Protectionism vs. Free Trade

Dear Wayne,

Thanks for your comments. I appreciate anyone willing to talk about these issues or anyone who has the ability to have an educated, well reasoned opinion on the subject? That said, I will try to overlook the indirect "Marxist drone" reference. I don't think that I would equate protectionism with Marxism. Also, I know economics is your turf but I am willing to accept that I am likely as equally brainwashed with regard to medicine (mercury and squalene in vaccines for instance).

You seem to be a rather big Mark Levin fan/disciple. Levin seems to be playing the Reagan conservative, constitutionalist, Neocon "free market" tune. Again, I confess that I consider myself a tradition Lincoln and McKinley Republican. And I have been strongly influenced by Berry C Lynn and Milton Friedman. I don't think their economic philosophies can be fairly described as Marxist.

#1. I think there is good evidence that Reagan was not such a Saint or at least a puppet. He was an avid member of Bohemian Grove. And anyone who was a part of his administration or holds him up as the ideal is very suspect or misled.
#2. Constitutionalism, I think we both agree on this. It's easy to throw this term around to attract supporters. This point by itself isn't enough to be trusted or right.
#3. Free Trade, this is a very interesting term. Despite what Rush and Hannity may want us believe, Free Trade is not a traditional Republican or Conservative value. Lincoln and McKinley were avid protectionist against the East India Trading Company (Walmart) and their cheaper slave produced goods from India. In fact this was one of the major issues for which the Civil War was fought. The South eventually was forced to industrialize when they realized the machine beat the man and they resented paying a higher price for for goods produced in the North. Buying cheaper goods shipped from British Colonies in their minds would serve to preserve their wealth, lifestyle, and power.

I find it interesting how the current free trade mantra became a Conservative value. FDR and many economist blamed the Great Depression on Woodrow Wilson and the Hawley-Smoot Tariff Act of 1930. Elder Reed Smoot was an LDS Apostle and great Utah Senator that represented and defended the LDS Church in Congress.

The truth is that Milton Friedman always disagreed that Tariffs caused the Depression. Friedman always reasoned that the FED caused the Depression by contracting the money supply.

In fact Ben Bernanke spoke at Milton Friedmans 90th Birthday and said about the FED causing the Depression (read it on Wiki for Ben Bernanke) "Milt Anna, you were right, we did it, and we are sorry. But thanks to you we won't do it again".

However, Frieman would just live long enough to see Bernanke break his promise. In 2006, the FED stopped releasing M3 data on the money supply which immediately ballooned to enormous levels as banks over-leveraged themselves in the fraudulent Goldman Sachs derivatives/CDO/MBS market.

Then in 2007, the FED instituted the Bank of International Settlement/ Basil 2 accords which had the exact same effect on the American economy that the Basil 1 Accords had on Japan causing the "Lost Decade". Basil 2 like Basil 1 tightened the fractional reserve requirements of Banks, and this was exactly enough to sharply contract M3, burst the housing balloon, make all the mortgage derivatives worthless, and bankrupting a heck of a lot of banks. And that let the Federal Government pick winners and losers, bailing out the big boys who were "too big to fail."

And i believe most at the top knew perfectly well what would happen for several reasons. #1 "The Protocols" describe how contraction of the money supply can create a depression in a fractional reserve system. It also says that this system makes "wealth slippery." Interesting that the Book of Mormon also talks about wealth becoming slippery. #2. Ben Bernanke's confession #3. The Goldman Sach's emails revealing the CDO fraud #4. Experience with Basil 1 and Japan and the effect of Basil 2 and the US #4 the FED deciding to not report m3 data just prior to everything. #5 the inherent instability of Fractional Reserve Banking.

According to Barry Lynn, a true Free Market allows the producer and the consumer to get together and negotiate a price without external or intermediary manipulation. The Law must protect a producers equal access to the consumer as well as equal access to raw materials (equal opportunity not equal results). Both of these are ways big companies manipulate to squash their competition.

Free Trade today or "just let the markets work" seems more about letting Big Business operate unregulated. The truth is we need smaller business and smaller government. And we can use the existing bankruptcy and anti-trust laws to do it. If we just let corrupt companies fail and restructure without bailouts, companies would fix themselves. I am not talking about more restrictions or more government or Marxism.

David B