The Indian delegate could have been more accurate and said, “Indian farmers can compete with US farmers but the Indian Treasury can’t compete with the US Treasury.”

The Indian farmers are quite a pampered lot with no income tax, subsidised seeds and fertilisers, floor prices for crops, and sometimes even free electricity. The Govt does what it can to rob others and keep the farmers happy since they are the biggest voting block. Unfortunately, with 70% people engaged in farming the Govt doesn’t have enough money to pass around. That’s where it loses to the US Treasury.

Of course, all this pampering hasn’t done the average farmer any good. He is clinging to an unprofitable, medieval system in the hope that some politician or other is going to bail him out. When the promised help doesn’t materialise he commits suicide.

Cheers!
MCLA

Bah! I have said that already. I know I can not prove my position, but we have the logic of human action to predict what would have happened without road nationalization 150 yrs ago. You scoff at this, and provide no proof or logical reasoning as to why your speculation may be more appropriate than mine.

If you can not provide the statistics, please give me some logical reasoning. That is really all I want.

“It’s pretty clear to me that large corporations are benefiting the most from the highway system. Is it not clear to you?”

NO! I want to see that they do not put more money in than they get out!

I also want you to consider that freight trucks pay much higher toll fees, must use different routes in some cases, must use weight stations, can not use the left lane, and are subject to much higher regulation (including license fees, shipment inspection, customs, etc).

I do not deny the fact that perception may lead one to that conclusion. This I grant you, and always have, but I want to be correct before making sweeping generalizations without scientific rigour.

It’s sort of like the socialist watching the money being put into a cash register, and assuming that it’s all profit. In fact most people that are not familiar with business actually believe that profits are multifactors higher than they are in reality.

“If you’re seriously interested in the issue then you could try reading some of Kevin Carson’s stuff on the highway system. ”

I have read his stuff a while ago, if I recall correctly, he fails to do the same thing I accuse you of. If you think differently please provide a concrete link where he discusses all the issues I have raised above.

” Or you could just keep barking, whatever dude.”

This sounds familiar.

As an Austrian Schooler, that should be a concern. Why this comparative advantage? Is it due to organic, market forces, or is it due to government interference driving up costs? Remember what David Hume wrote. Remember what Murray Rothbard wrote. Inflation drives up costs, increasing our dependance upon cheaper foreign markets to supply goods.

Where I would disagree with Amanda and others on is that more government intervention is necessary to curtail this trade “deficit.” Protectionist schemes such as tariffs will do nothing to resurrect domestic productivity, but will completely destroy us.

It’s pretty clear to me that large corporations are benefiting the most from the highway system. Is it not clear to you?

The point is that without a free market to be able to quantitatively account for this, you are stuck with a mere speculation, which you obviously can not prove, so you have to bark instead.

What a coincidence, we don’t live in a free market. Thus, without a free market you are also stuck with mere speculation, which you obviously cannot (or will not) prove either.

Says the man who must appeal to the audience when they don’t have substantial arguments to back up their position.

If you’re seriously interested in the issue then you could try reading some of Kevin Carson’s stuff on the highway system. Or you could just keep barking, whatever dude.

Still awaiting the proof…

“However, since you seem incapable of grasping this distinction I suppose I shouldn’t expect you to understand my question.”

Your question is a valid one, but you offer no proof. Show us that the net taxes paid by transport companies is less than the benefits received, and then show how people who buy goods resulting from cheap transport are NOT subsidized indirectly.

Then prove to us that if roads, railroads, and airlines were not nationalized (heavily regulated) both would not have produced a cheaper more effective highway system in absolute real terms for both drivers and transporters. (You scoffed at the idea, which is why it was retroactive speculation)

The point is that without a free market to be able to quantitatively account for this, you are stuck with a mere speculation, which you obviously can not prove, so you have to bark instead.
—

“quincunx (aka “the inexhaustible fountain of faulty logic”):”

Says the man who must appeal to the audience when they don’t have substantial arguments to back up their position.

Actually, I asked a question, and I repeated it. I note that you simply answered with another assertion, and it is ironic since your very first comment took another to task for making an assertion.

Well considering that you didn’t offer any remarks of substance until your third post I think we’ll let the audience decide who is more deserving of “brickhood”.

quincunx (aka “the inexhaustible fountain of faulty logic”):

Saying that a free market would help everyone in one respect is clearly not the same as asserting it would help one group in particular above everyone else in that respect. However, since you seem incapable of grasping this distinction I suppose I shouldn’t expect you to understand my question.

Yancey Ward:

The reason I used sarcasm is that you seemed to imply that they pay nothing now.

They gain a disproportionate amount of the benefits, yes, since they make the most use of the roads.

I often use sarcasm when I should just make the explicit point.

How do you know that corporations would pay more for interstate highway use than they do now for the public variety?

The reason I used sarcasm is that you seemed to imply that they pay nothing now. To the best of my knowledge, corporations pay income taxes, excise taxes (including fuel taxes and weight taxes), and licensing fees of all kinds. In other words, their use of the public system today is not free. So, one need not be dumb as a brick to question your assertion.

But she does not call for government interference of any kind, does she? That´s good. Many other articles
do so and therefore are a lot worse, in my opinion.

You asserted that free markets would not produce a cheap effective highway system WITHOUT EVIDENCE.

Roads were nationalized by force, not under-supplied or expensive. Since food can also be delivered by train or by plane, the same argument goes for them as well.

That is what I was referring to as ‘your retroactive speculation’

Talk about dumb as bricks…I think it was pretty clear that I was referring to your disagreement with Ward.

Your response to him only serves to prove the very thing you accuse him of.

So are you going to provide us with more information (as to your speculation) or should we not hold our breath?

The truth is, those observations could lead to a compelling business case. Maybe US markets are overpriced because we restrict immigrant labor. Maybe Chinese markets are underpriced because they peg their currency to the dollar no matter how much we water it down. Maybe we should go to the local food stands – cause when the US dollar goes to hell God only knows what’s going to happen to the imports. Maybe our farms are taxed too much for property, income, and regulated too much by the FDA. And trucking, they microregulate truck drivers down to quarter hour intervals – it really is that bad. Since shipping is on international waters, you don’t have nearly as much of a headache. Also, who knows. Maybe renting a sky-scraper in NYC and filling it up with spinich plants and greenhouse lights would be cheaper and more energy efficient but no company has been willing to take the risk. (she should go into raising capital)

Of course the real truth is that she was probably just paid by the CSA to write this, and came up with a bunch of emotional arguments to back it up. As far as people starving in China, she doesn’t know what she’s talking about. Starvation in China pretty much ended when the farmers revolted against communist land reform and the government was forced to back down or face collapse. Before that, millions of people died of starvation.

Could someone set me straight on this? I’ve been doing similar things my whole adult life with products of all kinds, always considering the extra $ I might spend to be part of my charitable contribution for a given year (I don’t cut cheques to any “charitable organizations”). Should I forget about such purchases and just buy Intel computers (for example) if I conclude that Intel chips are–at the moment, at least–superior?

I know, I know: buy whatever your heart desires–just like that Taylor woman chooses to buy local produce at elevated prices. What’s the deal? Who’s the doofus?

Actually I don’t need evidence, since it’s true a priori that those who respond to honest questions with empty sarcasm are acting no smarter than a brick. Surely you Austrian types can appreciate that.

But you’ll still use ‘em, no?

“I guess you could make that reply if you were dumb as a brick.”

And what evidence do you have for your speculation?

Perhaps your retroactive speculation ability can be applied to various other fields. Is there other insights you can share with us?

That is certainly true. People can be voluntarily stupid, and it doesn’t bother me one bit.

But this sort of sentiment is almost always the precursor to a call to government action. It is a sentiment that attempts to express the moral case for protectionism. It’s the set-up. Policy to follow.

You cannot tell me that this author, so obviously ignorant of basic economic principles, would not, at least, be sympathetic to some form of overt protectionist aggression, if not enthusiastically in favor of it. What are the odds?

I guess you could make that reply if you were dumb as a brick. However, if you wanted to make a substantive reply, I assume it would involve arguing that the free-market would produce a highway system of some sort, and further than large corporations would develop and profit extensively from it. I’m not going to hold my breath though.