Why can't conservatives at least be Buchanites?

[RadioRaheem84]

Now I DO NOT advocate the ugly views of Pat Buchanan but he is at least right on the free trade issue. He is protectionist in favor of a nationalist economy. One based on the re-industrialization of the country and high tariffs. Why can't right wingers at least be of this strain of conservatism, instead of advocating absurd things like free trade and globalization being in the interests of the workers?

I noticed that as soon as Buchanan came out as a protectionist the media shunned him and focused entirely on his rather racially insensitive remarks. Same thing with Ross Perot, the little big eared fool who ran for President. Both were wealthy people, but had sense enough to know that if you keep de-industrializaing the nation and have the worker supplant his income with debt finance, your nation is going down the drain!

Why they hell aren't conservatives advocating this strain? There is at least some middle ground that we can work with here instead of banging our heads against the wall when trying to explain to them how free trade is not in their best interest.

[Demogorgon]

There's nothing progressive about calling for a country to close in on itself and refuse to trade. The problem with Globalisation is that it is used as a front for exploitation of poorer countries and a means to force workers everywhere to engage in a race to the bottom. Not that we have access to products from around the world.

[heiss93]

Brian Moore of the SPUSA endorsed him in 2000. Saying he had progressive ideas for the common man.

The populist proto-fascist right is far more dangerous than the neocons and neolibs. It is precisely the "good" things about them, that make them so dangerous.

[chegitz guevara]

Brian Moore was not in the SPUSA in 2000. His views have changed since then. Try not to be deliberately misleading.

[heiss93]

Brian Moore was not in the SPUSA in 2000. His views have changed since then. Try not to be deliberately misleading.

The quote comes from 2008.

http://www.indyweek.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A266409

"I did because he was for fair trade over free trade. He had some progressive positions that I thought would be helpful to the common man. It's bitten me now. People have been critical of me for being in the Reform Party."

[turquino]

The bourgeois economists base their justification for trade on the flawed theory of comparative advantage. It says that by specializing in what they do best, two countries that enter into trade will both see material gains, even if they are unequal. David Ricardo illustrated this concept with a 2 country example of Portugal and England that only produced two types of commodities (wine & wool) with a single factor (labour) in a year. Portugal has an absolute advantage in wine and wool because it can produce its years worth of both with less labour than England. England however has a comparative advantage in wool because that's what it is least bad at compared to Portugal. When the countries start to trade and specialize, the labour spent in each country's less efficient industry is directed toward the more efficient, and both see gains.(I roughly adopted this example from Emmanuel's Unequal Exchange Revisited)

before trade:
Wine Wool total
Portugal 80 90 =170
England 120 100 =220 total: 390

after trade:
Wine Wool total
Portugal 80 + 8/9(90) 0 =160
England 0 100 +5/6(120) =200 total: 360

360 < 390; 30 hours of labour are saved with trade

However, there is a problem: if there is more than one factor, say unskilled labour(a) and skilled labour(b), then differences in productivity of the factors themselves can lead to more inefficient outcomes than without any trade or specialization.

example:
Instead of having one factor of production we introduce 2 factors, a and b. The multipliers of a and b are 1 and 5 respectively.

2+ factor without trade:
Wine Wool total total factor
Portugal 60(1) + 4(5) 30(1) + 12(5) =170 90a, 16b
England 90(1) + 6(5) 33 ⅓(1) + 13 ⅓(5) =220 123 ⅓a, 19 ⅓b

2+ factor with trade:
Wine Wool total total factor
Portugal 120(1) + 8(5) 0=160 120a, 8b
England 0 66 ⅔(1) + 26 ⅔(5) =200 66 ⅔a, 26 ⅔b

360 < 390; 30 hours of labour are saved with trade

The outcome was identical as before, but let's now decrease the multiplier of b in Portugal from 5 to 3 (reflecting the increased efficiency of skilled labour in that country)

2+ factor without trade
Wine Wool total total factor
Portugal 60(1) + 4(3) 30(1) + 12(3) =138 90a, 16b
England 90(1) + 6(5) 33 ⅓(1) + 13 ⅓(5) =220 123 ⅓a, 19 ⅓b

2+ factor with trade
Wine Wool total total factor
Portugal 0 60(1) + 23(3) =129 60a, 23b
England 180(1) + 12(5) 0 =240 180a, 12b

369>358; 11 hours of labour are wasted with trade

What has happened is that modifying the efficiency of skilled labour in Portugal has switched the country's comparative advantage to the skilled labour-intensive commodity, wool, while Engand is now produces wine. The result of specialization is a total rise in the number of hours required to produce both.

Contrary to the claims of its proponents, the market outcomes of free trade do not always guarantee the greatest overall gains. The neoclassicals are aware of this problem and counter it by simply asserting that the market outcomes are the ideal ones.

edit: looks like my formatting couldn't display, sorry

[RadioRaheem84]

excellent point turquino. Saved and filed. Thank you. Will use the next time my pro-ricardian friends line up to spar.


There's nothing progressive about calling for a country to close in on itself and refuse to trade. The problem with Globalisation is that it is used as a front for exploitation of poorer countries and a means to force workers everywhere to engage in a race to the bottom. Not that we have access to products from around the world.

Care to elaborate? I thought that the protection of infant industries was a good thing and its whats helped western nations develop so fast.

[Philosophical Materialist]

Palaeconservatism is an ugly ideology in its own right. Palaecons traditionally emphasised the interests of industrial capitalists (hence protectionism), over finance capitalists (who were backed by the New Right).

[Demogorgon]

Care to elaborate? I thought that the protection of infant industries was a good thing and its whats helped western nations develop so fast.
It is, but I don't see how that relates to what I wrote. I criticised calls for a move towards autarky, saying that the problem leftists had to deal with was exploitation, not general free trade. There are reasons to restrict trade to prevent exploitation BUT these are not excuses for autarky.

That is an ultra reactionary demand, seeking a return to the eighteenth century, not a progressive one.

[chegitz guevara]

The quote comes from 2008.

http://www.indyweek.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A266409

"I did because he was for fair trade over free trade. He had some progressive positions that I thought would be helpful to the common man. It's bitten me now. People have been critical of me for being in the Reform Party."

It was still eight years before he joined the SPUSA. I imagine if we looked at some of your past views, it wouldn't be all that pretty either.

[Jethro Tull]

Now I DO NOT advocate the ugly views of Pat Buchanan but he is at least right on the free trade issue. He is protectionist in favor of a nationalist economy. One based on the re-industrialization of the country and high tariffs. Why can't right wingers at least be of this strain of conservatism, instead of advocating absurd things like free trade and globalization being in the interests of the workers?

I noticed that as soon as Buchanan came out as a protectionist the media shunned him and focused entirely on his rather racially insensitive remarks. Same thing with Ross Perot, the little big eared fool who ran for President. Both were wealthy people, but had sense enough to know that if you keep de-industrializaing the nation and have the worker supplant his income with debt finance, your nation is going down the drain!

Why they hell aren't conservatives advocating this strain? There is at least some middle ground that we can work with here instead of banging our heads against the wall when trying to explain to them how free trade is not in their best interest.

in other words, why can't neo-liberals see the light and embrace fascism?

what's the point? they're both dangerous ideologies...

[RadioRaheem84]

in other words, why can't neo-liberals see the light and embrace fascism?

what's the point? they're both dangerous ideologies...

Neo-liberals are not fascists. The fascists were anti-globalists. Unless you mean lower case 'f' fascism like fascistic, I can agree.

Buchanan realizes the folly of free trade, thats all I was getting at.

[Tatarin]

Does it matter what they think? Maybe he's showing off one side so that the right-wing media doesn't loose arguments? Maybe he really believes what he believes? The point being that workers loose in any case. As Buchanan is wealthy he doesn't have much to fear. He can just as well be a nazi if he wanted to. Oh, he is already.

Conservatives are loosing ground every day it seems. What was conservative 100 years ago is extreme today, and in 2109 conservatives will argue that humans need not be enchanted by robotics or something like that. Neoliberalism is dangerous because it can shape itself into any existence with one stable ground: the protection of private property. Everything else - air, water, food and even humans - are just products to be bought and sold.

[chegitz guevara]

Perhaps you should read what Marx had to say about Free Trade. (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/free-trade/index.htm)

[Die Neue Zeit]

I know, but Marx there was referring to the free flow of consumer goods and services, as well as labour (immigration and emigration of workers). I don't think he was writing about capital, let alone finance capital (and capital flights).

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

On the side, protectionist policies are pretty dumb and anachronistic I doubt they'd make a comeback. Sure, it may sound popular in some areas to spout off about jobs going to China and getting out of Nafta, but this is almost always coupled with talk of the damn immigrants who come here and take all our jobs away. They don't just want to end free trade, they often want to build something resembling the Berlin wall on our southern border. It's a gimmick more than anything, like universal healthcare is for the left. Sure, Buchanon may be a true believer, but he'd never get into office with those kinds of views.

It's a simplistic way of blaming others for our economic misfortune and deftly ignores the real culprits. Because, you know, Reagan is a deity on the right.

[turquino]

On the side, protectionist policies are pretty dumb and anachronistic I doubt they'd make a comeback. Sure, it may sound popular in some areas to spout off about jobs going to China and getting out of Nafta, but this is almost always coupled with talk of the damn immigrants who come here and take all our jobs away. They don't just want to end free trade, they often want to build something resembling the Berlin wall on our southern border. It's a gimmick more than anything, like universal healthcare is for the left. Sure, Buchanon may be a true believer, but he'd never get into office with those kinds of views.

It's a simplistic way of blaming others for our economic misfortune and deftly ignores the real culprits. Because, you know, Reagan is a deity on the right.
And yet both are completely rational responses from American workers.