Bush Battles the Chinese Sock Threat
After five months and seven rounds of contentious negotiations, the Bush administration and the American textile lobby got what they wanted: a cap on China's booming export business in the sensitive trade. The agreement sets quotas ( or "safeguards " in security speak) for nearly half of the Chinese textile exports to America, such as bras, baby socks, bath towels, wool suits, window shades, etc.. Thus are American consumers protected from the presumed disaster of paying too little for these essentials of life. But the US textile industry will still decline. FULL ARTICLE
Comments (65)
This is the same President Bush who wrote in his "A Charge to Keep" that he wants to "tear down barriers, so the whole world trades in freedom". (p.67)
Unless, of course, you are a "business" man who writes him a big enough check, in which case W will be more than happy to pimp out the American consumer for your benefit.
Hooray for freedom...
Published: December 29, 2005 9:05 AM
This president has no limit to his lies. These lies extend beyond the wars into domestic and trade policy as well.
So now we have staked our relationship with China on a few hundred million dollars of textiles. And this behavior normally starts a cross border trade tit for tat. Except that instead of low $ value things like textiles China will stake its position on things that are bit more valuable like intellectual property, software, finanace, etc.
Published: December 29, 2005 10:27 AM
off topic, but this was interesting to me... i thought i was mistaken at first...
http://www.dallasfed.org/research/ei/ei0104.html
Published: December 29, 2005 10:39 AM
Eric, thanks for the link. Gotta appreciate the irony of a Mises tirbute being on a Fed website, although Bob McTeer is one of the good guys.
And truer words were never printed on a website at the end of it: "The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Federal Reserve System."
Published: December 29, 2005 11:07 AM
Great article outlining the fallacy of protectionist trade policies.
The future certainly looks interesting given that China have a very large pool of highly skilled labour, most probably, for now anyway, willing to work for much less than US labour.
However, I don't see this as a problem, countries should exploit their comparative advantage in trade.
Because at the end of the day, the importers of these goods pay less, the exporters of these goods (China) increase their national income.
The increase in national income for China means that they are able to purchase more imports from the USA, which in turn widens the market for US businesses / entrepreneurs.
The US can take advantage of their comparative advantage and if resources need to be diverted to more productive activities - then more the better.
The entrepreneurs of the USA should feel insulted that their government doesn't have enough faith in them to find or create new opportunities that will benefit not only them, but the nation in its entirety.
The more income our trading partners have, the more they can buy from us Mr. Bush. It looks like a no brainer to me.
Again a very interesting and informed article.
Published: December 29, 2005 11:08 AM
Please note that Robert Formaini is the author of this article. Formaini is published in the JLS, and The Independent Review. He has also written a number of nice summaries of the contributions of economists in this series by the Dallas Fed:
http://www.dallasfed.org/research/ei/index.html
Published: December 29, 2005 11:52 AM
Mr. Nulle:
A couple of questions, if you please. You say "Moreover, to decry a cheap yuan while turning a blind eye to the Fed's printing press, much less the presence of US military personnel in over 100 countries, smacks of hypocrisy." What, pray tell, does one have to do with the other? Why are they related? And who are you to declare "hypocrisy"?
You further state "Nevertheless, the justification and efficacy of government meddling in trade matters — especially in the case of Washington's embrace of textile quotas — is dubious" yet go on in this article to declare YOUR omniscience about how these things SHOULD work. Why are you any better qualified to dictate policy that some wonk in DC? I would assert that neither of you has much to work with in the "Know-It-All" department.
You assert "Unable or unwilling to properly plan and invest for a competitive global market, textile lobbies and allied politicians have preferred to stymie liberalization and petition for renewed quotas every step of the way." Would you be so kind as to cite how and where from you can assert that the referenced individuals are "unable or unwilling to properly plan and invest"? When it comes to comparing expensive American labor against dirt-cheap Chinese labor, how, oh great intellectual one, does one "plan and prepare"? (Oh, and please spare us all the hoary canard about The Market dictating. That's rubbish. How about putting some solid suggestions behind your carping?)
You say "It is to be hoped that the Chinese economy will continue to develop and soon cede textile production to even poorer parts of the world so that their economies too may grow" and I ask: Why should I care about the Chinese economy? They purchase so very little from the US that they're functionally meaningless. What difference does it make to me and my family - IN MY LIFETIME - that 1.3 billion of them live in poverty and my ability to feed my family is threatened? If I can't put food on the table because cheap Chinese and Indian labor causes my job (and my company) to disappear, why should I care about their economy?
Your theories are fine but when it comes time to put the rubber on the road, you're naught but another highly educated theorist who never had to work for a living. Try it sometime - it's not so much fun.
Alan says "Great article outlining the fallacy of protectionist trade policies". Hmmmmm...I don't doubt that the trade fallacies exist, but this isn't a great discussion of them.
Furthermore Alan says "The more income our trading partners have, the more they can buy from us ". This might be true, but it isn't. China and India buy very little products and a decreasing value in services (Ask McKinsey) from us. Oh yeah, giving them more of our money in exchange for cheap crap really makes good sense, doesn't it?
We see "Because at the end of the day, the importers of these goods pay less, the exporters of these goods (China) increase their national income. The increase in national income for China means that they are able to purchase more imports from the USA, which in turn widens the market for US businesses / entrepreneurs." Again, what does it matter how much the Chinese make? They don't buy from the US in any meaningful quantity, so your argument is meritless and foolish.
William says "China will stake its position on things that are bit more valuable like intellectual property, software, finanace, etc". The Chinese don't have a position on these issues, they view outright theft as business-du-jour. If they played by the same rules you do, you might be right. They're thieves, plain and simple, so your point is misplaced.
"This president has no limit to his lies." No, there's no hyperbole here. None. Uh-uh. Just pure rational thought. NOT.
It's crap like this that relegates Libertarianism and Austrian Economics to the fringe of the known world. Y'all live in some sort of nirvana where jobs are plentiful, all the women are beautiful and no one has any bad intentions whatsoever. What the heck, let's just give the whole country to the Chinese....it seems that this bunch of apologists are more Chinese- and Indian-centric than any other bunch of intellectually corrupt people on the planet.
Y'all disgust me.
Published: December 29, 2005 4:26 PM
Anti-lib, I don't think you've gone far enough in your lunacy. Why not stop trading with Canada, Mexico, Europe, Japan, hell why not the rest of the world!
If you really want to be a purist - you should get rid all materials that were manufactured accross seas. Take apart your car, tv, stereo, etc. and remove all the components that were made elsewhere. Oh and don't buy non-American oil!
Please explain to me how cheap chinese goods are bad for your family? Or are you just another member of a pressure group whose own personal interest exceeds that of other consumers who are willing to buy Chinese goods?
" Again, what does it matter how much the Chinese make? They don't buy from the US in any meaningful quantity, so your argument is meritless and foolish."
Think again. The Chinese buy our debt. US savings is NEGATIVE. We are living on credit. Should we abandon trade with China, expect near ridiculuous inflation to be the norm.
"Y'all live in some sort of nirvana where jobs are plentiful, all the women are beautiful and no one has any bad intentions whatsoever."
Jobs are plentiful, but legally unobtainable.
It is precisely because people have bad intentions that we do not want them in power, duh!
Published: December 29, 2005 5:15 PM
Anti-lib gives a very good example of what we're up against. How do we reach people who are filled with economic ignorance, and buy into the myths of "economics as war", instead of seeing the benefits that free trade provide?
Anti-lib, perhaps you can tell me what the Chinese do with the American dollars that they were given in exchange for the goods they sold us? Throw them away because they can't use them in the Chinese economy? In politics, some people say "follow the money" to see the true picture. In this case, you definitely need to fllow the dollars. Once you understand that they're not going into a black hole somewhere, then you'll understand why free trade is beneficial and that the so-called "trade deficit" isn't a problem.
If that's too difficult for you, perhaps you could ask yourself something else. Why is the President concerned with restricting how much stuff you, personally, should be allowed to buy from the people of other countries?
Last but not least, it always helps to look at the source of the problems, instead of merely dealing with the symptoms. Why is American labor so expensive in the first place? What is making it more difficult for American businesses to compete in the world market?
Published: December 29, 2005 5:21 PM
Anti-lib's rant notwithstanding, the enormous wage disparities that have emerged since the collapse of the Communist bloc and the opening up of the Indian subcontinent -- which have added some three billion people to the global labor pool -- render trade with these and other poor countries (e.g., Mexicao) free in the way that one is free while falling off a cliff.
Add to this the fact that our consumption floats on a sea of debt, and it is clear that however that sea cushions our fall, it will only do so until our lenders decide to pull the plug.
Which is to say that there is a very hard landing coming and that "free trade" only hastens its arrival.
So yes, "it always helps to look at the source of the problem," that being the state and its endless depredations.
Published: December 29, 2005 6:44 PM
David: the faster the "very hard landing" arrives, the softer it will be, so if free trade hastens its arrival, you ought to be celebrating free trade!
Published: December 29, 2005 9:50 PM
So now we have staked our relationship with China on a few hundred million dollars of textiles.
Oh that's nothing. The government of Canada has endangered the largest bilateral trading relationship in the world over a few tens of million dollars of beef, and for the sake of a few hundred thousand votes in fashionably anti-American leftist districts.
Published: December 29, 2005 10:04 PM
Larry:
“How do we reach people who are filled with economic ignorance,…� Economics is only one in a long list of areas these kinds of people struggle with. Forget about them. Look for the intelligent and the open minded who care about justice to discuss and debate libertarian and Austrian ideas with. Let the pathetically ignorant remain ignorant. They're not up to any greater task anyways.
Published: December 29, 2005 11:26 PM
Who is the kettle and who the pot here?
Does anyone have a list of tarrifs etc. imposed on imports by China? Comparative advantage anyone??
Does anyone have a list of "non-tariff barriers" encounbtered in China.
What we have here is a case of managed trade NOT free trade right?
To argue individual cases is to miss the forest for the finished furniture .
Published: December 30, 2005 2:08 AM
Pot, states are, as usual, the villains here. Individual businesspeople, entrepreneurs, and shoppers are the victims. There's no fairness to be found through tit-for-tat trade tariffs, and exposing the evils of one state does not make another less evil.
In this particular instance, it's Bush and his government telling American individuals they may not buy socks from Chinese individuals. The individual cases are what matter most.
Published: December 30, 2005 2:28 AM
Anti-lib:
You've been dissed and dismissed. I can even hear a few "don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out"s underlying the responses to your post.
But I hope you don't go. You're actually a more important person in this type of discussion than any of the more expert (economically-speaking) commentors, including myself. Why? Because you're closer to the views and opinions of Everyman--the average (and dominant) views and opinions abroad not only in this country but over the entire world. And, in everyday language, those view and opinions COUNT--bigtime.
Your views are almost entirely wrong and your critics are correct. But they are wrong in their choice of methods to make you "see the light" of their superior understanding of economics. It simply cannot be done by "blasting" you with this or that specific argument, no matter how appropriate or carefully-worded. If that were sufficient, everybody'd be persuaded by now and there wouldn't exist the obvious disagreements.
Just previously, I called you "Everyman." But in one (important) respect, you're not so average or common--and it's a respect overlooked by the regular (economic) enthusiasts: you came here under your own power, a distinct evidence of intellectual curiosity (whether or not one of the attractions was the smell of blood and combat).
The sad part is that none of the present contributors (again, myself included) is capable of enlightening you properly due to constraints of space and the back-and-forth format. But, if you're actually interested in understanding these matters to far greater degree than presently, you've certainly come to the right place.
This site is the world's leading repository of economic science. It might even be that if all it had to present were Mises' HUMAN ACTION. But that's a difficult work, partly because of length (nearly 1000 pages) but more particularly because
of the very denseness (compactness) of the material presented. Fortunately, however, there's a much more appropriate piece which encapsulates--in the clearest language possible--the "answers" to most of the questions you've raised.
Its title is ECONOMICS IN ONE LESSON by a guy named Henry Hazlitt. And it's on the site, available to be downloaded and read "for free."
Enjoy. And come back.
Published: December 30, 2005 7:54 AM
Peter,
You write: "David: the faster the "very hard landing" arrives, the softer it will be, so if free trade hastens its arrival, you ought to be celebrating free trade!"
I would be celebrating "free trade" if the American people had the slightest clue as to what's coming and, just as important, why it's coming. Unfortunately, they don't, and are, on the contrary, as deeply in denial as their politicians are cowardly.
Result? A postponement of the inevitable until the last possible moment, following which the government will blame the collapse on "market failure" (greedy capitalists, etc.) and institute "reforms" accordingly (the PATRIOT Act is "tightened" to the point of establishing martial law).
That said, while I expect the near term to be tumultuous on a scale not seen since the Great Depression, I also see good things on the far horizon, as enlightened citizens like these folks -- www.vtcommons.org -- take matters into their own hands, beginning a process that dismantles Leviathan at long last and lets freedom ring once again.
Gene Berman,
I for one didn't diss or dismiss Anti-lib, my contention being that while free trade would be to the world's enormous and lasting benefit, the statism that pervades the world renders free trade impossible. How do you freely trade goods and services, after all, via the exchange of government fiat currencies that flout the very notion of money and thus of a free economy?
Published: December 30, 2005 9:09 AM
Wow...didn't think I'd generate such a storm by my post. Putting aside the childish vitriol and petty insults (and y'all didn't even do them very well), I'll respond to some of the more lucid statements:
"The Chinese buy our debt". True. Primarily government debt. I'd be quite happy if our Government had to live within its' means for a change. I know I sure do. But that has absolutely no bearing - whatsoever - on whether or not we buy cheap Chinese crap or have to be subjected to Indian call centers. Two dissimilar issues that are inappropriately linked.
"US savings is NEGATIVE"...depends on who you listen to or what you read. Not even worth discussing.
"Should we abandon trade with China, expect near ridiculuous inflation to be the norm." That statement doesn't even make good sense. Inflation is too much money chasing too few goods. If the Chinese stop loaning us money, and sending us cheap crap, the balance will be there. Get your logic in line before you make that kind of statement.
"How do we reach people who are filled with economic ignorance, and buy into the myths of "economics as war", instead of seeing the benefits that free trade provide? " I realize that trade isn't a zero-sum game. At least when it's done mutually. That doesn't equate, however, to all trade being beneficial. If Corp A makes a killing importing ChineseJunk and puts three US companies out of business, who's better off? Corp A and the Chinese....unfortunately, those poor saps who used to work for a living are now sucking carpet lint. Yeah, that little bit of trade was great....except if you were one of the schlubs who's now on the Unemployment Line. Oh, I forgot that in the Lib Nirvana, we don't have Unemployment Insurance....so those unemployed idiots, who failed to plan for the future (of course all Libs are omniscient) and who failed to save enough (Libs are also the only ones with "Economic Sense") should just, what, starve to death? Yup, that "Freedom" that's babbled about in the Lib philosophy must mean the freedom to starve. Goodness, what a compassionate bunch you are. As long as I got mine, screw you. Can you say "Amoral"?
To that end, I'm also amazed at how many Libs are willing to throw away millions of US jobs so they can save a pennie or two on an iPod or GameBoy. Yup, that's a worthy trade alright...impoverish a bunch of Americans so you can get cheaper junk, and enrich a bunch of foreigners. There's some mighty good logic for you. And save that "if people save money on Item X, they'll have it to spend on Item Y"...it's true, except when they have no money at all, even for Item X.
"then you'll understand why free trade is beneficial and that the so-called "trade deficit" isn't a problem." I'm fully aware that the "trade deficit" as espoused by the MSM isn't anything of the sort. I'm more concerned by the "Giant Sucking Sound" of American deindustrialization. And spouting Schumpeter's "Creative Destruction" does nothing for the 25,000 GM employees who are gonna be out of a job come March. Oh, I forgot the Lib Mantra: "Starve, you worthless pig".
"If that's too difficult for you..." Oh grow up.
"Why is American labor so expensive in the first place? What is making it more difficult for American businesses to compete in the world market?" Could it be that we have a standard of living where there aren't cows in the street or feces in the gutters? If you think the conditions in Bombay and Beijing are so all-fire great....head on out there buddy. I'm sure you'll enjoy it. Right.
"render trade with these and other poor countries (e.g., Mexicao) free in the way that one is free while falling off a cliff" I agree...and we're getting closer to the ground. It ain't gonna be pretty with it hits.
For you Indo-Chine lovers, just think about how poorly your precious foreigners will fare when our economy tanks. If you think they have it bad now, how about when there are crap-all in the way of American jobs and we can't even afford cheap junk from overseas. That'll be pretty: 2+billion people starving. Oh yeah, that's one of the "benefits" of cheap labor. Kill the expensive labor so we can all be poor. I like the sound of that. I wanna be poor, too.
"so if free trade hastens its arrival, you ought to be celebrating free trade!" Hmmmm...either you're a sado-masochist or have a serious personality disorder. You're actually cheering for the downfall of our society. What a fine, upstanding group this is. NOT.
"Forget about them. Look for the intelligent and the open minded who care about justice to discuss and debate libertarian and Austrian ideas with. Let the pathetically ignorant remain ignorant. They're not up to any greater task anyways" That's downright funny. So - you're among the intellectual "elite" are you? It's apparent you're among the intellectual "arrogant" and that's about all the evidence will support. Most everyone who has to actually work for a living is concerned with paying the bills, keeping the lights on and putting food on the table. You must not have those concerns, and look down your patrician nose at those of us who do. Get over yourself, bud, you're not all that and a bag of chips.
"The individual cases are what matter most" That's what I've said for years, but, in the Lib-way, the individual only counts when you're making an argument against the State, and The Market counts when you're throwing that individual overboard to starve. This is one of the inherent hypocracies in the Lib-way. You can't say The Individual is supreme, yet always bow to your god of The Market. Make up your mind which one you like and at least stick to a common theme. The dichotomy only makes your cause look indecisive, uncoordinated and foolish.
"Your views are almost entirely wrong and your critics are correct" From an "intellectual and philosophical" perspective you may have a point. However, from a "feet-on-the-ground" perspective, I'm not so sure. If the economic picture pained in this forum was so wonderful (and truthful) then why do so many view that picture as an unpleasant one? Maybe because humans are averse to pain. Maybe because of the "us" vs. "them" world in which we live.
I suppose there are a number of folks who have a real difficult time putting our entire manufacturing capability into the hands of a government and a people who are dedicated to our complete subjication. Oh yeah, the Lib will say that trade will make it *unlikely* the Chinese will ever attach because they would be destroying their primary market. That's a lot of hooey.
As far as being "enlightened"...well that's a different story altogether. How can a miniscule portion of our nation be right (i.e. Libs) and the rest of us be wrong? Yeah, I know, the intellectual superiority of this august group. Isn't that supposed to be anathema to the Lib-way? Don't Libs espouse "freedom" and "liberty" for everyone? I guess that only applies to those who agree to tow the Lib line. The rest of us get to be oppressed by Libs, instead of Dems & Reps.
Gene, I do appreciate your reason and will read Hazlitt's treatise. FWIW, I am already in the middle of Human Action, completed Economic Fallacies (Or Sophistries, depending on the publisher) and The Law. Some of Mises works make sense, other parts are more Randian in their utopian nature. Thanks for the Hazlitt reference. I've ordered Hayek's "Road to Serfdom" and am just waiting for it to arrive.
In general, however, while the Lib perspective has some wonderful insights into trade and freedom, it's the height of hubris to assume that "The Lib Way" is "The Only Way" and that all the answers to the world's ills can be found in this forum. Just based on the tone and tenor of the responses to date - with a few marked exceptions - I can see why the Austrin School and Mises & Co have been relegated to the backwater of modern Economic and Intellectual thought.
Instead of declaring your "obvious" supremacy over the rest of us ignorant dolts, maybe y'all ought to be looking at solutions to the issues instead of flinging nastiness. In the meantime, I hope you enjoy your incestuous little world. I have to go to work to earn that crust of bread you seem to believe is better in the mouth of the Chinese laborer making that new bit of crap you can't live without.
Published: December 30, 2005 2:30 PM
David White:
I wasn't referring to you in particular. But, in a careful reading of your response, I detect at least a bit of the same type of fallacy that pervades the entire world-view of "anti-lib."
You are correct, I'd say, in suggesting that mere reduction or elimination, unilaterally, of certain interventionist barriers to trade will not, in and of itself, solve the world's (or our) economic problems. It is even quite possible--likely, in fact--that such policies will make other problems (such as those of inconvertible currencies) more manifest, even precipitating crises in these areas. After all, it is we Austrians who recognize the interconnectedness of all economic phenomena and further, recognize all of the interventionists' mini-fixes for just what they are: temporary patches for problems caused by previous application of the same remedies. But the fact that all problems cannot be solved at a single stroke or by some persuasive magic worked on the reasoning powers of the electorate does not mean that incremental measures, whether in convincing individuals or in the formation of policies (at the state level), are without benefit. Each counts.
In this wise, I'd raise an argument or discussion made by Mises, primarily in HUMAN ACTION. The treatment concerns whether or not there exists an economic system of a "third type,"--one that takes ingredients recommended in the socialist recipe book and stirs them into a pot already stewing free-market ingredients and comes up with a new system, a new dish, so to speak, which is neither one nor the other but employs the "best" of both.
You already know the answer: there is only free and unfree. And, because it has been proven, both logically and through innumerable real-life experiences, that nearly every interventionist measure causes consequences DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSED to those sought by the interventionists themselves, which result suggests to those same interventionists that their original measures were insufficiently inclusive or insufficiently drastic and thus require further measures of the same sort. Make no mistake: it is important to make each of the small steps, wherever possible, away from socialism and toward freedom (because if such steps are not taken, others MUST be--in the socialist direction). Likewise, for all who see this clearly and wish to live free, it becomes a responsibility, to the best of their abilities, to make the truth of such matters as clearly evident to as many of their fellows as possible.
I am particularly (at this time of year) reminded that, when I was a child and in earlier years of school, the common Christmastime phrasing went "Peace on Earth and good will toward men." I can't even tell you from where it arose but, presumably, it was intimately associated with the "message" brought by Jesus. Before I was out of high school, however, the wording of the phrase had changed materially (and I heard it explained that the modern version was a more correct translation of ancient words), now "Peace on Earth to men of good will." At the time, the change meant little, an insignificant shift of words of slight interest to an (areligious) individual such as I. But, some years later, when I had become interested in Economics (c. 1973) through Mises, I detected in the same word comparison a new significance. The fact is that the first interpretation is merely a benediction--an expression of good wishes, a "blessing" of the very same sort which was probably well-worn even 2100 years ago. But the second is different: more like a prescription, a piece of advice, or even a prediction. And, in that sense, it embodies the very same message for human civilization as does Austrian economic theory.
Everyone will not become convinced of the benefits of free trade overnight, whether due to the efforts of Austrian economists or any other cause. But more people today are so convinced, if public discussion is any indicator. The thing Austrian economics "has going for it" is, ultimately, truth--it works and delivers the results sought--something which cannot be said of competing ideologies, no matter how temporarily popular or ascendant. Over time, there is a tendency for "what works" to become more evident, even to the not-too-bright, to the uneducated, and even the uninterested. That, in itself, should be reason enough for an optimistic outlook.
Published: December 30, 2005 4:40 PM
Anti-lib, if you don't believe in our good intentions, then all bets are off. Believe our ideas are wrong in some way, if you must, but don't believe that we want people to needlessly suffer, starve or be poor.
Published: December 30, 2005 6:52 PM
Larry,
I sincerely do not believe that Libertarians have any "higher" calling or "good intentions" to any greater degree than any other goup of people. Unfortunately, to the contrary, it is my perception that the Lib philosophy emphasizes things over people, cheap goods over humanity, "trade" over charity, anarchy over order, atomistic pleasure over concern for others.
In sum, I don't perceive that a true adherent to the Libertarian perspective is much more than an economic automaton. Relentlessly searching for cheap goods, cheap services and eschewing anything that might interfere with his/her short-term atavistic pleasure. An amoral consuming machine.
I'm sorry if my description offends, as that's not my intent - but it is my honest reaction to what I see, read and hear in the Libertarian world. Libertarianism is as bankrupt a perspective as every other -ism. It's just a different name on the same old thing.
Lastly I do not believe that any one individual wants others to suffer needlessly. However, the modifier "needlessly" is the key here. As I've said before, I'm quite sure most Lib's are tickled pink that tens of thousands of GM employees are going to be out of work soon - because GM's way of doing things (as a matter of fact, the whole American way of doing things) just doesn't "fit" in the Lib view. It's a sad, sorry group who cheer at the misfortunes of others, who promote the welfare of strangers over their neighbors, who actively support and seek the failure of their society and their fellow citizens. But, true to Lib form, it's The Market that counts....not the people therein.
Published: December 30, 2005 10:09 PM
People ARE the market. People buy cars. If GM makes cars that people don't want to buy, then GM isn't doing the rest of us any good by making them. If GM's management can't figure out how to make cars that people want to buy, then GM's resources and their workers should be freed to be better utilized by other car makers. To suggest that they should be protected by tariffs, subsidies, or other form of government intervention is to suggest that some people count more than others in our society do. In which case who is cheering whose misfortune? If you want to be utilitarian, then you need to consider all of society, and not merely some small group of society. If you want to say that nobody should be harmed, voila! That's what libertarians say! If you know a way to minimize harm while undoing previous harms, I'm all ears.
Published: December 30, 2005 10:40 PM
Larry,
Your point is well taken. I'm not suggesting at all that there is anything we (or the Government) should, or even could, do to change GM's predicament. Honestly, I blame the union and compliant management for most of the trouble. That translates into shoddy build quality and a host of other issues. Erecting barriers to protect GM would be counter productive. No argument there at all.
What I said was that there are many in this forum - and in the Libertarian movement - who cheer the failures of others. GM was just an example, maybe not a great one - but with 25,000 people now looking for a way to put food on the table, and the egregious gloating on these fora, it's fitting.
As I said, Libs have the "I got mine, to hell with you" mentality down pat. Lots of hot air and bluster about "freedom", "the individual", "the market", "free trade", at al. but not one word about the pain others feel in pursuit of these almighty causes. Libs even scoff and sneer at programs like Unemployment Insurance, saying that these "greedy" GM employees should have made better choices. Is that the kind, caring perspective and desire to reduce suffering you referred to?
Hey, business is business and it's a tough place to be. Some win, some lose. However, it's awfully telling that the Lib perspective takes such glee in the suffering of Americans. (And, conversely, is amazingly concerned with the well being of Indians, Chinese, Pakistanis......ad absurdum)
Believe me, if I had a good answer (or even a fairly mediocre one) about how to resolve these issues, I'd be yelling at everyone who would listen. Unfortunately, I don't think anyone has the answer. (Whatever it may be)
Published: December 30, 2005 11:47 PM
I'd just like to thank Anti-Lib for his comments on my short little comment about Trade.
You make a few assumptions which I think need clarification.
1. You imply that I am an Austrian Economist / supporter.
Theres only two types of economics - god and bad.
Personally, I don't think I can be categorized as an Austrian, Monetarist, Keynesian, Kaleckian, Marxist, or any other group you care to mention.
2. My PhD thesis was supervised by 2 well respected and known scholars. One is an Austrian , the other an expert on Keynes / Marx/Kalecki .... So trust me I am more informed than you realise.
3. I try to write here in a relaxed and respectful manner, my goal is to share ideas with others and either agree with them, or agree to disagree.
4. There would be very few books on the history of economic thought you could name off the top of your head that I havent read or studied.
5. Macroeconomics, Microeconomics, Money and Banking, International Trade and Finance, Labour Economics - I have Lectured in these subjects to undergraduate and graduate students.
6. As a result, I know the major forms and models of each of these areas of economics.
7. Here's the kicker - what I don't know much about is Austrian Economics. Sure I have read the books, but I have learned more here in a week than I could learn reading the books in isolation for 10 years.
8. I am an advocate of Functional Finance theory, though in the WRAY form rather than the Abba Lerner mode.
9. Oh and I forgot to mention, My PhD thesis was on Mathematical Economics - not very Austrian / Liberal.
10. I quit Economics 2 years ago and don't plan on returning until the majority of economists, they may even be your heroes - come to the realisation that economics is about people not mathematical gymnastics.
happy Holidays :0)
Published: December 31, 2005 10:22 AM
Anti-lib,
So for all of your bad-mouthing of libertarians, you "don't think anyone has the answer" or even any idea what it might be? What possible contribution do you think you are making, then, if all you can do is hurl insults? Is this all that being "Anti-" comes down to, mere iconoclasm?
I for one am on record, repeatedly, in saying that there is no such thing as free trade in a world of currency regimes and overall government oppression, the combination of which has tilted the playing field out of all proportion. But that doesn't mean that I cheer GM's demise on account of it.
On the contrary, in viewing GM's plight as the tip of the iceberg so far as the American economy as a whole is concerned, I fear greatly for the future of this country and just hope that what lies on the other side of the coming collapse is a return to the principles upon which our country was founded.
That this will very likely require that the federal government be dismantled to the point that it follows its Soviet predecessor into the dustbin of history is to be lamented, but only insofar as our experiment in freedom and democracy failed so miserably once our founding principles were abandoned.
So be it, however, as any expectation that the federal government is capable of reforming itself is simply wishful thinking. But of course, since you confess to having no clue about what to do and don't think anyone else does either, wishful thinking is your only recourse. That, and bashing those who in fact DO have a clue, but are nonpartisan enough in their contempt for the political process in this country that they refuse to look to it for solutions to the myriad problems it has created.
There IS an answer, Anti-lib; it's pro-lib, there being no substitute for liberty and no room, therefore, for that which thwarts it. No room, that is, for the state, the eradication of which is the goal of every true libertarian.
You are welcome to believe otherwise -- to believe, that is, that devotion to the cause of liberty is not a higher calling than being an apologist, for whatever reason, for the state -- but until you can explain why, you would do well to spare us your insults and steep yourself in Mises and Rothbard instead.
Published: December 31, 2005 10:34 AM
David,
I'm glad you see the demise (or at least the current pain) of GM as something not to be happy about. The rest of your ad-hominems fall on deaf ears.
I'll address only your major, salient point: That I don't have the answer. That's the only thing you said that it both true and relevent.
I don't have the answer. And, honestly, neither do the Libs who shout from the mountains that they do. It's this great Moral Certitude and phony air of intellectual superiority that I'm addressing primarily. If the Lib answer is so darn good, why don't more people of good character and high intellect adopt it?
(Yeah, I know. Because I don't agree with you I'm not "entitled" to engage in conversation. Pretty insular perspective, doncha think? Ooops, there I go again...questioning a Lib. My bad)
As far as "steeping" myself in Mises and Rothbard. I've read more than you know and don't care to attempt to enlighten you. I just don't believe them. Mises spent lots of time creating verbal knots to support his stances, and for his efforts, he was relegated to obscurity. Rothbard is less "Gordian" but fares no better in supporting his cause. Same goes for Hayek, who at least as a bit of social conscience - which often put him at odds with the rest of the cult.
There's the rub: The basic premise of Libertarianism, freedom, liberty, free trade and limited government ARE, indeed, the best of all worlds. Achieving these lofty goals is a worthwhile pursuit, the valued goal of a lifetime well spent. Unfortunately, the Lib Way of getting there involves maximum pain for the maximum number of people for the maximum period of time.
If you are unable to withstand the scrutiny of "an outsider", to put your philosophical perspective on the table for discussion and "suffer the arrows of a fool", then I seriously wonder how robust a philosophy you espouse. I'm quite happy to admit I don't have the answers. I'm also quite happy to admit that I have an awful lot to learn.
Apparently these two traits are in short supply in this forum. At least your latest post would indicate they are. So, since you DO have all the answers, and have NOTHING to learn....please educate the rest of us. I'm all ears.
Published: December 31, 2005 11:18 AM
anti-lib:
You're revealing yourself. You aren't really "anti-lib" in any intellectual sense. As a matter of fact, you are (or are being) persuaded by many of the more powerful arguments advanced on that general "side" but are revolted or off-put by the attitudes you ascribe to some.
I think I can explain at least part of those attitudes (which are certainly not shared by all --or even most--free-market, anti-statist and anti-interventionist proponents) as displays of extremism, indeed, of the same sort of radical ideological "purity" characteristic of some of the religious, cultists of many differing sorts, and particularly by younger specimens, in which it is simply a manifestation of inexperience (or, perhaps of the effects of testosterone on behavior).
I am glad you're reading HUMAN ACTION. At least by that effort, you will become aware that Mises was most definitely not of the sort whose attitudes repulse you. Although his economic theory is intimately associated with libertarianism, he himself could not be ascribed that label. In truth, he was essentially both apolitical but pragmatic: he favored whatever were the better policies over the worse, regardless of their origin. If a "label" need be attached, "classical liberal" would come the closest.
But I believe you err in seeing some of these folks as "anti-American" or favoring foreigners' welfare over that of their neighbors. I'd be more inclined to the insight that they rail against particular US policies precisely because they are (primarily) Americans--talking to other (primarily) Americans about that which is closest to view and hand and most potentially influenced by anything they might say. And, in these matters, I'd concur that a certain tone is likely counterproductive (more flies with honey, etc.).
But you are not free of the very same, if only opposite, display of "attitude." Several times you've referred to "cheap Chinese crap." Show it to me! Everywhere I look, stores are full of durable, well-designed, and inexpensive (compared to formerly) tools, clothing, housewares, furniture, etc. The Japanese did the same thing before, first in "China," then consumer optical goods (cameras, etc.), electronics, and automobiles. The Germans did it before them, we before the Germans, and the English before us. Same-ol', same-ol'. Both we and Germany "piggy-backed" on the English (and with English finance and "outsourcing") and, in turn (pre- and post-WWII) "exploited" Japan to its modern height. And now, all those are in the same relationship with China. In a strict sense, much of the Chinese boom is not in "Chinese" goods but in specifically American goods, German goods, etc.--made in China to take advantage of their willingness to work harder and longer to give us what we want at lower cost. The Chinese state's
refusal to let its currency "float" on the market does, in fact, injure some displaced Americans, not to the advantage of Chinese workers but to that of American consumers purchasing the goods.
Is there a way to persuade the Chinese not to interfere in the market with measures detrimental to American workers (beyond those of the natural differential in wage-rates)? The answer is "Yes."
But that method consists entirely in refusing to enact retaliatory measures (whether duties, quotas, subsidies--even including special-case or extended unemployment entitlements). But that is NEVER what's actually done. Rather, a host of measures are resorted to the net effect of which is to prolong and intensify the displacement of the affected workers (and to shift part of their misfortune to their fellow-citizens). Another net effect is to convince the foreign trading entity that you perceive the relationship just as adversarially as do they and that their commensurate anti-trade measures are entirely justified by your own; diplomacy, trade "deals" and treaties and, ultimately, war are the only means of settling such dissatisfactions.
One other matter I'd like you to consider in assessing your own attitude.
Everyone, in all aspects of their lives, interacts with others. To the extent that one is, practically, free, it is each individual's personal choice with whom he shall interact, whether in ordinary acts of association or in those we term "trading." Is it your position that, in choosing to prefer one girl to another, to speak with certain people as a matter of course, or to buy certain products, you have, thereby inflicted injury on all those not so fortunate as to have been favored with your attention? If that were the case, then we'd all be guilty of constantly inflicting injury on all those with whom we did not interact. When you buy a Chinese product, say a child's toy, you're not only inflicting an injury on some American toy-industry worker, you're similarly offending against every other toy-industry worker anywhere in the world (including China) and, further, against every worker of any kind whose product might have been your choice if you hadn't set your mind on a toy in the first place. The entire process, carried to logical conclusion, must deprive everyone of the right to determine any of their actions for themselves: some "power" must decide what is "best," not only in distribution but in production as well. Unfortunately, we've seen where the determined pursuance of such ideas must ultimately lead.
Who has a greater cause to squawk and raise hell? The guy whose product is spurned, unbought, because those to whom it was offered preferred another (or several others)? Or the guy who sees that a more attractive alternative is denied him by the interposition of a protective tariff designed to force him, from pocketbook concern, to an otherwise inferior offering? Answer that one honestly and you're halfway over here already (as I suspect you already are). Who is the aggressor? The guy who wants to offer his services to a willing--even desperate--employer but must "cross a picket line" to do so? Or the guys on the picket line threatening him with baseball bats? How about the ordinary customer who'd like to patronize the shop and buy a head of lettuce--he's injuring the striking workers?
Keep reading. And thinking.
Published: December 31, 2005 11:45 AM
Gene:
Well said. You offer a great many points on which I have no easy answers, nor even caustic remarks. That's a first! LOL
Lots to think about.
Thank you.
Published: December 31, 2005 11:57 AM
Anti-lib,
Despite your instults, no one's asked you to leave this blog, nor has the moderator banished you. Instead, we've responded to your insults in an honest attempt to explain ourselves. While I have no idea what you mean when you say that "the Lib Way . . . involves maximum pain for the maximum number of people for the maximum period of time," perhaps, in realizing what it is we're up against, you'll begin to realize how difficult the task is before us:
"The US was born of a secessionist movement from an emerging British Empire. The national psyche of the young nation was molded from a deliberate rejection of the societal values of the Old World. The idea of a United States was inspired by new ideals of liberty, individualism and anti-statism. The new society was the child of 18th-century liberalism with the promise of a new world that was expected to be free of feudal hierarchy and superstition. In that sense, the evolution of the US into another old-style superpower in the super-statist mode is a momentous disappointment in history, rather than the end of history [http://www.wesjones.com/eoh.htm]. The US has failed the promise of a New World in a new age." (http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/GL14Aa01.html)
How to confront this failure is the question, my answer being that because the American welfare-warfare colossus is doomed to collapse under its own weight, preparations should be made for its aftermath, such that a return to state sovereignty -- www.vtcommons.org -- paves the way for further reductions in the size and scope of the state, including a return to sound money via advanced technologies that stand to put it outside the reach of the state once and for all -- http://www.cipe.org/publications/fs/ert/e32/e32_02.htm.
A New World really does await. And in light of the US's failure to realize its promise, the time has come to move on. No, the US government won't go gentle into that good night, but go it must and go it will.
Again, you're welcome to believe that our "cult" has nothing to offer in this regard, but rather than sweeping generalizations about libertarianism and false accusations about my saying that I have "all the answers," you might at least acknowledge the fact that overwhelming military might backed by a dumbed-down, docile, and dependent public have up to now prevented us from putting our ideas to the test.
And that's all we're really asking for: the freedom to put freedom to the test.
Published: December 31, 2005 12:30 PM
In sum, I don't perceive that a true adherent to the Libertarian perspective is much more than an economic automaton. Relentlessly searching for cheap goods, cheap services and eschewing anything that might interfere with his/her short-term atavistic pleasure. An amoral consuming machine.
Larry,
Libertarianism is an absolute moral system based on the non-agression principle.
Violence is evil except when used for self-defence. That is the only moral principle that has a claim to universality.
All the economic theories of libertarians are derived from that moral principle, and the fact that living things are self-organizing (in the absence of physical violence, of course).
Things are discussed in economic fashion in this website, but no doubt morals underlie economics.
Perhaps you should take a closer look to Libertarianism...
Published: December 31, 2005 12:58 PM
Sorry I meant "a closer look at Libertarianism"
Published: December 31, 2005 1:00 PM
Juan, I think you were addressing Anti-lib, not me.
;-)
Published: December 31, 2005 2:45 PM
anti-lib
You have a choice. You can support state sovereignty and interference in the lives of all private individuals or you can support individual sovereignty. One path requires greater and greater expropriations and violence, wars, welfare frauds, ponzi schemes and the like. The other avoids those. So which is it to be, state or individual? And that's the choice facing us. You as well.
As a non-USA, non-American my view is perhaps a little different from some of the contributors who post here. I understand nationalism (including the USA kind) to be a part of the poison dividing individuals and preventing them from collaborating together successfully. Nationalism is perverse form collectivism based on a form of racism. So I do not value a job in the USA over one in China or anywhere else. A job is just a set of tasks or actions to be undertaken, possibly for remuneration. Nothing more than that.
BTW one way of looking at why workers in the USA are paid so much more than workers in other countries for the same job is to consider that workers in the USA are drawing down on the invested capital (wealth and intellectual effort, sacrifice etc.) made by their forebears. As soon as that account is dry the USA worker will have similar earning power to his equal in other parts of the world (assuming he is able to undertake the same work as efficiently and effectively as they will be).
Sione
Published: December 31, 2005 4:48 PM
Anti-Lib;
I can't add much of value to what the folks here have already said (and not said - I didn't see Gene even try to 'pimp' his excellent "Economics For Real People"), except to say that Liberty is simply a null or negative value, otherwise known as the right to be left alone. If governments observed or respected this right more often, the freedom of trade would cease to be a government issue and revert to a people issue. And as far as your characterization of libertarians as 'automatons', desirous of an impersonal, mechanistic economy, prying loose the larcenous fingers of government from the necks of people who wish to freely trade is the quickest way to repersonalize economic society.
Published: December 31, 2005 10:13 PM
"so if free trade hastens its arrival, you ought to be celebrating free trade!" Hmmmm...either you're a sado-masochist or have a serious personality disorder. You're actually cheering for the downfall of our society. What a fine, upstanding group this is. NOT.
The other possibility is: your reading comprehension leaves much to be desired. What I actually said was: a "hard landing" is inevitable, but the faster it comes, the softer it will be, therefore bring it on as fast as possible! Like: we can amputate your foot today, your leg next week, or bury you the week after; and you're calling me a sadist for wanting to start the sawing as soon as possible :)
Published: January 1, 2006 3:57 AM
Peter and anti-lib:
Arguing over such matters is counterproductive and, in my opinion, somewhat silly.
The specific argument is one over "how to get there from here" and, as is usual with such questions, the best (if not immediately satisfying) answer is: "It depends." And here, for some reason, I am reminded of the old Red Foxx joke, asking the doctor when he could resume intercourse with his just-delivered wife. "It depends," says the doc, "on the big IF."
"What's the big IF?" asks Red. "Well," replies the doc, "it depends on IF you got her on the maternity ward--or IF she's in a semi-private room!"
There are pros and cons and a host of variables to be considered in opting for "all at once" or "soft landing" methods for effecting change in the quo of the status. Abrupt, "once and done," "a clean break," has its advantages as Peter indicates, especially in the case where the condition itself poses a great threat to some primary value, such as life itself.
And, as I am in one of my (fairly frequent) story-telling moods, I'll tell one of my many--all of which are not only true-to-life but objectively true.
A man was told that an injury to his arm had become gangrenous and that amputation was urgently required lest he die very soon. He agreed and shortly thereafter had been prepared for the operation and, in fact was in the operating room, on the operating table, and in the process of having his arm removed.
However, an emergency interrupted the procedure completely, the arm was not completely amputated, and the poor fellow did, indeed, die of gangrene.
Except that (as Paul Harvey says) you gotta hear "the rest of the story." This occurred during WWII to a sailor wounded in naval battle. The "emergency" was the sinking of the battleship aboard which he served, a famous one whose name I don't remember. somewhere in the South Pacific.
The wounded, naked sailor was washed overboard into the sea along with thousands of others, most quite able-bodied. As a matter of fact, his disability (gangrenous, partially-severed arm) rendered him unable to contend with the more physically-fit specimens all around him, fighting for space holding onto floating pieces of debris. He could only watch and tread water to keep afloat at a safe distance from the others. The dangling profusion of legs and bodies acted like a magnet for sharks and large numbers were attacked, killed, and devoured. But not him--isolated and apparently unnoticeable. He was rescued after three days in the sea, suffering from lack of food and dehydration. But not from gangrene, which had disappeared, apparently the result of prolonged salt-water immersion. Likewise, his arm had healed, though not to full function.
"You lied," I can hear you say, "you told us he died of gangrene. You fooled us." Well, not exactly. He did die of gangrene complications (related to diabetes and in his feet and legs) just this past year, at somewhere over 80 years of age, after a more or less normal, family-raising lifetime. His name was Bill Angellini, he lived in the town where I reside, and, right up to his last days, worked part-time for a friend of mine. It's really got noi relation to our subject (to which I shall return following) but I thought it a story worth telling.
Published: January 1, 2006 10:19 AM
Gene
The real point to that story is your friend would not have been injured, had a diabled arm for the rest of his life, been washed into the sea when the ship sunk, floated about in fear and suffering for three days among the sharks etc. should he not have been involved in war in the first place. What was gained? Welfare/warfare, all bad news.
Sione
Published: January 1, 2006 4:30 PM
David,
Your perspective on a "return" to a state of total freedom and liberty sounds wonderful, but I doubt that such a state (not the Big S State, but the state as in a condition) has ever existed. I also doubt it ever will. (Atlas Shrugged aside)
I've read your references (cipe & vtcommons, etc) and, frankly, the only thing I gleaned from these spaces was that I think most of those people are on a fool's errand. I don't want to waste a lot of time discussing those perspectives.
"A New World really does await"
I'm sure it does. I just don't believe it's going to be the one you want or describe. Which is a bit unfortunate, because I really do think that a society as you describe it would be awesome. Impossible, but awesome, indeed.
"you might at least acknowledge the fact that overwhelming military might backed by a dumbed-down, docile, and dependent public have up to now prevented us from putting our ideas to the test"
I will acknowledge that we do have overwhelming military might. The "dumbed-down, docile and dependent" descriptors, while being decidedly alliterative, are generalizations I don't even care to refute. You're welcome to your own prejudices.
As far as preventing you from putting your ideas to the test, you can if you WANT to. And I mean that in a Misesian manner. If you really wanted to put your beliefs to the test you would, indeed, find a way. If nothing else, buy yourself an island and establish your own little nirvana. Yeah, I know, that's a ridiculous statement. But then again, maybe not. How bad do you want it? I mean, how bad do you really want to put your ideas to the test?
But I digress.
If you perceive I'm attacking you, then I apologize, because that's not my intent. If you perceive I'm attacking Libertarianism, then you're spot-on. (Note: There's a difference between attacking the concept and attacking the people. I've tried to offer generalizations as to MY perspective about the philosophy and what I've observed in the adherents thereto. Anything more of a personal nature was not intended.)
And if you DO want me to leave this blog, I'm quite happy to do so. When it becomes a "mortal sin", as it were, to challenge someone for their beliefs it's a certainty I don't intend to promulgate that association.
Juan,
"Libertarianism is an absolute MORAL system"
Maybe you're absolutely right in that I need to take a closer look. Much closer. Because from my perspective there's such an absence of anything MORAL here it's almost breathtaking.
Perhaps the "non-aggression principle" of which you speak is the INDENDED undergirding of Libertarianism. However, the philosophical literature of Libertarianism doesn't speak significantly to "non-aggression", but rather AGGRESSIVELY seeks to attack those who do not accept the Lib Liturgy.
There are those, myself included, who interpret the Lib mantra of "non-aggression" as cowardice. I notice that whenever "non-aggression" or "liberty" is mentioned it's always with the caveat "except in self defense". A great many Lib authors take this one step further to say that there should be no implements of war, no tools of self-defence, nothing but butter knives and rubber bands. I'm all for folks playing the "peace-nik" game. If that's your thing, then go for it. I just don't accept it when you're attempting to force YOUR morality down MY throat.
Hmmm, it seems that we have a bit of a dichotomy here: Libs declare the rest of us AMORAL and yet say they have the only MORAL perspective. Isn't that what the Crusades were all about? My morality is better than yours? Sorry, it doesn't wash with me.
Great perspective, though, if it were strictly true.
Vince,
"The right to be left alone"
I like that phrase. I just don't know how you mean to use it. If you mean to be left alone by government, that's one thing. I suspect that's your primary definition. Unfortunately, in the affairs of man, we often "bump" into one another. I may do things that you perceive "interfere" with your enjoyment of life and vice versa. It's the resolution of these bumps that invites outsiders in.
I'll certainly agree - and have said so many times - that Government is simply too darn big, too darn intrusive...essentially too darn everything. Does that make me a statist? (As if that's a pejorative) I suppose what it makes me is a half-statist.
Libertarians act as if this is a binary condition. Either All Government or No Government. Yet, time after time, I see the concept of Enforcement of the Rule of Law. Who, pray tell, will do that? Your neighbor Fred? My lawn guy, Pepe?
I'm not accepting the perspective that ALL government is bad, that ALL outside controls are inherently evil. I genuinely believe that there is a place we CAN get to where both "God and Mammon" are served, to pick a bad metaphor.
Liberty can coexist with Government. Not our Government as it's currently constituted, agreed. How we get there is the issue.
Peter,
Your latest post explains your position much better, and is a vastly clearer description of what you intended to say. So, I'll make you a deal: You don't point out my lack of reading comprehension and I won't point out your lack of writing clarity.
On more substantive matters, though, I just don't share your pessimism/optimism (Can't be really sure which it is based on your terminology) about killing government and inventing, something, what I don't know. I suppose your goal would be a few billion autonomous units, all interacting with one another, like molecules of oxygen in the atmosphere. Somthing tells me that there's a vacuum to be filled........
And, lastly, Gene: Good story! Your reasonable argument about considering many options and issues is spot on. Oh, and I'm going to go looking for your "Economics for Real People". If it's as balanced as your posts here, I'm sure it's worth study.
Many regards for a wonderful 2006!
Published: January 1, 2006 4:34 PM
Of course, it's Gene CALLAHAN's book, not Gene Berman's, mea culpa.
Anti-lib sez;
"Unfortunately, in the affairs of man, we often "bump" into one another. I may do things that you perceive "interfere" with your enjoyment of life and vice versa. It's the resolution of these bumps that invites outsiders in."
This is due to a fuzzy understanding of exactly what constitutes being "left alone". For libertarians this means two principal things; one, no one has a right to initiate force against another, second, no one has a right to trespass or otherwise abridge the use of another's justly aquired property. This does not require government at all, simply that neighbors be neighborly. Failing that, the use of an impartial arbitrator can solve conflicts. The only thing government has ever done in this situation is abrogate the rights of one property owner in favor of another, or against both in favor of favored interests.
Published: January 1, 2006 9:45 PM
Mr. Vatu:
What you say sounds as though you subscribe to the view that all warfare is not only destructive but unjustifiable.
Whatever might have been the rationale for the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, there can be no doubt of Admiral Tojo's announced intention that Japan conquer the US and he "personally dictate the terms of peace from the White House." Anyone with doubts as to what Japan intended or how they intended doing it might be instructed by studying their behavior through the preceding 50 years in Korea, Manchuria, and then China proper; events like the slaughter and rape in Nanking might not have been exactly SOP but were certainly not rare or "out of character."
My own view is nearly identical with that of Mises: "In a world of unswerving aggressors and enslavers, integral unconditional pacifism is tantamount to unconditional surrender to the most ruthless oppressors." These words begin a passage delineating (what is to me) the clear rationale for defense preparedness, expenditure on that account, and measures including the conscription of manpower otherwise not forthcoming. The inhabitants of the world, individually, have but extremely limited power to make "things" as they would wish them to be and are thus forced to deal with "things" as they are. Some may certainly choose to accept the aggression of some others without defense or complaint but, to be consistent, they must assent in the right of some others not to behave in similar fashion, whether or not they approve of the methods chosen by those others. Further, to the extent that such pacifists are employed in the production and non-combative support of aggressors without resistance to or sabotage of those aggressors' efforts, they should not be surprised to find themselves viewed--by those actively defending against such aggression--as somewhat complicit
in the aggression itself. Like it or not, it can't be helped.
Published: January 1, 2006 11:04 PM
Gene,
Tojo was a hubristic idiot. Admiral Yamamoto understood how any invasion of the U.S. would invariably turn out;
"You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass".
Yamamoto was a brilliant man who, prior to Tojo's decision to attack, worked very hard to keep the U.S. and Japan from going to war. He foresaw what the inevitable result would be.
Published: January 2, 2006 6:55 AM
True, Vince, but essentially an "aside" to my comments to Sione, in no way modifying or detracting from their validity. Yamamoto's bones lie somewhere in the same general vicinity as that from which Bill Angellini was plucked all those many years ago.
Nor was Yamamoto unusual in his generally favorable assessment of the US and the American people. Before WWII, Americans were viewed so positively by everyday Japanese that their gov't. (already in the mid-'30s charting a course to
war with us) was waging an incessant propaganda barrage directed at their populace and designed to link us with England, which the Japanese already regarded as a potent (and unscrupulous) trade rival, especially for sources of the raw materials on which their manufacturing sector depended. A widespread public poster depicted "Uncle Sam" and "John Bull" in a conspiratorial, nefarious handshake to reinforce such view. But even in those mid-'30s, a man with whom I was acquainted spent a couple years travelling in Japan, Korea (then a Japanese colony), and Manchuria (a Japanese puppet state). He worked his passage as a sailor on a Japanese merchantman out of San Fransisco, walked, hitch-hiked, and hopped freights as low-cost transportation once there, met friendliness (and curiosity) everywhere he went, and later wrote a book (A YANKEE HOBO IN THE ORIENT) about his experiences.
Published: January 2, 2006 8:53 AM
And, lastly, back to anti-lib:
Don't be put off by stridency on the part of various social-reorganization sorts, some quite prominent on this site. Mises was no such sort himself and was opposed to every type of utopian proposal. It was one of his great achievements to elucidate the reason, the proof, that a socialist commonwealth could not endure due to the "problem of economic calculation." And, by explaining the driving forces of money and entrepreneurial action in a market economy, he made clear a state could never (except occasionally--by accident) provide goods or services as satisfactorily as the market (especially a market minimally hampered by authoritarian intervention).
While it is true that Mises believed, wrote, and taught that people would be better off the more they succeeeded in disengaging their political authority from any function whatever in most market affairs, he neither advocated, hoped for, nor foresaw that some "stateless" or anarchic condition would provide human society with an improved alternative. Mises was entirely about that which IS, as opposed to THAT WHICH MIGHT BE; he was interested in that which could be PROVEN as opposed to that CONJECTURED.
And, finally, one last comment, in this case your reference to Mises' reasoning and prose as "Gordian." I'd almost be tempted to call your insight "inspired," except for a detail. The "detail" is that you've got it exactly BACKWARDS. Austrian-school economists, in a line from Menger culminating with Mises, succeeded in UNTYING the knotty problem presented by human economic behavior and previously (due to the misperception of the problem of valuation) mystifying the ablest minds in the world. The ravels of the knot are INTRICATE, DIFFICULT (but not impossible) TO FOLLOW EVEN WHEN UNDONE AND SPREAD APART. But CUT apart, no one can know what went where and was connected to which. Alexander achieved nothing wonderful. Frustrated by his insufficient ability, he did what very many have done before and since: he cheated. What is most remarkable is that people really do deem it remarkable, very much as they overtly marveled at another emperor's natty attire. And (though it's at least 60 years since I read it), I believe Mark Twain covered the same type phenomenon in a piece called something like "Does The Race of Man Dearly Love a Lord?"
I said "finally" but I lied. One more thing I'd pass along if you're actually interested in understanding economics. In his writing, Mises resorts to a mental tool he calls "the evenly rotating economy"; it is the closest thing that Austrian-school economics has to offer to a "laboratory" wherein conditions may be held constant in order that the effect of variation in a single magnitude be observed. It is possible to understand economics without understanding--or completely understanding--the evenly rotating economy (and related mental constructs). But the understanding will be somewhat superficial, much as is the understanding conveyed by most introductory courses in biology or its subsets (sometimes termed "descriptive"). It is a fact that many adhering to the ideas of the Austrian School are not conversant with these mental constructs. I can state unequivocally that as large and respected a figure as Rothbard was lacking in this regard AND DID NOT REALIZE HIS SHORTCOMING, though I cannot point to any further errors which I can identify as resultant of such ignorance (not because they don't exist but because I quit reading Rothbard after, very early on, discovering such surprising lack). Rothbard seems the core of the social reformists among "Austrians"; somehow, doesn't surprise me. Hayek has achieved "mainstream" acceptance primarily by not being overly insistent on some stark divergences between them and the Austrians but has, nowhere to my knowledge, described any instance in which his views actually depart from those of Mises. Rather, at some point he said something to the effect that he had never formed any economic idea or view other than those received (from Mises). I take him at his word.
One more Mises work I'd suggest is BUREAUCRACY.
In one respect it's unlike all the rest of his works: it's short (125 pocket-book-sized pages), relatively easily read, and probably as complete a treatment of such a complex, bewildering, and important subject as I've ever seen. Once you've read it, you will recognize that you know, literally, everything about that subject worth knowing--to a degree far surpassing that of any of the very creatures involved.
Published: January 2, 2006 11:13 AM
Gene,
Thanks - I appreciate your perspective on Mises' "Gordian-ness". I'll have to go back and evluate my perspective on him. I will admit that "Human Action" is a difficult read.
(FWIW: I read "Economics in One Lesson" last night and enjoyed it thoroughly. It was tough finding a copy of it, though. I'm now about 80 pages into "Economics for Real People". It's quite engaging. I did, however, wonder about the author's name (Callahan vs. Berman) and assumed that you were using a nom-de-cyber on this forum. Either way, both books are worth reading, no matter who wrote them)
I'll acquire "Bureaucracy" as you suggest. Although I must say that I find Hayek to be a "kinder, gentler" version of Mises. So far, you're right in that I notice little difference in their overall perspectives (given my, admittedly, limited exposure to both), but I find Hayek's work to be more palatable than Mises - if only because Hayek is less "strident" in his presentation.
I suppose that may be a personal failing: Both men are expounding on similar virtues, but one of them does so in a way that's less offensive.
Regardless, I do appreciate your suggestions and am taking them to heart. There's always more to learn!
Thanks again.
Published: January 2, 2006 11:58 AM
Gene,
You wrote, "I can state unequivocally that as large and respected a figure as Rothbard was lacking in this regard [understanding the ERE] AND DID NOT REALIZE HIS SHORTCOMING, though I cannot point to any further errors which I can identify as resultant of such ignorance (not because they don't exist but because I quit reading Rothbard after, very early on, discovering such surprising lack)."
I don't suppose you have a paper written that supports this view that i could read. I'm keenly interested in getting familiar with your argument.
Published: January 2, 2006 12:29 PM
Gene,
I assume I'm one of the "social re-organization sorts" you're referring to, but in any case, I think it's worth pointing out that Mises didn't foresee a "stateless condition" for the simple reason that he believed that the state is necessary. As he wrote in "Liberalism In the Classical Tradition -- http://www.mises.org/liberal/ch1sec13.asp -- "The goal -- the preservation of society -- justifies the action of the organs of the state," never mind that the state is everywhere and always "an evil inflicted by men on men." Thus did Mises give the state the only rationale it needs for its existence -- necessity -- and thus did he render opposition to it groundless, philosophically speaking.
Fortunately, Rothbard recognized the fatal flaw of this "impractical utopian" line of thought. In "The Case for Radical Idealism" -- http://www.mises.org/liberal/ch1sec13.asp -- he wrote:
__________
The true utopian is one who advocates a system that is contrary to the natural law of human beings and of the real world. A utopian system is one that could not work even if everyone were persuaded to try to put it into practice. The utopian system could not work, i.e., could not sustain itself in operation. The utopian goal of the left: communism—the abolition of specialization and the adoption of uniformity—could not work even if everyone were willing to adopt it immediately. It could not work because it violates the very nature of man and the world, especially the uniqueness and individuality of every person, of his abili ties and interests, and because it would mean a drastic decline in the production of wealth, so much so as to doom the great bulk of the human race to rapid starvation and extinction. ...
In the deepest sense, then, the libertarian doctrine is not utopian but eminently realistic, because it is the only theory that is really consistent with the nature of man and the world. The libertarian does not deny the variety and diversity of man, he glories in it and seeks to give that diversity full expression in a world of complete freedom. And in doing so, he also brings about an enormous increase in productivity and in the living standards of everyone, an eminently "practical" result gener ally scorned by true utopians as evil "materialism."
The libertarian is also eminently realistic because he alone understands fully the nature of the State and its thrust for power. In contrast, it is the seemingly far more realistic conservative believer in "limited govern ment" who is the truly impractical utopian. This conservative keeps repeating the litany that the central government should be severely lim ited by a constitution. Yet, at the same time that he rails against the corruption of the original Constitution and the widening of federal power since 1789, the conservative fails to draw the proper lesson from that degeneration.
The idea of a strictly limited constitutional State was a noble experiment that failed, even under the most favorable and propitious circumstances. If it failed then, why should a similar experi ment fare any better now? No, it is the conservative laissez-fairist, the man who puts all the guns and all the decision-making power into the hands of the central government and then says, "Limit yourself"; it is he who is truly the impractical utopian.
__________
In other words, all statism is utopianism, whether the state is seen as necessary and good (liberalism) or necessary and evil (conservatism). Both believe that a better world will result from a correct manipulation of "the organs of the state," and thus both believe in THAT WHICH WILL NEVER BE.
As for me, I look at what IS -- i.e., a welfare-warfare colossus that is as unnecessary as it is evil -- and I wonder if, in the aftermath of its coming collapse, the time may not be too far off when another noble experiment can be tried, this time with no illusions about the the state and its organs. For like Mises, I am interested in what can be PROVEN, even if for now I must resign myself to the fact that I can only CONJECTURE as to what the outcome of the experiment might be.
Published: January 2, 2006 2:08 PM
David,
Your assertion that you look at what IS: "a welfare-warfare colossus that is as unnecessary as it is evil" clearly demonstrates that you're applying your worldview to whatever you wish to see.
In this forum you may find agreement with your statements. Elsewhere your perception would be considered badly flawed.
You're certainly entitled to your view but attempting to pass it off as "The Facts, Ma'am, Just The Facts" is unsustainable. It's "Your Opinion, Ma'am, Just Your Opinion". Nothing more and not to be valued as anything less.
Published: January 2, 2006 2:40 PM
Libertarianism as pacifism? That's not the case. Yes, some libertarians have been pacifists, but I believe that most are not. One of the things that I think libertarianism makes clear is that force itself is not the problem, but rather, if force is initiated, used defensively, or in retaliation. Defensive force is not an afterthought.
Of course, defensive or retaliatory force cannot be used until someone has initiated force in the first place.
Government or no government? I tend toward no government, but have to admit it depends greatly on what one means by "government". After taking a dose of humility from David Brin, I have to note that not all governments are equally bad. Liberal democracies have generally been more successful becuase they got at least some things right. But I believe what they got right do not necessarily require a government to do.
Published: January 2, 2006 2:42 PM
Paul Edwards:
The error is simple and relatively straightforward. I will describe to you the very same route by which I discovered this. If you retrace these steps, you will make the very same discovery as did I and be forced to come to the very same conclusion. No "argument" on my part is necessary to the process and, while I do not eschew the value of "papers" on any subject of interest, I am not an academic of any sort, have little interest in polemic, nor any intention of entering insider controversies, so shall content myself with pointing the matter out to those intent on determining the truth of a matter for themselves.
I know next to nothing of Rothbard and have read nothing extensive of his writing. I have read a few moderately lengthy exerpts and adjudged him (as have so many others) as incisive, even brilliant. I had for many years been aware that he had written a definitive Austrian analysis of the depression and had, indeed, felt it a "must read" at "some time in the near future," a period of time extraordinarily useful to determined procrastinators such as I.
As luck would have it, shortly after I discovered the LRC/Mises sites, there appeared a piece by Rothbard titled (to the best of my recollection)
"The Myth of Neutral Taxation." Almost as soon as I began to read, I sensed something was "not quite right." The piece pretended to "correct" some purported error of Mises in maintaining the possibility of neutral taxation. Since I had never, in nearly thirty years of studying Mises, gathered that he maintained such a thing (and, indeed, was impressed that he would have argued forcefully contra), I went to the relevant passage (HUMAN ACTION), "The Neutral Tax," in the 28th chapter, "Interference by Taxation." If one reads the introductory discussion, occupying a page or two (and, as an understood prerequisite, understands English), it is perfectly clear that, although Mises starts off a paragraph with the words "A neutral mode of taxation is conceivable...," and proceeds to delineate the required characteristics of such neutral tax, the entire GIST of the matter is contained in the summing statement: "The very idea of a neutral tax is as unrealizable that of neutral money." That much of the case is open and shut.
Rereading Rothbard's piece, I sought to learn how he could have erred so completely. What emerged was an appearance, to me, although there is no hope of certainty in the matter, that Rothbard was engaged in a deliberate mischaracterization of what Mises had written on the subject, with apparently, the view to seemingly "set the matter straight" by an exercise of his own analysis and scholarship (and the concomitant denigration of his now-deceased mentor's). But it was still hard to believe that Rothbard had acted in such manner and with such motivations.
I e-mailed Lew with what I had observed in the comparison of the article with Mises' original text. Lew answered me very shortly with the observation that I obviously hadn't read Rothbard's footnotes (following page 72, I think I remember. I was somewhat chastened at "not having done my homework" and soon digested the footnote material, at the same time making direct comparison with the relevant (original) Mises material. I cannot give you particulars but suffice it to say that the footnotes not only did not resolve any difference in favor of the Rothbard presentation but seemed to further "stretch," mischaracterize, or misinterpret Mises in such way as to support the criticisms and arguments made in Rothbard's piece. It was at that time that something that Rothbard wrote, questioning some particular characteristic of the ERE (whether in the piece or in one of the footnotes, I cannot recall) made it perfectly obvious that he didn't understand the ERE and its specific characteristics. WHAT WAS PARTICULARLY STRIKING IS THAT THE QUESTION HE WAS ASKING, WITH REFERENCE TO THE PASSAGE IN THE MISES MATERIAL (cited previously) COULD HAVE BEEN ANSWERED BY HE, HIMSELF MERELY FLIPPING THE PAGES OF THE SAME BOOK--BACK TO WHERE THAT MENTAL CONSTRUCT IS DEFINED!
I didn't know what to make of it then and still don't really but have given you my best "take" on the matter.
As an aside. For some years, I followed (and sometimes participated) in the website of David Mandel, aka "Trentino," and the "Oompah of Tympanium." The site featured occasional essays (Conning Tower), letters (Sage's Pages), and conversations taking place at a Barnes & Noble on upper Broadway between Trentino and a sometimes changing but mostly crew of "regulars'--all products of Mandel's rich and delightful imagination. He was a more or less casual adherent of Mises and spoke at one time of having, in the past, met both Reisman and (more than once) Rothbard. He did not claim to be actually acquainted with him. When I described to him (via e-mail) what I have set forth here, he wrote that, although Rothbard seemed and had the reputation of being charming, someone (not named) who knew Rothbard better, had said that "actually, he's a real shit."
There. Now you know everything I do.
Published: January 2, 2006 3:10 PM
Anti-lib,
There you go again. HOW does my assertion "clearly demonstrate that [I'm] applying [my] worldview to whatever [I] wish to see"? Any way you look at it, the US is a state of colossal proportions, its warfare apparatus alone being larger than that of the next 24 nations COMBINED.
Furthermore, going at least as far back as Thomas Paine, the state has been understood as evil, a view that remains widely held around the world today. All I'm doing is agreeing with Rothbard that the evil is unnecessary, as indeed all evil must be if human morality is to have any meaning.
As for fact and opinion, the US is a fact only because enough people are of the opinion that it should be. If and when enough people are of the opposite opinion, the US state will be a fact no longer -- "nothing more and not to be valued as anything less."
Published: January 2, 2006 3:21 PM
Thanks for that Gene.
Published: January 2, 2006 3:37 PM
Gene
The US, especially under the Roosevelt regime did everything possible to provoke the Japanese government into hostilities. Franklin was desperate to get into a war one way or another. He succeeded. Nevertheless it was a war that could (& should) have been avoided.
As far as Japanese involvement in Manchuria, China and Korea is concerned; who gave them the carte blanche to invade in the first place? Who traded a "right" for them to so do? Remember it was an earlier president of the US that brokered the deal to make all those places part of the Japanese sphere of influence. The Japanese government was given the green light to proceed as they might and did. In the light of this it is clear the USA govt. did not enter WW2 to defend people against an oppression in which it had been complicit. Defending people against aggression may have been a motivational factor for some of the individual combatants (as was adventure, state worship, ignorance, belief in propaganda etc.) or it may have been a justification after the fact (after the war a lot of people were looking to explain what had occurred, what they had done and why- rationalising). It was not the reason for the commencement of inter-govt. hostilities. What can be concluded is the corrupt, immoral actions of governments (US as well as Japanese and others) resulted in war.
With regards to defence preparedness; you'll find that the foreign policy of the USA has very commonly been directed otherwise. It is not unknown for the USA to have been the aggressor and a ruthless oppressor of other peoples. It's about time the citizens of the US complained to their overlords about this. Some do, but the vast majority of others stay silent and go along with it (as is their patriotic duty they never protest while the soldiers are marching, at least not until a war goes wrong and is "lost"). Complicit indeed.
Quoting: "Further, to the extent that such pacifists are employed in the production and non-combative support of aggressors without resistance to or sabotage of those aggressors' efforts, they should not be surprised to find themselves viewed--by those actively defending against such aggression--as somewhat complicit
in the aggression itself."
Now consider, this is similar to arguments delivered on TV a while back by a certain bin Laden character when referring to the people of the United States. Not good. Not good at all. It is a dangerous viewpoint that can cut both ways. One should be very careful with such sentiments.
Last point: Self-defence is justifiable. There is a rigorous standard of objective honesty required in respect to the issue.
Sione
Published: January 2, 2006 4:40 PM
Sione:
"The U.S." had nothing whatever to do with Japanese expansionism, whether in Korea, Manchuria, or in China proper. As a matter of fact, your response is the very first mention I've heard in my entire life (pushin' 70) to the effect.
Korea became, essentially a Japanese possession (whether a colony, a protectorate, a mandate, I have no inkling) as the result of a decision in their favor (in contention with Russia) made by the institution of the time that I believe was called the World Court. Theodore Roosevelt was the presiding magistrate at the time (the office rotated) but that is the only American involvement in the affair of which I have ever heard. Both parties claimed hegemony, I believe, on account of failure of the Korean regime of the day to provide law and order in the territory (in
affording protection to their nation's respective investments).
I don't mean to be hypercritical but you're a bit fast and loose with aspersions, I'm bound to say. I made a simple statement about sentiments that pacifists are likely to encounter among those actively defending against aggression, not some expression of my own view of pacifist behavior, a matter entirely irrelevant. And, if you actually believe self-defense is justifiable, you should have no trouble in appreciating that those who choose to be uninvolved in the hostilities must take care to observe, in their behavior, what any actual combatants must interpret as neutrality with regard to both the matters of contention as well as the actual conflict. That means not only not willingly assisting either combatant but also exerting reasonable effort, including the exercise of violence, to defend the right to remain uninvolved (something most advocates of unconditional pacifism might be unwilling to do). Under long-established international laws, neutrals must intercept and detain, to the best of their abilities, ships of either belligerent party, other agents of the same, and goods and cargoes of whatever sort from or through their territory bound for one or another belligerent. There are no such laws applying to ordinary individuals but, to the extent that such individuals' activities benefit a particular belligerent, it should be no surprise to them if that belligerent's opponents consider them, to some degree, as enemy forces.
I am also curious about all the efforts to which you allude on the part of FDR to get us into a war with Japan. I'm aware that we enforced an embargo against them but to the best of my knowledge that was on account of their unprovoked attacks on the Asian mainland and the great likelihood that the Japanese-announced "Greater Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere" directly threatened our semi-proprietary interest in the Philippines and those of more or less established European interests such as Dutch East Indies, Singapore, Hong Kong, Macao, etc. (not to mention Australia and New Zealand). Most nations that are "desperate" to go to war have, by the time that they actually enter into any hostilities, spent years building up their stores of the implements of war and the training of forces, neither of which processes was much in evidence in the U.S. of the period.
Published: January 2, 2006 8:40 PM
Gene quotes Mises;
"In a world of unswerving aggressors and enslavers, integral unconditional pacifism is tantamount to unconditional surrender to the most ruthless oppressors."
I defended the antiwar position common to most libertarians as completely opposed to pacifism here;
http://www.libertyguys.org/articles/detail.asp?ArtID=973
I essentially expanded on Yamamato's point, that the American people (at the time of WWII) were still free and armed, and that such a free people would defend their territory so fiercely that one of the world's mightiest military machines needn't bother to try to invade it. Just because we are anti-war it does not mean we are anti-defense - much, much to the contrary.
Unfortunately, with each passing year, due to the advent of the professional military ( along with its paid mercenaries) and politicians' fears of an armed populace driving the confiscation of effective weapons of defense, our ability to mount an effective defense fades. Mises was indeed right - but possibly not in a way he would have predicted.
Published: January 2, 2006 10:35 PM
Gene asserts;
" Most nations that are "desperate" to go to war have, by the time that they actually enter into any hostilities, spent years building up their stores of the implements of war and the training of forces, neither of which processes was much in evidence in the U.S. of the period."
What do you call our government's support of the Flying Tigers, "Lend-Lease", Roosevelt's frequent declaimations of the US as the "Arsenal of Democracy", and the deliberate provocation of Japan coupled with a conspicuously inadequate preparedness at Pearl Harbor in the period where the inevitability of an attack was obvious to any sentient being or potted plant. Your statement has no validity. Roosevelt did everything but pilot a Zero over Hawaii to get us into the war, despite the wishes of the majority of voters.
Published: January 2, 2006 10:44 PM
Gene,
Have you read Stinnett's "Day of Deceit"? It's something else. In another manner of speaking, so was FDR.
Published: January 3, 2006 12:10 AM
Vince:
First off, you'll have to pardon me for not having a store of citations and "proofs" of some version of reality with which to combat that cobbled together by revisionist historians and sensationalist authors two generations after the events being considered. Sure, we know that folks are fooled even in real-time, whether through error or design. But those who (as I) have no interest whatever in manipulating historical data to support one or another view of either history or political ideology tend to focus more on what evidence they are able to gather themselves from that presented to their senses during the course of their lives. Those who happen to have inherited cognitive abilities anywhere in the vicinity of the right-hand portion of the bell curve should have discovered, if only from study of their own behavior, that a great part of the behavior of everyone consists in deceptions of one sort or another and, conversely, in detecting such deception by others directed toward themselves. In saying that, I make no judgment but merely describe universal reality. And anyone who (pretends to) disagree with me on that matter--is a man who wants to sell you something.
What I want to impress on you (and others) is that each of the various sources to which you repair for support of one or another thesis has, in the main, been carefully constructed of bits and pieces of "evidence" which, taken together, are persuasive to the extent of the author's skills. It's not all one giant "con" job--indeed, many of those exercising discretion over which bits and pieces to consider and which to discard are, themselves, quite persuaded of the validity of their theses, in which case their "honest" convictions may underlie deceptive construction.
Let's take a few examples. You (Vince) impugn my questioning of US "desperation" (to go to war) by reference to Lend-lease and the Flying Tigers. The former is more supportive of my own impression (that we were not "desperate" in the sense of going to some unjustifiable war) in that it only began in the same year as that in which we were (later) attacked at Pearl Harbor. Again, my general impression is that people who have as obvious an agenda as you suppose are generally active in that direction far earlier. Insofar as is concerned the idea that Pearl Harbor was left vulnerable deliberately so that we would suffer a devastating attack, it's my belief that that story is a simple canard, constructed entirely after the fact. At the time, though we might have been a "sleeping giant," we weren't really sleeping at Pearl Harbor (though, in hindsight, we could have been even more awake). We were perfectly aware that our embargo had brought us to the brink; we were aware of (and intercepting some) espionage by Japanese in Hawaii regarding ship movements, etc.; and we had maintained continuous air surveillance of the Japanese fleet. They were engaged in maneuvers or exercises quite some distance north and west of Hawaii and, after quite some time, the surveillance was discontinued AT THE ORDER OF THE HAWAIIAN COMMAND (and there has never been any attempt by those responsible to lay blame on the White House or to maintain that they had been "following orders" in relaxing their vigilance). As Robert Burns said, Vince, "Despite the best-laid plans of mice and men, shit happens." And those who don't understand that elementary truth will forever be ready to buy the fine-spun yarns of conspiracy weavers. Maybe you could even surmise that we sent Howard Hughes with his Zero to the Japanese so they'd get an unwarranted boost in confidence, eh? Or got that famous architect (forget his name at the moment) to do their earthquake-resistant buildings so they'd get the idea they could take a bit of bombing all in a day's work? As a matter of fact, the Okies who poured into CA from "dust bowl" days and during the depression were full of stories about how the very successful Japanese
(mostly laborers and small farmers) there were the advance force of an invasion (forget that the cornerstone of Mitsubishi Bank in Gardena--near LA--reads "1870"--just proves they were planning their invasion a lot longer than we knew.)
I don't know much about Chennault and the Flying Tigers being "American involvement." He was no major military figure of the time. As a matter of fact, he wasn't even a major--he was a captain--and he had already been retired from our (then) Army Air Corps and gone to work for Chiang's government. And I wouldn't be surprised if he had some Americans helping him to try getting China's air defenses modernized and able to deal with their invaders. There are always adventure-seekers and mercenaries with a variety of motivations. That doesn't add up to much in the way of US involvement.
And, by the way--my previous, to which you now respond,, was not directed at you, but to Sione
Vatu, who, I felt, had (either deliberately or inadvertantly) mischaracterized what I'd written previously and seen my position as dangerously close to that of Bin Laden & Co. As a matter of fact, Bin Laden and I do agree on the basic idea that, if defense against violent aggressors is required, it may also be required against the technically non-violent whose activities materially enable my tormentor and who do not exercise themselves to reduce such contribution to my torment. The difference is that Bin Laden et al are virtual lunatics and see enemies almost everywhere they look while I am not and see very few anywhere. I hope that eases Sione's concerns about my morals somewhat but, hey--you never know, I could be lying!
Published: January 3, 2006 9:14 AM
Paul Edwards:
I appreciate the recommendation but I no longer read much of anything (present company excepted).
I quit reading fiction nearly 60 years ago. Of course, had to read a few pieces in school but that's about it. (Oddly, I very recently learned that Reagan made the very same decision later in life--about the time he became gov of CA.)
I quit reading newspapers, magazines and other periodicals in 1980 and, as I'm fond of saying, have been "clean and sober" ever since.
I quit fiction simply because I read so much it constituted a conflict with outdoor activities.
I quit reading the news, mags, etc. because I decided it was a virtually impossible task to filter out all the misinformation with which those vehicles are loaded (whether by design or through ignorance).
I used to read a book now and again. In 1971, I read HOW TO PROFIT FROM THE COMING DEVALUATION by Harry Browne on the recommendation of a friend, who found a similarity in that with certain ideas I had expressed, somewhat intuitively. Both that friend and I were both impressed that Browne was "coming from" some more completely-organized theoretical underpinning and so, quickly found Von Mises in the bibliography. That was my first contact with Economics and I gradually read everything he'd written (of which I could learn).
Desultorially, I've read stuff by others in the field but usually not completely. Those not of the Austrian school lack rigor; those in the Austrian school are frequently just reinforcements or rewordings of that Mises had already treated as comprehensively as (I felt) necessary. I subscribe to FEE but rarely read through a single complete piece in an issue--maybe a couple or three in a year, though I tend to read the book reviews a bit more thoroughly--looking for a hint of novelty, I suppose. No luck so far.
I still read a bunch--just not books. I read Abiola Lapite's blog at least daily. He's one of the most multidisciplinary intellects I've ever encountered; to call him "versatile" would be damnation by faint praise. I read (again, at least daily) the many-faceted blog of John Jay Ray (Dissecting Leftism), which, in addition to essays of his own, is an ably-filtered collection from over the world on a timely basis. I read an occasional piece at TCS and, for some time had a "subscription" to a daily-selected piece from a wide selection of sources, frequently featuring columns by Steyn, Dalrymple, and others. Unfortunately, the "Oompah of Tympanium," who performed that (free) service "up and died" just about a month ago.
A fair proportion of what gets on the Mises.org site is worth reading. I'd guess 20%, maybe a bit more. And, of course, an even greater proportion is actually "worth it"--just not to me because certain subjects aren't very interesting to me.
Over at Lew's site, well--that's Lew's site and that's 'nuff said except that I never miss what Gary North has to say about anything nor, for that matter, Joe Sobran or Lew himself. I find very frequent disagreement with all of those--but they're all worth reading.
Published: January 3, 2006 11:01 AM
Gene
As the Matai would say to all, "There is no excuse for wilful ignorance. Wilful ignorance is contempt for the World."
Clearly, you need to undertake more reading. Much, much more.
Start your reading by researching the treaty brokered between the Russians and the Japanese by Roosevelt (not the cripple, the adventurer). Note the side deals he negotiated between the US govt. and their Japanese opposites. There are the permissions and recognitions you seek. There is the green light to which I referred. You'll then be able to gain an appreciation of the Japanese govt. (vermin they were) perspective and why they interpreted subsequent US govt. foreign policy activity as aggressive, untrustworthy and provocative. These deals were similar to mob bosses carving up territories for plunder.
Roosevelt (the cripple) certainly did try anything he could to get into a war, any war (he tried provoking the Germans as well as the Japanese). That has all been well and truly recorded and the case is well presented from a variety of sources. There are some fine books available. Read them. Check. Check again. In other words, do your prep.
As far as fast and loose with aspersion is concerned; remember it was you who made assertions about what my position was, relating to the unjustifiability of war, after reading but one post! Remember it was you dismissed Murray Rothbard, claiming he made a key error of economics, after reading but one part of one of his books. Outstanding!
The argument you render in the post above (directed to Vince although you include "others") is, at basis, an argument against certain knowledge. Among other things it includes a variant of the old appeal "you can't know for certain." In this case, the assertion is that people can't rely on information provided by the scholarship of others since no-one can be trusted not to have vested interest in providing it. So we can't "know" because we can't trust anyone to provide truth, necessarily they won't. Everything is reduced to a matter of ideology. This is a socialist construct which rapidly descends into ad hominem of one sort or another. For example, the idea that anyone who disagrees with you is out to "sell" something- as if selling is necessarily dishonourable. That really is a contemptible line. They may be trying to "sell" you the truth. I trust you don't really subscribe to that approach at all. It would be beneath you.
Having stated that people can't be trusted to provide the truth you promote your bare opinion as reliable truth. That's consistent! In the light of this I rather enjoyed your later comment, " you never know, I could be lying!" Indeed.
It really is all too easy to deceive people in real time. Often it is only subsequent research, investigation and scholarship that reveals the truth. A recent example would be the claims of Iraqi WMD made by President G W Bush, General C Powell (who even promoted it to the UN), C Rice, D Cheney, D Rumsfeld and others. The vast majority of people in the USA accepted these claims as correct (from recent polls it would appear many still do). It is only relatively recently that the WMD claims are being revealed to be unreliable and false. One would expect further research to eventually reveal who produced the misinformation and why they did so. That may take years. Similarly, understanding the events leading up to WW2 requires studious research and distribution of the results. In this light, your dismissal of information revealed by solid research, investigation and scholarship is short-sighted and naive. The alternative is to accept your omniscience (the omniscience of a man who avoids or minimises his reading- are you really like this?).
You have confirmed that you share with bin Laden the idea that non-combatants are fair targets for war (that is, violence). The justification offered is they may be identified as giving support to the "enemy" in some fashion. That sets them up as enemies and initiations of force against them are thus permissible. This nonsense is the principle behind total war. In effect, "If you're not for us you're against us." In such a case there can be no innocents. ALL can be justified as legitimate targets.
Digressing; with regard to pacifists, I understand some of these people to have been most principled and possessors of great integrity and courage. Many would have understood the distinction between war and self-defence.
Returning to that murderous bin Laden. Thousands of New York office workers, firemen, traders, police officers, caterers, maintenance men, administrators etc. were killed. For what? He says they were supporting invasions, aggressions and oppression directed against Mus