Free Trade Liars

Um, that’s actually not what happened. One poster after another came into that thread repeatedly resorting to strawmen and pretending I said something I didn’t. I disagreed with plenty of non-liars in that thread who are not pitted here. You’re an idiot.

If you aren’t a liar, why did you have to repeatedly resort to strawmen? Oh, because you actually know jack about the topic.

I know enough to make you abandon discourse and start throwing a fit like a bitch.


"Ok, fine, that’s the theory. But we have to live in the real world. Say a country is producing goods using slave labor. And this is happening right now in the real world. Well, of course they can produce their goods cheaper than us. But why should I want to trade with them freely when they are doing that? If someone wants to convince me that a particular free-trade agreement is good, then I will want to hear their explanation on how to deal with the slave labor issue. Pointing at the Econ 101 model is beside the point. I know what the model says. That’s not my concern.

**And this applies to a whole range of issues, whether its labor rights, environmental issues, **national security issues, income inequality issues, intellectual property issues–this list goes on and on. It’s not racist or xenophobic or economically naive to be worried about these issues."

You clearly tried to apply your slavery-based anti-trade argument to issues that did not involve violence. That is why I repeatedly had to point out that “some people” (like you) had to distinguish between action you don’t like and actual slavery.

Hey, you fucking liar. What I’m pointing out there is the limits of a comparative advantage argument. Then, later, I made an argument about slavery and trade using a libertarian framework after you said you were a libertarian (which you aren’t). But because you are a lying idiot you tried to go back and mix up different arguments I had made.

Here’s my position in that thread you lying dumbfuck:

  1. Comparative advantage arguments do not address concerns about slavery, the environment, labor rights or national security.

  2. Trade sanctions against slavery are compatible with a libertarian economic framework.

  3. US trade power can be used to do something about slavery.

Oh, and

  1. You’re a lying dumbfuck.

Oh, and I would never make an argument that trade issues re: intellectual property are compatible with a libertarian economic framework, because I’ve never seen a convincing argument that intellectual property rights generally are compatible with a libertarian framework. What I’m pointing out is that there are areas where you can apply trade sanctions (such as slavery) and still be compatible with a libertarian framework. And if you weren’t such a lying dumbshit, we could have seen if sanctions in other areas were compatible with a libertarian economic model (some of them, in my view, wouldn’t be), but we couldn’t get to that because you are a liar.

Bright’n’Shiny, I liked your posts in the other thread except for the getting so upset. I hope you can confine most of your anger to the Pit so we don’t lose you around here.

Thanks. I only got irritated because of all the strawmen repeatedly being thrown at me. That thread was like this:

Me (paraphrasing): Countries successfully used protectionism as a development tool in the past, but I don’t think it would work well as a development tool nowadays.

Some Lying Jackhole (paraphrasing): Ha! You think protectionism would work as a development tool nowadays. You’re dumb!

No I get it but you got yourself suspended and put yourself on thin ice again so I hope you can keep yourself on the right side of the line.

How much does love want for you?

Keep posting this, and sooner or later, it’s bound to be funny.


You’re an asshole.

You think so? Honestly I have my doubts, but it looks like we’ll find out …

Hey, that was almost funny. One more time should do it.

  1. no shit. I never claimed that to be true. My position would be that further impoverishing both countries by restricting trade under the guise of addressing those “concerns” is less desirable than not restricting trade for any “concern” of yours.

  2. I would need you to not be so hopelessly vague when making this statement before I agreed to it. Anyway I have not argued against this point. I have argued that some people tend to conflate actual initiation of violence with something like “labor laws” or “income inequality”. Therefore I feel the need to nip that instinct in the bud. I will continue to do so, whether or not you like it.

  3. it could be. You could also brush your teeth with bleach. A) Whatever method you choose to fight your “concerns” about evil foreigners, will further impoverish them. B) to believe this is how and why protectionist policies are adopted by governments is the height of naïveté.

When did I lie? Specific quote please.

THAT does not smell like shit, why do you call him an asshole? It’s vomit, and that makes him a tofu-puker.

Uh, no, you lying idiot. When I explain a particular economics argument and state that that particular argument doesn’t apply to other areas, that’s not a statement that I agree with each of those other areas. That’s a lie you made up. You are pig-ignorant motherfucker who doesn’t understand basic economic concepts, and when people try to explain them to you, you lie.

I specifically said exactly what I was talking about in that post, so as to try to avoid confusion. And instead of asking about the actual argument I was laying out, you lied. Because you’re a liar.

None of which actually responds to anything I said in that thread or this one, you liar.

Your last post in this thread. Every post of yours in this thread.

So, lemme get this straight. You’re sayin’ he’s a liar?

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Seriously; go look up ‘liar’ in the dictionary. You can poke all sorts of holes in their arguments, you can call them all sorts of heartless names and get your Pit on for what you clearly consider abhorrent positions, but continually calling them liars obscures any credibility you might have in a cloud of spittle.

Someone pinning arguments on an opponent that they didn’t make is lying.

Of course, I wouldn’t expect you to understand that, since you made up a bunch of crap about that GD thread and tried to pretend I made arguments that I never made or did things in that GD thread that I never did. Even while saying you didn’t actually read it.

That entire thread was me trying to discuss a complex issue in detail and liars repeatedly flinging simplistic strawmen at me.

You’re still an idiot.

Huh, a tariff tiff that’s rife with riffs.