Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Scott Lincicome: In Defense of Free Trade
Scott Lincicome is a leading international trade attorney, adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute, and senior visiting lecturer at Duke University. In this Conversation, Lincicome explains the system of free trade agreements and alliances that the U.S. has built over many decades and how the system contributes to peace and prosperity for America. Lincicome also shares his perspective on the renegotiation of NAFTA, the decision not to participate in the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), and other trade agreements. Finally, Kristol and Lincicome consider where Republicans and Democrats stand on trade today—and where the parties are likely to go in the future.
Published in General
So where were did you stand on the situation wherein the US government handed out over 23 trillions of $$s of bail out monies, tax breaks and incentives, to Wall Street and Big Bankers after the 2008 Economic Collapse? Hopefully you were just as upset over the above, which still allowed for massive lay offs on Wall Street, while the execs who caused this situation still got hefty bonuses.
Yes, this is correct and we haven’t been able to make an adjustment to this culturally as yet. We have just about reached a point where the only work most people should have to do would be what they really enjoy doing with their time. We also have hordes of individuals who have personal control of an amount of resources devoted to satisfying their individual wants that far exceed what is necessary for that threshold. Does that sentence make sense? So don’t take away capitalism, let’s figure out how to spread the benefits.
Carol, you misread my comment. It had nothing to do with the bailouts after the 2008 crisis.
Anyway, since you asked, on any policy issue where the subject is whether America should move toward freedom and justice, or slavery and injustice, I am always for more freedom and justice.
My question is legit: if you were for the Bailouts, you are for the slavery of the Middle Class. Both Daryl Issa – R – and Dennis Kucinich – D – were in full agreement Fall of 2008 that to ensure the proper handling of the economic collapse, all that needed to happen was that an implementation of the chartered banks as to capitalizing the entire economy as per the prescription of the laws still on the books regarding the S & L crisis.
Free Trade for the average American died the day the Fed Reserve was instituted. (Dec 23rd 1913.) The middle class’s enslavement has worsened since the Trade “Agreements” came into being.
Yes, as Bob Thompson points out, there are inside some of the trade agreements snap shots of legit activities and prescriptions to protect various rights. But the fact that these agreements destroy the sovereignty of citizens and that also the agreements exist in perpetuity means they are poorly written. And destructive to most of us in the USA.
This is exactly right.
We would be better of with no central banks than what we have now. Republicans really need to get this into their heads. Read End The Fed by Ron Paul.
Where do you come up with that underlying assumption?
If we go here, then maybe we can try to adjust to conditions as they should be.
The problem is we have so much debt, and our system is far too based on credit growth. Prior to the Fed this wasn’t as big of a deal. I have no idea how they’re going to make all of this work. People like Ben Sasse, I wish they would debate the guys from Mises.org about this stuff instead of whining about how people are behaving.
Prior to the fall of the Soviet Union there was less trade and our birthrates and demographics were pretty good for an inflationary system. I just don’t get how you make this work anymore. Deflation is going to be constant just because of progress.
I would move the date you mention back to the late 1960’s. By 1968, both parties realized they were getting away with a perpetual war being waged against the Vietnamese, a war in which the suppliers such as Honeywell, Lockheed et al were making hundreds of millions in profits, yet there was absolutely no game plan being made about winning the war. Soldiers in the field had absolutely zip in terms of items they needed by which to fight the war.
Considered that twenty years prior to the start of our involvement in Vietnam, our nation was one of the main reasons that Germany, Italy and Japan were defeated, and in only 3 and a half years! it seems absurd that we spent some 12 years in Vietnam. But the media and politicians sold the nation on the idea of “patriotism” as being always about supporting wars without end.
Of course, hundreds of millions of dollars is now chicken feed in terms of the monies the defense industries utilize in current day wars. But there was no more of a strategy by which to succeed in Iraq than there was in Vietnam. Your mention of Ron Paul is absolutely right: both Ron and Rand have consistently felt that the only reason for a war is to defend against a real enemy. And Donald Trump also chose for his National Security Advisor, one Mike Flynn, to help us get out of our entanglements in the Middle E.
The Powers that Be disliked the idea of our not being in continual wars there, and that is why the Mueller probe went after Flynn, a lifelong Democrat, as soon as they could.
If we didn’t have a Fed to continually supply monies to our government for our wars, there would most likely be far fewer wars, and the ones that were fought would be better managed.
And the Fed wouldn’t exist in its present form without the middle class and corporations being taxed at the excessive rates they’ re being taxed at. Trump is making great strides to bring the taxes in our nation down.
@caroljoy you have a very deep understanding of this stuff. My main point is simply that that type of system wasn’t as regressive as it is now. Ben Sasse needs to shut up.
I’m not going to dig it up, but it’s really worthwhile reading what Mises.org says about deflation, the measurement of inflation, and the whole issue of automation and trade replacing jobs. No one in DC can politically afford to look at this stuff in a better way. There is no reason all of this progress should hose certain people so much.
Bailouts move America toward slavery.
On any policy issue where the question is whether America should move toward freedom or toward or slavery, I am for more freedom.
Therefore I must be against bailouts.
Is it clearer now?
OK I am only halfway through it but you guys should get a real vision pass and watch the Kyle Bass interview and tell me if Trump doesn’t know what he’s doing on trade.
The other ones you should watch are the exchange series, Doug Noland, Harald Malmgren, in David Stockman. If you actually follow through, ping me and I’ll look up some other ones.
Some of these hedge fund guys really want Trump to do what he’s doing to equalize things for the middle and lower classes. All of the crap you hear from the GOPe and CATO and Ben Sasse might not be accurate. I have to admit this is hard stuff to understand.
The one time I tried my luck over at Mies, the discussion drifted into vocabulary I have little understanding of. “Statism vs Federalism,” for instance.
Is there a cheat sheet to refer to? For you the Mies site makes sense but it would be like if I suddenly spouted off about horses using specific breeder related terminology. You’d be lost.
Boy, I don’t know what to recommend.
Well said. The terminology is a huge obstacle and it never goes away. I wish there was such a cheat sheet but I’ve never seen one.