Tuesday, July 10, 2012

Big Pharma criminality no longer a conspiracy theory: Bribery, fraud, price fixing now a matter of public record



New post on ACGR's "News with Attitude"

Big Pharma criminality no longer a conspiracy theory: Bribery, fraud, price fixing now a matter of public record

by Harold

Mike Adams, the Health Ranger 7/9/2012 Those of us who have long been describing the pharmaceutical industry as a "criminal racket" over the last few years have been wholly vindicated by recent news. Drug and vaccine manufacturer Merck was caught red-handed by two of its own scientists faking vaccine efficacy data by spiking blood samples [...]

Read more of this post

Comment    See all comments

Unsubscribe or change your email settings at Manage Subscriptions.

Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser:
http://a4cgr.wordpress.com/2012/07/10/06-926/

Thanks for flying with WordPress.com



--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Video: Barack Obama’s Brother to Make Film Debut in Anti-Obama Documentary


--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Enjoy a good tale




 

 
This is good
 
 
 
 

An old prospector shuffled into the town of PrescottArizona leading
A tired old mule. The old man headed straight for the only saloon in
Town, to clear his parched throat. 

He walked up to the saloon and tied his old mule to the hitch rail. 

As he stood there, brushing some of the dust from his face and clothes,
A young gunslinger stepped out of the saloon with a gun in one hand
And a bottle of whiskey in the other.

The young gunslinger looked at the old man and laughed, saying,
"Hey old man, can you dance?"

The old man looked up at the gunslinger and said,
"No son, I don't dance... Never really wanted to"

A crowd had gathered as the gunslinger grinned and said, "Well, you
Old fool, you're gonna dance now!" and started shooting at the
Old man's feet.

The old prospector, not wanting to get a toe blown off, started
Hopping around like a flea on a hot skillet. 
Everybody standing around was laughing.. 
When his last bullet had been fired, the young gunslinger,
Still laughing,
Holstered his gun and turned around to go back into the saloon.

The old man turned to his pack mule, pulled out a double-barreled
12 gauge shotgun and cocked both hammers. 
The loud clicks carried clearly through the desert air. The crowd
Stopped laughing immediately.The young gunslinger heard the sounds
Too, and he turned around very slowly.The silence was deafening.
The crowd watched
As the young gunman stared at the old timer and the large gaping holes
Of those twin 12 gauge barrels.The barrels of the shotgun never wavered
In the old man's hands, as he quietly said;

"Son, have you ever kissed a mule's ass?"

The gunslinger swallowed hard and said,
"No sir... But.... I've always wanted to"

There are a few lessons for all of us here: 

*Don't be arrogant. 
*Don't waste ammunition. 
*Whiskey makes you think you're smarter than you are. 
*Always make sure you know who is in control...
*And finally, Don't screw around with old folks; they didn't get old by being stupid....

I just love a story with a happy ending, don't you?
_________________________________________
 
 

__._,_._
 
.

__,_._,___

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: Fwd: [New post] Obama And The Bush Tax Cuts: Once Again, With Feeling



It is dishonest to refer to these as the 'Bush Tax Cuts'.
The Bush Tax Cuts EXPIRED -- BY DESIGN (why Republicans would not FORCE the taxes to be raised is baffling, but expected).

Regard$,
--MJ

"GOP: We believe in free enterprise except Social Security, Medicare, Fed Reserve, state schooling, bailouts, foreign aid, & farms subsidies.
"GOP (part 2): We believe in free enterprise except the drug war, welfare, protectionism, immigration controls, education grants & embargoes." -- Jacob Hornberger





At 12:29 PM 7/10/2012, you wrote:




---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: The League of Ordinary Gentlemen
Date: Tuesday, July 10, 2012
Subject: [New post] Obama And The Bush Tax Cuts: Once Again, With Feeling
To: majors.bruce@gmail.com



New post on The League of Ordinary Gentlemen



[]  
[]  

Obama And The Bush Tax Cuts: Once Again, With Feeling



by Elias Isquith

Even before he was inaugurated, the so-called Bush Tax Cuts (BTCs) of 2001 and 2003 loomed over the Obama Presidency. On the campaign trail, Obama promised to extend the cuts for those making under $250,000 while letting the rest expire as scheduled before 2011. During the final days of 2010, however, the President found keeping this promise would cost more than it was worth and acquiesced to Republican demands that either all or none of the cuts were extended. He signed a bill carrying over all the cuts until 2013. The calculation made was that the sickly economy of late-2010 could not withstand raising taxes on 98 percent of the public, and that a promise deferred is not broken. So he extended the cuts for a year further still.

Read more of this post
Elias Isquith | July 10, 2012 at 12:16 pm | Categories: Politics & Foreign Affairs | URL: http://wp.me/pqdHr-arJ

Comment    See all comments

Unsubscribe or change your email settings at Manage Subscriptions.

Re: Free Trade: The Litmus Test of Economics


Then the Consumers will reap the LOWER prices (at a loss to the producer) ... and 'competitors' will appropriate their resources to OTHER goods OR differentiate their 'superior' version in the marketplace.
Of course 'loss' is not indefinitely possible.

If someone wanted to 'give' you 'free' electricity, for instance, wouldn't you partake/agree/like/enjoy that 'offer'?

read Protection and Free Trade, Henry George, 1886
https://mises.org/etexts/freetrade.pdf

[Now that I have pointed you to 'free' rather than 'pay' someone like Barnes and Noble .... ]

Regard$,
--MJ

"If to prevent trade were to stimulate industry and promote prosperity, then the localities where he was most isolated would show the first advances of man. The natural protection to home industry afforded by rugged mountains-chains, by burning deserts, or by seas too wide and tempestuous for the frail bark of the early mariner would have given us the first glimmerings of civilization and shown its most rapid growth. But, in fact, it is where trade could best be carried on that we find wealth first accumulating and civilization beginning. It is on accessible harbors, by navigable rivers and much traveled highways that we find cities arising and the arts and sciences developing.
  -- Henry George, Protection or Free Trade 1886



At 12:21 PM 7/10/2012, you wrote:
What happens when you have a Nation that tries to manipulate the market?
 
For instance,  if Nation "A"  decides to corner the market of widgets, and therefore pays the widget producers of Nation "A" to produce widgets more than what the rate of widgets  are going for on the world market are worth,  and then,  Nation "A"  floods the market with widgets, at a price that is far below the world market, or another Nation's market,  how are the producers of widgets in another competing nation supposed to compete?
 
(And before you answer,  there are documented examples of "Nation 'A's' "  doing exactly what I have described, throughout the last eighty years.) 

On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 5:42 PM, MJ <michaelj@america.net> wrote:
"I believe in free trade. That is because I believe that the same principles of private ownership and voluntary exchange that exist inside the borders of the United States - cities, counties, states -- should also apply to voluntary exchange across the borders of the United States. I believe that UPS and FedEx should have the same function across all borders.
"Mercantilists reject this outlook. They believe in guns and badges, and that anybody who calls into question the wisdom of politicians and bureaucrats to organize production by means of badges and guns is unpatriotic.
"The mercantilist says that he knows better than property owners do what is good for individuals and the nation. Maybe he admits that he personally does not know, but he is sure that Congress does and tenured bureaucrats do. He insists that Congress should pass laws that empower tenured bureaucrats to decide who should trade and on what terms across the nation's borders."

Free Trade: The Litmus Test of Economics
Monday, July 09, 2012
by Gary North

Free trade is the litmus test of economic reasoning. It has been ever since David Hume wrote his 1752 essay on commerce:

Foreign trade, by its imports, furnishes materials for new manufactures; and by its exports, it produces labour in particular commodities, which could not be consumed at home. In short, a kingdom, that has a large import and export, must abound more with industry, and that employed upon delicacies and luxuries, than a kingdom which rests contented with its native commodities. It is, therefore, more powerful, as well as richer and happier. The individuals reap the benefit of these commodities, so far as they gratify the senses and appetites. And the public is also a gainer, while a greater stock of labour is, by this means, stored up against any public exigency; that is, a greater number of laborious men are maintained, who may be diverted to the public service, without robbing any one of the necessaries, or even the chief conveniencies of life.

His friend Adam Smith made it the touchstone of economic logic and policy. His great work, The Wealth of Nations (1776), challenged the mercantilists, who believed in the mixed economy: free markets, legal monopolies, and tariffs.

Mercantilism is the default setting for most people. It is based on trust in state power. As I have put it, it is faith in the economic productivity of men with badges and guns.

I have never had any illusions about persuading people who trust in the creativity of badges and guns. The universal trust in state power in every area of life is an extension of what I call the power religion. It is the religion of every empire.

Free trade means free choice. Power lovers hate free choice, so they hate free trade.

In 1972, I wrote an introduction to the reprint of my 1969 article "Tariff War, Libertarian Style." I reprinted it in my book An Introduction to Christian Economics (Craig Press, 1973). It deals with the inability of rational people to understand the logic of economics. In my introduction, I wrote this:

We come now to the economic issue that separates the economists from the special interest pleaders. There are a lot of supposedly free market capitalists who shout the praises of open competition, but when the chips are really down, they call for the intervention of the monopolistic, coercive State to keep Americans from trading with other Free World countries. Competition among Americans, but not between American companies and foreign companies: here is the cry of the tariff advocates. The fact that less than 5% of our economy is directly involved in foreign trade never phazes these enthusiasts: free trade is "destroying" the other 95% of the American economy! Somehow, the principles of capitalism operate only within national boundaries. Somehow the intervention of the State will "protect" Americans. Henry Hazlitt's classic little book, Economics in One Lesson, so completely destroys the arguments of the tariff supporters that there is nothing left of their position; still they keep coming. For two centuries their position has been intellectually bankrupt; still they keep coming. Tariffs hurt all consumers except those on the public dole of tariff intervention, e.g., the "infant industries" such as steel or textiles. Yet the advocates say that all Americans are "protected." The logic of economics cannot seem to penetrate otherwise rational minds.

Postscript: I rejoice that the 5 percent of GDP figure is now close to 24 percent. The idea of free trade has spread. The world is richer than it was in 1973.

The defenders of mercantilism have a religion: the religion of state worship. They do not believe that individuals acting in their own self-interest by trading with each other in order to benefit themselves are reliable sources of innovation, exploration, and creativity. They believe that the free market is an incomplete organization. They believe that there must be a sovereign judicial entity that provides guidance, by which they really mean coercion, in directing the flow of scarce economic resources. They believe that bureaucrats are trustworthy, that politicians act in the interest of the people. They believe that the state is a reliable source of economic wisdom, correct understanding of the future, correct understanding of the present, and is therefore the proper agency to equate supply with demand.

Mercantilism is always a philosophy of state power. Mercantilism says that the state has a superior interest to the individuals who live under its jurisdiction. Anything that weakens the nation, anything that benefits individuals at the expense of the state, anything that elevates the judgment of property owners above the judgment of politicians and bureaucrats is considered by the mercantilist to be an enemy of the state, meaning an enemy of society, meaning an enemy of the nation.

Mercantilists in the 17th century said that they believed in markets, but only regulated markets. They believed in monopolies granted by the state. They believed in exchange, but only when regulated by the state. What they really believed in was the expansion of the power of the state. They believed that the wisdom given to state bureaucrats is greater than the wisdom given to society as a whole by means of knowledge possessed by individuals. They believed that centralized knowledge, based on coercive statistics, is better than, meaning superior to, meaning more productive than, information possessed by all of the members of society. The information that all the members of society bring to bear on individual cases is considered inferior knowledge.

The classic statement against this was made by F.A. Hayek in 1945 ( chapter 4). It has been rejected by modern mercantilists ever since.

Mercantilism is the philosophy of state legal sovereignty over individual economic authority. Mercantilism is the philosophy of creativity in the realm of government bureaucracy. Mercantilism is the belief that individuals who, as individuals, have no particular advantage in knowledge, when given a badge and a gun, become wiser than individuals who pursue their own self-interest. These people are wiser, and they are also completely selfless, sacrificing their interests for the sake of the broad masses of society.

Special-interest groups have used this widespread faith -- a faith now fading -- to persuade voters that politicians and bureaucrats are reliable decision-makers who act only in the interest of the voters. They tell the voters that politicians merely want to make certain that workers are defended against unscrupulous, low-cost, foreign workers who make offers to sell goods at low prices to customers all over the world.

The mercantilists' belief is this: individuals who want to buy from foreigners are misguided, because foreigners are a threat to the prosperity of workers, even though foreigners are a tremendous benefit to the prosperity of those same workers, who take their money and go into the market looking for something to buy. It is the belief that workers, in their capacity as workers, are incapable of effective competition with foreigners. They need help from politicians and bureaucrats to maintain their income. The mercantilist philosophy also says that an individual is equally incapable of understanding his best interest as a customer, and this is proven by the fact that he is willing to buy something produced by a foreigner rather than by somebody inside his nation's geographical boundaries. In other words, the citizen is incompetent. He is incompetent to compete in the world market, and he is incompetent to judge what is really good for him and the nation.

So, in order to overcome the total ignorance and weakness of the American producer-customer, the mercantilist says that he can solve the problem by getting politicians to tax imports. This is safe, we are assured by mercantilists, because politicians' main goal in life is to make things better for the voters. Voters should trust the good intentions of politicians and the superbly informed decisions of tenured bureaucrats.

When put this way, no conservative will admit to being a mercantilist. Yet every conservative who defends tariffs as anything other than revenue-generating taxes is in fact a mercantilist, and by necessity he must accept the mercantilist philosophy of life.

The mercantilists are statists, and so is every conservative who believes that a tariff can benefit American consumers and workers. Every philosophy of mercantilism is a philosophy of a gun stuck in the belly of another American. Every mercantilist idea is a defense of gun-in-the-belly economics.

I have only heard one conservative admit this. It was at a dinner party in 1976. I had been invited by a man I knew who was on the staff of Senator Jesse Helms. I was on the staff of Ron Paul. At the meeting, there was a man I had never seen before. He was an oaf. The group got into a discussion of free trade. Here is what he said:

I will tell you what free trade is. It is when I put the barrel of my .45 at the head of some gook and tell him, "We are going to trade, and we're going to trade on my terms."

The mercantilist does not tell the American what he must trade. He only tells him what he may not trade and who he cannot trade with. It is a negative philosophy of government control. It is control by prohibition, not control by active compulsion. It is not socialism. It is not the government ownership of the means of production. It is rather the right of the government to stick a gun in the belly of an American who wants to trade with a foreigner, and to tell that person that he does not have the right to do so without paying the government some money. In short, it is extortion.

Even worse are quotas. Quotas do not even get the government any tax money. Quotas transfer all of the extorted wealth to domestic producers of whatever item is being protected, meaning forbidden to buy from sellers located outside the nation. The classic example in the United States is sugar. Quotas are ways to subsidize farmers who grow corn and sugarcane at the expense of foreign farmers who grow sugarcane. It is coercion against all those customers who prefer the taste of cheap sugar to fructose.

Quotas are great for Louisiana sugarcane growers, who get to sell their product at a high price. It is not great for candy manufacturers. It is not great for people who love the taste of sugar. But mercantilists believe that politicians have a perfect right to sell their votes to sugarcane growers and corn growers at the expense of the personal tastes of candy lovers, soda-pop lovers, and other consumers of sugar. It is a philosophy of political sugar daddies at the expense of sugar lovers.

I realize that this is resented by the gun-loving, badge-loving, head-banging, power-seeking, economics-hating conservatives, whom I call Hamiltonians. They want to parade themselves as lovers of freedom. They are not lovers of freedom; they are lovers of selective coercion. They believe that violence threatened by government bureaucrats is a superior way to allocate the scarce means of production. They believe in power over voluntarism. They believe in the state over the free market. They believe in coercion over free choice.

I have dealt with these people for over 50 years. They do not change, because they really are power lovers. They really do trust the state. They really do not trust the free market. They really do not trust customers. They really do not believe that individuals should be given the right to make their own decisions regarding whatever wealth they possess. They resent the fact that other individuals have the right to make their own decisions with their own money.

They literally cannot understand the logic of the free market, once they get to the invisible border known as a national boundary. At that point, they completely throw out everything they say they believe in regarding what takes place inside those borders. For them, truth is determined by which side of an invisible line called the border you live on.

I believe in free trade. That is because I believe that the same principles of private ownership and voluntary exchange that exist inside the borders of the United States - cities, counties, states -- should also apply to voluntary exchange across the borders of the United States. I believe that UPS and FedEx should have the same function across all borders.

Mercantilists reject this outlook. They believe in guns and badges, and that anybody who calls into question the wisdom of politicians and bureaucrats to organize production by means of badges and guns is unpatriotic.

The mercantilist says that he knows better than property owners do what is good for individuals and the nation. Maybe he admits that he personally does not know, but he is sure that Congress does and tenured bureaucrats do. He insists that Congress should pass laws that empower tenured bureaucrats to decide who should trade and on what terms across the nation's borders.

Do you believe in the wisdom and incorruptible nature of politicians and bureaucrats? Then you are a prime recruit for mercantilism. If you don't, then you aren't.

Anyone who promotes a tariff is a mercantilist, unless he is also calling for the abolition of the federal income tax and any national sales tax. Anyone who promotes quotas of any kind is a mercantilist. He may deny this. He may not understand this. He probably cannot follow an argument based on voluntarism. He does not believe in voluntarism. He believes in the wisdom conveyed by badges and guns.

My advice: do not trust his judgment.

Don't worry about his arguments. He cannot follow them, so you don't have to. They will make no sense. That is not because you are unable to follow an argument. It is because he can't follow one, including his own, which he got from some expert, who also cannot follow an argument.

Free-market capitalism transfers wealth to those producers who can serve customers best, as determined by customers. Mercantilists focus on the desires of the domestic producers, not the desires of the customers. They want to protect domestic producers when foreign producers deliver better goods, as determined by customers. They are always ready to use state violence to protect domestic producers. They have been crony capitalists for 350 years.




Gary North is the author of Mises on Money and Honest Money: The Biblical Blueprint for Money and Banking. He is also the author of a free 20-volume series, An Economic Commentary on the Bible. Visit his website: GaryNorth.com.

https://mises.org/daily/6098/Free-Trade-The-Litmus-Test-of-Economics

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.


--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Fwd: [New post] Obama And The Bush Tax Cuts: Once Again, With Feeling



---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: The League of Ordinary Gentlemen
Date: Tuesday, July 10, 2012
Subject: [New post] Obama And The Bush Tax Cuts: Once Again, With Feeling
To: majors.bruce@gmail.com


New post on The League of Ordinary Gentlemen

Obama And The Bush Tax Cuts: Once Again, With Feeling

by Elias Isquith

Even before he was inaugurated, the so-called Bush Tax Cuts (BTCs) of 2001 and 2003 loomed over the Obama Presidency. On the campaign trail, Obama promised to extend the cuts for those making under $250,000 while letting the rest expire as scheduled before 2011. During the final days of 2010, however, the President found keeping this promise would cost more than it was worth and acquiesced to Republican demands that either all or none of the cuts were extended. He signed a bill carrying over all the cuts until 2013. The calculation made was that the sickly economy of late-2010 could not withstand raising taxes on 98 percent of the public, and that a promise deferred is not broken. So he extended the cuts for a year further still.

Read more of this post

Elias Isquith | July 10, 2012 at 12:16 pm | Categories: Politics & Foreign Affairs | URL: http://wp.me/pqdHr-arJ

Comment    See all comments

Unsubscribe or change your email settings at Manage Subscriptions.

Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser:
http://ordinary-gentlemen.com/blog/2012/07/obama-and-the-bush-tax-cuts-once-again-with-feeling/



--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: **JP** کوئی ہے جو ان کی مدد کرے۔۔۔۔حبیب جالب

Ms.Zarrah there are so many muslims and pakistani living USA,why dont they contribute and help her?


From: Zarrah Hyderabadie <zarrahhyderabadie@yahoo.com>
To: "joinpakistan@googlegroups.com" <joinpakistan@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, 10 July 2012 1:43 AM
Subject: **JP** کوئی ہے جو ان کی مدد کرے۔۔۔۔حبیب جالب


 
                      
Zarrah Hyderabadie

1184.F
Roosevelt Road
Glen Ellyn
,IL , 60137
USA.
Tel, 773  780 6413
       773 943 9665
www.deedahwar.net
www.ittehadnewsusa.com

-----
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ZH9VqW49RU

یہ شاعر عوام مرحوم حبیب جالبؔ کے اہل خانہ ہیں جو مسلسل میرے رابطے میں ہیں۔۔۔یہ کس حال میں ہیں خود دیکھ لیجےٗ، آج جالب مرحوم کی بیوہ کو ہسپتال والے قبول نہیں کر رہیں۔۔۔۔۔کیوں کہ ان کے پاس رقم نہیں ہے۔
کوئی ہے جو انکی مدد کرے؟
http://ummat.com.pk/story/2012/05/02/4854/
 
                      
Zarrah Hyderabadie

1184.F
Roosevelt Road
Glen Ellyn
,IL , 60137
USA.
Tel, 773  780 6413
       773 943 9665
www.deedahwar.net
www.ittehadnewsusa.com
__._,_.___
Recent Activity:
Disclaimer:  Views expressed in the postings are those of the authors.  Aligarh Urdu Club does not endorse views expressed by forum members.

***Copyright notice***
Aligarh Urdu Club/Deedahwar  and its content is copyright of Aligarh Urdu Club, Deedahwar or authors - © Aligarh Urdu Club and Deedahwar  2004-2010. All rights reserved.
Any redistribution or reproduction of part or all of the contents in any form requires permission from editor of
Deedahwar (http://www.deedahwar.net) or owner of Aligarh Urdu Club; or respective authors other than the following:
•      you may print or download to a local hard disk extracts for your personal and non-commercial use only
•      you may copy the content to individual third parties, including published or online magazines, journals, books and for their personal use, but only if you acknowledge the Aligarh Urdu Club and/or Deedahwar  as the source of the material
You may not, except with our express written permission, distribute or commercially exploit the content. Nor may you transmit it or store it in any other website or other form of electronic retrieval system.


Aligarh Urdu Club
http://www.deedahwar.net
.

__,_._,___


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "JoinPakistan" group.
You all are invited to come and share your information with other group members.
To post to this group, send email to joinpakistan@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com.pk/group/joinpakistan?hl=en?hl=en
You can also visit our blog site : www.joinpakistan.blogspot.com &
on facebook http://www.facebook.com/pages/Join-Pakistan/125610937483197


Re: Free Trade: The Litmus Test of Economics

What happens when you have a Nation that tries to manipulate the market?
 
For instance,  if Nation "A"  decides to corner the market of widgets, and therefore pays the widget producers of Nation "A" to produce widgets more than what the rate of widgets  are going for on the world market are worth,  and then,  Nation "A"  floods the market with widgets, at a price that is far below the world market, or another Nation's market,  how are the producers of widgets in another competing nation supposed to compete?
 
(And before you answer,  there are documented examples of "Nation 'A's' "  doing exactly what I have described, throughout the last eighty years.) 

On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 5:42 PM, MJ <michaelj@america.net> wrote:
"I believe in free trade. That is because I believe that the same principles of private ownership and voluntary exchange that exist inside the borders of the United States - cities, counties, states -- should also apply to voluntary exchange across the borders of the United States. I believe that UPS and FedEx should have the same function across all borders.
"Mercantilists reject this outlook. They believe in guns and badges, and that anybody who calls into question the wisdom of politicians and bureaucrats to organize production by means of badges and guns is unpatriotic.
"The mercantilist says that he knows better than property owners do what is good for individuals and the nation. Maybe he admits that he personally does not know, but he is sure that Congress does and tenured bureaucrats do. He insists that Congress should pass laws that empower tenured bureaucrats to decide who should trade and on what terms across the nation's borders."

Free Trade: The Litmus Test of Economics
Monday, July 09, 2012
by Gary North

Free trade is the litmus test of economic reasoning. It has been ever since David Hume wrote his 1752 essay on commerce:

Foreign trade, by its imports, furnishes materials for new manufactures; and by its exports, it produces labour in particular commodities, which could not be consumed at home. In short, a kingdom, that has a large import and export, must abound more with industry, and that employed upon delicacies and luxuries, than a kingdom which rests contented with its native commodities. It is, therefore, more powerful, as well as richer and happier. The individuals reap the benefit of these commodities, so far as they gratify the senses and appetites. And the public is also a gainer, while a greater stock of labour is, by this means, stored up against any public exigency; that is, a greater number of laborious men are maintained, who may be diverted to the public service, without robbing any one of the necessaries, or even the chief conveniencies of life.

His friend Adam Smith made it the touchstone of economic logic and policy. His great work, The Wealth of Nations (1776), challenged the mercantilists, who believed in the mixed economy: free markets, legal monopolies, and tariffs.

Mercantilism is the default setting for most people. It is based on trust in state power. As I have put it, it is faith in the economic productivity of men with badges and guns.

I have never had any illusions about persuading people who trust in the creativity of badges and guns. The universal trust in state power in every area of life is an extension of what I call the power religion. It is the religion of every empire.

Free trade means free choice. Power lovers hate free choice, so they hate free trade.

In 1972, I wrote an introduction to the reprint of my 1969 article "Tariff War, Libertarian Style." I reprinted it in my book An Introduction to Christian Economics (Craig Press, 1973). It deals with the inability of rational people to understand the logic of economics. In my introduction, I wrote this:

We come now to the economic issue that separates the economists from the special interest pleaders. There are a lot of supposedly free market capitalists who shout the praises of open competition, but when the chips are really down, they call for the intervention of the monopolistic, coercive State to keep Americans from trading with other Free World countries. Competition among Americans, but not between American companies and foreign companies: here is the cry of the tariff advocates. The fact that less than 5% of our economy is directly involved in foreign trade never phazes these enthusiasts: free trade is "destroying" the other 95% of the American economy! Somehow, the principles of capitalism operate only within national boundaries. Somehow the intervention of the State will "protect" Americans. Henry Hazlitt's classic little book, Economics in One Lesson, so completely destroys the arguments of the tariff supporters that there is nothing left of their position; still they keep coming. For two centuries their position has been intellectually bankrupt; still they keep coming. Tariffs hurt all consumers except those on the public dole of tariff intervention, e.g., the "infant industries" such as steel or textiles. Yet the advocates say that all Americans are "protected." The logic of economics cannot seem to penetrate otherwise rational minds.

Postscript: I rejoice that the 5 percent of GDP figure is now close to 24 percent. The idea of free trade has spread. The world is richer than it was in 1973.

The defenders of mercantilism have a religion: the religion of state worship. They do not believe that individuals acting in their own self-interest by trading with each other in order to benefit themselves are reliable sources of innovation, exploration, and creativity. They believe that the free market is an incomplete organization. They believe that there must be a sovereign judicial entity that provides guidance, by which they really mean coercion, in directing the flow of scarce economic resources. They believe that bureaucrats are trustworthy, that politicians act in the interest of the people. They believe that the state is a reliable source of economic wisdom, correct understanding of the future, correct understanding of the present, and is therefore the proper agency to equate supply with demand.

Mercantilism is always a philosophy of state power. Mercantilism says that the state has a superior interest to the individuals who live under its jurisdiction. Anything that weakens the nation, anything that benefits individuals at the expense of the state, anything that elevates the judgment of property owners above the judgment of politicians and bureaucrats is considered by the mercantilist to be an enemy of the state, meaning an enemy of society, meaning an enemy of the nation.

Mercantilists in the 17th century said that they believed in markets, but only regulated markets. They believed in monopolies granted by the state. They believed in exchange, but only when regulated by the state. What they really believed in was the expansion of the power of the state. They believed that the wisdom given to state bureaucrats is greater than the wisdom given to society as a whole by means of knowledge possessed by individuals. They believed that centralized knowledge, based on coercive statistics, is better than, meaning superior to, meaning more productive than, information possessed by all of the members of society. The information that all the members of society bring to bear on individual cases is considered inferior knowledge.

The classic statement against this was made by F.A. Hayek in 1945 ( chapter 4). It has been rejected by modern mercantilists ever since.

Mercantilism is the philosophy of state legal sovereignty over individual economic authority. Mercantilism is the philosophy of creativity in the realm of government bureaucracy. Mercantilism is the belief that individuals who, as individuals, have no particular advantage in knowledge, when given a badge and a gun, become wiser than individuals who pursue their own self-interest. These people are wiser, and they are also completely selfless, sacrificing their interests for the sake of the broad masses of society.

Special-interest groups have used this widespread faith -- a faith now fading -- to persuade voters that politicians and bureaucrats are reliable decision-makers who act only in the interest of the voters. They tell the voters that politicians merely want to make certain that workers are defended against unscrupulous, low-cost, foreign workers who make offers to sell goods at low prices to customers all over the world.

The mercantilists' belief is this: individuals who want to buy from foreigners are misguided, because foreigners are a threat to the prosperity of workers, even though foreigners are a tremendous benefit to the prosperity of those same workers, who take their money and go into the market looking for something to buy. It is the belief that workers, in their capacity as workers, are incapable of effective competition with foreigners. They need help from politicians and bureaucrats to maintain their income. The mercantilist philosophy also says that an individual is equally incapable of understanding his best interest as a customer, and this is proven by the fact that he is willing to buy something produced by a foreigner rather than by somebody inside his nation's geographical boundaries. In other words, the citizen is incompetent. He is incompetent to compete in the world market, and he is incompetent to judge what is really good for him and the nation.

So, in order to overcome the total ignorance and weakness of the American producer-customer, the mercantilist says that he can solve the problem by getting politicians to tax imports. This is safe, we are assured by mercantilists, because politicians' main goal in life is to make things better for the voters. Voters should trust the good intentions of politicians and the superbly informed decisions of tenured bureaucrats.

When put this way, no conservative will admit to being a mercantilist. Yet every conservative who defends tariffs as anything other than revenue-generating taxes is in fact a mercantilist, and by necessity he must accept the mercantilist philosophy of life.

The mercantilists are statists, and so is every conservative who believes that a tariff can benefit American consumers and workers. Every philosophy of mercantilism is a philosophy of a gun stuck in the belly of another American. Every mercantilist idea is a defense of gun-in-the-belly economics.

I have only heard one conservative admit this. It was at a dinner party in 1976. I had been invited by a man I knew who was on the staff of Senator Jesse Helms. I was on the staff of Ron Paul. At the meeting, there was a man I had never seen before. He was an oaf. The group got into a discussion of free trade. Here is what he said:

I will tell you what free trade is. It is when I put the barrel of my .45 at the head of some gook and tell him, "We are going to trade, and we're going to trade on my terms."

The mercantilist does not tell the American what he must trade. He only tells him what he may not trade and who he cannot trade with. It is a negative philosophy of government control. It is control by prohibition, not control by active compulsion. It is not socialism. It is not the government ownership of the means of production. It is rather the right of the government to stick a gun in the belly of an American who wants to trade with a foreigner, and to tell that person that he does not have the right to do so without paying the government some money. In short, it is extortion.

Even worse are quotas. Quotas do not even get the government any tax money. Quotas transfer all of the extorted wealth to domestic producers of whatever item is being protected, meaning forbidden to buy from sellers located outside the nation. The classic example in the United States is sugar. Quotas are ways to subsidize farmers who grow corn and sugarcane at the expense of foreign farmers who grow sugarcane. It is coercion against all those customers who prefer the taste of cheap sugar to fructose.

Quotas are great for Louisiana sugarcane growers, who get to sell their product at a high price. It is not great for candy manufacturers. It is not great for people who love the taste of sugar. But mercantilists believe that politicians have a perfect right to sell their votes to sugarcane growers and corn growers at the expense of the personal tastes of candy lovers, soda-pop lovers, and other consumers of sugar. It is a philosophy of political sugar daddies at the expense of sugar lovers.

I realize that this is resented by the gun-loving, badge-loving, head-banging, power-seeking, economics-hating conservatives, whom I call Hamiltonians. They want to parade themselves as lovers of freedom. They are not lovers of freedom; they are lovers of selective coercion. They believe that violence threatened by government bureaucrats is a superior way to allocate the scarce means of production. They believe in power over voluntarism. They believe in the state over the free market. They believe in coercion over free choice.

I have dealt with these people for over 50 years. They do not change, because they really are power lovers. They really do trust the state. They really do not trust the free market. They really do not trust customers. They really do not believe that individuals should be given the right to make their own decisions regarding whatever wealth they possess. They resent the fact that other individuals have the right to make their own decisions with their own money.

They literally cannot understand the logic of the free market, once they get to the invisible border known as a national boundary. At that point, they completely throw out everything they say they believe in regarding what takes place inside those borders. For them, truth is determined by which side of an invisible line called the border you live on.

I believe in free trade. That is because I believe that the same principles of private ownership and voluntary exchange that exist inside the borders of the United States - cities, counties, states -- should also apply to voluntary exchange across the borders of the United States. I believe that UPS and FedEx should have the same function across all borders.

Mercantilists reject this outlook. They believe in guns and badges, and that anybody who calls into question the wisdom of politicians and bureaucrats to organize production by means of badges and guns is unpatriotic.

The mercantilist says that he knows better than property owners do what is good for individuals and the nation. Maybe he admits that he personally does not know, but he is sure that Congress does and tenured bureaucrats do. He insists that Congress should pass laws that empower tenured bureaucrats to decide who should trade and on what terms across the nation's borders.

Do you believe in the wisdom and incorruptible nature of politicians and bureaucrats? Then you are a prime recruit for mercantilism. If you don't, then you aren't.

Anyone who promotes a tariff is a mercantilist, unless he is also calling for the abolition of the federal income tax and any national sales tax. Anyone who promotes quotas of any kind is a mercantilist. He may deny this. He may not understand this. He probably cannot follow an argument based on voluntarism. He does not believe in voluntarism. He believes in the wisdom conveyed by badges and guns.

My advice: do not trust his judgment.

Don't worry about his arguments. He cannot follow them, so you don't have to. They will make no sense. That is not because you are unable to follow an argument. It is because he can't follow one, including his own, which he got from some expert, who also cannot follow an argument.

Free-market capitalism transfers wealth to those producers who can serve customers best, as determined by customers. Mercantilists focus on the desires of the domestic producers, not the desires of the customers. They want to protect domestic producers when foreign producers deliver better goods, as determined by customers. They are always ready to use state violence to protect domestic producers. They have been crony capitalists for 350 years.




Gary North is the author of Mises on Money and Honest Money: The Biblical Blueprint for Money and Banking. He is also the author of a free 20-volume series, An Economic Commentary on the Bible. Visit his website: GaryNorth.com.

https://mises.org/daily/6098/Free-Trade-The-Litmus-Test-of-Economics

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.