Why do cuckservatives love this man so much? His statements and ideology are all over the place

Why do cuckservatives love this man so much? His statements and ideology are all over the place.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=dTrzVWBW98E
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

>still unironically saying cuckservatives
>dissing Sowell

...

Kill urself faggot, Thomas Sowell is based.

Because he's a black man who echoes the views of cuckservatives and so they pedal and propagate him as they think it legitimizes their views. "Look! A black man agrees with me, I can't be racist!"

It's a form of cuckoldry in that they cling to and revere this one black man for simply echoing what thousands of white men have said before him simply because he doesn't act like a chimp.

A lot of what you said is true with regards to his opinions. By and large, he talks utter shit.

This guy is not going to reply to this thread.

Also, that Sowell quote is spot-on. Hadn't seen that one before.

1. Because he was a liberal Marxist who got redpilled hard as fuck when he was working on his PhD and is now anti-leftist
2. Because he's right almost 100% of the time.

>His statements and ideology are all over the place.
Demonstrate then, since "they're all over the place". Should be easy if that's actually the case.

He says we should do what works and yet has come out against Trump's trade policies.

Protectionism doesn't work for most people objectively.
youtube.com/watch?v=dTrzVWBW98E

Trump is 100% backwards on trade.

But protectionism is what made America great. Like I said his ideology is all over the place, likely because ever since he left academia he has only been able to find work as a professional globalist shill.

No it isn't. Not at all. It's objectively bad - economies experience deadweight losses due to protectionist trade policies.
If you want to understand why, that video isn't very hard to follow at all.

Probably because they don't, tariffs are literally socialism. Just more Government micromanaging the economy and punishing and rewarding businesses that they choose.

You have absolutely no historical evidence to back any of that up (in b4 that one debunked Friedman paper blaming the depression on tarrifs.)

Because his trade policies ARE retarded.

Most people just see Trump as a means to an end, and rightfully so. He's a big fuck you to the establishment, but it doesn't mean he's actually right on alot of shit.

No. The economy is not a business. A trade deficit does not mean that a country, on aggregate, is losing anything. In fact, a trade deficit isn't even a deficit in any meaningful sense of the word.

It's a simple fact that when you introduce restrictions in trade most people hurt. It's economically just the case. You can literally have it explained to you right there.

He's not a cuckservative. that's more a recent trend

Because Trump's trade policies are pants on head retarded and wouldn't even make it out of a 100% Republican Congress. Literally every economics think tank in the world has repeatedly shown that high tariff trading results in a sharp decrease in imports and economic ruin, as the price increases outpace wage & GDP growth.

BASED SOWELL
A
S
E
D

S
O
W
E
L
L

Been wondering this.

How do we get off globalists dick and become more isolationist if protectionism doesn't work?

Post Sowell quotes

You can't. That's how globalism works. It's why Marx was such a staunch supporter of free market capitalism.

His stance on immigration is ok.

However, he's all wrong on trade. Tariffs must brought back, and the United States should negotiate better trade deals.

Is that just short term pain for long term not being a part of globalist agenda?

I know Hiliary's camp had that one study thrown around a lot, muddys or whatever?

Well, just follow the founding fathers idea of what to do.

> "Commerce with all, alliances with none"

That'll get us off the path pretty quick.

>commie turned (((neocon)))
>(((Chicago school of economics)))

babbies first economist +1 because he's a wise old house nigger

Marx and free market capitalism.

Wut

Accept that wealthy people (globalists included) will simply leave the country if it goes isolationist and protectionist.

idiot
Tariffs is what he's proposing

There's nothing inherently globalist about being able to buy and sell goods around the world. It allows consumers to have a huge market place of choices in the market. There are probably a lot of definitions of globalism, but the brand of globalism that I want to fuck off is EU style, open borders globalism.

You can trade with people and simultaneously not let them live in your garage. It's pretty straightforward.

Then how do you explain the direct correlation between China's positive balance of trade and their economic miracle over the past 30 years? Your statement is completely disconnected from any reality.

Gotcha. Sounds good.

but how do you make that happen without wage arbitration?

What do you mean? You don't need wage arbitration for any of that.

Hong Kong and Singapore have virtually no trade restrictions and those countries are near the top in terms of GDP/capita.

I agree with you. He can be used for that sort of virtue feather-strutting.

But the guy is really a smart guy.

>Tax-havens/financial centers with small populations have high GDP/capitas

Holy shit who would have guessed it?

Sending out more than you take in is not the objective of trade. The objective of trade is getting what you want for as little as possible.

>implying that city-states like Hong Kong and Singapore are not outliers that can be rejected out of hand

Not everything in the world boils down to a binary choice. There are many different reasons to engage in trade, and many different ways to do so.

Mercantilism is a type of trade where the objective is most certainly to send out more than you take in, and it is a profitable model. Whether or not you want to implement it or not is a valid question, but sweeping the diversity of economic styles under the rug under the guise of pretending there is only one type of trade is disingenuous.

You do realize based Sowell writes largely from a libertarian based view point right?

No, it's literally killing imports while also reducing the number of exports, since nobody will want to deal with you as a result. Everything will have to be manufactured domestically, which drives up prices and increasing scarcity.

Humanity has simply gotten too big to NOT rely on globalist trade networks.

Alright, so how often do you think people engage in trade with the objective of getting less value in doing so than they're forfeiting as a cost to acquire that value?

So how does Japan get away with its tarrifs on rice?

>(((Chicago school of economics)))
You do realize U Chicago is very conservative and the Chicago school of economics is anti-thesis to the Princeton, Keynesian, Harvard, and Berkeley schools, right?

There's a reason why a trade "deficit" is such an insidious term, because there is always a flip side. If you have a current account deficit of $-X, then by definition you have a capital account surplus of $X. What this means is that a country with a trade deficit is simultaneously experiencing an inflow of capital investment, and it is capital investment, in part, that fuels increases in productivity.

That's just one tariff on a product they grow plenty of on their own. No such tariffs on corn, wheat, barley, malt, etc.

Neo-cons are known for being pretty conservative. Just not on the important issues (i.e. trade, immigration, and perpetual war.)

Yes goy I understand that. It's still kike tier economics.

All the time - namely when actors are doing transactions on behalf of others that should be made at arms length, but where those actors have been corrupted by third parties who stand to benefit from a bad deal.

taxes are a form of protectionism on its own goddamn people

Google it. Basically wage arbitration is lowering everyone's wages since you compete globally now

Remain voter detected

And what wouldn't be considered kike tier, in your eyes? Chicago school is still the most mathematical and rational.

"All the time" - got it. And what would you say is the quantitative regularity of those trade relations compared to ones in which people try to gain more value in a trade than they forfeit as a cost of acquiring that value?

Economics is a social science. It's like adding math to sociology and trying to pass it off as fact. In the end it's still just ideology pretending to be a science.

Did you think that was a bullet to bite? I'm against that too senpai.

Yet the high tariff and non-tariff barrier to trade that China maintains on goods imported to their nation (equivalent to 37% of purchase price) has only served to benefit them and vault their economy to the status of #1 largest in the world. Economics isn't science - it's just a bunch of shilling for whoever's payroll you are on, and these think tanks are owned by multi-national corporations filled with people whose dream is post-state, a condition which is ultimately detrimental to the people of the united states.

Tariffs in a nutshell: A regressive tax on your own citizens.

I don't see how that would relate to the question I responded to - the commenter above merely implied an efficient markets argument, and I rebutted with an instance where markets are not efficient.

Corporatism

Just because economics is too difficult for you to understand does not make it a jew plot. I don't understand chemistry, that doesn't make chemistry a communist plot.

As a replacement for the federal income tax, a tariff is a much more humane tax, because unlike a federal income tax, a tariff can be creatively avoided without an individual having to cheat on his taxes, go black-market, or work less.

>Just because economics is too difficult for you to understand does not make it a jew plot.
>a jew plot
Your words, not mine.

That's a pretty sly way to dismiss the point without actually disproving it. Science starts with empirical data and then derives conclusions from those observations. Contemporary economics seems to "work" the other way around.

Markets are not necessarily efficient. But protectionism *is* necessarily inefficient (or else completely neutral, such as imposing restrictions on trade that isn't happening) as a whole.

>In the end it's still just ideology pretending to be a science.

ROFL no.

For example, hyperinflation is a thing and its causes are understood. It's not some ephemeral concept totally detached from reality like your mom's chastity.

Economics requires coming up with a hypothesis, gathering data, and testing your hypothesis against the evidence. That's the way it has worked for well over 150 years

I thought we'd been over that already - mercantilism is a very profitable economic model that relies upon protectionism, and it is in no way inefficient, as is evidenced by its most recent adopter, China, whose economy has surpassed that of every other nation while under its yoke.

So does every other social science.

Something can be profitable and simultaneously inefficient. Nobody is saying otherwise.
>and it is in no way inefficient
it most certainly is, given the Chinese cannot buy with their currency nearly as much, and the goods they sell are cheaper for other people (meaning they can't sell them for as much). That's a *bad* thing for the average Chinese.

This. Let's examine how the Chinese are """"""killing"""""" us on trade. Chinese citizens have their wages taxed and given to Chinese companies in order to produce goods which are at a loss to Americans.

China is literally spending billions of it's citizens earnings to provide foreign aid to US consumers.

And as a result they are one of the only places with a growing middle class.

What you call inefficiency in this instance is really a time preference for long term stability of their national economy versus increased short term purchasing power against retail goods. It's a trade off, for sure, but national stability is not a given, and sometimes sacrifices have to be made.

Whatever you think about it, you have to admit that pic related is not a posture that can be maintained indefinitely. What goes up, must come down.

The average Chinese would benefit more from being able to buy more with their currency than from having the value of their products be cheapened artificially. They literally have the value of their goods and services swept out from under them.

Would you care to post a graph of foreign capital investment in those same countries?

Never mind, I'll do it for you. Looks exactly like this

They could have stable trade for the long term without raping their currency - they're competitive without the devaluation, and their domestic market and imports would fare much better without the currency manipulation.
There's really little benefit to subsidizing other people to buy your goods. It's like giving people free value.

My understanding of the balance of trade is that it forms part of the current account, which includes other transactions such as income from the net international investment position as well as international aid. Foreign capital investment is therefore included in that negative figure for the U.S., which indicates net capital/investment outflow.

Trade deficits aren't necessarily a bad thing. Debt is a bad thing to the debtor. When we buy more from other countries than we sell them, it means we're bringing in more goods and services for our population than we're paying out to get those goods and services.
What is money good for? Buying goods and services from others, which is what people value.
Our domestic market is absurdly strong anyway - we produce more value domestically per capita than we trade out in deficits. Trade deficits aren't something to balk at prima facie at all. National debt is, but that's a function of government action and not free trade.

>Trade deficits aren't something to balk at prima facie at all. National debt is, but that's a function of government action and not free trade.
You kidding me? Where do you think the national debt comes from, anyway? I'll tell you where a significant portion of it originates - entire classes and regions of people, who used to have jobs and live productive lives, are now on the dole because a significant chunk of our manufactured production has been shipped offshore. So whereas, domestic corporations, manufacturing the goods that people bought here, used to take care of these people, now the federal government does. Yes, the function of government and free trade are inextricably intertwined. This is an instance of socializing the costs (an unemployed populace that needs federal monies now to stay afloat) and privatizing the gains (multi-national corporations domiciled in tax havens keeping the money they make selling Asian manufactured goods in America and not paying a cent of tax on it).

Why not do what Israel does and hold the world hostage with nuclear arms to get better trade deals and reparations for stuff that happened to other people and not us directly?

National debt is debt owed by the federal government senpai - most of which is to U.S. citizens, but an increasing amount which is not. It has nothing to do with private debt.

not an argument
good night

>the function of government and free trade are inextricably intertwined
That's an objectively false statement, given governments need not have anything to do with voluntary trade between people at all.

>not an argument
>Where do you think the national debt comes from, anyway?
Bye~

No. In the abstract, if I buy a Honda from a Japanese producer, I pay him in USD. There are only two things that Japanese producer can do with USD, buy US goods or invest it in the US (he can also trade USD for yen to someone in China who wants USD for the same purpose, but the illustration is the same).

He uses those USD to buy American goods. If he spends all of it on American goods, then the trade deficit is zero. If he doesn't spend all of it on American goods, the remaining amount is invested.

So if I buy Japanese goods for $100, and a Japanese guy spends $40 of that on American goods, then The US trade deficit, in aggregate is -$60. The remaining amount is invested, so that Japanese producer uses $100 to buy $40 worth of US goods and invests $60 in the US, so the capital account surplus is +$60.

Trade ALWAYS balances

And although that is not necessarily a good thing, it does allow Americans to pay less in taxes than they otherwise would

You shouldn't accept taxes as a given I'd say. That's a very miserable way to think.

Sometimes his ideology and ideas aren't completely consistent but he has a genuinely interesting point of view. His book A Conflict Of Visions is pretty unique. Sowell has a real talent for making these things accessible without watering them down too much

because his trade policies are bad

The status quo is worse.

I like Sowell because he knows what he says, his economics books are a good read.
Other than that, yeah he's a nigger. And libertarian so he's okay with the moral degradation of a people for the sake of profit, like unlimited freedoms for Marxists, open borders, legalization of hard drugs, etc.

>This is an instance of socializing the costs (an unemployed populace that needs federal monies now to stay afloat) and privatizing the gains (multi-national corporations domiciled in tax havens keeping the money they make selling Asian manufactured goods in America and not paying a cent of tax on it).

>Hurr durr protectionism is good
>Competition and low prices are bad long-term prospects for the country! TRUMP SAID SO!
kys

I may be pro-trump, but his policies on trade are awful. Also, calling economics bullshit because it doesn't fit your world view doesn't make it any less valid and applicable.

A non-commie leaf. You're rare.

Not really. 3/10 people voted conservative last election, and a large portion of Canadian voters are unaffiliated moderates that will vote for either liberal or conservative canidates depending on circumstance. All Canadians being collectivists is just a meme.

When did OP promote protectionism?
Isn't protectionism just taxing imports? Why would I ship goods to you if I have to pay you as well? Sounds like a lose-win situation, and not for us.