This year, Dr. Ron Paul published a new book entitled "The Pillars of Prosperity: Free Market, Honest Money, Private Property", which includes his extensive compilation of economic ideas and provides excellent reviews for special book reviews. opportunity. This is the first part of a long-term review of the entire book, and its comprehensive review will examine each part of the book and provide a summary of the positions and arguments presented, which are seriously inadequate for most Americans. "Part 6 - Free Trade: Reality and Falsehood" is discussed here.
A more common accusation that Ron Paul was tagged through his presidential campaign, when he was not unintentional, became an "isolatedist." This mainly comes from those who believe that printing money, manipulating gold prices, micromanaging international trade, providing foreign aid and welfare to make the company a country rather than other countries, inviting the country, casting bombs and imposing economic sanctions on the country for ten or forty years. People are considered sensible, free trading policies. By marking the above behavior as an economic isolationist, Paul condemned his belief in free trade, low tariffs, no economic sanctions and peace between nations, often defending ridiculous allegations.
Paul's case of a free trade vision certainly comes from the US Constitution. His motivation for citing interstate commercial terms is that the proponents want to ensure that the Union states do not have trade barriers to each other. He also argues that tariffs are taxes on consumers who must pay more for foreign goods, as well as indirect subsidies in industries that benefit from tariffs, and can then compete under adverse conditions. "There is no doubt that these tariffs represent the worst protectionism and blatantly ignore any remaining free market principles to obtain short-term benefits of certain special interests." In a true free market, there is no protectionist tariff.
However, even in the case of protecting the tariffs of American industry, any government intervention would not be complete without accompaniment accompaniment with the first action. Paul also pointed out that foreign aid and military subsidies [such as defending Japan and North Korea for more than half a century after the Second World War and the Korean War] actually subsidized foreign business competitors. Taxpayers send money to the government in the form of taxes, and the government immediately transfers the funds as subsidies overseas, such as China. This encourages employment exports caused by lower production costs abroad, and then US industry cannot compete to demand protectionist tariffs. Either way, the government will get more money at the expense of consumers: first, the form of taxation, then the form of tariffs, both of which are paid by individuals.
Paul also opposed what he considered to be a management trade agreement, such as the North American Free Trade Agreement, the GATT and the World Trade Organization [WTO]. All of this benefits special interests rather than promoting free trade and represents the loss of US sovereignty over international organizations. Free markets do not require the continued intervention of intergovernmental agencies, which may put pressure on the United States to force the government to change its laws to protect businesses in other parts of the world.
Paul said that the World Trade Organization is particularly prone to errors in this regard. According to the decision of its expert group, it can stipulate trade policies and even tax laws to the United States, and then Congress is bound by the terms of the members to change the law. Unexpectedly, this constant entanglement between the interests of the state and special companies has led to a low-level, sustained trade war. Coupled with the fact that the government's constant intervention in the market has led to price increases, the World Trade Organization seems to be more interested in maintaining price increases. from
status quo from
The price is higher, not the free market phenomenon that is accompanied by a general fall in prices.
Therefore, organizations like the WTO and agreements like the North American Free Trade Agreement, rather than strengthening free trade, have contributed to economic isolationism. This is because of the increased hostility of our trading partners and the threat of economic sanctions against the United States if they do not change their laws to meet WTO requirements. As Paul said, a central world trade plan is not suitable for a free market system.
In addition, these types of agreements often benefit powerful, politically-related companies, rather than those that are often invoked by Congress to rationalize their counterproductive policies. When these politicians cite the general welfare provisions of the Constitution, they receive funds from the public and provide very specific benefits to large companies. As Paul said, "Most small people have never benefited. It is the big companies that value these plans so much." This comes at the expense of the taxpayer's general welfare and the special benefits of these taxpayers' courtesy direct subsidies.
One of the company's welfare agencies is the Export-Import Bank, which provides government subsidies for US companies. But the government has no resources and nothing, so it must steal money from taxpayers and benefit these big, politically powerful companies. The end result is the redistribution of the wealth of the poor and the middle class to the rich. Paul said, "Considering that small businesses only receive 12-15% of Eximbank funds, most of Eximbank's funds will benefit large companies, so the situation of inbound and outbound banks is further weakened." As an example, he cited the fact that That is, Enron received $1.9 billion in government subsidies from import and export banks, overseas private investment companies and other government agencies.
The strong backed by the military power, the dollar-denominated oil, and the status of the world's reserve currency, have enabled the United States to continue its global welfare war. Foreigners who still accept the US dollar allow the United States to fund this extravagant waste, while the government requires welfare for poor and wealthy individuals, foreigners and companies. But Paul opposes these open government and intergovernmental interventions, but none of these voters have free trade, even if it is for the benefit of ordinary people [which is certainly not the case]. He better stated this case than anyone else: "Most Washington politicians really believe in government-managed trade, not free trade. By definition, true free trade can only be done without any government intervention. will happen."
Orignal From: Ron Paul's "Spillar of Prosperity" Part VI Review
No comments:
Post a Comment