7 ms·

The north wasn't a "free market economy". It was a protectionist economy rife with tariffs. As a matter of fact, it was the south that wanted a "free market" e

by disown 6y ago

The north wasn't a "free market economy". It was a protectionist economy rife with tariffs. As a matter of fact, it was the south that wanted a "free market" economy. They wanted little to no tariffs so that britain/europe would open their markets to their cotton/agricultural goods. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protectionism_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protectionism_in_the_United_St...

WalterBright 6y ago
It did have tariffs on trade with foreign countries, that's right. Tariffs don't automatically make a country "not free market", any more than taxes do. Internally there were no tariffs, it was a free market. Industrial production boomed in the free North. The Southern economy was pretty much unable to produce any industrial goods, a typical problem for unfree economies.
- disown 6y ago
  > It did have tariffs on trade with foreign countries, that's right. Who else would you have tariffs on? Yourself? > Tariffs don't automatically make a country "not free market", any more than taxes do. Actually, tariffs by definition makes it a "not free market". Especially when it is part of a protectionist policy. What does taxes have to do with anything? "Give us a protective tariff and we will have the greatest nation on earth." --lincoln > Internally there were no tariffs, it was a free market. What are you talking about? You can't tariff yourself. It would be like stealing from your left pocket to put it in your right pocket. > Industrial production boomed in the free North. Thanks to protectionism and high tariffs which kept british/european industrial goods out of the market. "free North"? Where blacks, natives and women were treated like second class citizens? > The Southern economy was pretty much unable to produce any industrial goods The South was an agricultural economy. The land, weather and environment provided conditions for year-round farming. Unlike in the north where we had fall/winter that prevent year-round farming. > a typical problem for unfree economies. Well china is great at industrial goods and they aren't as "free" as norway. So using your logic, norway must be a slave owning nation? What are you doing? You just made up definitions, history, facts and confusingly misused the word "free" ( free as in markets vs free as in non-slave ). Are you alright?
  - AnimalMuppet 6y ago
    You seem rather clearly to be violating HN's guidelines, the assumption of good faith. Post like that somewhere else if you feel you must; don't do it here. On to substance: You can have lots of things within a country that make the economy "more free" or "less free". Yes, you could have internal tariffs (or, if you prefer, taxes on the movement of goods between states). You could have government-sponsored monopolies, where no other business is allowed to compete. You could have regulations that are restrictive enough to significantly affect the freedom of the market. And on and on. You seem to have fixated only on the idea of tariffs as the one and only possible restriction on the freedom of the market. I don't think that's correct. I also don't think it's warranted by WalterBright's comment.
    - disown 6y ago
      > You seem rather clearly to be violating HN's guidelines, the assumption of good faith. And no assumption of good faith towards me? > On to substance: You can have lots of things within a country that make the economy "more free" or "less free". Yes, you could have internal tariffs (or, if you prefer, taxes on the movement of goods between states). Next time, I'd appreciate you start with the "substance" and leave out the rest. The generally accepted definition is "between sovereign states". "A tariff is a tax on imports or exports between sovereign states. It is a form of regulation of foreign trade and a policy that taxes foreign products to encourage or safeguard domestic industry." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariff https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariff Tariffs are a foreign trade tool. > You seem to have fixated only on the idea of tariffs as the one and only possible restriction on the freedom of the market. Nope. I said no free market can have protective tariffs. I didn't say it is the only restriction of free market. > I don't think that's correct. Neither do I. And I didn't claim it. You seem to be creating a straw man here. Attributing things to me that I never claimed. > I also don't think it's warranted by WalterBright's comment. Sure it is. WalterBright's assertion was that the north was a free market. This is factually and historically incorrect as I have shown ( with sources ). Let me simplify it for you. WalterBright: North was a free market economy. Me: No it wasn't because a free market economy cannot have protective tariffs. Claiming that the north was a free market economy is as wrong as claiming that the south didn't have slaves. It's factually incorrect.
- AnimalMuppet 6y ago
  But if you define the North as "free market", despite tariffs, then in what sense was the South "not free market"?
  - WalterBright 6y ago
    > in what sense was the South "not free market"? In the sense of 4 million slaves. Slavery is the antithesis of free market.
    - disown 6y ago
      The north had slaves too ( just not that many ). So using your logic, the north wasn't a free market either then. Once again, you are confusing what "free market" means. "In economics, a free market is a system in which the prices for goods and services are self-regulated by the open market and by consumers." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_market https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_market
      - WalterBright 6y ago
        > The north had slaves too ( just not that many ). Please expand on that. > So using your logic, the north wasn't a free market either then. Um, I repeatedly pointed out that the South had 4 million slaves. The magnitude makes the point. Absolutist arguments are pointless because nothing is absolute in real life. So we look at the magnitude. > you are confusing what "free market" means. Read the rest of the article you cited. Slavery does not fit with it.
        disown 6y ago
        > Please expand on that. If you don't even know this, why are you making comments here as if you know what you are talking about? "Even though it excluded areas not in rebellion, it still applied to more than 3.5 million of the 4 million slaves in the country." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emancipation_Proclamation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emancipation_Proclamation There were about 500,000 slaves in the north/union when the civil war started. They were outright slaves or were classified as "apprentices for life". For example, in New Jersey there were still eighteen enslaved people in 1860, although officially termed “apprentices for life.” https://acwm.org/blog/myths-misunderstandings-north-and-slavery/ https://acwm.org/blog/myths-misunderstandings-north-and-slav... I'm done here. Can't be bothered educating someone who refuses look up basic facts. But then again you believe china is a "free market". Ignorance is bliss.

by disown 6y ago

WalterBright 6y ago

It did have tariffs on trade with foreign countries, that's right. Tariffs don't automatically make a country "not free market", any more than taxes do. Internally there were no tariffs, it was a free market. Industrial production boomed in the free North. The Southern economy was pretty much unable to produce any industrial goods, a typical problem for unfree economies.

disown 6y ago
> It did have tariffs on trade with foreign countries, that's right. Who else would you have tariffs on? Yourself? > Tariffs don't automatically make a country "not free market", any more than taxes do. Actually, tariffs by definition makes it a "not free market". Especially when it is part of a protectionist policy. What does taxes have to do with anything? "Give us a protective tariff and we will have the greatest nation on earth." --lincoln > Internally there were no tariffs, it was a free market. What are you talking about? You can't tariff yourself. It would be like stealing from your left pocket to put it in your right pocket. > Industrial production boomed in the free North. Thanks to protectionism and high tariffs which kept british/european industrial goods out of the market. "free North"? Where blacks, natives and women were treated like second class citizens? > The Southern economy was pretty much unable to produce any industrial goods The South was an agricultural economy. The land, weather and environment provided conditions for year-round farming. Unlike in the north where we had fall/winter that prevent year-round farming. > a typical problem for unfree economies. Well china is great at industrial goods and they aren't as "free" as norway. So using your logic, norway must be a slave owning nation? What are you doing? You just made up definitions, history, facts and confusingly misused the word "free" ( free as in markets vs free as in non-slave ). Are you alright?
- AnimalMuppet 6y ago
  You seem rather clearly to be violating HN's guidelines, the assumption of good faith. Post like that somewhere else if you feel you must; don't do it here. On to substance: You can have lots of things within a country that make the economy "more free" or "less free". Yes, you could have internal tariffs (or, if you prefer, taxes on the movement of goods between states). You could have government-sponsored monopolies, where no other business is allowed to compete. You could have regulations that are restrictive enough to significantly affect the freedom of the market. And on and on. You seem to have fixated only on the idea of tariffs as the one and only possible restriction on the freedom of the market. I don't think that's correct. I also don't think it's warranted by WalterBright's comment.
  - disown 6y ago
    > You seem rather clearly to be violating HN's guidelines, the assumption of good faith. And no assumption of good faith towards me? > On to substance: You can have lots of things within a country that make the economy "more free" or "less free". Yes, you could have internal tariffs (or, if you prefer, taxes on the movement of goods between states). Next time, I'd appreciate you start with the "substance" and leave out the rest. The generally accepted definition is "between sovereign states". "A tariff is a tax on imports or exports between sovereign states. It is a form of regulation of foreign trade and a policy that taxes foreign products to encourage or safeguard domestic industry." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariff https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariff Tariffs are a foreign trade tool. > You seem to have fixated only on the idea of tariffs as the one and only possible restriction on the freedom of the market. Nope. I said no free market can have protective tariffs. I didn't say it is the only restriction of free market. > I don't think that's correct. Neither do I. And I didn't claim it. You seem to be creating a straw man here. Attributing things to me that I never claimed. > I also don't think it's warranted by WalterBright's comment. Sure it is. WalterBright's assertion was that the north was a free market. This is factually and historically incorrect as I have shown ( with sources ). Let me simplify it for you. WalterBright: North was a free market economy. Me: No it wasn't because a free market economy cannot have protective tariffs. Claiming that the north was a free market economy is as wrong as claiming that the south didn't have slaves. It's factually incorrect.
AnimalMuppet 6y ago
But if you define the North as "free market", despite tariffs, then in what sense was the South "not free market"?
- WalterBright 6y ago
  > in what sense was the South "not free market"? In the sense of 4 million slaves. Slavery is the antithesis of free market.
  - disown 6y ago
    The north had slaves too ( just not that many ). So using your logic, the north wasn't a free market either then. Once again, you are confusing what "free market" means. "In economics, a free market is a system in which the prices for goods and services are self-regulated by the open market and by consumers." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_market https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_market
    - WalterBright 6y ago
      > The north had slaves too ( just not that many ). Please expand on that. > So using your logic, the north wasn't a free market either then. Um, I repeatedly pointed out that the South had 4 million slaves. The magnitude makes the point. Absolutist arguments are pointless because nothing is absolute in real life. So we look at the magnitude. > you are confusing what "free market" means. Read the rest of the article you cited. Slavery does not fit with it.
      - disown 6y ago
        > Please expand on that. If you don't even know this, why are you making comments here as if you know what you are talking about? "Even though it excluded areas not in rebellion, it still applied to more than 3.5 million of the 4 million slaves in the country." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emancipation_Proclamation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emancipation_Proclamation There were about 500,000 slaves in the north/union when the civil war started. They were outright slaves or were classified as "apprentices for life". For example, in New Jersey there were still eighteen enslaved people in 1860, although officially termed “apprentices for life.” https://acwm.org/blog/myths-misunderstandings-north-and-slavery/ https://acwm.org/blog/myths-misunderstandings-north-and-slav... I'm done here. Can't be bothered educating someone who refuses look up basic facts. But then again you believe china is a "free market". Ignorance is bliss.