Why do cuckservatives love this man so much? His statements and ideology are all over the place.
>>80805975
>still unironically saying cuckservatives
>dissing Sowell
>>80805975
>>80805975
Kill urself faggot, Thomas Sowell is based.
Because he's a black man who echoes the views of cuckservatives and so they pedal and propagate him as they think it legitimizes their views. "Look! A black man agrees with me, I can't be racist!"
It's a form of cuckoldry in that they cling to and revere this one black man for simply echoing what thousands of white men have said before him simply because he doesn't act like a chimp.
A lot of what you said is true with regards to his opinions. By and large, he talks utter shit.
>>80805975
This guy is not going to reply to this thread.
Also, that Sowell quote is spot-on. Hadn't seen that one before.
>>80805975
1. Because he was a liberal Marxist who got redpilled hard as fuck when he was working on his PhD and is now anti-leftist
2. Because he's right almost 100% of the time.
>>80805975
>His statements and ideology are all over the place.
Demonstrate then, since "they're all over the place". Should be easy if that's actually the case.
>>80809838
He says we should do what works and yet has come out against Trump's trade policies.
>>80809986
Protectionism doesn't work for most people objectively.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dTrzVWBW98E
>>80809986
Trump is 100% backwards on trade.
>>80810193
But protectionism is what made America great. Like I said his ideology is all over the place, likely because ever since he left academia he has only been able to find work as a professional globalist shill.
>>80810322
No it isn't. Not at all. It's objectively bad - economies experience deadweight losses due to protectionist trade policies.
If you want to understand why, that video isn't very hard to follow at all.
>>80809986
Probably because they don't, tariffs are literally socialism. Just more Government micromanaging the economy and punishing and rewarding businesses that they choose.
>>80810448
You have absolutely no historical evidence to back any of that up (in b4 that one debunked Friedman paper blaming the depression on tarrifs.)
>>80809986
Because his trade policies ARE retarded.
Most people just see Trump as a means to an end, and rightfully so. He's a big fuck you to the establishment, but it doesn't mean he's actually right on alot of shit.
>>80810322
No. The economy is not a business. A trade deficit does not mean that a country, on aggregate, is losing anything. In fact, a trade deficit isn't even a deficit in any meaningful sense of the word.
>>80810560
It's a simple fact that when you introduce restrictions in trade most people hurt. It's economically just the case. You can literally have it explained to you right there.
>>80809500
He's not a cuckservative. that's more a recent trend
>>80809986
Because Trump's trade policies are pants on head retarded and wouldn't even make it out of a 100% Republican Congress. Literally every economics think tank in the world has repeatedly shown that high tariff trading results in a sharp decrease in imports and economic ruin, as the price increases outpace wage & GDP growth.
BASED SOWELL
A
S
E
D
S
O
W
E
L
L
>>80810653
Been wondering this.
How do we get off globalists dick and become more isolationist if protectionism doesn't work?
Post Sowell quotes
>>80811085
You can't. That's how globalism works. It's why Marx was such a staunch supporter of free market capitalism.
His stance on immigration is ok.
However, he's all wrong on trade. Tariffs must brought back, and the United States should negotiate better trade deals.
>>80810927
Is that just short term pain for long term not being a part of globalist agenda?
I know Hiliary's camp had that one study thrown around a lot, muddys or whatever?
>>80811085
Well, just follow the founding fathers idea of what to do.
> "Commerce with all, alliances with none"
That'll get us off the path pretty quick.
>>80805975
>commie turned (((neocon)))
>(((Chicago school of economics)))
babbies first economist +1 because he's a wise old house nigger
>>80811177
Marx and free market capitalism.
Wut
>>80811085
Accept that wealthy people (globalists included) will simply leave the country if it goes isolationist and protectionist.
>>80811224idiot
Tariffs is what he's proposing
>>80811085
There's nothing inherently globalist about being able to buy and sell goods around the world. It allows consumers to have a huge market place of choices in the market. There are probably a lot of definitions of globalism, but the brand of globalism that I want to fuck off is EU style, open borders globalism.
>>80811085
You can trade with people and simultaneously not let them live in your garage. It's pretty straightforward.
>>80810677
Then how do you explain the direct correlation between China's positive balance of trade and their economic miracle over the past 30 years? Your statement is completely disconnected from any reality.
>>80811465
Gotcha. Sounds good.
but how do you make that happen without wage arbitration?
>>80811543
What do you mean? You don't need wage arbitration for any of that.
>>80811500
Hong Kong and Singapore have virtually no trade restrictions and those countries are near the top in terms of GDP/capita.
>>80809500
I agree with you. He can be used for that sort of virtue feather-strutting.
But the guy is really a smart guy.
>>80811715
>Tax-havens/financial centers with small populations have high GDP/capitas
Holy shit who would have guessed it?
>>80811500
Sending out more than you take in is not the objective of trade. The objective of trade is getting what you want for as little as possible.
>>80811715
>implying that city-states like Hong Kong and Singapore are not outliers that can be rejected out of hand
>>80811835
Not everything in the world boils down to a binary choice. There are many different reasons to engage in trade, and many different ways to do so.
Mercantilism is a type of trade where the objective is most certainly to send out more than you take in, and it is a profitable model. Whether or not you want to implement it or not is a valid question, but sweeping the diversity of economic styles under the rug under the guise of pretending there is only one type of trade is disingenuous.
>>80805975
You do realize based Sowell writes largely from a libertarian based view point right?
>>80811254
No, it's literally killing imports while also reducing the number of exports, since nobody will want to deal with you as a result. Everything will have to be manufactured domestically, which drives up prices and increasing scarcity.
Humanity has simply gotten too big to NOT rely on globalist trade networks.
>>80812042
Alright, so how often do you think people engage in trade with the objective of getting less value in doing so than they're forfeiting as a cost to acquire that value?
>>80812167
So how does Japan get away with its tarrifs on rice?
>>80811326
>(((Chicago school of economics)))
You do realize U Chicago is very conservative and the Chicago school of economics is anti-thesis to the Princeton, Keynesian, Harvard, and Berkeley schools, right?
>>80811543
There's a reason why a trade "deficit" is such an insidious term, because there is always a flip side. If you have a current account deficit of $-X, then by definition you have a capital account surplus of $X. What this means is that a country with a trade deficit is simultaneously experiencing an inflow of capital investment, and it is capital investment, in part, that fuels increases in productivity.
>>80812276
That's just one tariff on a product they grow plenty of on their own. No such tariffs on corn, wheat, barley, malt, etc.
>>80812290
Neo-cons are known for being pretty conservative. Just not on the important issues (i.e. trade, immigration, and perpetual war.)
>>80812290
Yes goy I understand that. It's still kike tier economics.
>>80812247
All the time - namely when actors are doing transactions on behalf of others that should be made at arms length, but where those actors have been corrupted by third parties who stand to benefit from a bad deal.
>>80810448
taxes are a form of protectionism on its own goddamn people
>>80811690
Google it. Basically wage arbitration is lowering everyone's wages since you compete globally now
>>80809500
Remain voter detected
>>80812745
And what wouldn't be considered kike tier, in your eyes? Chicago school is still the most mathematical and rational.
>>80812816
"All the time" - got it. And what would you say is the quantitative regularity of those trade relations compared to ones in which people try to gain more value in a trade than they forfeit as a cost of acquiring that value?
>>80812894
Economics is a social science. It's like adding math to sociology and trying to pass it off as fact. In the end it's still just ideology pretending to be a science.
>>80812818
Did you think that was a bullet to bite? I'm against that too senpai.
>>80810927
Yet the high tariff and non-tariff barrier to trade that China maintains on goods imported to their nation (equivalent to 37% of purchase price) has only served to benefit them and vault their economy to the status of #1 largest in the world. Economics isn't science - it's just a bunch of shilling for whoever's payroll you are on, and these think tanks are owned by multi-national corporations filled with people whose dream is post-state, a condition which is ultimately detrimental to the people of the united states.
>>80812818
Tariffs in a nutshell: A regressive tax on your own citizens.
>>80812963
I don't see how that would relate to the question I responded to - the commenter above merely implied an efficient markets argument, and I rebutted with an instance where markets are not efficient.
>>80812894
Corporatism
>>80813110
Just because economics is too difficult for you to understand does not make it a jew plot. I don't understand chemistry, that doesn't make chemistry a communist plot.
>>80813197
As a replacement for the federal income tax, a tariff is a much more humane tax, because unlike a federal income tax, a tariff can be creatively avoided without an individual having to cheat on his taxes, go black-market, or work less.
>>80813403
>Just because economics is too difficult for you to understand does not make it a jew plot.
>a jew plot
Your words, not mine.
>>80813403
That's a pretty sly way to dismiss the point without actually disproving it. Science starts with empirical data and then derives conclusions from those observations. Contemporary economics seems to "work" the other way around.
>>80813271
Markets are not necessarily efficient. But protectionism *is* necessarily inefficient (or else completely neutral, such as imposing restrictions on trade that isn't happening) as a whole.
>>80812989
>In the end it's still just ideology pretending to be a science.
ROFL no.
For example, hyperinflation is a thing and its causes are understood. It's not some ephemeral concept totally detached from reality like your mom's chastity.
>>80813546
Economics requires coming up with a hypothesis, gathering data, and testing your hypothesis against the evidence. That's the way it has worked for well over 150 years
>>80813548
I thought we'd been over that already - mercantilism is a very profitable economic model that relies upon protectionism, and it is in no way inefficient, as is evidenced by its most recent adopter, China, whose economy has surpassed that of every other nation while under its yoke.
>>80813768
So does every other social science.
>>80813928
Something can be profitable and simultaneously inefficient. Nobody is saying otherwise.
>and it is in no way inefficient
it most certainly is, given the Chinese cannot buy with their currency nearly as much, and the goods they sell are cheaper for other people (meaning they can't sell them for as much). That's a *bad* thing for the average Chinese.
>>80814151
This. Let's examine how the Chinese are """"""killing"""""" us on trade. Chinese citizens have their wages taxed and given to Chinese companies in order to produce goods which are at a loss to Americans.
China is literally spending billions of it's citizens earnings to provide foreign aid to US consumers.
>>80814426
And as a result they are one of the only places with a growing middle class.
>>80814151
What you call inefficiency in this instance is really a time preference for long term stability of their national economy versus increased short term purchasing power against retail goods. It's a trade off, for sure, but national stability is not a given, and sometimes sacrifices have to be made.
Whatever you think about it, you have to admit that pic related is not a posture that can be maintained indefinitely. What goes up, must come down.
>>80814476
The average Chinese would benefit more from being able to buy more with their currency than from having the value of their products be cheapened artificially. They literally have the value of their goods and services swept out from under them.
>>80814622
Would you care to post a graph of foreign capital investment in those same countries?
>>80814910
Never mind, I'll do it for you. Looks exactly like this
>>80814622
They could have stable trade for the long term without raping their currency - they're competitive without the devaluation, and their domestic market and imports would fare much better without the currency manipulation.
There's really little benefit to subsidizing other people to buy your goods. It's like giving people free value.
>>80814910
>>80815123
My understanding of the balance of trade is that it forms part of the current account, which includes other transactions such as income from the net international investment position as well as international aid. Foreign capital investment is therefore included in that negative figure for the U.S., which indicates net capital/investment outflow.
>>80815677
Trade deficits aren't necessarily a bad thing. Debt is a bad thing to the debtor. When we buy more from other countries than we sell them, it means we're bringing in more goods and services for our population than we're paying out to get those goods and services.
What is money good for? Buying goods and services from others, which is what people value.
Our domestic market is absurdly strong anyway - we produce more value domestically per capita than we trade out in deficits. Trade deficits aren't something to balk at prima facie at all. National debt is, but that's a function of government action and not free trade.
>>80816069
>Trade deficits aren't something to balk at prima facie at all. National debt is, but that's a function of government action and not free trade.
You kidding me? Where do you think the national debt comes from, anyway? I'll tell you where a significant portion of it originates - entire classes and regions of people, who used to have jobs and live productive lives, are now on the dole because a significant chunk of our manufactured production has been shipped offshore. So whereas, domestic corporations, manufacturing the goods that people bought here, used to take care of these people, now the federal government does. Yes, the function of government and free trade are inextricably intertwined. This is an instance of socializing the costs (an unemployed populace that needs federal monies now to stay afloat) and privatizing the gains (multi-national corporations domiciled in tax havens keeping the money they make selling Asian manufactured goods in America and not paying a cent of tax on it).
Why not do what Israel does and hold the world hostage with nuclear arms to get better trade deals and reparations for stuff that happened to other people and not us directly?
>>80816628
National debt is debt owed by the federal government senpai - most of which is to U.S. citizens, but an increasing amount which is not. It has nothing to do with private debt.
>>80816795
not an argument
good night
>>80816628
>the function of government and free trade are inextricably intertwined
That's an objectively false statement, given governments need not have anything to do with voluntary trade between people at all.
>>80816882
>not an argument
>>80816628
>Where do you think the national debt comes from, anyway?
Bye~
>>80815677
No. In the abstract, if I buy a Honda from a Japanese producer, I pay him in USD. There are only two things that Japanese producer can do with USD, buy US goods or invest it in the US (he can also trade USD for yen to someone in China who wants USD for the same purpose, but the illustration is the same).
He uses those USD to buy American goods. If he spends all of it on American goods, then the trade deficit is zero. If he doesn't spend all of it on American goods, the remaining amount is invested.
So if I buy Japanese goods for $100, and a Japanese guy spends $40 of that on American goods, then The US trade deficit, in aggregate is -$60. The remaining amount is invested, so that Japanese producer uses $100 to buy $40 worth of US goods and invests $60 in the US, so the capital account surplus is +$60.
Trade ALWAYS balances
>>80816795
And although that is not necessarily a good thing, it does allow Americans to pay less in taxes than they otherwise would
>>80817205
You shouldn't accept taxes as a given I'd say. That's a very miserable way to think.
>>80805975
Sometimes his ideology and ideas aren't completely consistent but he has a genuinely interesting point of view. His book A Conflict Of Visions is pretty unique. Sowell has a real talent for making these things accessible without watering them down too much
>>80809986
because his trade policies are bad
>>80817467
The status quo is worse.
>>80805975
I like Sowell because he knows what he says, his economics books are a good read.
Other than that, yeah he's a nigger. And libertarian so he's okay with the moral degradation of a people for the sake of profit, like unlimited freedoms for Marxists, open borders, legalization of hard drugs, etc.
>>80816628
>This is an instance of socializing the costs (an unemployed populace that needs federal monies now to stay afloat) and privatizing the gains (multi-national corporations domiciled in tax havens keeping the money they make selling Asian manufactured goods in America and not paying a cent of tax on it).
>Hurr durr protectionism is good
>Competition and low prices are bad long-term prospects for the country! TRUMP SAID SO!
kys
I may be pro-trump, but his policies on trade are awful. Also, calling economics bullshit because it doesn't fit your world view doesn't make it any less valid and applicable.
>>80820724
A non-commie leaf. You're rare.
>>80820830
Not really. 3/10 people voted conservative last election, and a large portion of Canadian voters are unaffiliated moderates that will vote for either liberal or conservative canidates depending on circumstance. All Canadians being collectivists is just a meme.
>>80820724
When did OP promote protectionism?
Isn't protectionism just taxing imports? Why would I ship goods to you if I have to pay you as well? Sounds like a lose-win situation, and not for us.
>>80821073
Even your "conservatives" are pretty commie desu senpai. You're a bit worse than Britain, and Britain's not great.
You're not Sweden of course, but your scale is still centered at a point considerably more left than here in the states.
>>80821239
>When did OP promote protectionism?
>>80809986
>>80810322
>>80809500
>anytime a black person agrees with the people I dont, I call him a house nigger because I'm open minded and not racist :]
>>80821239
See >>80809986
Trump is advocating for protectionist trade policies, which have a long history of just shitting the bed for producers and costing consumers more for goods and services.
>>80821327
Oy.
>>80821519
Yikes, yeah that's what I thought. Not good, but he isn't perfect. I'll take him over the kike or the cunt, so. I hope once he gets a hit to the head, he'll change it up. I don't think he became as successful as he is today if he didn't analyze situations and adjust accordingly.
>>80821616
I doubt he doesn't know that it's bad economics. He went to a good business school and has probably read or watched plenty of material from people in the Austrian and Chicago schools.
It's politically profitable to spout this kind of rhetoric, do you think most people have a clue what protectionism does to markets and the economic freedom of the individual? I highly doubt it. I can't condemn him, he's just pursuing his own interest, but he's flat out wrong.
His tax plan is pretty based though, as long as he sticks to cuts across the board and it goes in tandem with a big decrease in government spending.
>>80821966
Anything for votes, I guess.
So what do you think of Sowell. I think he has a good head on his shoulders, and I respect libertarian beliefs to a point, it's just the freedom to the lowest common denominator that I disagree with. Government is useless in many walks of life, but it is required for a few things. What do you think?
>>80822133
>Government is useless in many walks of life, but it is required for a few things. What do you think?
That is the libertarian position, and I agree with it. Governments' job is very limited, and should stay that way.
These people are not anarchists. Government does serve a purpose. The problem with most governments is arbitrary regulation, over-reaching power and ham-handed action with little regard for consequences in the pursuit of votes.
>I think he has a good head on his shoulders, and I respect libertarian beliefs to a point, it's just the freedom to the lowest common denominator that I disagree with.
Government should not be in the business of regulating morality and societal norms. That is the responsibility of society at large.
>>80821239
>Why would I ship goods to you if I have to pay you as well?
A market requires infrastructure, reliable people, a strong culture, etc., many things which are valuable. Kind of like how if you drive on a toll road, you have to pay. Any road you drive on you pay in some way. The free ride chinese products have been given on our market/road have been in exchange for goodwill as we helped them transition out of communism, this free access was given to them as an incentive to become more free. Now the free ride is almost over.
>>80822715
>These people are not anarchists. Government does serve a purpose. The problem with most governments is arbitrary regulation, over-reaching power and ham-handed action with little regard for consequences in the pursuit of votes.
Agreed.
>Government should not be in the business of regulating morality and societal norms. That is the responsibility of society at large.
I don't know, I think that the laws should be based around objective morality, I am sure that within the next 30 years, the streets which we honour the fallen will be replaced to honour the Sodomites.
>>80822759
Good point.
>>80817045
Right, but a capital account surplus represents a growing liability to foreigners - and now they have greater and increasing legal claim to income flows earned by American firms. This is nothing to brag about.
>>80822959
That is the job of society. Making laws thata majority of people don't want to follow will not produce any positive result.
>>80822759
I hope you enjoy paying more for all those consumer goods you purchase. The real solution is to make American goods competitive again, not put up barriers to trade that do nothing but hurt consumers and producers in order to feed into the public fear of the Chinese boogeyman.
>>80823318
If the majority of the population cannot comprehend common sense, then that people should be physically removed. This is to say, Marxist kikes have no place in society if all they wish to do is promote the degradation of the family unit, national spirit, etc.
I agree that the people should enforce these standards, but look around you, mate.
>>80823318
I'll be paying you(Canada) less at the gasoline pump if we do more of our manufacturing over here, because one of the biggest drivers of crude demand over the last 20 years has been the tremendous amount of diesel being consumed by those supermax container ships that are constantly traversing the Pacific.
I find most consumer manufactured goods to be too cheap, in that their producers are driven to follow a scheme of planned obsolescence in order to stay profitable. When goods are more expensive, they tend to be of better manufactured quality, to last longer, and to be a better value over all.
I'm a maker, so I would enjoy the stimulus of having to craft some substitutes for things that have been rendered to expensive in their final form, say, like a stereo. It's a more interesting way to spend my time than watching television, I feel. Call it a holistic economics.
>>80823086
I see no problem with this.
These corporations are not the property of America. They are private enterpises. Who are you to tell them they should refuse foreign investment? Their is no distinction between industrialists from China purchasing investment instruments and investing in capital stock in America, and a Canadian doing the same thing.
You seem to be inferring that these people have ill intentions, but that would directly conflict with their economic interests. They would have no benefit from seeing America suffer, as they would lose capital as a result. If they had no interest in investing in America and seeing these investments grow, they would have just sold their profits from trade for another currency and invested elsewhere. Why would someone purposefully lose their capital in this manner? It doesn't make sense.
>>80823786
>Who are you to tell them they should refuse foreign investment?
I'm the people, of course - sending my duly elected representative to Washington to change these preferences in accordance with my will. We can do all manner of things through our government, which we have empowered to act on behalf of us through the constitution.
>>80811326
>he doesn't know the chicago school created this
>>80823724
We don't sell you gasoline. We sell you unrefined bitumen crude. Lower gas prices will have a far more disproportionate effect on America, who refines and consumes that gas and makes a significantly higher profit margin on bitumen.
Higher prices is not directly tied to better quality goods, either.
>>80823482
It will die out. Ideas that do not stand the test of time will collapse. If it's not meant to be, which like you is what i also believe, it won't stick around. Natural selection applies to almost all aspects of life, including markets and social perceptions on norms and morality.
>>80823916
>I want to elect people to make arbitrary laws and regulate business in a destructive manner that contradicts free market and capitalist principles because those red gooks sure scare me!
The founding fathers of your country are truly rolling in their graves.
>>80824246
Requesting the "when you've been waiting 100 years for the joke to end" meme with Marx.
Don't hold your breath, mate. The kikes have just begun the charade.
>>80824446
The founding fathers were protectionists. The first 150+ years of our history was spent as protectionists. Alexander Hamilton founded the national school of economics, which advocated for protection of infant industries, among other things. No, the only thing that would them rolling in their graves would be the many entangling alliances that we have allowed to coil around us, particularly this tremendous trade deficit.
>>80824534
Please stop taking satirical vietnamese rice farming forum memes so seriously.
This has been brewing for a long time, and the jews aren't the major proponents of it. Influence from subversive groups is the symptom, not the illness. The public is. The problem starts there. If they didn't like neoliberalism, they wouldn't buy it for a second.
>>80811155
He looks like Bernie Sanders in this pic. Same creepy Jew smile
>>80824735
>The founding fathers were protectionists
Lord have Mercy the Hamiltonians succeeded in making people in the future believe they were in the majority.
>>80824750
Marxist-Leninist ideology is rooted in Jewish influence, they were the ones who staged the revolutions.
I agree that the buyer is at fault for falling as a victim of the merchant, but you cannot ignore the merchant because of satire.
I'm just saying, one too many cohencidences.
Sowell is a God and I pray somebody picks up his torch when he dies.
>>80824822
It's right there in black, white, and red.
>>80810448
Discouraging refugees and legal immigrants is also bad for the economy but it's for the betterment of our country and our people.
Strictly speaking in terms of net gain and net loss means you fell for the Jewish tricks again.
>>80824735
Thomas Jefferson: "The exercise of a free trade with all parts of the world [is] possessed by [a people] as of natural right"
America had protectionist trade policy to raise tax revenue that was crucial to funding the federal government in its infancy. Many founding fathers supported the idea, but it was not practiced.
It was continued past infancy of your country due to the inherit desire of government to maximize federal revenue. Ironically, they would've collected more tax through other channels had they allowed free trade, but they lacked the economic knowledge to have known that.
Economics has come a long way.
>>80824960
Guess who paid those tariffs? I'll give you a hint - it wasn't foreigners. They weren't subtle with tariffs being how they collected taxes - they were the essential equivalent of sales taxes back before the government acquired more reaching tax collecting capabilities.
>>80825119
There's nothing "better for our country" about benefiting a few and hurting a majority, which is what tariffs objectively do.
>>80824887
I'm not saying ignore the sypmtoms. I'm saying that removing one groups' influence without treating the illness will just leave a gap for somebody else to fill.
But seriously, lighten up on the chinese fish trading forum memes.
>>80825371
Tell it to China. They've used tariffs to supercharge their economy to great effect, and unless you want to keep the status quo and pray they show us good will (don't answer that), it's time to shake things up a bit.
>>80825534
>tell it to China
Read the thread.
>>80815180
>>80814675
>>80814426
>>80814151
>>80825504
"treating the illness" is physical removal, these people are beyond salvation.
I thought it was a meme too, but when your friends suggest you should be raped when you critique what the female said because there is a lack of evidence, then you, too, will realize that it transcends memes.
Literally every single one of my peers has denounced me, all because I had a change of opinion, thought it more honourable to be truthful to myself than lie to fit in.
>>80825628
Yeah, I know. They aren't going to budge. It's up to us to unlock this stalemate.
>>80825534
Tariffs aren't how they "super-charged" anything. The Chinese economy also isn't as strong as you'd believe.
Their GDP is high, yes, but GDP is a measure of market activity, not of the health of an economy.
The Chinese economy does alot of trade because they're competitive, not because they have some trade barriers. Trade barriers are actually a detriment to their economy.
>>80825721
... why you would ever want China to stop subsidizing us is beyond me, unless you're a globalist who cares more about the welfare of the average Chinese than you do about Americans.
>>80825697
Idiots have always existed in large numbers. Today is no different than any other time in history in that capacity.
>>80825721
You've watched one too many trump speeches and read far too few books on economics.
>>80826032
Except now idiots have the Internet.
>>80826121
Idiots had telephones, telegraphs, printed word and televisions, their contemporary counterparts.
It's not going to last.
>>80825809
Granted, the tariff and non-tariff barriers to trade do not explain the entire phenomenon, but selling your goods in someone else's market while denying them a sales channel in your home market is a way to get up on a trading partner - China did that to Britain in the 19th century; it's pretty well road-mapped.
>>80825866
I want U.S. workers off the dole because it is unhealthy for them, and I want the U.S. of the chinese subsidy dole for the same reason. It has nothing to do with any interest on my behalf for the welfare of the Chinese people, I'm sure they can do well if left to their own devices.
>>80826505
No-cost-to-us subsidies of goods and services we buy is unhealthy? *What*?
Bro, stop pretending you care about people's well being and just admit you're some kind of unionist industry shill.
>>80826295
I appreciate the anti-defeatism, but you underestimate the enemy.
Could it be that it is a sustained effort, a continuous spiral of idiots with their platforms, some kind of uprising every once in a while?
My point is, if the Third Reich has survived, it would not have been a place for these kinds of things because they were physically removed.
No chance for any uprisings.
>>80825866
You know that China subsidizing us is a short-term play. They're not stupid. And after China moves up the value chain, our subsidizer will become Vietnam, or the Phillipines or parts of Africa. There's still a lot of countries that we can get cheap shit from. And hopefully this subsidy train never has to stop because if it did we could be in huge trouble.
I don't hate on China. Don't hate the playa, hate the game.
I like what he has to say, even bought his book basic economics. I disliked the lack of philosophy in his views (forgivable as an economist) and have recently stopped reading him as he heaped scorn on trump.
I just get the impression we only agree on topics because we both see what's sensible, not because he has any moral inclination to my view of the world.
>>80826680
If other people didn't subsidize their trade to us it wouldn't actually be *that* big a deal, given they're still going to be highly competitive in industries like textiles. It's nice for us that other people do fuck themselves over to give us cheap shit though - that won't stop being true.
>>80826421
Trade deficits aren't even an issue in fiat currency systems.
>>80826635
Are you suggesting that physically removing undesirables and being marked in history as a tyrant an murderer is better than simply allow natural selection to take its course?
Only the strongest survive. That is the natural order, and that's the way it should be. Intervention has too many implications.
>>80826743
He doesn't like talking about morality much, aye. That's a very common motif among economists. One that I don't actually respect very much, though that doesn't stop me from utilizing the work they do.
>>80826951
In what way will natural selection weed out these undesirables? I am all for sitting back and relaxing as they perish, but this is simply not the reality of the situation. When they take action and you sit and "wait for the inevitable to happen because ???", their work will pay off and yours won't. But if you have a good point, I'm all ears.
>>80826743
So you stopped reading the work of one of the most prominent economists of our time became he doesn't agree with your preferred canidates supposed view on trade?
>>80826619
There's no such thing as a free lunch.
>shill
No, I'm just a hardened contrarian.
>>80827209
Of course it's not free. They're paying for it.
>>80826951
>Trade deficits aren't even an issue in fiat currency systems.
I disagree.
So I read through the thread, and I now realize it's just the cuckservatives/libertarians on /pol/ that like sowell.
The guy makes some OK points, but he's hardly a revolutionary thinker. If he was white, nobody would give a shit.
NIGGER
>>80805975
He's a nigger, an ape, needs to be put down like a dog he is. Stupid niggers and their niggery bullshit, nothing but animal and rapists.
>>80827344
Low energy. Sad.
>>80827068
If the idea is not strong enough to continuing being dominant indefinitely, it will die out or become irrelevant in the long-term.
http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/16/3/7.html
Pic related
>>80827096
>Most prominent economist
Please, he's a token
>>80826866
Again you're missing the point. Them subsidizing us is a play to domesticate and take control of industries, and once you've taken it, u move up the value chain by no longer being the low-wage labor provider, but maybe for example, the assembler of parts created in other countries, and importing those parts created by low wage labor in countries like Vietnam.
This is exactly what China did over the last 20 years
>That won't stop being true
At some point we can't afford it - we can't have a country that only does high-skill labor and services for the high skill labor. Not enough jobs
>>80827429
I agree that he is a nigger, but he has some good ideas. As non-white as he is, he is better than them. I agree that the "based black man, not nigger" meme should be put down, they are all literally niggers.
They think it's noteworthy when one monkey learns to write. This one can write well, but I don't think he is an ally to white power.
The least you could do is appreciate whites when you are in their nation.
>>80827507
Is that the McGill study? I skimmed it, very interesting.
Still, I take sharp disagreement to let the course of things simply play out, this will mean that there is more to clean up once they are gone.
I don't want to wait for fags to die of AIDS, I just want them gone. Be the change you want to see and whatnot.
>>80827526
jej, I just considered this lol.
>>80823970
It didnt
>>80827300
How are they an issue?
They can't use that money except to buy US goods and services, exchange their US dollars for another currency, or invest in the US. No matter how much US currency is floating around outside the country, it all has to come back eventually.
In gold-backed currencies it was an issue, as you were trading a currency that could be used anywhere in the world and was almost certainly not going to re-enter the US economy.
>>80827497
Nice try, tripfag.
Being a globalist shill for neocon kikes is about as low energy as it gets. Pic related
>>80816907
you realize the us is not an anarcho capitalist nation right?
>>80827526
I said one of, not the most. That'd be Friedman or Hayek.
>>80827592
>At some point we can't afford it - we can't have a country that only does high-skill labor and services for the high skill labor.
Can you tell me in what world janitor work won't be done domestically? Gas station attendants? Salesmen? There will always be a market for low-skilled workers. That being said, *no one in their right mind* should *AIM* to be a low-skilled worker in the long run unless there's some special benefit in doing so.
We could afford it for eternity because we produce so much value domestically that we overcome any trade deficits by a mile in domestic productivity.
>>80827647
Apes and politics, you know it's end of white race. If you support niggers you are asking to be cucked. Niggers have no honour, no intelligence, the final nigger outcome is always rape and crime.
>>80827851
That statement is objectively true. It's a fact that governments *need not* do so. That governments tend to do so doesn't change the absolute fact that they need not.
>>80827742
Because they don't buy good and services with that money - they spend it on investments and other legal claims on domestic income streams - they use it to buy us up, don't you see? A situation where two trade partners are each selling each other a roughly equal amount of goods and services is benign, but when there is a huge trade deficit between the two, the one with the deficit gets bought out and eaten up. It's a bad deal. These are bad trade deals that we are operating under, and they must be torn up and have new deals negotiated, end of story.
>>80827935
In general, the behavioural trait of the nigger is exactly how you describe, the majority of the niggers do engage in nigger-tier antics. But there are monkeys in suits who have something worthwhile to say besides muh dick, it says something when they are lauded around like prize horses, though. That a group of people are such utter shit that the good ones are like golden eggs.
>>80828103
First they play innocent, then they are victims, but once given power they will ruin white lives.
>>80827869
>No one should be a low-skilled worker
That's not how bell-curve distributions of people's IQ and ability work. We need low-skill jobs for the people that aren't ever going to be high-skill. Hence the reason why male labor force participation, especially low-skill, in the u.s. is at an all time low and trending down
>>80828217
I didn't say no one should be. I said as a long term aim it'd generally be stupid. Even low-IQ people can learn more skilled work. Some of the dumbest people I've ever met are mechanics or plumbers.
>>80828177
Well, this isn't something new. Niggers have created nothing, no empires, nothing of value. They leech off of others. They bite the hand that feeds them. If you must be an immigrant, the least you could do is appreciate the opportunity. The nigger comes to conquer more so than any other immigrant group.
I think that niggers like Sowell should be peacefully repatriated to Africa, if we kill all the "golden egg" niggers, then Africa will devolve and some retard cunt like Merkel will import them all over again because of some sad kike commercial. All other niggers should be physically removed.
>>80828065
Are you suggesting that China buys absolutely zero US goods and services? What an absurd insinuation.
And this goes back to the same point I made earlier, if the Chinese want to invest in our market, why shouldn't a private enterprise be allowed to take their money? Why shouldn't they be allowed to deposit funds at US banks? Why shouldn't they be allowed to invest in capital stock? This in itself is mutually beneficial- they recieve profit, the US enterprises recieve capital to produce or make loans.
>>80828365
If anyone is doing the developing over here, it should be us. Let China colonize Africa, if they want to get their tendrils into something.
>>80805975
>grow up around niggers all your life
>make something of yourself despite a culture of handouts and low expectations
>pass that first hand knowledge wisdom on
>get ridiculed by faggot OP that can't even substantiate his claims in his two sentence shit post
This guy and others like him make me not want a race war. It must have been hell for someone like him to grow up around niggers drooling all over themselves.
>>80809986
> not reading Basic Economics
Sowell disagrees with this because in his view they have historically not worked.He also doesnt trust Trump in general. Which I cant fault him on because really this whole thing is a gamble im praying succeeds.
However If you read his columns they do agree on some things like border security, guns, etc.
>>80828483
But we aren't, because we aren't competitive. I made this exact point posts ago.
If you want the illusion of control back, make the US competitive. It's that simple. The only other solution is a measure that hurts the US economy as a whole, on the demand and supply side.
>>80805975
Because he understands economics and history. His knowledge of facts just dashes away the contrived bullshit of social justice. He doesn't even bat an eye at telling these people off.
>>80811837
Why should they be rejected you cuck? they are outliers because they work. The free trade model is why they are outliers and they should be the example for all nations to follow.
>>80828667
Things are out of whack here. Sometimes corrective measures are painful. The idea that there is some sort of soft landing to be had is the real illusion.
>>80828483
I feel like China would run Africa pretty fucking well. The Chinese don't get complicated when it comes to niggers chimping out, they'll just straight-up shoot them. Doesn't matter who they are, if they fuck with Mao, they never existed.
>>80828861
>Why should they be rejected you cuck?
>ad hominem
opinion discarded
>>80805975
He is the most ideologically consistent person there is. Have you considered that you may be an idiot?
>>80828919
Your out of arguments, so you're just using cognitive dissonance to justify your views now?
Low energy. Sad!
>>80828954
>reject all evidence that I'm wrong
Check out this cuck, goys.
>>80805975
Hes the Republicans token house nigger.
They trot him out when democrats point out the way the Republicans have fucked black people over in the last 30 years.
Look up the sentencing for Crack in the 90's as compared to the sentencing for Cocaine.
>>80828954
Fine I'm sorry I hurt your precious feelings on an anonymous message board. If you can grab some tissues and recover maybe you could rebut the rest of the comment if it is in you.
>>80828667
What measures, specifically, do you advocate to make the U.S. competitive?
>>80829303
Remove minimum wage, reduce tax burdens, remove trade barriers, stop taxing income made in other markets that US companies want to bring back and invest in America with. In other words, cut out bullshit regulation that doesn't do you any good.
>>80829129
> black man that has accepted western civilization and rejected coonery is a house nigger
Its like you dont want blacks to stop killing each other... Why are liberals so racist?
>>80829082
>>80829147
Singapore and Hong Kong are two former crown colonies that are still coasting off the momentum of the British Empire. I wouldn't disallow that there are some things that can be learned from them, but they seem like meme examples when it comes to economics.
>>80805975
He is self consistent. If you don't understand him, that's your own fault for trying to fit him into your particular ideological boxes.
>>80829402
>remove minimum wage
politically impossible
>reduce tax burdens
we can't do that without first cutting spending, which is currently politically impossible
>remove trade barriers
what trade barriers? We have virtually no tariffs as it is
>stop taxing income made in other markets that U.S. companies want to bring back and invest in America with
there's merit to that
Most of that stuff is off the table, though, politically. Hence why Trump is proposing tariffs.
>>80829638
>Refers to African American culture as "Coonery".
>Says liberals are racist.
K.
>>80829082
saved
>>80810843
>>80808968
No, cuckservativism is conservatism, that's what it has always has been. Reagan was a cuck too, he supported amnesty. The last semi-nationalist was not a conservative, he was eisenhower who deported the beaners.
>>80809835
Sowell is a rato shill who doesn't like trump. He's a cuckservative.
>>80812078
libertarianism is a useless cuck ideology.
>muh open borders
>>80829402
>Remove minimum wage.
Yeah lets all get fucked over EVEN MORE, I'm sure that will help.
>>80825295
>supported the idea, but it was not practiced.
Actually, it was. Free Trade did not happen until post-ww2.
>>80829914
African American culture is coonery. Its not even African.
you faggot liberals are worse than most of /pol/ when they get on their moonman kick
>>80810560
Friedman blamed the session on tight monetary policy you retard.
>What is a monetary history of the United States?
>>80812290
Chicago isn't completely anti-keynesian. They have the same goals but different methods. Chicago supports monetary policy over fiscal more than the others.
>>80812327
This desu
>>80827854
Not Hayek.
His political philosophy is interesting but his economics was not very good. I like the man but he was wrong about some major things ( eg ABC
>>80805975
Nice try liberal but we all know what you fear most: disaffected Whites and Blacks working together against you. You wouldn't be killing so many Blacks if you didn't fear their potential to change this country. Your divide and conquer bullshit must end.
We must arm the Blacks.
>>80809500
>A lot of what you said is true with regards to his opinions. By and large, he talks utter shit.
You're clearly copying and pasting without reading your own lines.
/thread
>>80809986
>He says we should do what works and yet has come out against Trump's trade policies.
Tariffs work if they're being used to initiate domestic production either to later compete or to give you more flexibility geopolitically. No one can bitch about most goods in a free market but when it comes to stuff like steel, food, and weapons, the gains from free trade can also bring additional costs if trade becomes an issue.
The problem with geopolitical libertarianism is that it doesn't work in the real world. Wars still occur, governments still stagnate and age, and surprises still pop up. Free trade only works well when everyone gets along. The problem with that is that reality can cause relationships to degrade. Also, in such a world, you wouldn't even need borders.
He was right about slavery though.
Also, why don't we ask how correct Hillary is and how smart her people are? Oh, wait, OP doesn't like that.
>>80810322
>But protectionism is what made America great.
Not entirely. Much of the Guilded age was more about the North finding shit to stir in order to ignore the realities at home. As a result, that time was only considered "great" due to WW2 because it was the main victory.
>>80810512
>tariffs are literally socialism.
Actually, the opposite is true. Free trade tends to create urbanism(i.e. Socialism) and eventually imperialism as the country seeks to dominate the sources of its imports. Tariffs encourage internal development and increase the competition for what were otherwise unprofitable(or break-even) goods.
>>80810653
>Because his trade policies ARE retarded.
Agree. The real world isn't perfect.
>>80810761
>It's a simple fact that when you introduce restrictions in trade most people hurt.
Assuming that everything else stays the same. Its a volatile time right now and protectionism is safer. Also, it makes urban areas, which steal in the form of taxes, politically weaker as new businesses pop up and challenge the old rats.
Yeah, everyone knows free trade is ideal in an ideal world but this world is inherently unstable. Also, political values are often not what they seem. Environmental shit, like feminism, exists to fuck over Blacks and Southern/Southern Diaspora Whites.
If you want free trade, then apply those same principals to jobs
Because he's a black conservative. That's pretty much the only reason he has (had?) any real prominence.
