Politics

[sgt_zim]

I cant speak for @Red Leg , but a lot of economists disagree that Smoot-Hawley was a key driving force of the Great Depression..

https://fee.org/articles/the-smoot-...GhlFK8mYSHna3hOn2TNMXUNdaROmxbY4aAqHWEALw_wcB

https://www.cato.org/blog/smoot-hawley-tariff-great-depression


I'm not an economist.. and cant commit anything to the argument that SH was a minor player or a major one for that matter..

Im generally a "let the free market reign" kinda guy.. and as a rule dont care for tariffs.. and personally dont like the idea of SH at all...

That said.. determining whether SH was the key driving force is something guys with PhD's in economics cant seem to agree on.. so I seriously doubt its something that we're going to find a solution to on a hunting forum focused on Africa..

The dividing line on who views SH as a large contributing factor to the GD occurs according to which economic school the economist is an adherent. Keynesians and Marxists fall on one side of the line, and Chicagoans and Austrians fall mostly on the other.

The other large contributing factor in my estimation is as you say - the federal reserve. Ironically, it was (allegedly) founded to prevent the sort of economic downturn that the great depression was.

Interesting that there was a depression in 1920/21. The solution back then was for government to cut back on real spending, which they did.

 

[Hogpatrol]

Have to disagree on comparing SH to today's tariff policy. We were still on the gold standard, SH was supposed to address overproduction and under consumption and there was a trade surplus, NONE of which exists today. Stock market crash, drought/dust bowl, gross uneven wealth distribution, consumer debt, all contributed to the Great Depression. SH made it worse, that's all.

 

[sgt_zim]

@Hogpatrol - the comparison is that there is never a good time to impose tariffs.

If the Chicoms, or whomever, want to hurt the their own people by imposing tariffs on US goods, it's a non sequitur for our government to hurt US back.

Tariffs, like corporate income taxes, *always* burden the domestic consumers. Exxon, for example, pays ZERO income taxes. They remit millions or maybe even billions in taxes, but it is their customers who actually pay the bill. Tariffs, like corporate income taxes, are a cost of doing business, just like making payroll, paying insurance premiums, ad infinitum.

It would be like complaining that the schoolyard bully is picking on the other kids while he ignores you. If you want to do something about the bully, fine. But getting him to blacken your eyes because he's blackened the other kids eyes just doesn't make sense.

Trump puts America first. For that, he should be applauded (and a welcome change from the prior administration). He's simply wrong in going about it in this manner. Imposition of tariffs will hurt us more than Europe or China or Canada or Mexico.

If the goal is to ignite American business, the real solution is to repeal corporate income taxes and eliminate all regulation. Every business in the world would domicile themselves in the U.S. What do you suppose that would do for employment and mean and median wages?

There is this pernicious myth that we do not produce enough today, do not manufacture enough today. Domestic production is in fact at or near an all-time high. Much has been automated since the "zenith" of American production in the 1970s, so the labor force for manufacturing doesn't need to be what it was when I was a kid. Contrary to popular opinion, that's a good thing. My job as a cybersecurity engineer exists in large part to this transition away from those kinds of manufacturing jobs. Yes, there are lots of McJobs out there, but there are loads and loads MORE jobs requiring expertise, paying WAY more money, than was required for Detroit to turn out 289s and 302s and 350s and 454s.

I don't have a degree, but I make more money than my wife, who has a Master's Degree. The opportunities are there for everyone. Tariffs will always reduce those sorts of opportunities. I make more money now than I have ever have in my life.

 

[Red Leg]

@Hogpatrol - the comparison is that there is never a good time to impose tariffs.

If the Chicoms, or whomever, want to hurt the their own people by imposing tariffs on US goods, it's a non sequitur for our government to hurt US back.

Tariffs, like corporate income taxes, *always* burden the domestic consumers. Exxon, for example, pays ZERO income taxes. They remit millions or maybe even billions in taxes, but it is their customers who actually pay the bill. Tariffs, like corporate income taxes, are a cost of doing business, just like making payroll, paying insurance premiums, ad infinitum.

It would be like complaining that the schoolyard bully is picking on the other kids while he ignores you. If you want to do something about the bully, fine. But getting him to blacken your eyes because he's blackened the other kids eyes just doesn't make sense.

Trump puts America first. For that, he should be applauded (and a welcome change from the prior administration). He's simply wrong in going about it in this manner. Imposition of tariffs will hurt us more than Europe or China or Canada or Mexico.

If the goal is to ignite American business, the real solution is to repeal corporate income taxes and eliminate all regulation. Every business in the world would domicile themselves in the U.S. What do you suppose that would do for employment and mean and median wages?

There is this pernicious myth that we do not produce enough today, do not manufacture enough today. Domestic production is in fact at or near an all-time high. Much has been automated since the "zenith" of American production in the 1970s, so the labor force for manufacturing doesn't need to be what it was when I was a kid. Contrary to popular opinion, that's a good thing. My job as a cybersecurity engineer exists in large part to this transition away from those kinds of manufacturing jobs. Yes, there are lots of McJobs out there, but there are loads and loads MORE jobs requiring expertise, paying WAY more money, than was required for Detroit to turn out 289s and 302s and 350s and 454s.

I don't have a degree, but I make more money than my wife, who has a Master's Degree. The opportunities are there for everyone. Tariffs will always reduce those sorts of opportunities. I make more money now than I have ever have in my life.

Good selection of reading - hopefully your kids are indeed getting a healthy insight into Keynesian economics as well. You might consider broadening your own library as well? My experience is the world is rarely resolved by any single or simple solution - sociological, cultural, or economic. I have no issue at all with competition in a free trade environment. Regrettably, I have yet to see a world - at least since the first quarter of the 19th century where all parties are willing to play by such rules. My chief criticism of much libertarian thought is that it requires a level of international naiveite that I am unwilling to credit. Two strong proponents of your reading list were Ronald Regan and Ron Paul. The former preached it, but acted however necessary to fully protect national interests. The second really believes it, and probably should be wearing an aluminum foil beanie. I have this vision of libertarian economists sitting in the lotus position trusting that if they believe hard enough all will be well. Simultaneously, hard-eyed, competitive realists are taking full advantage of our inattentiveness.

Economic easing or liquidity support are both tools available to governments during financial crises. Hamilton clearly envisioned such necessary national economic strategies while struggling to inject some real Federalist theory into the creation of our Republic. In '29, the government failed to act, and it took a world war (with a massive injection of government spending) to help dig the country out of it. Tariffs were a minor issue. I have always found the fairly newly discovered '48 recovery date highly suspect and was, to my mind, conveniently created to support later predetermined conclusions. But that can be debated.

I also do not buy what is essentially a progressive argument that we live in a post-industrial world which will be dominated by IT savants. The reality of that world is far bleaker. Look around - it's population is ever more composed of intelligent, under-employed people shoveling burgers, bussing tables, and generally cleaning up after the blessed 10%. That is a world destined for revolutionary change and ripe for the very Marxists you so seem to so cavalierly brand Keynesians.

But I digress. Our discussion point is tariffs. I simply believe that free market ideals can not be exercised in an international market where some players protect their domestic industries. Europe and Japan have successfully protected theirs. We have tolerated that so long (though wisely so for the first twenty years following WWII), that libertarians now perceive that as a free trade environment - regardless of the fact that it was established artificially in the first place. Trumps actions simply attempt to redress that imbalance. I think we would both agree that our economy would blossom in a trade environment that truly was free of national or regional fetters.

 

[sestoppelman]

You guys have a better understanding of economics than I do but I think some are missing a key element. Its Trumps style to barge in and make a lot of noise about whatever it is he is trying to fix, in this case the unequal trade business. You have seen where the head of the Euro has already stated how he wants to make some changes for Trump. Trump believes and I tend to agree that many will fall in line when faced either with tariffs or sanctions. Its working. I say get out of the way and let the man do his job, he is doing it pretty well already.

 

[Hogpatrol]

I've said it before. Trump's tariffs are mere negotiating tools that he KNOWS will work with our trading partners, who we can all agree, have been giving us the shaft for way too long. Tariff noise aside, I'm more concerned to what I see as the coming implosion of a largely fake, government controlled Chinese economy built on a leveraged house of cards.

 

[tarbe]

I have to say that I am feeling pretty good about the rational and sane conversation taking place here!

 

[sgt_zim]

Good selection of reading - hopefully your kids are indeed getting a healthy insight into Keynesian economics as well. You might consider broadening your own library as well? My experience is the world is rarely resolved by any single or simple solution - sociological, cultural, or economic. I have no issue at all with competition in a free trade environment. Regrettably, I have yet to see a world - at least since the first quarter of the 19th century where all parties are willing to play by such rules. My chief criticism of much libertarian thought is that it requires a level of international naiveite that I am unwilling to credit. Two strong proponents of your reading list were Ronald Regan and Ron Paul. The former preached it, but acted however necessary to fully protect national interests. The second really believes it, and probably should be wearing an aluminum foil beanie. I have this vision of libertarian economists sitting in the lotus position trusting that if they believe hard enough all will be well. Simultaneously, hard-eyed, competitive realists are taking full advantage of our inattentiveness.

Economic easing or liquidity support are both tools available to governments during financial crises. Hamilton clearly envisioned such necessary national economic strategies while struggling to inject some real Federalist theory into the creation of our Republic. In '29, the government failed to act, and it took a world war (with a massive injection of government spending) to help dig the country out of it. Tariffs were a minor issue. I have always found the fairly newly discovered '48 recovery date highly suspect and was, to my mind, conveniently created to support later predetermined conclusions. But that can be debated.

I also do not buy what is essentially a progressive argument that we live in a post-industrial world which will be dominated by IT savants. The reality of that world is far bleaker. Look around - it's population is ever more composed of intelligent, under-employed people shoveling burgers, bussing tables, and generally cleaning up after the blessed 10%. That is a world destined for revolutionary change and ripe for the very Marxists you so seem to so cavalierly brand Keynesians.

But I digress. Our discussion point is tariffs. I simply believe that free market ideals can not be exercised in an international market where some players protect their domestic industries. Europe and Japan have successfully protected theirs. We have tolerated that so long (though wisely so for the first twenty years following WWII), that libertarians now perceive that as a free trade environment - regardless of the fact that it was established artificially in the first place. Trumps actions simply attempt to redress that imbalance. I think we would both agree that our economy would blossom in a trade environment that truly was free of national or regional fetters.

My position is grounded in inflexible ethics. There is the morally correct, and then there is everything else. What flows from the morally correct is prosperity itself.

Keynes are Marx were and are wrong because they both start from a position of immorality. There is zero justification for initiating force to get men to comport themselves as one might wish them to do. The initiator of force may in fact be correct in what men *should* be doing. But that is entirely beside the point. It is, imo, better to be in want and free than to be a kept slave. I grok that many prefer the comfort and certainty of servitude, but that position is not what made this country great.

I've read both Keynes and Marx. They are both grounded in a Platonic model of "philosopher kings" to make things work. I will succeed or fail, live or die, by my own judgment. My situation, as is yours, is unique in all the world's history. There has never been a man like me, nor will there ever be one again. No one is a better judge of what is right and proper for me than I am.

Part of the failing of both Keynes and Marx is the assumption that humans are easily substitutable widgets. This is such a fundamental error in thinking that it escapes the notice of many people, probably even most people.

Nobody has the right to decide what I must do for *my own good*. Such thinking led to gas chambers and ovens in Europe in the 30s and 40s, and slavery and Jim Crow here before that. The idea that tariffs, imposing government on top of what will always be mutually advantageous trade, follows the same line of thinking. It imposes costs for which there is no concrete benefit *to me*. I am told that there is benefit, and I am expected to believe my "betters" when they tell me there is such benefit. But at the end of the day, it simply requires more hours out of my life to earn money to pay for things that make life better for me under my own judgment, and only benefits those whose livelihoods depend on the vigorish obtained from the imposition. Such laws benefit neither the seller nor the buyer, who will come to terms (or not) of their own accord.

The world runs on greed. I'm perfectly comfortable in dealing with greedy men who offer goods or services that benefit both me and them. Politicians and bureaucrats, OTOH, require me to trust that they are acting in my best interest. "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest."

Tariffs require me to trust the judgment of men who produce nothing, and dictate the terms of how I may trade with other men who have produced something which may be of value to me.

 

[wesheltonj]

And when Nixon had his epiphany that he was a Keynesian?

The problem with Keynesian economics is that they forget that when the economy is good you bank your surplus, not spend it.

 

[sgt_zim]

FWIW, this is the sort of debate we should be having. No ad hominem, no disagreement on fundamentals, but only on more precise points of philosophy. This works because we all speak the same language, as it were. In short, we largely all have the same value system, just disagreement on how to get there.

In far too many other venues, the divergence is at the core value level. There is no reconciliation possible when core values are at odds.

 

[Red Leg]

My position is grounded in inflexible ethics. There is the morally correct, and then there is everything else. What flows from the morally correct is prosperity itself.

Keynes are Marx were and are wrong because they both start from a position of immorality. There is zero justification for initiating force to get men to comport themselves as one might wish them to do. The initiator of force may in fact be correct in what men *should* be doing. But that is entirely beside the point. It is, imo, better to be in want and free than to be a kept slave. I grok that many prefer the comfort and certainty of servitude, but that position is not what made this country great.

I've read both Keynes and Marx. They are both grounded in a Platonic model of "philosopher kings" to make things work. I will succeed or fail, live or die, by my own judgment. My situation, as is yours, is unique in all the world's history. There has never been a man like me, nor will there ever be one again. No one is a better judge of what is right and proper for me than I am.

Part of the failing of both Keynes and Marx is the assumption that humans are easily substitutable widgets. This is such a fundamental error in thinking that it escapes the notice of many people, probably even most people.

Nobody has the right to decide what I must do for *my own good*. Such thinking led to gas chambers and ovens in Europe in the 30s and 40s, and slavery and Jim Crow here before that. The idea that tariffs, imposing government on top of what will always be mutually advantageous trade, follows the same line of thinking. It imposes costs for which there is no concrete benefit *to me*. I am told that there is benefit, and I am expected to believe my "betters" when they tell me there is such benefit. But at the end of the day, it simply requires more hours out of my life to earn money to pay for things that make life better for me under my own judgment, and only benefits those whose livelihoods depend on the vigorish obtained from the imposition. Such laws benefit neither the seller nor the buyer, who will come to terms (or not) of their own accord.

The world runs on greed. I'm perfectly comfortable in dealing with greedy men who offer goods or services that benefit both me and them. Politicians and bureaucrats, OTOH, require me to trust that they are acting in my best interest. "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest."

Tariffs require me to trust the judgment of men who produce nothing, and dictate the terms of how I may trade with other men who have produced something which may be of value to me.

I love what you are saying but it is a pipe dream outside the jungle - and most of us wouldn't opt for the jungle at the expense of electricity (assume yours is provided by the state?) and penicillin. Lots of people decide what you and I will do - not only for our own good - but for the good of the neighborhood, the school, our work environment, society, the country as a whole etc. etc. In our personal lives we tend to characterize those rules as ethics - within society as a whole we call them laws. You and I comply - every - single - day. Even when a law may conflict with our personal ethics.

International relations are also governed by conventions, trade agreements, treaties, traditional relationships etc, etc. That too is not a jungle (at least most of the time). Those rules are governed by the willingness of the parties to subscribe to them. When for whatever reason friction develops - say a set of tolerated tariffs that no now longer make sense - the parties to those conventions or agreements have every right to seek redress. If the result of that negotiation process (that is what is really happening in spite of media and conservative think tank hysteria) is a truly a more free market in which our production can more favorably compete, aren't both our national and personal interests served?

 

[bellisima]

In-N-Out Burger donates $25000 to Republican Party, prompting Democrats to demand a boycott.

 

[tigris115]

Personally, I'm really hoping that the ESA is reformed to better collaborate with local communities who have to live with these animals and takes a more ecosystem-based approach. Even though I'm not as keen on the Trump administration as others on this forum, I do think that Zinke's a great choice. And while we're at it, please make it so the USFWS just follows CITES as politicians are stupidly fickle no matter what side they come from.

 

[sgt_zim]

I love what you are saying but it is a pipe dream outside the jungle - and most of us wouldn't opt for the jungle at the expense of electricity (assume yours is provided by the state?) and penicillin. Lots of people decide what you and I will do - not only for our own good - but for the good of the neighborhood, the school, our work environment, society, the country as a whole etc. etc. In our personal lives we tend to characterize those rules as ethics - within society as a whole we call them laws. You and I comply - every - single - day. Even when a law may conflict with our personal ethics.

International relations are also governed by conventions, trade agreements, treaties, traditional relationships etc, etc. That too is not a jungle (at least most of the time). Those rules are governed by the willingness of the parties to subscribe to them. When for whatever reason friction develops - say a set of tolerated tariffs that no now longer make sense - the parties to those conventions or agreements have every right to seek redress. If the result of that negotiation process (that is what is really happening in spite of media and conservative think tank hysteria) is a truly a more free market in which our production can more favorably compete, aren't both our national and personal interests served?

I'm curious why you believe that electrical service (as one example) wouldn't exist in a purely laissez faire market.

I infer (perhaps incorrectly) that the use of force is justified in order to achieve a reliable and predictable market (via regulations, which the energy industry is under many). In short, we have to behave immorally (as a group, by using or threatening to use force) in order to obtain moral and stable outcomes (for individuals).

The group (or mob, as Bastiat called it) has no more rights than any single individual has within that group. If I do not have the right to exercise force against someone, even if it is truly for their own benefit, how does an aggregation of individuals, none of whom has the right to exercise force, come by that right? It isn't a right, it is simply an exercise of will by those with the *power* to exercise it over those who do not have the power to oppose it.

 

[Red Leg]

I'm curious why you believe that electrical service (as one example) wouldn't exist in a purely laissez faire market.

I infer (perhaps incorrectly) that the use of force is justified in order to achieve a reliable and predictable market (via regulations, which the energy industry is under many). In short, we have to behave immorally (as a group, by using or threatening to use force) in order to obtain moral and stable outcomes (for individuals).

The group (or mob, as Bastiat called it) has no more rights than any single individual has within that group. If I do not have the right to exercise force against someone, even if it is truly for their own benefit, how does an aggregation of individuals, none of whom has the right to exercise force, come by that right? It isn't a right, it is simply an exercise of will by those with the *power* to exercise it over those who do not have the power to oppose it.

Seriously? Of course force is justified. In every day life we call those who exercise that force the police or sheriffs' deputies. In crisis, we call that force the National Guard or the Army (against all enemies, foreign and domestic). We exercise that force through the courts, or when necessary through the barrel of a firearm or the point of a bayonet. We have our children vaccinated at some risk as directed by the State to prevent greater harm to all of our children. In international relations, we exercise force as an extension of national (not individual) political will (Clausewitz). We have introduced coercion to fill our military through most of our history - for the good of the State - not the individual. War is by its very nature at best amoral. We have exercised that option so often in our history that the interludes of real peace or the actual exceptions - all for the perceived good of the nation state. I truly believe Libertarianism is the political equivalent of lotus eating only made possible by those others willing to serve and sacrifice for the good of the larger group - the mob - if you prefer.

If it isn't obvious, I am a Hamiltonian Federalist. The nation state can only function in a world occupied by other nation states if it has the political (strong central government and executive branch), economic (a central bank), military (national rather than militia), and cultural (common identity - truly under current assault) sinews of sufficient strength to deter and, if necessary, coerce competitors. Obviously, all that comes at some cost to personal freedom. Thus far, our particular experiment has managed to keep the flame of individual liberty at least dimly lit.

And yes, I am delighted to use public utilities and drive on state and national highways, while utilizing appliances, automobiles, and aircraft that meet national safety standards.

 

[sgt_zim]

I don't believe I've ever said that force isn't justified, but that the initiation of force (or the threat of it) is not ever morally justified.

Having been a Houston cop, I can tell you with absolute certainty that if I had initiated force, I'd have lost my badge and been sent to prison, and rightly so. The role of the police, and government in general, is retaliatory use of force where timely use of defensive force is not possible. That isn't to say a cop can't strike first if a bad guy is giving easily observable indicators that he's about to engage in the use of force (dilating pupils, elevated respiratory rate, clenching and unclenching fists, etc). But to initiate force...no matter how beneficial you believe the outcome might be, is immoral.

Every tyrant in history has justified his initiation of force on the same grounds you are. Not saying that makes you a tyrant, simply that you're using the same Platonic philosophy, that the ends justify the means. That, my friend, is a dangerous trail to walk.

Who gets to decide when the ends justify the means? Ultimately, it'll always be the guy willing to use the most force, which means murderers will eventually come to rule.

I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it. -- Thomas Jefferson

I do not suffer the delusion that a minimalist government would bring about paradise on earth, but governments with power always seem to end up using that power to their benefit and at our expense.

Culture is upstream from politics, and philosophy is upstream from culture. Be careful about the philosophy you choose.

 

[wesheltonj]

In my job, I coerce folks everyday to comply with "Community Standards," And if they fail to comply with their supervision to meet those standards, they all know what happens next. The majority comply, others don't. Those that don't have to go to time out. That's the price for a civilized society. Otherwise, our life expectancy would be much shorter. Force keeps us somewhat safe.

 

[Red Leg]

I don't believe I've ever said that force isn't justified, but that the initiation of force (or the threat of it) is not ever morally justified.

Having been a Houston cop, I can tell you with absolute certainty that if I had initiated force, I'd have lost my badge and been sent to prison, and rightly so. The role of the police, and government in general, is retaliatory use of force where timely use of defensive force is not possible. That isn't to say a cop can't strike first if a bad guy is giving easily observable indicators that he's about to engage in the use of force (dilating pupils, elevated respiratory rate, clenching and unclenching fists, etc). But to initiate force...no matter how beneficial you believe the outcome might be, is immoral.

Every tyrant in history has justified his initiation of force on the same grounds you are. Not saying that makes you a tyrant, simply that you're using the same Platonic philosophy, that the ends justify the means. That, my friend, is a dangerous trail to walk.

Who gets to decide when the ends justify the means? Ultimately, it'll always be the guy willing to use the most force, which means murderers will eventually come to rule.



I do not suffer the delusion that a minimalist government would bring about paradise on earth, but governments with power always seem to end up using that power to their benefit and at our expense.

Culture is upstream from politics, and philosophy is upstream from culture. Be careful about the philosophy you choose.

I respect your service as a Houston policeman. But as such, you were in fact the point of the spear of the state's ability to use coercive force to insure compliance with laws - largely enacted by the people - to insure safety - but also to limit individual behavior which could have detrimental effect on the community as a whole(the mob?) or even special interests. Of course, you exercised a protective function in that role. I did the same thing at a national level - some of it was directly protective - but most was in furthering national (collective - damn, that word again - national interests). And who said anything about ends justifying means? In our historical experiment, we have a constitution to limit those means, and we have given the people the collective ability to direct those interests via the individual exercise of a vote for representatives who protect and further our collective interests through republican government.

All nation states use force as one of their tools to achieve national interests and to help insure domestic "tranquility;" sometimes implied force through negotiations - sometimes naked force through military power (Clausewitz again). You and I , along with our fellow citizens, get to decide indirectly how the government employs those tools through elections.

I am trying to interpret your last paragraph. If you are lecturing me about the "philosophy" I choose to lead my personal life - we can take this to a conversation format. However, I stated very clearly that I am Hamiltonian Federalist. I find that puts me, historically, in very reassuring company. They are the hard-eyed realists who have to come in and clean up the utopian nonsense every generation or so. One of these days, they won't be summoned, and this interesting experiment of ours really will come apart at the seams.

 

[sierraone]

@sgt_zim If you are a reader, I suggest you read Special Providence: American Foreign Policy and How It Changed The World. by Walter Russel Mead. The book is based on the four lines of American political thought: Hamiltonian, Jeffersonian, Jacksonian and Wilsonian. I read it around 2001 or so. Nearly all of my books are in storage now as I am preparing to move to Bryant, Ar in six weeks...or I would send you mine if you so requested. I thought it was a great book considering political science was not a strong interest of mine. During the time I read the book, Mead was a regular contributor to Foreign Affairs, a bi-monthly periodical.

 

[Red Leg]

Read’s work is, I believe, an excellent overview of what most historians would agree are the four major political movements and philosophies which have driven both our domestic politics and international relations. I would argue a fifth is gradually emerging due to our ever more divisive multi-cultural/ grievance-based domestic politics married to a global elitist foreign policy. Perhaps some future historian will add it in an updated study calling it “Obamian”? Then again, over time, it may simply appear, at least with respect to international relations, as merely the latest emergence of the Wilsonian.