6 ms·

> 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 countr

by 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
    "Are you alright"? Even if you think you're saying that in good faith, don't do that here. And I started with that, because keeping the HN community free from personal attacks (even if they disguise themselves as sympathetic concern) is essential to keeping HN the kind of place where we can have factual discussions. Since you seem to have totally missed my point, let me try again. The North had tariffs for its dealings with other nations. That's not free, as you correctly state. But internally, the North was a good approximation of a free market - perhaps as good as there was in western civilization at the time. That matters, too. As you said, tariffs are not the only restrictions on free markets. And yet, you argued with WaltherBright that you can't tariff yourself, when he clearly wasn't talking only about tariffs. He was talking about internal (non-tariff) restrictions that make a market non-free. I tried to explain that. You responded with a long argument, but you weren't actually responding to my point. (I don't think you were responding to WalterBright's point, either.)
WalterBright 6y ago
> What are you talking about? You can't tariff yourself. The Constitution prohibits tariffs internally: "No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State. No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another." That clause is in the Constitution for a good reason. > Well china is great at industrial goods Only after they switched from communist industry to free market industry. I'll let the rest of your post speak for itself.
- disown 6y ago
  > The Constitution prohibits tariffs internally: Yes because that's the point of a nation. In other words... tariffs are for foreign nations. All you've done is proven me correct and you wrong. You just debunked your own claim. > Only after they switched from communist industry to free market industry. Last I checked they are still communist and they are not a "free market". What do you think the trade war is about? Much of their economy is state owned. Look at the list of top chinese companies. Notice how a lot of them are state owned enterprises? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_companies_by_revenue https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_companies_by_r... > I'll let the rest of your post speak for itself. What else can you do. Everything you wrote is factually false and I proved it so. The fact that you claimed china is a "free market" shows you simply know nothing about what you are talking about. The idea that china is a "free market" is "flat-earth" level absurd. As was everything you wrote about the economies of the "free" north and "unfree south".
ByteJockey 6y ago
>Who else would you have tariffs on? Yourself? You laugh, but that was a fairly common practice in some places. Pre-revolutionary France was fairly notorious for it's internal taxes if you crossed provincial borders. Salt and bread were the most common items, if I remember correctly. The idea of a cohesive nation-state with an internally free market is pretty new.

by disown 6y ago

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
  "Are you alright"? Even if you think you're saying that in good faith, don't do that here. And I started with that, because keeping the HN community free from personal attacks (even if they disguise themselves as sympathetic concern) is essential to keeping HN the kind of place where we can have factual discussions. Since you seem to have totally missed my point, let me try again. The North had tariffs for its dealings with other nations. That's not free, as you correctly state. But internally, the North was a good approximation of a free market - perhaps as good as there was in western civilization at the time. That matters, too. As you said, tariffs are not the only restrictions on free markets. And yet, you argued with WaltherBright that you can't tariff yourself, when he clearly wasn't talking only about tariffs. He was talking about internal (non-tariff) restrictions that make a market non-free. I tried to explain that. You responded with a long argument, but you weren't actually responding to my point. (I don't think you were responding to WalterBright's point, either.)

WalterBright 6y ago

> What are you talking about? You can't tariff yourself. The Constitution prohibits tariffs internally: "No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State. No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another." That clause is in the Constitution for a good reason. > Well china is great at industrial goods Only after they switched from communist industry to free market industry. I'll let the rest of your post speak for itself.

disown 6y ago
> The Constitution prohibits tariffs internally: Yes because that's the point of a nation. In other words... tariffs are for foreign nations. All you've done is proven me correct and you wrong. You just debunked your own claim. > Only after they switched from communist industry to free market industry. Last I checked they are still communist and they are not a "free market". What do you think the trade war is about? Much of their economy is state owned. Look at the list of top chinese companies. Notice how a lot of them are state owned enterprises? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_companies_by_revenue https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_companies_by_r... > I'll let the rest of your post speak for itself. What else can you do. Everything you wrote is factually false and I proved it so. The fact that you claimed china is a "free market" shows you simply know nothing about what you are talking about. The idea that china is a "free market" is "flat-earth" level absurd. As was everything you wrote about the economies of the "free" north and "unfree south".

ByteJockey 6y ago

>Who else would you have tariffs on? Yourself? You laugh, but that was a fairly common practice in some places. Pre-revolutionary France was fairly notorious for it's internal taxes if you crossed provincial borders. Salt and bread were the most common items, if I remember correctly. The idea of a cohesive nation-state with an internally free market is pretty new.