Category Archives: Trade

UPDATE II: Manhattan Le Magnifique

America, Capitalism, Ilana Mercer, Racism, Technology, The West, Trade

YES, MANHATTAN’S STILL THE GREATEST. I say so in reply to Barely a Blog reader Sunny Black.

Another reader, “Contemplationist”—he was at the libertarian-cum-Objectivist New York City Junto gathering, where I featured as speaker for the month of May, 2012—had once admonished me on the blog: “You gotta see things to believe them.”

As I crisscrossed Manhattan in high-heels (naturally) on lengthy walks, I was overcome with a surge of patriotism for very specific (and modest) reasons.

I had hoped to keep this passion and the attendant insights for a new column on a new forum. Stay tuned.

No other city I’ve visited in my longish lifetime measures up to Manhattan (New York City). Paris sucks by comparison—and I loved that city in the 1980s, before “les beurs”—the darling buds of France, aka her raging Muslim youths—took over.

Manhattan Le Magnifique.

UPDATE I: Huggs: People were okay and efficient, compared to the sullen slackers of the Pacific Northwest. On the subway, certain sorts glared angrily and refused to let you sit down, preferring to hog the entire bench. I was only too pleased “they” did not lunge at me, though. No wilding attack. And Central Park is the most beautiful place ever for a runner. I was up Sunday at 6:00AM because of jet lag, I guess. By 7:00am I was running. There were many many people doing the same. Fabulous.

UPDATE II: At the South-Street Sea Port, on the East River, near Wall Street. What a skyline.

UPDATE III: ‘Three Amigos Summit’ (CANADA IMPERILED BY US ‘PROTECTION’)

America, Bush, Canada, Foreign Policy, Military, Private Property, Trade, War

President Barack Obama, Prime Minister Stephen Harper, and Mexican President Felipe Calderon met for their North American summit. Yes, it’s their get-together; not ours. They spoke a lot about “trade,” managed trade, or, in this context, the “North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which seeks to more closely integrate the economies of the three countries.”

When people are herded by stealth into a supranational arrangements (the EU, or North American Union, for that matter), it is with a vision predicated on rigid central planning, homogenization of laws throughout the continent, and heavy taxation and inflation of the money supply.

Moreover, what was written on April 1, 2006, in the Ottawa Citizen—about a previous Summit in which Vincente Fox and his buddy George Bush officiated—stands.

… state-managed trade is never really free. And NAFTA is nothing but a mercantilist, centrally planned maze of regulations. Whenever I cross into Canada to visit my daughter, I’m compelled to declare and pay taxes on every paltry purchase. That’s NAFTA for you! Governments have only ever ‘freed’ trade by providing law and order, enforcing contracts—and then vamoosing.
… The free flow of goods across borders is not to be confused with that of people across borders. Over 40 percent of Mexicans live below the poverty line, compared to America and Canada’s 13 and 16 percent, respectively. This means that the U.S. is flooded by torrents of unskilled, illegal aliens. The costs to the nation’s schools, hospitals, and environment; health, safety and security are incalculable.
…So long as the U.S. and Canada remain relatively high-wage areas with tax-funded welfare systems, they will experience migratory pressure from a low-wage country such as Mexico.

Naturally, protectionist policies worsen this pressure. If people can’t sell their wares into foreign markets, they’re more inclined to relocate in search of better economic prospects. Unhampered trade, not NAFTA, might diminish this pressure.

UPDATE I: Huggs, Canadians are as socialist as Americans, maybe more. But their leaders are less treacherous than ours. Because of this, “Canada’s balance sheet is healthier than those of other developed nations,” the US included. naturally, Canadians prefer Obama to Harper, but that doesn’t change the fact that they’re doing quite well as we struggle.

From the Frontier Center comes news that in Canada, private property rights are better respected than in the US.

The Frontier Centre for Public Policy, along with the International Property Rights Alliance, today released the 2012 International Property Rights Index (IPRI). The 2012 Index, measures the protection of property rights in 130 countries. …On a worldwide ranking of one to ten—the higher scores reflecting a greater protection of property—IPRI scores ranged from Finland with 8.6, to Yemen with a score of just 2.8. In 2012, Canada maintained its position as the highest ranking country in the Western hemisphere and is seen as a model of stability, with increased scores in the Access to Loans sub-component of its Physical Property Rights (PPR) score. Overall, Canada was 10th. (The United States was 18th.)

In Brief:

* 130 countries were surveyed in 2012 IPRI.
* Finland scores highest in protection of property; Canada defeated by Netherlands for 9th place by only 0.1
* Canada, at 12th place, scores higher than the United States (at 18th)

UPDATE II: Canada’s center-right government plans to implement and austerity budget, raising “the retirement age and making major public service cuts. “Ottawa’s debt-to-GDP ratio remains the lowest in the Group of Seven industrialized nations. Canada is one of only two G7 nations to have recouped all the jobs lost during the global recession.” …

UPDATE III (April 3): CANADA IMPERILED BY US ‘PROTECTION.’ ‘Derek’s argument, below, about Canada not having the burdens of defending itself and the world because saintly Uncle Sam carries the load for her is a bogus argument, the premise of which is that American interventions protect Canada and the world from harm and reduce costs for beneficiaries of this ‘protection.’ To the extent that Canada has been our lap dog in war—to that extent it has harmed its standing and safety in the world. By the way, this false argument is routinely made at National Review too.

Romney & Santorum’s Synophobia

China, Debt, Elections, Propaganda, Republicans, Russia, Trade

“China was America’s second-largest trading partner behind only Canada,” reports The New Republic. “It accounted for 13.6 percent of all trade. In other words, billions upon billions of dollars are at stake,” if Romney acts on his bellicosity, as he promised to.

The Republican presidential hopeful sounds more like a card-carrying union member than a former CEO when he outlines his White House agenda for China, urging tariffs and downplaying the threat of a trade war. He extended his tough talk recently to the pages of The Wall Street Journal in a piece epitomizing the protectionist rhetoric he’s deployed for much of his presidential campaign.
“Unless China changes its ways, on day one of my presidency I will designate it a currency manipulator and take appropriate counteraction,” Romney wrote. “A trade war with China is the last thing I want, but I cannot tolerate our current trade surrender.”

Here’s another pesky details TNR omits conveniently: China is also our largest creditor.

Just to keep purchasing greenbacks, China is inflating its own money supply. Moreover, inflation in China and the attendant price hikes — brought about because of the debased dollar — could threaten the stability of a country that has “moved more people out of poverty in the shortest amount of time in the history of the planet.”

We owe them!

Sen. Rick Santorum is even crazier when it comes to our Chinese enablers:

“You know, Mitt,” said Santorum during The Washington Post/Bloomberg Republican presidential debate, “I don’t want to go to a trade war. I want to beat China. I want to go to war with China and make America the most attractive place in the world to do business.”

Newt is almost as nutty on this front as his two rivals, adding Russia to America’s enemy equation, and threatening cyberwar against Moscow and Beijing. Maybe cyber-warfare is Gingrich’s idea of a preemptive strike.

Save the People; Fail the EU

Economy, EU, Europe, Federal Reserve Bank, Foreign Policy, Free Markets, Iran, Political Economy, Propaganda, Trade

“The EU is our biggest trading partner. We cannot afford to let it fail. We send much of our goods and services to Europe. We share their values. We want to crush Iran with our European pals. They bomb and regulate the world with us. If the Eurozone goes down in flames; if we let them—we’ll be next.” So said President Barack Obama on November 28. Well, sort of. (Okay, I’ve ad-libbed a LOT, but I think I know my president by now.)

Obama was entertaining leaders of the European Union. He promised them that America would stand ready to do its part to help them withstand the Eurozone crisis.

The stakes are too high, you say? For whom, Mr. President? Cui Bono? Who Benefits, Barack?

Ask yourself that question each time you hear a reporter/pundit/analyst/politician insist that the EU and the Euro zone cannot be allowed to fail.

In reply to the question as to what will happen if this colossus collapses, the stakeholders above parrot a bunch of non sequiturs or circular arguments. In the tradition of “a statement that does not follow logically from what preceded it,” these reasons don’t necessarily obtain:

We can’t allow the thing to fail because the stakes are too high. Again: For whom?

David Böcking of Spiegel Online (a most intelligent newspaper; the Germans are impressive) advances the arguments against the break-up of the Eurozone. These are mostly legalistic, and are not rooted in real economic realities. The treaties, observes Böcking, don’t allow for easy disengagement. Legal disputes could arise over debt owed if the seceding country had borrowed money. And, mostly, sinecured EU official would lose sway on the world stage.

Brace for impact, if you believed these bastards, but here are the economic realities:

We flesh-and-blood Americans trade not with Barack or with Brussels, the seat of the European central government, but rather with the people of Belgium, the Netherland, Germany, France. If the financial institutions into which Europeans and Americans have been herded by bureaucrats on both sides of the Atlantic collapse, well then, individual producers and traders will find a way to make a living without these artificial, inorganic structures.

This is a failure of government, not of all the people, although some of the governed, maybe even the majority, have failed. The people who’ve failed are those who have eaten the state’s forbidden fruit.