Time Travel Proven

Smuggling wouldnt be much of a problem, since there wouldnt be much of anything coming across the border.

If people want a computer for example, and you cant buy it from Japan, then you have a demand, and have created a market. In a free society, some entrepreneur is going to see the potential for starting a computer company to make a profit, and then need employees to build that computer. The employees in turn, get a job, and can now earn enough money to buy the computer.

Let's say there are three companies, two in the U.S., and one in Japan.

The Japanese product has a goodness rating of 1000 due to a technique they recently developed, and the two U.S. companies have a goodness rating of about 200.

If everyone had a choice of which product to buy, they would mostly buy the Japanese product. The U.S. companies would then try to increase their goodness rating to 1000 or higher too so that they can compete.

However, let's say the Japanese product is banned in the United States. U.S. company A then only needs to be slightly higher than U.S. company B to be competitive, thus there is not a strong incentive for either company to reach 1000. Therefore U.S. product goodness stays around 200, despite the fact that a foreign company has a better product. Sure, if a U.S. company came up with a 1000 product, the other company would be inclined to catch up, but why bother going through the extensive efforts and costs to develop a 1000 product when you only need a 300 product to beat the competition? Limiting competition leads to inferior products.

Further, when there are no imports allowed, a Japanese product made with a material imported from a place where the abundance of that rare material makes it cheaper than anywhere else, will cost the Japanese company a lot less due to that source. The U.S. company using its more expensive U.S. source may not be able to make a profitable 1000 product even if it wanted to, because it would have to make the product so expensive that it would be out of reach of any of the people who want to buy it.

By banning imports, the entire size of the economy would shrink as a result of everything being more expensive. More people would need to be employed doing jobs that are less efficient than could be done elsewhere, and efficiency will decrease. (For instance, the people trying to grow tropical fruit in places where the climate and soil is not ideal, they will have to put in a lot more work... or chemically extracting rare substances out of impure ores rather than using more pure ores available elsewhere.) With the reduced efficiency employing more people doing less efficient work, there will be less produced and people will be able to buy less in exchange for the amount of labor put in.

And there won't be smugglers due to an import ban just like nobody gets shot in places with gun bans. Do you propose banning travel to foreign places too, as well as fishing and other use of ships on the sea?

Criminal syndicates will spring up to bring in the good stuff. Even if anyone caught entering or leaving the country gets shot, people will still be digging under the border we have with Mexico to bring in the good stuff.

Foreign products of high value will become of even greater value when they become more scarce, and people will be willing to risk their lives to import them. People want their Cuban cigars, and whatever else you tell them they cannot have. Just think about how many people die to import Cocaine.

On a side note, it was earlier said that Marijuana should be legalized but nothing else... If you only legalize Marijuana, the drug gangs will still have a monopoly over the sale of cocaine and other drugs. Legalizing marijuana would reduce crime, but it wouldn't completely destroy the drug trade, as it is not the only highly profitable drug to import (or illegally manufacture.)

Jack House said:

Not seeking alliances would be isolationism. I don't see a downside to having allies. I see a downside to not having them though. I also agree that voting for the "lesser of two evils" is doing a disservice to yourself and the nation. It still keeps the evil candidates in office.

Click to expand...

Having allies means one is committed to become embroiled in world affairs, which is a guaranteed pathway to interventionism.

Non-interventionism is not isolationism. We don't have to commit to military support to trade economically and culturally with a people.

stainless1911 said:

Smuggling wouldnt be much of a problem, since there wouldnt be much of anything coming across the border.

Click to expand...

That works real well with drugs, doesn't it?

marshaul said:

Nope. Unemployment can't be shown to have a correlative relationship to outsourcing (or however one might wish to characterize it), much less a causal effect.

In fact, as manufacturing jobs move to other countries, they are replaced by better, non-manufacturing-based jobs (for example, R&D and the like).

Read about Frederick Taylor and his time and motion studies. The modern factory is basically a system, the main object of which is to convert human workers into machines, drones if you will. Drones who do not challenge, question, innovate, or progress. This is what we have, you know, actual machines for. There are better uses to put American ingenuity to.

Do you really want to hedge your economy forever on manufacturing jobs? Do you want your kids to be dependent upon that in an age when machines can do any simple manufacturing task better and cheaper than humans can?

That is foolish. There are ways to create value without "manufacturing" things. For example, Apple Computer easily creates more value designing gadgets (here in the US, I might add), than do the Chinese (etc.) who own the plants which make Apple products. What to build without a constant stream of new ideas?

We don't need more factory drones, too tired to do anything but sleep after a shift. We need educated individuals who can keep us on the cutting edge of technological progress. Building stuff ain't gonna cut it.

And anyway, we do build stuff where it is economically viable. Hyundai builds plants in the US, as do Honda, Toyota, etc (while the subsidized beneficiaries of protectionist policy outsource to Mexico, I might add).

America is stronger because we have largely moved on from the rather bleak prospect of working in manufacturing jobs.

If we are broke, it is because parasitic, overblown government can't put a leash on its productivity-grabbing long enough to trim its fat and provide a value-adding service (which is what it is -- or should be -- all about) for the first time in a century.

Click to expand...

Exactly! I don't like hearing from politicians that we need "our" jobs to return to the United States. Of course a result of a strong economy would be relatively low unemployment, but we don't all need to be working in steel mills to have a strong economy.

Gunslinger said:

Note eye states he would vote for Paul--despite reservations, as being the lesser of two evils, one of which is "horrific." So would I. I wouldn't write Perry in on "principle" because there is no principle in aiding the marxist in any way, shape or form. I don't understand why that is so hard to grasp for some of you, otherwise, intelligent people. Support Paul, campaign for him, send him money--but when he loses the nomination to Perry, use some common sense. Don't throw away a chance to get rid of the cosmic evil that is running this country because of inane "principle," spelled s o u r g r a p e s.

Click to expand...

I must commend you on your spelling.

Brass Magnet said:

Hmmm...that's pretty insulting.

Well, some of us can't understand why "otherwise intelligent people" are too blind to see that there is so little difference between the two parties as to be downright laughable. In other words it really doesn't matter if you vote for statist warmonger A or statist warmonger B, but if you "waste your vote" on someone other than A or B you at least have a chance of creating some real change regardless of whether that person is elected because the idea saw support.

Further, it's your right to vote for whomever you please and I'm not trying to make anyone support Paul. I'm just sick of the bull crap, parrotted rhetoric used to marginalize him being perpetuated by "otherwise intelligent people".

Click to expand...

Hmmmm...your second paragraph sounds like a pot speaking.

eye95 said:

Hmmmm...your second paragraph sounds like a pot speaking.

Click to expand...

Nice snipe. Everything sure is easy for you when all you need to do is redefine words and terms to fit your own agenda.

marshaul said:

That works real well with drugs, doesn't it?

Click to expand...

Partly because you have millions of packages and containers coming over the border every day. Eliminate that, and you eliminate the hiding places.

stainless1911 said:

Partly because you have millions of packages and containers coming over the border every day. Eliminate that, and you eliminate the hiding places.

Click to expand...

What about tunnels? And airplanes flying below the radar, so to speak? Boats? Huge stretches of unwatched border? Americans who can legally go to Mexico and return? etc etc etc.

Brass Magnet said:

Nice snipe. Everything sure is easy for you when all you need to do is redefine words and terms to fit your own agenda.

Click to expand...

And the pot speaks of kettles yet again.

My point has been illustrated twice now! And nicely done too. Moving on. Take another shot. I won't respond.

Brass Magnet said:

Hmmm...that's pretty insulting.

Well, some of us can't understand why "otherwise intelligent people" are too blind to see that there is so little difference between the two parties as to be downright laughable. In other words it really doesn't matter if you vote for statist warmonger A or statist warmonger B, but if you "waste your vote" on someone other than A or B you at least have a chance of creating some real change regardless of whether that person is elected because the idea saw support.

Further, it's your right to vote for whomever you please and I'm not trying to make anyone support Paul. I'm just sick of the bull crap, parrotted rhetoric used to marginalize him being perpetuated by "otherwise intelligent people".

Click to expand...

No insult intended, or I wouldn't have characterized those with whom I strongly disagree on 'this' point as intelligent. I don't marginalize Paul, whom I respect generally speaking, just say he is not viable and therefore can only serve to help our enemy by giving essentially useless "support." Perot comes to mind.

marshaul said:

What about tunnels? And airplanes flying below the radar, so to speak? Boats? Huge stretches of unwatched border? Americans who can legally go to Mexico and return? etc etc etc.

Click to expand...

Don't forget the submersibles!

marshaul said:

What about tunnels? And airplanes flying below the radar, so to speak? Boats? Huge stretches of unwatched border? Americans who can legally go to Mexico and return? etc etc etc.

Click to expand...

We move most of our legally imported products through there?

It would be easier to cover those bases if the powers that be, weren't so busy looking for needles in haystacks.

stainless1911 said:

We move most of our legally imported products through there?

It would be easier to cover those bases if the powers that be, weren't so busy looking for needles in haystacks.

Click to expand...

I understand your point, but I think you severely underestimate the ingenuity which will be incentivized by such a move. Drug smugglers display infinite ingenuity. And what you're talking about is going to create a black market which renders the drug market pale in comparison.

Lokster said:

Exactly! I don't like hearing from politicians that we need "our" jobs to return to the United States.

Click to expand...

I have no problem with jobs going overseas if the result is a locally-sold product that's cheaper. I have serious issues with illegal aliens getting paid under the table. That means less taxes, less revenue, less jobs for U.S. citizens and legal aliens. Put simply, it's a leech on our society's financial infrastructure.

Hmmm Sounds like Ron Paul but this is an excerpt from George Washington's farewell address.....non intervention is a protection for us....

Why forego the advantages of so peculiar a situation? Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor, or caprice?

It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world; so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it; for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements. I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than to private affairs, that honesty is always the best policy. I repeat it, therefore, let those engagements be observed in their genuine sense. But, in my opinion, it is unnecessary and would be unwise to extend them.

Taking care always to keep ourselves, by suitable establishments, on a respectable defensive posture, we may safely trust to temporary alliances for extraordinary emergencies.

Harmony, liberal intercourse with all nations, are recommended by policy, humanity, and interest. But even our commercial policy should hold an equal and impartial hand; neither seeking nor granting exclusive favors or preferences; consulting the natural course of things; diffusing and diversifying by gentle means the streams of commerce, but forcing nothing; establishing, with powers so disposed, in order to give trade a stable course, to define the rights of our merchants, and to enable the government to support them, conventional rules of intercourse, the best that present circumstances and mutual opinion will permit, but temporary, and liable to be from time to time abandoned or varied, as experience and circumstances shall dictate; constantly keeping in view, that it is folly in one nation to look for disinterested favors from another; that it must pay with a portion of its independence for whatever it may accept under that character; that, by such acceptance, it may place itself in the condition of having given equivalents for nominal favors, and yet of being reproached with ingratitude for not giving more. There can be no greater error than to expect or calculate upon real favors from nation to nation. It is an illusion, which experience must cure, which a just pride ought to discard.

Click to expand...

eye95 said:

If one truly wants to be an isolationist, he should go off into the woods, build a cabin, grow and kill his own food, and do so with implements he fashions with his hands.

The simple fact of the matter is that we are all naturally intertwined. People are intertwined into communities. Communities network into nearly economically independent nations. It is only through the networking of nations that all of our needs are met in the most economical way. When we restrict global association, we ironically restrict Liberty by reducing choices.

Personally, I buy the best product for the price, regardless of nation of origin. If America wants my business, they need to be the best, most economical producer. We aren't for most consumer products today, mainly because labor has exercised power to overvalue the product it provides.

Fixes:

1. Ever-widening, truly free global trade.

2. Removing taxation from productivity, placing it on consumption.

3. Correcting the imbalance between those who risk capital and those who (without capital risk to themselves) provide labor.

4. A willingness to use military force against nations who threaten our ability to exist and to conduct commerce, whether directly (against us) or indirectly (through threats to other nations with which we have commercial or military alliances).

No matter how hard a candidate works to restore the Liberties in our Constitution, if he will not work equally hard for the Security for which it also provides, I cannot support him. I see him as just as dangerous to the future existence of the Republic as leaders, such as the current one, who will not work to restore Liberty. The difference is only in the speed with which the two types of leaders can destroy the Republic. Those who steadily kill Liberty will strangle the Republic. Those who would selfishly isolate it can kill it in a single blinding flash originating from an as-yet unseen enemy from whom we have isolated ourselves.

This giant should never sleep again.

Click to expand...

Dang. SVG types faster than I do...

Well, I'm not going to argue directly with you. I'll let this dead guy do it.

"Our detached and distant situation invites and enables us to pursue a different course. If we remain one people, under an efficient government, the period is not far off, when we may defy material injury from external annoyance; when we may take such an attitude as will cause the neutrality, we may at any time resolve upon, to be scrupulously respected; when belligerent nations, under the impossibility of making acquisitions upon us, will not lightly hazard the giving us provocation; when we may choose peace or war, as our interest, guided by justice, shall counsel. Why forego the advantages of so peculiar a situation? Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe (Globe), entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European (Global) ambition, rivalship, interest, humor, or caprice? It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world; so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it; for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements. I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than to private affairs, that honesty is always the best policy. I repeat it, therefore, let those engagements be observed in their genuine sense. But, in my opinion, it is unnecessary and would be unwise to extend them."

Any guess without yer google-fu who this is?

Obviously talking out his hat...

Eye, I will admit that our world is very different today than the world when this quote was written and distributed to a newly free people. Yet the theory is sound regarding not entangling ourselves politically with other nations. I do agree (and so did he!) that trade would tie us together in a manner of speaking and that it would be a good thing. Have a good day!

stainless1911 said:

Missed your point.


The truth behind it all, is that we kicked God out of the country, and we are now paying the price.

Click to expand...

Give the man a cigar! You're absolutely right! Sodom, Gomorrah, Pom Pei, etc... Those were not accidents.

Neither are we. The death of a thousand cuts.