Comment: Response

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: 1. The money printing just (see in situ)


"The money printing just increased demand to such an extent that the third world nations capitalized quicker. It was going to happen anyway. Corporations reducing wages from 8 dollars an hour to 2 cents an hour happens in ANY free market."

The US trade deficit being at such high levels for such a long period of time, and the emergence of the debt-fueled consumption based economy, would not have been possible sans inflationary monetary policy (with the dollar as reserve). Under a sound money regime, could corporations still outsource to find cheaper labor? Sure, but when it reached such a point that domestic consumers had such crap service jobs that they could only continue consumption by resorting to debt, and when that debt maxed out (which would have been at much lower levels sans inflationary monetary policy), the trend would have reversed, imports would have been priced out, domestic production would have resumed. And so the pendulum swings back and forth. You could say that in a free market with sound money, the distance covered by the pendulum in each swing would be less than the same under our present managed trade, fiat inflationary nightmare: where the pendulum doesn't so much swing as shoot at high speed on one direction, snap off, and go crashing down to earth (dollar reserve system collapse).

And also, it's not as if we have the potential and relatively temporary disadvantages of free trade (or free immigration) weighed up against nothing but advantages from protectionism, as you well know. All kinds of new problems appear with protectionism. I agree with most of the Austrians over at LvMI that free trade, even if pursued unilaterally, is preferable (from a consequentialist perspective - all principles aside) to protectionism.

"Any state action at all does this."

Every State action helps some and hurt others, but not every State action does so through the initiation of force. For example, eliminating tariffs does not involve any aggression, though it does help some (consumers) and hurt others (some set of workers). But you've struck right to the heart of the matter anyway, which is that the State itself is inherently un-libertarian, and necessary engages in aggression just to sustain its own existence. But I can argue for free trade from a minarchist perspective, without going all the way to anarcho-capitalism.

"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."