?

The second law enacted by the newly formed federal government of the United States was the creation of tariffs. For the first hundred years of its existence the federal government was supported through tariffs. Tariffs are, or at least were, the American way; it is what made America great.

9aces, “Most people just plain don't understand what freedom is John. It scares them.”

Eric David Harris and Dylan Bennet Klebold exercised their freedom at Columbine High School killing 13 and wounding 24.

Yes Ace, the freedom of those who act without a sense of moral responsibility scares me.

Originally Posted by teaser47401

If imports are brought into this country free of taxation and safety regulations, why shouldn’t American goods share those same freedoms?

The second law enacted by the newly formed federal government of the United States was the creation of tariffs. For the first hundred years of its existence the federal government was supported through tariffs. Tariffs are, or at least were, the American way; it is what made America great.



Eric David Harris and Dylan Bennet Klebold exercised their freedom at Columbine High School killing 13 and wounding 24.

Yes Ace, the freedom of those who act without a sense of moral responsibility scares me.

As I said, freedom scares you. In a free society, you will have the aberrant individuals who lash out at others. Fear by people like you guaranteed a massacre by preventing people being able to act responsibly to defend their lives and the lives of others.

You cannot prevent such things no matter how much you wish you could, no matter how much you try. All you can do is be prepared to minimize the damage when vermin like that crawl out of their hole. Man is the dominant species on the planet, it became that because homo sapiens sapiens are the greatest killers that have ever walked the earth.

You do not want freedom, you're deathly afraid of the choices that come with it. Some good, some bad. When you have a violent species, there will always be some bad. By embracing slavery as you do, you give power to the worst, not the best.

Originally Posted by 9aces

You do not want freedom, you're deathly afraid of the choices that come with it. Some good, some bad. When you have a violent species, there will always be some bad. By embracing slavery as you do, you give power to the worst, not the best.

That' a pretty broad stroke.
You want to eliminate our military?
You want to give up police protection?

Freedom vs no freedom?
You can do better than that.

Originally Posted by USCitizen

That' a pretty broad stroke.
You want to eliminate our military?
You want to give up police protection?

Freedom vs no freedom?
You can do better than that.

They are not mutually exclusive. The role of the police is to serve and protect. However to do that job universally, you'd need 1 police officer for every man, woman and child, an inherent impossibility.

BTW, what is the military's role? I doubt you know what that truly is.

Originally Posted by John Drake

I don't understand either the reference to sacrificial animals or cruelty. I think the rich should bear the main burden of the costs mainly because they have it, and the both of you need to rethink the practicality of deriving blood from turnips.

From those according to their abilities, to those according to their needs.

You do know you are beyond a doubt espousing Marxist Philosophy right?

Originally Posted by Porras

I would say that 90-100k a year puts you in the 'not rich' category, though you'd have an easier time changing that than most. For the most part, people don't get rich from wages. Rich people are the ones who have so much that they're given enough money to live comfortably off of just because they have that much. Coincidentally, if you make 90-100k a year from dividends, then you're rich.

So what about someone like me?

I have worked my ass off for over 10 years, sheesh when I think about it close to 15 years building a business, employing 3 people and between my wife and I we take home a bit over 100K. I would love to know how that money was GIVEN to me when I have had many a week at 100+ hours.

What about all the small business owners that have put blood and sweat into their businesses. They didn't just get money GIVEN to them.

Then you have the million dollar lottery winners like the one in Detroit that still went and collected welfare till the news made a stink. The government was quite happy to give the Rich person more and more money.

Originally Posted by teaser47401

If imports are brought into this country free of taxation and safety regulations, why shouldn’t American goods share those same freedoms?

The second law enacted by the newly formed federal government of the United States was the creation of tariffs. For the first hundred years of its existence the federal government was supported through tariffs. Tariffs are, or at least were, the American way; it is what made America great.

No the willingness to work hard and make the effort to succeed made this country great with millions of immigrants who came here to escape the poor conditions of their countries where they were unable to break out of their poor existence because of oppressive governments.

Not immigrants that just wanted to sponge off the system.

Eric David Harris and Dylan Bennet Klebold exercised their freedom at Columbine High School killing 13 and wounding 24.

Yes Ace, the freedom of those who act without a sense of moral responsibility scares me.

Equating a couple of people committing a crime to trade and commerce. Really you think that is a valid argument. A couple of kids who were a product of our Federally controlled public school system and the lack of parental concern and effort to teach someone right from wrong and comparing that to the economy?

I have seen some strange and very ignorant stretches for debate but that one is close to the top 5 of bad.

Originally Posted by Wlessard

No the willingness to work hard and make the effort to succeed made this country great with millions of immigrants who came here to escape the poor conditions of their countries where they were unable to break out of their poor existence because of oppressive governments.

Not immigrants that just wanted to sponge off the system.




Equating a couple of people committing a crime to trade and commerce. Really you think that is a valid argument. A couple of kids who were a product of our Federally controlled public school system and the lack of parental concern and effort to teach someone right from wrong and comparing that to the economy?

I have seen some strange and very ignorant stretches for debate but that one is close to the top 5 of bad.

I think millions came here also because they were probably waiting for the next war to take away from them whatever they would acheive.

Fair Trade based upon what hasn't worked well for the nation would be the way to go but lots of us can't afford to take our Reps out to dinner.

I get the feeling that there are a lot of libertarians out there that think that America should not have laws governing:

• Child labor
• Environmental protection
• Antitrust
• Product safety
• Occupational safety and health.
• Equal opportunity
• Collective bargaining
• Intellectual property
• Minimum wage

Libertarians see these laws as an affront to their freedoms when these laws were meant to free Americans from the economic slavery that resulted form laissez faire capitalism during the industrial revolution.

The market forces that made it profitable to exploit the economically disadvantaged still exist. These laws are Americans’ only protection against a reemergence of the slave wages and inhumane working conditions of the 19th century.

In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries corporations encouraged immigration to the United States to create a surplus of labor in order to force wages down. Today they simply move the jobs to disadvantaged counties and import the finished product thereby skirting American law and devastating the American economy.

The hard won freedoms guaranteed by the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 may only be retained by applying it equally to all goods sold the United States.

As a practical matter, I see no way to balance the budget without taxing imports. The rich don’t have the money, the middle class is shrinking, and even Reagan could not reduce governmental spending on social programs to a sustainable level.

If you see some other way out, I’d love to hear it, but barring that can we not look at amending our free trade policies and quit making pariahs of politicians who dare to suggest it.