3 ms·

> 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 ca

by 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.)
- disown 6y ago
  I asked you to stick to the "substance". Lets please keep to that going forward. > Since you seem to have totally missed my point, let me try again. "Even if you think you're saying that in good faith, don't do that here." > The North had tariffs for its dealings with other nations. Not the north. The united states. Tariffs are applied on a country to country basis. It's called protectionism in the united states, not northern united states. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protectionism_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protectionism_in_the_United_St... > But internally, the North was a good approximation of a free market. "Internally", both the north and the south had the same tariff situation because it is ONE country. Tariffs are set at a national level. In the united states, neither the north nor the south had "tariffs" against each other because they are constitutionally prohibited. And neither the north or the south was a good approximation of a free market because the united states was a protectionist nation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protectionism_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protectionism_in_the_United_St... > And yet, you argued with WaltherBright that you can't tariff yourself, when he clearly wasn't talking only about tariffs. "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." That's what he wrote. He claimed that tariffs doesn't make it a "not free market". But by definition, it does. > He was talking about internal (non-tariff) restrictions that make a market non-free. No. Once again, he was claiming that tariffs didn't make a market "non-free". But it does. I'll leave it here because clearly you guys are just making up your own definition, making up your own histories, making up your own economic ideas, etc. And then moving the goalpost to suit your needs. My advice, go read my links about "free market", "tariffs" and protectionism in the united states. It's hard to discuss anything when you/him refuse to accept the definitions of these words/concepts/history.

by disown 6y ago

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.)

disown 6y ago
I asked you to stick to the "substance". Lets please keep to that going forward. > Since you seem to have totally missed my point, let me try again. "Even if you think you're saying that in good faith, don't do that here." > The North had tariffs for its dealings with other nations. Not the north. The united states. Tariffs are applied on a country to country basis. It's called protectionism in the united states, not northern united states. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protectionism_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protectionism_in_the_United_St... > But internally, the North was a good approximation of a free market. "Internally", both the north and the south had the same tariff situation because it is ONE country. Tariffs are set at a national level. In the united states, neither the north nor the south had "tariffs" against each other because they are constitutionally prohibited. And neither the north or the south was a good approximation of a free market because the united states was a protectionist nation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protectionism_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protectionism_in_the_United_St... > And yet, you argued with WaltherBright that you can't tariff yourself, when he clearly wasn't talking only about tariffs. "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." That's what he wrote. He claimed that tariffs doesn't make it a "not free market". But by definition, it does. > He was talking about internal (non-tariff) restrictions that make a market non-free. No. Once again, he was claiming that tariffs didn't make a market "non-free". But it does. I'll leave it here because clearly you guys are just making up your own definition, making up your own histories, making up your own economic ideas, etc. And then moving the goalpost to suit your needs. My advice, go read my links about "free market", "tariffs" and protectionism in the united states. It's hard to discuss anything when you/him refuse to accept the definitions of these words/concepts/history.