Free trade

[Gustaf]

OK, here's a poll to continue the previous discussion on trade. I consider myself a free trader.

[Gustaf]

I'm all for fair trade, in other words protecting vunerable industries and being nice to poor farmers in the Third World.
This is mostly a result of my religious beliefs.

BTW in the early C20th "Free Trade v Protection" was the political issue.
Look up the 1906 election in the U.K for more info.

Oh, yes I know. It's the issue that made the Peel goverment fall, ended the Tory dominance in 1905 and caused Churchill to become a Tory. Those were the days...

[Gustaf]

BTW Churchill became a Liberal as a result of the issue. He re-ratted in the 1920's.

Eeehm...yeah...I meant Liberal of course, just mistyped Tory...

[Gustaf]

So far "moderately resticted trade" is leading...maybe I should have had fewer choices... at least protectionist is getting no votes so far.

[Gustaf]

I beleive in a worldwide free trade zone in every sector, industrial, agricultural, services, even telecommunications. This would lead to the creation of a world economy in which foreign nations would have no meaning. This could possibly be followed up by a world currency, loosening of borders, and other things that have happened in the EU. However, as in Europe, this requires as a prerequisite that all members be democratic nations. Once this happens we will have a truly Fukuyaman end of history.

I disagree with your conclusion. Political science shows that the need for large units, i.e. the benefits, are reduced by free trade and peace. The US has an advantage in it's big market and it's powerful armed forces, but if there is worldwide peace and free trade, both of these are useless. Therefore, progress favours small units. And I really hope the world will not turn into a global EU, that is truly a scary thought...

[Gustaf]

I beleive in a worldwide free trade zone in every sector, industrial, agricultural, services, even telecommunications. This would lead to the creation of a world economy in which foreign nations would have no meaning. This could possibly be followed up by a world currency, loosening of borders, and other things that have happened in the EU. However, as in Europe, this requires as a prerequisite that all members be democratic nations. Once this happens we will have a truly Fukuyaman end of history.

Exactly. Why have borders, why enforce them, why have a currency, etc.?  None of it is in line with the goals of global free trade. I live under the Constitution, not the employee manual of Transnational Corporation X.

Read my response to M's post. That theory is wrong.

[Gustaf]

I beleive in a worldwide free trade zone in every sector, industrial, agricultural, services, even telecommunications. This would lead to the creation of a world economy in which foreign nations would have no meaning. This could possibly be followed up by a world currency, loosening of borders, and other things that have happened in the EU. However, as in Europe, this requires as a prerequisite that all members be democratic nations. Once this happens we will have a truly Fukuyaman end of history.

Exactly. Why have borders, why enforce them, why have a currency, etc.?  None of it is in line with the goals of global free trade. I live under the Constitution, not the employee manual of Transnational Corporation X.

Read my response to M's post. That theory is wrong.

The world won't be under the conditions for your theory. Free trade hastens the break-up of borders and cultural identities and currencies and nationalism.  It hastens a chaos controlled, as it is, by a corporate elite who only accidentally act in the best interests of the workers of a nation.

It doesn't have to, nations aren't bound by economy, it is something more than that, imo. And as I said, the case for keeping political borders is strengthened by free trade.

[Gustaf]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Gustaf. How do you know all this? Son. You're most amazing high-school junior, who I have ever seen.

Thanks. I am interested in history and have a good memory...

[Gustaf]

Also, there are a lot of young people here with a lot of knowledge, like Realpolitik, for example.

[Gustaf]

Also, there are a lot of young people here with a lot of knowledge, like Realpolitik, for example.

That's true. But how old Realpolitik is?

He claims to be under 20...

[Gustaf]

Plus, "nationalism" is an ideology and conservatism is supposed to be anti-ideological.

I don't know what you mean by that assertion.  What do you mean that conservatism is anti-ideological?

Well, rightwingers in Europe talked about "The End of Ideology" right alongside "the End of History".
All those "neoliberal" economic ideologues believe it to be totally unideological. Few things are further from the truth, however.

Neoliberalism is definitely idelogical, conservatism is less ideological than most ideologies though.

[Gustaf]

Plus, "nationalism" is an ideology and conservatism is supposed to be anti-ideological.

I don't know what you mean by that assertion.  What do you mean that conservatism is anti-ideological?

Well, rightwingers in Europe talked about "The End of Ideology" right alongside "the End of History".
All those "neoliberal" economic ideologues believe it to be totally unideological. Few things are further from the truth, however.

Neoliberalism is definitely idelogical, conservatism is less ideological than most ideologies though.

I'm sorry, but this discussion reminds me of a Seinfeld episode or a late-night dorm room debate.  

OK...I suppose the "sorry" means that I should be insulted...

[Gustaf]

Plus, "nationalism" is an ideology and conservatism is supposed to be anti-ideological.

I don't know what you mean by that assertion.  What do you mean that conservatism is anti-ideological?

Well, rightwingers in Europe talked about "The End of Ideology" right alongside "the End of History".
All those "neoliberal" economic ideologues believe it to be totally unideological. Few things are further from the truth, however.

Neoliberalism is definitely idelogical, conservatism is less ideological than most ideologies though.

I'm sorry, but this discussion reminds me of a Seinfeld episode or a late-night dorm room debate.  

OK...I suppose the "sorry" means that I should be insulted...

I guess you have a right to decide how you'd like to take that comment.

OK, then I will view it as a personal insult...



No, I will, in the immortal words of Bertie Wooster, "let that pass".

[Gustaf]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

A full employment policy is a generalized monetary and fiscal policy designed to ensure the economy operating at maximal employment; or the natural rate of unemployment. Government works programs create jobs just as any other projects create jobs. But a full employment package also means expansion in the money supply, interest rates that are not inflation-targeted, and deficit spending. Full employment has always been a goal of left-wing governments throughout history from Truman's Fair Deal to the British Labour party in the 1960s and 70s. They have always been opposed or at least not really supported by conservatives. The conservatives won some points in the late 70s and early 80s when there was a huge trade-off between employment and inflation due to economic restructuring. But Reagan generally tolerated very high unemployment rates compared to what was being advocated by Democrats. The reason this isn't such a huge issue now may be because the trade-off with inflation is not so clear.

My understanding of conservatism as anti-ideological comes from Russell Kirk, author of the Politics of Prudence and one-time partner of William Buckley.

"Conservatism is not a fixed and immutable body of dogma, and conservatives inherit from Burke a talent for re-expressing their convictions to fit the time... As H. Stuart Hughes wrote more than thirty years ago, 'Conservatism is the negation of ideology.' Because any ideology-that is, a theory of fanatic politics promising the terrestrial paradise-is illusory, eventually the consequences of the ideology are perceived by most people to be ruinous; and then, God willing, a healthy reaction occurs."

Yep, Burke is after all the father of conservatism.

[Gustaf]

NH, did you vote protectionist in the poll?

[Gustaf]

NH, did you vote protectionist in the poll?

I can't recall, but I think so.

OK...I was just wondering.

[Gustaf]

NH, did you vote protectionist in the poll?

You wanted to know who cast the single vote?
I can't recall, but I think so.

OK...I was just wondering.

Yeah, basically...

[Gustaf]

Plus, "nationalism" is an ideology and conservatism is supposed to be anti-ideological.

I don't know what you mean by that assertion.  What do you mean that conservatism is anti-ideological?

Well, rightwingers in Europe talked about "The End of Ideology" right alongside "the End of History".
All those "neoliberal" economic ideologues believe it to be totally unideological. Few things are further from the truth, however.

Neoliberalism is definitely idelogical, conservatism is less ideological than most ideologies though.

I'm sorry, but this discussion reminds me of a Seinfeld episode or a late-night dorm room debate.  

OK...I suppose the "sorry" means that I should be insulted...

I guess you have a right to decide how you'd like to take that comment.

OK, then I will view it as a personal insult...



No, I will, in the immortal words of Bertie Wooster, "let that pass".

Gustaf, you're a Wodehouse fan too?  He's my favorite writer - check out this story:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/727mvhkj.asp

My father is a huge fan, and has related much of it to me...but I haven't got around to reading a lot of it yet, they're lying around waiting for me...but I guess I'd be a Wodehouse fan anyway, especially after having watched 'Pimpernel Smith'.