Margaret Hoover interviews Alexandria Cortez, askes asinine question about capitalism


Nonsense. You don’t have a natural “RIGHT” to trade with a Thai heroin grower and you don’t have such a “RIGHT” to trade with a Columbian cocaine grower.


Or an American to an American, who happens to grow cocaine.

Again, you’re talking about the what, not the who. It’s still wrong even if you kept all of it in-house.
The grower being Colombian or Thai is immaterial.


Yet you continue to insist that our trade with other countries should be “free” with no government interference; no tariffs, no restrictions whatsoever.


The two have nothing to do with one another.

Notice, you said "natural right’ Dave, but I didn’t. I’m not approaching the issue of rights.

Rather, I’m stating a fact even you can observe

Productivity grows, when trade is free. The reverse happens when you interfere.


Another example of his concept of “free Trade” would allow America’s domestic companies manufacturing nuclear weapons, to trade with IRAN.



Again, that’s what not who. Building & selling nuclear weapons to a domestic corporation or a militia would be just as problematic.

And again, you’re not denying my point.

Free trade = more productivity. So calling tariffs about “welfare” is outright false.


What has “welfare” have to do with tariffs??? Moving the goalposts again, AS?


Dave, you didn’t follow the conversation.


Wrong. You are changing the goal posts. There is a big difference between “welfare” and “the general welfare of the United States.”



You have no point. You have absurd conclusions based upon half truths and speculations.



You are equating selling nuclear weapons to Iran to purchasing steel from China? I don’t think you guys hear yourselves.


BS, I’m not talking about social benefits, I meant precisely what you did by it.

Your argument does not hold to scrutiny. The Welfare of the United States, and its people, improve, with free markets.

Just like with everyone else.

Arguing tariffs improve anything economic, is dead on delivery. It’s an empty claim, made by people who don’t bother looking at economic indicators.

Because they didn’t have a true interest in economics to begin with.


It is indeed who; I believe we sold the nuke warheads in the Trident missiles in Great Britain’s Trident subs (along with the subs and missiles themselves). Even if Great Britain did build the nukes locally, I for one wouldn’t have had a problem if we had sold them to them. “Them” is who, not what.

Not that I’m in favor of tariffs (I would prefer to simply embargo any nation that doesn’t want to trade fairly), you’re just citing a matter of degree (in the importance/potential detriment of trading in certain goods). It’s not that cut and dried as to what goods and services matter in what way. We shipped scrap metal to the Japanese in the '30s (and American missionaries in Japan warned us not to), and it came back to haunt us. That may be an extreme example, but it demonstrates the principle.


Okay fine, products of the state, can be controlled by the state, as to who they sell it to. Just like any other of the state’s assets, or any other highly specialized weapon system.

True markets goods, may not. The government has no idea how to manage those things. Accrued experience from steel, to ships, to fruit, ranging from the 1850s till now, shows they keep getting this wrong, even when it is in the name of “national security”.

Equally, this doesn’t change my second point. When free trade is allowed with a certain good, productivity of and with that good greatly expands.

It doesn’t matter what the good is in order to demonstrate that. Again, If you allowed free trade of cocaine, productivity of cocaine would increase. Again, no one would deny this would happen, it’s self-evident. Plug in any other good, steel, toys, PCB chips, the result is the same; productivity grows.

Virtually all nations cheat on some level, if we enforced this, we would trade with barely anybody.

Better to get some of the advantages of trade, than none at all. Measuring the economic consequences bears that argument out.

Equally, there’s the Free-country effect to consider, and that trade overtime gives us more leverage going forward.

And this doesn’t actually lead back to what we’re talking about.

Preventing us from selling goods, doesn’t have the same consequences as us buying them from the nation in question. Indeed, we’re punishing China right now for preventing us from selling goods into their country.

It’d be like Japan turning that scrap away. There’s no advantage to doing this, it’s just foolishness made necessary by socialist planning.