I really did just want to leave this alone, but I made the mistake of coming back today and reading the follow on comments, and throw out one more post. I’ll work from bottom up.

@Mike C

“The fact, however, is that without producers, for the government to extort, you wouldn’t have had a pot to piss in and you would still most likely be living and working…”

First off, all innovation builds off itself. There would be no iron if there were no smelters. There would be no banking if there were no medium of exchange. There would be no space shuttle without thousands of years of innovation that took place before any NASA engineer drew up a shuttle specification. These same engineers drove to work on roads paved by others, in cars built and designed by others, while their kids were in turn taught by others, while their families were protected by police and military personnel that they most likely would never meet…still more others.

My point being is that innovation and production doesn’t happen in a vacuum, and it is an effort that happens outside of one person who has an idea. In capitalism those who come up with new innovations that are useful to society are richly reward, as they should be. Woe to us if all our innovators adopt the Austrian economic model and start thinking that their doo do doesn’t stink and that their innovations and production happened in a vacuum, and that they owe nothing to those who innovated before them and to those who setup and maintain the society where those innovations can be incubated.

“At every single phase in history, as human’s lives were already improving naturally thru simple increases in production, the government has stepped in…”

Government is a necessary evil, kind of like banks. I’d rather be without each, but there a good reasons why each is there. You should be thankful that our government has guns, else you would be speaking Russian, German, or Japanese right now. Most likely you would be extolling the virtues of Marx or some other economic ideological idol right now. True, our government is now way over stepping its bound and is leaving the interest of those it was designed to serve. I’m on the same page with you there. I’m not a Michael Moore fan either…

Government serves some very useful functions. When you go down to the faculty club and get something to eat, one of the primary reasons why your food is free of feces and insect matter is because of some form of threat of government inspection and a penalty for non compliance for the faculty club. The same for most products you buy. I bet you take for granted (no, actually I know you do) many of the freedoms and benefits that are granted to you buy the government. True, the government is parasitical, and lives off the backs of people like me, but as long as it operates within certain bounds, it is worth it. I’m with you in the regards to I think our Federal government needs to be about 1/5 the size it is today, and many of its powers relegated back to the states. No argument there. Also I agree that the government over steps and makes regulations that are bad for business. Our definitions of those regulations might be different, but the concept we both share and agree upon.

“Your conclusion is that somehow, someway, when others will not readily cooperate with you, then force is necessary for you to get what you want but the fact is that it is government force, fraud, extortion and theft that created this problem and it is the further use of force, which you advocate, that will only exacerbate it.”

Again, putting words in my mouth is a great way to show that your analysis of who I am and what I am saying is faulty. You can buy from and produce in any country you wish (with a few national security restrictions). Just be sure to pay back any taxpayer money that went in to developing your product (or any of the products used to develop your product). Also be aware that when you try to import products back to the US, you will be tariffed to account for discrepancies in working conditions of the country you produce in, and intellectual property that your host nation has stolen to make your production feasible, host country barriers to entry (both in law and off book) that make it difficult for U.S. products to compete, etc…

@Erik, see how stealing works both ways? If your product was developed in a society that had unique but costly attributes that allowed your product to be developed at a subsidy, and then you turn around and take that product and know how to another country, see how you are indirectly stealing from that incubating society? It is a two way street. I’m sorry if you can’t see that.

@Oswald and @billwald Apparently what is obvious to some is less obvious to others . Glad you see my points.

@Stilgar and @Tina I see where you are going with this. By allowing free unrestricted trade with every nation everyone will ultimately benefit. So what if millions of Americans become unemployed right? Their lifestyle was “artificially high” anyway (wait…I thought this wasn’t a zero sum game and everyone benefited and was enriched by trade right…did I miss something?) A “Greater Good” will eventually happen. Sure there might be temporal disruptions, like the decline and fall of western civilization, wars, nuclear conflicts and such, but over the grand scheme of things the “Greater Good” will proceed, and things will all equal out as they should right? If we all just sit around and talk rationally, many of these problems will surely be avoided correct? After all, the whole world acts just like western economic liberals do right? They will see the light if we just all sit down and have a latté and talk through our differences. Human history surely bears this out right? With free trade, the world will eventually all come together, be rich, prosperous, interconnected, and we will become the Star Trek’s Federation of Planets, a truly enlightened civilization and boldly go where humanity has never gone before. Surely this is the only possible outcome of free trade right? Let’s double down and bet our whole civilization and our super power status on it. It is such a good bet!

And Tina, thanks for throwing me a bone and saying that my thoughts were just natural thoughts and not nefarious. I do however appreciate the gesture.

Maybe I just need more education to come around as you bet the fate of millions on only looking at economics and ignoring the world in which they operate, and proclaiming trade as the means to world peace. I just have trouble shedding that bothersome common sense and skepticism of human nature (which keep in mind humans make up nation states, not econ computers). Somehow I just don’t believe that once America is sucked dry that everyone all our competitors will still see any value of free trade. Quite the opposite, they will be done with us, and go back to merchantalism to enhance their national power as we all sit in a ruined super power going over our little books wondering where our theories went wrong. Surely I’m incorrect right? They will become just as ignoble as we are, we have nothing to fear about national ambition, struggles for resources, the corruption of man, simering cultural fueds…all that will surely go away once they have tasted the fruits of improved economic productivity that free trade brings. They would never move to protect their workers and their people. I feel so relieved.

@htran, thanks for at least recognizing there is a problem with intellectual property that isn’t covered by free trade. There is no real incentive for countries that steal our intellectual property to do anything about it, unless we use trade policies to penalize them for not. The won’t do it out of the goodness of their hearts…this would be going against Austrian economic theory right? Free resources = more efficient production. Sure, they will make token gestures, but without a real penalty,expect no changes in behavior.

Stilgar, It makes sense to regulations and subsidies that do not benefit the American economy. Agreed

@Ireland, you are correct, some of my post are trollish. Great find on wikipedia. Thanks for the link. It gives you are great out doesn’t it? Call me a troll and move on rather than debate the flaws of Austrianism. Take your out and stay safe. Don’t worry about feeding me, I only eat food with sustenance.

Ok, I’m done. I’ll view your holy writs, your holy scriptures of economics. I’ll leave you with one of mine.

“The LORD maketh poor, and maketh rich: he bringeth low, and lifteth up.”

And to those good hearted people who really do want to debate, think, exchange concepts, I apologize for my sarcasim. You do deserve better.

I just wanted to put up a somewhat respectable Austrian defense of Free Trade. It’s probably not the best, but here it is…

The International Division of Labor is no different than the Division of Labor between individuals. It allows access to more and a greater variety of goods than were available before specialization. Example: China is relatively better at producing tires than the US, and the US is relatively better at producing poultry. Therefore, China should produce and export tires while the US produces and exports poultry. Both benefit from this specialization and exchange. This also applies to capital goods–China makes tires, the US makes cars. Still both benefit.

Massive and prolonged trade deficits can only come about from a continued monetary expansion. Normally, as one country (say, the US) sends its dollars overseas in exchange for goods, its ability to purchase those goods goes down. Then it stops purchasing as many imported goods and starts producing more of them domestically. Conversely, the exporting country(ies) has a larger number of dollars, allowing it to purchase more than it produces domestically, opening the doors to and increasing demand for foreign trade. This is normally a fairly healthy cycle, but if the initial importing country does not start running out of dollars (that is, the Fed prints more), then it can afford to continue importing until the business cycle comes back and bites it in the rear. At that point, the international situation should return to its natural state. We are in this process now. The last thing we need is a trade war with a major partner.

Chronic unemployment would not result from Free Trade any more than it did from the mechanization of manufacturing. Those workers who were displaced by improvements in technology moved to other lines of production. Only in the presence of government restrictions on production and subsidies to the unemployed (which must, in the long run, be funded by the Fed) is there long-term unemployment.

With regards to government revenue, ANY government taxation is BAD. It is the forcible confiscation of wealth from effective produces for the benefit of those in power. Also, if the federal government were to cut its spending by about 70%, it could still have the most advanced and powerful military in the world, and if it stopped its military adventures overseas, then it could cut even more. The only truly “necessary” elements of the military, for the US, are the Navy and the Strategic Missile Defense Command. Those two, plus state maintained militias, would be MORE than enough to ensure America’s safety. How to fund them? Ideally, a simple capitation tax, but that probably won’t provide enough, so a low, uniform tariff is probably the next best thing. NONE of these choices are GOOD, but the alternatives are worse.

Superior article, it’s real grand. I did a search on the matter and found nearly all persons will consent with your site. Thank’s for you inform. My tips on affiliate programs that work. I suppose you made certain nice points in features also.