RS asked about tariffs and wages:
In your second presentation on Free Trade you said that
Hazlitt was erroneous in claiming that tariffs would reduce wages in America
and you pointed to the fact that wages have reduced since 1973 event though
tariffs have largely been eliminated. In any event, I think that the reduction
in wages for American workers since that time is due to the large scale
importation of foreign workers which seems orthogonal to tariffs.
It is false to claim that tariffs reduce wages. While it
is true that the two primary reasons for reduced American wages are a) twice as
many women working than before and b) the importation of foreign workers, the
fact is that reduction of tariffs has not increased wages. Perhaps more to the
point, wages in China have risen from 445 CNY to 67569, most of this prior to
the relaxation of tariff rates in 2010.
It is difficult to separate the various effects, but the point is that we do not see the inverse tariff/wage relationship upon which Hazlitt in part bases his case.
Meanwhile, DH found himself troubled by the thoughts my previous Darkstream raised:
It is difficult to separate the various effects, but the point is that we do not see the inverse tariff/wage relationship upon which Hazlitt in part bases his case.
Meanwhile, DH found himself troubled by the thoughts my previous Darkstream raised:
Your recent dark-stream is quite thought provoking. I had
difficulty putting my mind at rest enough to fall asleep until way past my
usual bedtime. The points you made resonate with me as true, however the
argument is left begging for more.
Your reaction to comments stood out as thought provoking as well. While I do not consider myself to be particularly bright on an absolute scale, I have no idea what my I.Q. is. I find it does not require a great deal of intelligence to be frustrated with and isolated from most of those around me. I relate to your frustration, though I wish it didn't keep you from completing your thoughts.
Even if we could distill all the best aspects of every "ism" into one best of all "isms", it would not be accepted upon pain of death either by the elites or their devoted subjects.
Your reaction to comments stood out as thought provoking as well. While I do not consider myself to be particularly bright on an absolute scale, I have no idea what my I.Q. is. I find it does not require a great deal of intelligence to be frustrated with and isolated from most of those around me. I relate to your frustration, though I wish it didn't keep you from completing your thoughts.
Even if we could distill all the best aspects of every "ism" into one best of all "isms", it would not be accepted upon pain of death either by the elites or their devoted subjects.
The point that I am
making is not that communism is good or desirable. It is merely that global
free markets and individual sovereignty is incompatible with the survival of
both nation and family. It is not an accident that so many globalists are
childless individuals with unusual family situations; even the modestly
successful expat communities tend to be mostly populated by rootless transients
upon whom one can hardly expect to successfully build a society, let alone a
civilization.
What passes for global society is intrinsically parasitical, if not downright predatory, and therefore cannot possibly serve as a sound foundation in itself. Globalism requires that cows first transform themselves into wolves, and then, after that impossibility is successfully accomplished, learn to eat grass.
What passes for global society is intrinsically parasitical, if not downright predatory, and therefore cannot possibly serve as a sound foundation in itself. Globalism requires that cows first transform themselves into wolves, and then, after that impossibility is successfully accomplished, learn to eat grass.
