76 Replies to ““Never interrupt your enemy when he is forfeiting a win.””

  1. Are you surprised? The left is defined by their automatic opposition to anything Trump says or does, regardless of its objective truth. This is how he has conned them into supporting terrorists, crime, drugs, illegal immigrant rapist-murderers, “trans women” pounding the heck out of actual women in sports, and the patently insane side of every other 80/20 issue imaginable.

    It is literally like watching Bugs Bunny convince Daffy Duck to shout “DUCK SEASON!” because Daffy is programmed to scream the opposite of whatever Bugs says. And then watching Daffy try to figure out, and fail to understand, why he keeps getting his beak blown off.

  2. Sorry Kate; I like the way that Adam Smith presented the case for free trade.
    Considering old Adam versus the Don, I’ll choose old Adam.

    1. According to Adam Smith … “Fair and Free Trade” means that; slave wages, elimination of workers Unions, elimination of environmental regulations, and Dictatorial government powers = “competition”. Compelling your workforce to WORK, or ELSE! is “Fair Trade” … of course that’s ridiculous… but when it’s a WIN for the Dictatorial “competitor” … and a WIN for globalist Corporations … who cares if it’s a LOSS for America? We are in the era of one-world, Kumbaya, globalism … right unman? Puhleeze!

      1. You’ve never read Adam Smith or anything above a picture book.

        There is no such thing as ‘slave wages’. You just suck at working.

        1. If there isn’t anything such as “slave” wages … then WHY pray tell has every BIG Corp. located their manufacturing where wages are … slavish?

      2. Check out Corelli Barnett, The Collapse of British Power, for phenomena Smith could not have foreseen.

  3. Free trade is wildly successful and has made Main Street wildly richer. The supercomputer camera in my pocket and decent car in my parking lot are possible because of free trade. The only people left out were losers who couldn’t learn how to code or do f(*king anything. Not surprising you’d disagree Kate, because like all conservatives you are a leftist.

    It is not surprising but nonetheless breathtaking that you’d jump into MAGA World’s Flammable Fluids Super Soaker Fight because Trump makes you feel good, all just in time to get burned to a crisp. Future President Newsom/Warren/AOC should thank you for your pluperfect ineptitude and self-destructiveness.

    https://youtu.be/Ao-GDQ488DY?t=63

      1. Come on, Buddy. Give him a break. He has his shiny “super computer camera”, and Foxconn is doing just fine now that they put the suicide netting up.

      2. I engage in free commerce, you force others to pay more so Otis can buy an extra 6-pack after work. Every one of your accusations is a confession.

          1. No because they are engaged in a war of aggression with Ukraine. This is a highly unusual circumstance putting trade with Russia in a one-of-a-kind context.

          2. That was a long long time ago and Tibet was ruled by a Buddhist Taliban beforehand whereas Ukraine is a somewhat free democracy.

        1. I don’t accuse, I state facts.
          “Free commerce” means 10-year-olds digging up cobalt, indentured Persians and Indians building your Arabic Towers of Babel and Chicoms stealing intellectual property.
          Seek help.

          1. No it just means one party engaged in exchange with another without regard to whiners like you. That’s it, that’s all it means.

        2. Why shouldn’t Otis be paid fairly so he can afford another 6 pack after work? Is the size of your bank account that important to you?

          1. My well-being is paramount to me, and is the focus of my life. To ask me let alone force me to suffer so some random ineducable peon can pretend to be worth something more than he is = evil and fundamentally unAmerican and totally unfair.

        3. Since Otis pays taxes assigned to his labor (and Adam Smith was not entirely exact on that concept) and is contributing to the economy when he buys his six pack, it stands to reason that Otis’ labor should be protected at least enough that he continues to have labor with which to pay said taxes and buy said six pack.

          Smith did believe that tariffs, while an evil in most regards, did have a place as a retaliatory measure in order to lead towards freer trade through negotiation when there were tariffs and other regulatory limits. It’s in his book.

  4. Ooops, there goes your perfect Free Commerce stance. Guess what, we don’t live in a vacuum. Some threats are more severe than others. But, those threats can’t be ignored.

    How about this? Should we have open and free commerce with Iran? South Africa? Sudan? The Congo? Or do we just overlook what’s going on there? Let’s hook Iran up with centrifuges? No problem, right?

      1. UnMe is a contrarian. There’s a medical term for it. It’s almost a given that he will take a contrary opinion regardless of how outlandish and farcical so as to come across as “special” and more “cerebral.” When someone puts him in a bind by bringing forth inconvenient facts, he’ll immediately go to his fundamental defense. Ad hominin attack or links to obviously compromised and partisan sources.

        Rinse Lather Repeat.

        There’s no use getting into a spitting contest with him. He doesn’t possess the humility to admit being wrong, or someone else being right for that matter. That tears down the status he tries so desperately hard to perfect. It’s a bitter existence. I, actually, pity him.

        1. No I’m just principled and understand principles function in a context. You wouldn’t understand.

          1. I’m afraid you’re talking total bollox.

            “That was a long long time ago and Tibet was ruled by a Buddhist Taliban beforehand whereas Ukraine is a somewhat free democracy.”

            Buddhist Taliban!??*?!

            Further comment would be superfluous.

  5. There is no free trade, just fair trade.
    An honest days pay for an honest days work.
    Quality goods at a fair price.
    The highest denominator for wages versus the lowest denominator for production costs doesn’t help society function.

    1. Free trade is a Utopian absolute. It doesn’t take sovereignty into account…and not just on the country level. In the US, each state has their own constitution and laws. For example, Insurance companies are dictated to by the state government and follow different regulations in each. Laws in South Carolina that are anti-Union attract industries for that very reason, while states like California are restrictive. It costs less to manufacture in SC.

      The only way Free Commerce could exist is if there were no boundaries, nations, rules, disagreements, prejudices. It’s Utopian nonsense that doesn’t take reality into account. That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t strive to enjoy its benefits, but not at the expense of your identity, values, beliefs.

      1. The problem is human greed.
        The workers/unions believing that every penny earned belongs to them.
        The investors/management believing that every penny earned belongs to them.
        Then the governments pick one side or the other, whichever keeps them in power.
        Then you lump in the powerful interest groups.
        All for the money, all of it, none to share equitably.

      2. “The only way Free Commerce could exist is if there were no boundaries, nations, rules, disagreements, prejudices. It’s Utopian nonsense that doesn’t take reality into account.”

        Nonsense. Just engage in unilateral free trade like Hong Kong does.

        “but not at the expense of your identity, values, beliefs.”

        If those things impede freedom, they are evil and should be destroyed.

    2. All free trade is fair trade.

      “The highest denominator for wages versus the lowest denominator for production costs doesn’t help society function.”

      Society is working just fine with lowest common denominator production costs, only ‘society’ it doesn’t work for is some obsolete deadmill hellholes in middle America. In any event, trade isn’t supposed to ‘work for society’ it’s supposed to benefit those engaged in trade.

      1. UnMe’s business motto:

        “Cheap crap at high prices”.

        Maximum profit at low wages, cheapest cost and quality of base products of production.

        1. My business motto is the concern of my customers and my investors. Again: camera phone supercomputers, good cars

          1. Your employees must love you.
            Oh, that’s right, you want non-citizen immigrants that you can abuse to work for you.

  6. Well, I am surprised at what I am reading here. It seems strange. Are all the “comment” threads here like this? It is much better to read “The Wealth of Nations” than to imagine what it says. Perhaps imagining is more fun?

    Count me a puzzled conservative.

    1. Imaginative cherry picking perhaps?
      Yes, I’ve read the book. I’ve also read Rousseau’s Discourse on Inequality and Mandeville’s Fable of the Bees, to which Smith was responding. Although to be honest I can only give a rough synopsis of both as it’s been a very long time since my required ethics class back at good old St. Mary’s. It’s good to have context.

  7. …so the countries that are negotiating tariff-free trading are wrong, and Canada and China are right.
    -got it.

          1. Well, that isn’t happening unfortunately. But someday maybe and we’ll have tens of millions of immigrants to replace the rust belt with too.

          2. 3+ trillion and counting, over 100 000 jobs more than projected last quarter.
            You lose, as usual.

      1. Rust belt large industries put out of business by low quality, cheap to buy, foreign imports. Where I work, the American made steel beams that the building is made from are as good as new, 60 years later. The cheap Asian piping we now use is rusted through in about 10 years. Same environment for both.

        1. Actually the cars we started importing from Asia in the ’80s were totally superior to America’s godawful pieces of crap. Even if the mythical ‘low quality imports’ were true (and I’ve never been provided a reason to believe so), a civilized society still respects my right to buy them.

    1. Population growth will do that. WW2 ended 70 years ago, population has grown greatly since then. Why governments love unfettered immigration. What exactly is America producing? I see American made brooms, strawberries, and muffin mix when I shop. Cheap stuff, consumables. At the large industry that I work at, I see very little of the large, durable goods being made in America.

      1. Well you could actually look into that if you want: https://www.cato.org/blog/united-states-remains-manufacturing-powerhouse

        Also, population growth didn’t do that, increased productivity did. Fewer workers needed. A lot fewer. What part of ‘your efforts are no longer needed’ does the rust belt not understand?

        “Why governments love unfettered immigration. ”

        The only government that loves anything close to unfettered immigration is the UAE and they are wildly prosperous for it.

        1. Your efforts are no longer needed because we now buy cheap, imported, throw away crap. My imported Sony TV didn’t last 5 years. People threw away American made Zenith TVs because they got tired of looking at them, not because they stop working, and if they did stop working, they could actually be fixed.

          1. For many things, the “cheap imports” are much more repairable than domestic items.
            I’m old enough to remember when you could get schematics for most consumer electronics and appliances.

    2. And thus it’s possible to make it higher. This would greatly benefit our society for a multitude of reasons. So, the question is: why not at least try?

  8. …and just like that, Canadians are happy that they can’t buy a new Toyota Hilux for $15K.

    1. Government regulation, emissions and safety, are why we don’t get vehicles available elsewhere.

      1. Because North America is now populated by a bunch of limp-wristed panty-waisted yellow-bellied pussywillow buttercup safety Karens.

  9. “ There are many laws of economics….it is a fascinating study the implications of supply and demand….regulation or deregulation impacts on price and markets…impact of tax on productivity…impact of subsidies….impact of incentives and on and on….basically the impact of any initiative is driven by economic theory. We continually debate the extremes of  evil capitalism through the continuum to the evils of destructive socialism. Somewhere there is a balance where prosperity and quality of life can coexist. I heard a presentation once that said that people are either A or B. The A’s have “the” plan….solution….agenda on how to live. They tend to want their system….their idealogy…their beliefs to govern the affairs of all.  Then there are the B’s. They tend to want to be free of others engineering their lives. Typically leave me alone and I will rely on my own individual talents to build my own movie. This is an over simplification but it is the root system of the mix of political science and economics that flower above. I am a B but I get why  the A’s exist and love to get in power and govern while the B’s try not to be governed.”

    1. Canada is a country of A’s who want to be governed, scared to share the road with vehicles that are not constantly regulated and inspected by Big Brother.

  10. “Free trade shipped jobs overseas and enriched Wall Street at the expense of Main Street”

    1. A “job” is a cost, not a benefit. What you want is an “income”, and one from a higher paying job than the low wage one that got shipped overseas.

    2. Free trade actually benefits consumers. Tariffs, etc benefit rich producers and make consumers (that’s us) poorer.

    There’s a longish article on Mises Institute that explains this stuff if you can work through and follow it. See https://mises.org/mises-wire/demystifying-tariffs. You also need to look up and understand how comparative advantage works as this is counter-intuitive. Whatever the other benefits of Tariffs (or other trade restrictions) or the threat of them might be, making ordinary folks better off isn’t one of them.

    The Meises article ends with a Milton Friedman quote:

    “You know you could have a great employment in the city of Logan, Utah, of people growing bananas in hot houses. If we had a high enough tariff on the import of bananas, it could become profitable to build hot houses and grow bananas in hot houses. That would give employment. Would that be a sensible thing to do? If that isn’t sensible then neither is it sensible to artificially restrict the import of steel.”

    1. Apples to oranges

      If you already have a source of steel what would be the purpose of importing it from a communist regime that doesn’t follow the rules?

      1. “If you already have a source of steel what would be the purpose of importing it from a communist regime that doesn’t follow the rules?”

        Maybe to save yourself a lot of money? If the Commies are daft enough to not follow the rules (making a profit, paying high taxes, protecting union labor jobs, following all the EPA rules and getting all the permits that your government requires) and maybe even more daft to ship you stuff at a loss – then grab all you can. Your cars (and anything else that uses steel) will be cheaper to make. You’ll be better off and the Commies will be paying for it 🙂

        PS: you’ll be better off even if you loose those “already have a source of steel” jobs. Don’t trust me, look up comparative advantage, free trade theory, etc. – this is well known stuff, just not by most politicians.

        1. And what if the steel you import from them is no good? What if you are funding a regime that will take those funds and use them to destroy your country (through multiple avenues)? That those savings in cost come with some pretty hefty strings attached?
          Perhaps in the end it wasn’t such a good deal in the long run, no matter how much money you can count in the short.

          Money, in the end, isn’t everything.

          1. Oh dear… To ‘splain to unknown jane:

            The Commies are making themselves poorer selling at a loss and you are getting richer buying the steel they are selling so cheap. And steel is steel, to whatever – verifiable – specification you chose to buy to. It won’t be you thinking you’re buying metal and getting no-good cardboard – you’ll get the proper stuff.

            And, yes, maybe those darn Commies are trying to destroy your country. Maybe they are – bad on them. But they ain’t going to succeed in that by making themselves poorer and you richer. They’ll need another cunning oriental scheme for that . But you’ll need to be not ignorant to catch ’em out…

          2. gareth

            True communists as China don’t care about the money. China will never go broke as a country, selling their cheap crap at a loss. Their steel is not our steel as seen in the real world of the workplace where the American steel is still good after 60 years and the imported steel has rotted out in about 10 years, in the same environment. They obviously don’t care about verifiable standards, and unfortunately, neither do many of the importers, and end users here, just cost.

    2. Conservatives are a fatally compromised lot. Uncritical worship of the loose cannon populist’s mercantilism exposes them as just as illiberal as the LPC/NDP/Greens. UnMe, while lacking in diplomatic skills but true to free market principles, brings it out in them.

  11. Boils down to a choice really. Paying 80,000CAD for a pickup truck or 240,000CAD for that same truck.

Navigation