Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Peter Schiff For Senate!

Rate this topic


brian0918

Recommended Posts

How is that ?Decrying a trade deficit, which is a symptom of a problem as opposed to always being a symptom of a problem, put him in league with mercantilists. Seeing value in concrete physical goods as being somehow of more value than value in services, puts him in league with the physiocrats.

BTW, Ron Paul displays some of the same problems. He used to talk about some conspiratorial trans-U.S. highway and decry NAFTA. I know, I know... libertarians will say that he really wants totally free trade and not these negotiated treaties. I cannot look inside his mind, but I know what side he effectively teams up with when he decries things like NAFTA. (I wonder whether Schiff is also anti-NAFTA). It is similar to starting with an anti-FED position (which is well and good), and then advocating a more democratically-controlled FED (which is bad). (I wonder where Schiff stands on the FED audit bill.)

Of course Schiff is against NAFTA - everyone here should be too. His reasoning is not based on conspiracy theories like Ron Paul, but rather on principle.

Peter supports the audit the fed bill, but he has not been in favor of abolishing the fed lately. He said in a recent interview that he wanted to severely restrict its power to simply handling money supply - a completely legal function of government according to the Constitution. He has stated in the past that he's for the separation of economy and state (quoting Ayn Rand while saying it) but I'm sure for political reasons he hasn't embraced this rhetoric lately.

Edited by Andrew Grathwohl
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 278
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Brian,

I don't disagree with your fundamental point. More broadly, every locale or geopolitical entity will have its own issues, and in your comment, drawbacks. But individuals in each country, given what they can do legally and financially, will make the best choice available to them within the worldwide economy. There is no nation in the world today that doesn't have some governmental interference that undercuts their ability to produce and trade in a consistently rational manor. One of the good things about international markets, e.g., commodities and the Internet, is that they are a protection from some of the irrationality at home.

You misread the global economic situation quite a bit in this post.

The reason why overseas investing is a safe haven for Americans is because we can't afford our massive expansion in government, while the more productive and profitable economies of China and Japan CAN afford it. Their industries will recover quicker from the economic crisis and see profits and growth sooner; decoupling has arrived. Their expansions in government aren't as harmful, because the currency can take the punishment. Our economy is unique in that it is too weak to handle the stimulus packages and government expansion that we've hurdled at it.

The problem here isn't the government undercutting production, but rather the government undercutting the value of its own currency. This can indeed impact production considerably, but the problem is much more fundamental. Given the choice between merely saving, or merely spending, it makes no sense for an American to save his money because he will then, in fact, witness a devaluation in his money. Only the rational Americans will purchase precious metals, invest in foreign stocks, and buy commodities. And - the huge decline in personal wealth throughout the country as my witness - most Americans are not rational. You cannot assume that a citizen will make the best choice available to him/her, because recent history has clearly shown that this does not happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course Schiff is against NAFTA - everyone here should be too. His reasoning is not based on conspiracy theories like Ron Paul, but rather on principle.

He's against free trade agreements on principle?

Peter supports the audit the fed bill, but he has not been in favor of abolishing the fed lately.

What principle is he applying there? Say what people want to hear?

He said in a recent interview that he wanted to severely restrict its power to simply handling money supply - a completely legal function of government according to the Constitution.

Which article of the Constitution?

Edited by Jake_Ellison
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You misread the global economic situation quite a bit in this post.

The reason why overseas investing is a safe haven for Americans is because we can't afford our massive expansion in government, while the more productive and profitable economies of China and Japan CAN afford it. Their industries will recover quicker from the economic crisis and see profits and growth sooner; decoupling has arrived. Their expansions in government aren't as harmful, because the currency can take the punishment. Our economy is unique in that it is too weak to handle the stimulus packages and government expansion that we've hurdled at it.

I know that what you say above is part of your analysis. I'm in the position of not being able to agree with you because I have no reason to do so. I mean, what you have offered is an analysis without references that I can go check the evidence. What I know of the Chinese and Japanese economies do not support your statements. Actually, the same is true regarding the U.S. If the U.S. economy is that weak your conclusion would be reasonable. Without the evidence for your position, my "reading" of the global economic situation is more accurate. Please offer support. Please do not just repeat yourself. I and others have offered at least some evidence for our position. It is a mark of respect.

In Schiff's recently published 2.0, he also said he see signs of "decoupling". Again, he did not say what signs those were. Apparently you have seen these signs as well. Could you please show us where those signs are?

Only the rational Americans will purchase precious metals, invest in foreign stocks, and buy commodities. And - the huge decline in personal wealth throughout the country as my witness - most Americans are not rational. You cannot assume that a citizen will make the best choice available to him/her, because recent history has clearly shown that this does not happen.

I don't think that I used the term "rational" in my statement. I do, of course, understand that a person will have to use the theoretical framework in their own brain to make their decisions. (That their wealth went down and they do not know the real reason does not make them irrational, just ignorant.) Yet, they will be rational to the extent that they want to further their own welfare (self-interest), and a large proportion will pay attention to the situation they are in. As for the U.S. resident, do not reject Ayn Rand's basic respect for their fundamental soundness. They may not have the sophistication necessary to begin buying gold on the international market, but they will find ways to protect themselves.

In a recent public presentation, I suggested that we might need some real price inflation to wake people up to the fact of our politician’s insanity, we are on the way. I have also heard a prominent Objectivist say that Obama is the best thing to happen to Objectivism in a long time. Perhaps it is better that people do not know how to use international markets and will focus more on changing the theoretical framework of our government.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In Schiff's recently published 2.0, he also said he see signs of "decoupling". Again, he did not say what signs those were. Apparently you have seen these signs as well. Could you please show us where those signs are?

In a recent public presentation, I suggested that we might need some real price inflation to wake people up to the fact of our politician’s insanity, we are on the way. I have also heard a prominent Objectivist say that Obama is the best thing to happen to Objectivism in a long time. Perhaps it is better that people do not know how to use international markets and will focus more on changing the theoretical framework of our government.

You should listen to his podcast, this would answer a lot of the questions you have. There should be a new one posting today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Andrew,

As I am sure you know, Schiff's 2.0 was just released. In it he said:

“…but I’m also surprised at the extent to which the European Central Bank (ECB) and other foreign central banks have adapted inflationary policies.” (p. 313)

I thought that it was interesting. He was somehow expecting something different. In my review I wrote:

He has consistently treated the U.S. as a country that acts differently than every other country. Yet the concept of the central bank and how it should function is a European invention. The fiscal policy that our country follows was created by our old friend Keynes, an Englishman. All of the central bankers in the world went to the same schools, read the same texts and authors, and talk and communicate all the time. Why does he think that they wouldn’t all act the same?

Schiff also said about other, mostly Asian, countries after "decoupling":

I’m talking prosperity and growth unlike anything we could imagine when those nations had their wings freighted with the United States' excessive debt and trade imblances. (p. 280)

He regards the U.S. as a drag on the world that defies comparison.

In considering the consequences of the loss of buying power from the U.S., I do not think that Schiff realizes the disruptions in asset realocation and falling prices that will be needed. As prices fall, most central banks, being no different than our own, will step in and begin issuing money. It is not going to be milk and honey.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You should listen to his podcast, this would answer a lot of the questions you have. There should be a new one posting today.

I have. Last week he said that decoupling was here. He didn't say how he knew or how. He does the same in his pod casts as he does in his book. He does not offer evidence, only conclusions. The on I heard last week wasn't bad, but other than his brief comment that decoupling has started, he did not discuss international issues. That the dollar will decline is not in contention. The speed of the decline, dumping of the dollar by central banks, causes of dollar balances, are all in dispute in this thread.

Anyway, no he did not provide grounds for his conclusions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. He's against free trade agreements on principle?

2. What principle is he applying there? Say what people want to hear?

3. Which article of the Constitution?

1. "Free trade agreement" is an oxymoron.

2. No.

3. Article 1; Section 8.

"The Congress shall have Power .... To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My main concern or question about Schiff is this. Do you need economic advisor's in the Senate? Will it have some benefit? Will it result or support the goals that need to be achieved? This is my basic question.

He is not primarily an economic adviser. He is a stock broker with an incredible record of predictive accuracy and gains in his clients' portfolios.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know that what you say above is part of your analysis. I'm in the position of not being able to agree with you because I have no reason to do so. I mean, what you have offered is an analysis without references that I can go check the evidence. What I know of the Chinese and Japanese economies do not support your statements. Actually, the same is true regarding the U.S. If the U.S. economy is that weak your conclusion would be reasonable. Without the evidence for your position, my "reading" of the global economic situation is more accurate. Please offer support. Please do not just repeat yourself. I and others have offered at least some evidence for our position. It is a mark of respect.

Oh, I see. So now I'm disrespecting you? <_<

The "support" you provided consisted of quoting Peter's book - many times, you completely misinterpreted what he wrote. You've offered little else. The only tangible evidence provided to me for any claim made here has been the posting of the CATO institute's completely flawed outlook on productivity in the United States. The support was even less helpful when I pointed out that a country can easily not be any more productive, despite an increase in the PMI.

Long-term currency charts are a good representation of a country's economic health. Look at the yen, yuan, and Australian dollar as compared to the USD. What you'll find is that, despite every other country's mirroring of our monetary and fiscal policies, their purchasing power is increasing, while our purchasing power is decreasing. The Yen, if I remember correctly, hit a 52-week high recently, while we continue to hit new lows at an alarming rate. So, even though every other major economy is connected to the US, most are already witnessing their purchasing power and living standards increase. Since we cannot connect this change to policy, as they embark on the same policies as us, it needs to be further examined. What can be drawn from this information is that, amid growing talk of removing the USD from its world currency status, and despite the fact that so many nations invested in our failed infrastructure, there are productive capacities in these countries that are more-or-less self-serving.

The US cannot be similar, as you claim, because there's no metric that can demonstrate it. The technicals of the other leading currencies on this planet are all considerably healthier than the USD, which provides a direct outlook into the buying power of a US citizen in the global economy. If domestic prices were decreasing, then this wouldn't be so bad. Unfortunately, this isn't the case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So he has credence and education in economic circles, same thing.

No - not the same thing. Peter simply provided a presidential candidate with economic data and opinions at times. He also has been extremely successful in the private sector, which is something that hardly any "economic adviser" can claim. The fact that people keep referring to his so-called "political consulting" career in articles is completely misinforming the reader. His fame stems from his knowledge and proven success - not his three month period of occasionally sending economic analysis (the same ones he circulated throughout EuroPac, if I remember correctly) to Ron Paul.

Edited by Andrew Grathwohl
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No - not the same thing. Peter simply provided a presidential candidate with economic data and opinions at times. The fact that people keep referring to his so-called "political consulting" career in articles is completely misinforming the reader. His fame stems from his knowledge and proven success - not his three month period of occasionally sending economic analysis (the same ones he circulated throughout EuroPac, if I remember correctly) to Ron Paul.

So what exactly is he going to do in the Senate? Continue to give 'economic predications'? Or does he have a more 'libertarian' platform?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. "Free trade agreement" is an oxymoron.

A free trade agreement is a commitment to not restrict trade between a nuber of countries, in return for other governments doing the same.

NAFTA is such an agreement, and anyone who opposes it without offering a realistic alternative, is just telling people what they want to hear. The best a Senator could hope to do in this next term is work to improve trade agreements with other countries, not abolish them. Abolishing NAFTA would lead to less trade with the countries participating, not more, for reasons outside the control of a US Senator.

I suspect the people who seek to abolish trade agreements seek to abolish trade, because they consider it unfair. As Mr. Schiff does, in the island analogy with the Chinese who are feeding the worthless American. What he would consider just, if we are to follow that analogy, is an end to foreign trade, where the American economy is forced to survive on its own.

If he's planning to burn down the house, to fix it, then I think people would be better off voting for Vince McMahon's wife.

2. No.

Actually, yes. That is the only principle I've been able to discern, and your unwillingness to identify another one confirms it. One word answers won't help your argument.

3. Article 1; Section 8.

"The Congress shall have Power .... To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;"

Why the dots in the middle, the full text doesn't agree with the electoral platform we've been discussing?

Here's what you left out:

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;"

Does Peter Schiff support that, on principle?

If not, why does he support the part you cut out for us?

If he does support it, what's the principle? Pick a document you like, and stick with it, no matter what?

Edited by Jake_Ellison
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, I see. So now I'm disrespecting you? <_<

The "support" you provided consisted of quoting Peter's book - many times, you completely misinterpreted what he wrote. You've offered little else. The only tangible evidence provided to me for any claim made here has been the posting of the CATO institute's completely flawed outlook on productivity in the United States. The support was even less helpful when I pointed out that a country can easily not be any more productive, despite an increase in the PMI.

No, that is not accurate. In fact, the productivity analysis was offered by another poster, if it was from Cato. No, I have offered in this thread references to several different sources, including trade figures, for example. These references may not have been made directly to you, but they are in the thread.

You always claim that I am misinterpreting Schiff's work. Does this mean that if one understands it one automatically agrees? That does seem to be the case. There are certain positions that he takes regarding international trade that I think are wrong, e.g., that services have anything to do with the deficit, that the deficit is our fault (we made the mess possible, yes), that other countries are somehow more productive than we are, and so on. I also disagree with the proposition that the U.S. no longer produces anything of value. Are these things I don't understand?

Long-term currency charts are a good representation of a country's economic health. Look at the yen, yuan, and Australian dollar as compared to the USD. What you'll find is that, despite every other country's mirroring of our monetary and fiscal policies, their purchasing power is increasing, while our purchasing power is decreasing. The Yen, if I remember correctly, hit a 52-week high recently, while we continue to hit new lows at an alarming rate. So, even though every other major economy is connected to the US, most are already witnessing their purchasing power and living standards increase. Since we cannot connect this change to policy, as they embark on the same policies as us, it needs to be further examined. What can be drawn from this information is that, amid growing talk of removing the USD from its world currency status, and despite the fact that so many nations invested in our failed infrastructure, there are productive capacities in these countries that are more-or-less self-serving.

The US cannot be similar, as you claim, because there's no metric that can demonstrate it. The technicals of the other leading currencies on this planet are all considerably healthier than the USD, which provides a direct outlook into the buying power of a US citizen in the global economy. If domestic prices were decreasing, then this wouldn't be so bad. Unfortunately, this isn't the case.

No one has argued that the U.S. dollar is in good shape. I have said repeatedly that the U.S. has exported inflation, and that as it comes back, the dollar will decline.

The relation of the dollar to other currencies is strickly a relation of numbers. At any given time, the number of dollars offered vs. the number of the other curreny offered (market makers do try to even this out to provide some continuity). My contention, which is similar to some of your comments, is that there are just too many dollars floating out there internationally, and they have to come home. They would if we were the strongest country in the world or the weakest. Whatever reason foreigners have for holding dollars will go away as the quantity of dollars expands. Whatever goods we have, large or small, will be bid up in dollar prices, lower in other currencies. More dollars will be bid against U.S. domestic production, and prices will increase. But, keep in mind that the international element in the U.S. economy is smaller than most other countries, so the impact will be less. Foreign goods will become more expensive, especially since the ability of foreign manufacturers and importers to absorb the increases will deminish over time.

All of that will happen, but the only cause that needs to be there is the number of dollars that have been produced that we know sit out there. All of this other stuff that Schiff includes, U.S. weakness, services vs. goods, lack of productiviness, etc. does not explain it.

Let's focus on just one point. You claim that the U.S. is no longer manufacturing sufficiently. The figures for our exports in 2008 that I found and referred to in an earlier post do not support your claim. Please provide a reference demonstrating the decline in U.S. manufacturing to the degree you suggest.

This isn't trivial. Schiff claims that:

“I’m talking prosperity and growth unlike anything we could imagine when those nations had their wings freighted with the United States’ excessive debt and trade impalances. (p. 280 in 2.9)

If the U.S. is not adding to the world's stock of goods, then to some extent that quotation could be true. However, if the U.S. has a substantial real export, and that stops, e.g., the half trillion dollar export of capital goods we exported in 2008, the world is going to have some major problems dealing with that disruption.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A free trade agreement is a commitment to not restrict trade between a nuber of countries, in return for other governments doing the same.

NAFTA is such an agreement, and anyone who opposes it without offering a realistic alternative, is just telling people what they want to hear. The best a Senator could hope to do in this next term is work to improve trade agreements with other countries, not abolish them. Abolishing NAFTA would lead to less trade with the countries participating, not more, for reasons outside the control of a US Senator.

I suspect the people who seek to abolish trade agreements seek to abolish trade, because they consider it unfair. As Mr. Schiff does, in the island analogy with the Chinese who are feeding the worthless American. What he would consider just, if we are to follow that analogy, is an end to foreign trade, where the American economy is forced to survive on its own.

If he's planning to burn down the house, to fix it, then I think people would be better off voting for Vince McMahon's wife.

Actually, yes. That is the only principle I've been able to discern, and your unwillingness to identify another one confirms it. One word answers won't help your argument.

Why the dots in the middle, the full text doesn't agree with the electoral platform we've been discussing?

Here's what you left out:

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;"

Does Peter Schiff support that, on principle?

If not, why does he support the part you cut out for us?

If he does support it, what's the principle? Pick a document you like, and stick with it, no matter what?

You know, your demeanor in debates like these is completely unnecessary.

Obviously, Peter Schiff is for free trade. Free trade is only possible through no government interference with the economy. A bill signed by Congress is not that.

As for why I didn't quote the rest of Section 8... are you just trying to be an ass? Are you seriously asking me why I may have taken the liberty to post only the relevant part of 1-8? If you actually are, then I won't encourage that kind of nonsense with a serious answer. It literally wouldn't be worth the energy my fingers would dissipate in doing so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the U.S. is not adding to the world's stock of goods, then to some extent that quotation could be true. However, if the U.S. has a substantial real export, and that stops, e.g., the half trillion dollar export of capital goods we exported in 2008, the world is going to have some major problems dealing with that disruption.

Yes, I believe the figure is around $450 billion. But this is insignificant for a country with a GDP of $14.33 trillion. Nevertheless, I didn't ever make the claim that we would stop this level of export, and I'm not sure why you think that would happen. Even at depression-level job rates, this amount of export is maintainable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know, your demeanor in debates like these is completely unnecessary.

....

Are you seriously asking me why I may have taken the liberty to post only the relevant part of 1-8?

What debate? You don't debate, you talk past people, repeating the same mantra over and over again. You have no answers to my questions.

Why does Schiff pick and choose what principles of liberty he wants to apply, and when? Why is it OK to allow the Fed to control the money supply, because it's in the Constitution, and not foreign trade, that's in the same exact article of the Constitution?

And how is it not relevant that the same exact article of the Constitution allows for printing money and controlling foreign trade, when we are having a discussion about NAFTA and the Treasury, and about how Schiff wants an immediate end to trade agreements, but is OK with the Fed because the Constitution allows it?

Obviously, Peter Schiff is for free trade. Free trade is only possible through no government interference with the economy. A bill signed by Congress is not that.

Trade agreements are necessary, if we want to trade at all with a socialist country that would otherwise blackmail American companies with the threat of massive tariffs and regulations. NAFTA, the WTO, all have specific rules that prevent governments from interfering with trade. What Libertarians don't seem to understand is that freedom without someone to enforce it is what is meaningless, not freedom with laws and someone in power to protect it.

How is Schiff for free trade, if the government is controlling money? That's free trade, but if the US makes an agreement with another country that both governments are to allow unrestricted trade, that's not free trade? How else is the US government supposed to protect my right to trade with someone in China, if not by signing a binding agreement with the Chinese?

Let me guess: you think these questions are all irrelevant, and something unspecified is wrong with my demeanor that only allows you to repeat what you already said, and add some childish flame about how little energy your fingers are willing to expand on answering, but not answer specific questions. Because you're the one super-productive, all knowing intellect in a see of Zionist, un-productive, Chinese-exploiting, uneducated, Afghan children murdering Americans. Does that about sum up your contributions to this forum?

Guess what, that was one last evasion of perfectly good arguments against your rhetoric, I'm done reading and answering it. You're about as interested in Objectivism and what it actually is as I am in your version of reality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, I believe the figure is around $450 billion. But this is insignificant for a country with a GDP of $14.33 trillion. Nevertheless, I didn't ever make the claim that we would stop this level of export, and I'm not sure why you think that would happen. Even at depression-level job rates, this amount of export is maintainable.

Andrew, it is 3% of our entire economy and 25% of our exports. That is not insignificant. Our trade with China is smaller than that, imports being $337 B. Our imports from Japan $139 B, if $450 B is insignificant, so is all of our trade, and the issues of value of the dollar is irrelevant and who cares about decoupling?

In addition, the number I cited referred to capital goods, which is a part of the total goods being exported. A depression level economy is not going to be able to produce for export that amount of production. That is what the world wants to buy from us. It won't be there in a depression as you envision it. Also realize that the $450 B is only a fraction of the capital goods we produce.

Schiff says that the Asians will stop producing for us and start producing for themselves. That sounds to me as if they aren't going to be buying much from us. Also claimed in this thread on behalf of Schiff was that the U.S. did not produce much in the way of goods, only services, which, it is implied, aren't really needed by other countries. I am confused, Andrew.

Edited by C.W.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What debate? You don't debate, you talk past people, repeating the same mantra over and over again. You have no answers to my questions.

Why does Schiff pick and choose what principles of liberty he wants to apply, and when? Why is it OK to allow the Fed to control the money supply, because it's in the Constitution, and not foreign trade, that's in the same exact article of the Constitution?

You jackass - you offered nothing to support the ridiculous claim that he picks and choose "principles of liberty." There's a difference between what he wants to accomplish in 5 years and what he wants to accomplish in 20 years. Obviously, we'd all be unbelievably foolish to say that it makes more sense for the Fed to control money supply than to have that be a function of the market. But it is a lot more rational to accomplish this in a controlled manner. Ending the fed tomorrow would be just as foolish as letting it continue doing exactly what it does today for another moment.

I don't speak for Peter Schiff - I answered your question, and that was all.

And how is it not relevant that the same exact article of the Constitution allows for printing money and controlling foreign trade, when we are having a discussion about NAFTA and the Treasury, and about how Schiff wants an immediate end to trade agreements, but is OK with the Fed because the Constitution allows it?

Schiff doesn't want an immediate end to trade agreements, nor did I make that claim. You made that up - typical of your "debate strategy."

If we want a champion of laissez-faire economics and capitalism to enter the Senate chambers, we need to act accordingly. You are making an enormous sacrifice if you suggest that Peter's wishing to keep the Fed around for a while under much better circumstances would prohibit you (or rather, somebody from Connecticut, so your opinion really doesn't matter on this topic at all) from voting from him. You're acting stupidly if you think that your support for a politician should be based on his fan base or his style of discourse. Unless unrealistic perfection is more valuable to you than having a defender of individual rights in the senate floor, then I'd say you're insinuating quite the evil little thought.

Trade agreements are necessary, if we want to trade at all with a socialist country that would otherwise blackmail American companies with the threat of massive tariffs and regulations. NAFTA, the WTO, all have specific rules that prevent governments from interfering with trade. What Libertarians don't seem to understand is that freedom without someone to enforce it is what is meaningless, not freedom with laws and someone in power to protect it.

Trade agreements are necessary? So it is necessary to violate my individual rights by not separating state from economy so that we can trade with socialist countries? Your definition of blackmail is incorrect, and tariffs are not examples of aggressive force. What is the government protecting me from when it signs an agreement like NAFTA? My otherwise inability to buy shitty products from socialists? I wouldn't want to live in your pseudo-capitalist wasteland, Jake Ellison.

Who said Schiff was a libertarian? I certainly wouldn't call him that.

How is Schiff for free trade, if the government is controlling money? That's free trade, but if the US makes an agreement with another country that both governments are to allow unrestricted trade, that's not free trade? How else is the US government supposed to protect my right to trade with someone in China, if not by signing a binding agreement with the Chinese?

Schiff is for free trade, and is not for the government controlling money. If we are speaking on non-political terms, then we'd be speaking under the correct assumption that Peter's political and economic principles are directly derived from Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, which is quoted constantly in his articles.

You don't have a right to trade with China. I'd think you of all people would understand how rights are derived. You have the right to your life, and if that life involves your desire to trade with China, and the Chinese wanting to negotiate ridiculous terms in order to trade with them, then don't trade with them!

Let me guess: you think these questions are all irrelevant, and something unspecified is wrong with my demeanor that only allows you to repeat what you already said, and add some childish flame about how little energy your fingers are willing to expand on answering, but not answer specific questions. Because you're the one super-productive, all knowing intellect in a see of Zionist, un-productive, Chinese-exploiting, uneducated, Afghan children murdering Americans. Does that about sum up your contributions to this forum?

No, I don't think that summarizes it quite that well. Glad to see you break your own cold, miscalculated mold, though, and completely disregard reality in insinuating that this is the sum of my statements on this message board. If you were actually asking a question, and not trying to be clever, then that's even better, because it would demonstrate enormous perceptual pitfalls. Your reality sounds rather scary, actually, if that is what kind of question you'd need to be asking me at this point in the conversation.

Guess what, that was one last evasion of perfectly good arguments against your rhetoric, I'm done reading and answering it. You're about as interested in Objectivism and what it actually is as I am in your version of reality.

I hope your pathetic pseudo-rational mind has the honor to defend this statement. I better not see another stupid attack-ridden remark come from you, as this would only aid me in catching up to the level that you think you're at in understanding Objectivism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've some experience importing goods uner NAFTA. While many trade barriers fell under the treaty, which is good, it imposed other barriers to commerce with other countries. For example, if I want to import a number of coats from a US manufacturer, I also need to prove the materials used were made in the US as well (at least a certain percentage of them were), otherwise I pay import duties (allegedly on the materials and not the product, but how do you separate them?)

Such barriers don't apply where Mexico has trade agreements with other countries or regions. So if the coats were made with fabrics made in germany, I'm covered under an agreement with the European Union. Still, trade does get complex with such issues.

Even so, NAFTA has been a huge boon to the Mexican economy both as regards imports and exports, mostly to America (Canada is the third party of this treaty). In regards to raw amterials and foodstuffs, there are no barriers at all (except the bureucratic barriers of cutoms, but those will exist as long as customs exist).

So it's not a free trade agreement, no. but it did remove trade barriers and that's good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...