Economics blog - Why protectionism did not cause the Great Depression

Sir_Humphrey

Generali wrote: »

You were pretty clear old boy:



How many dead would be reasonable do you think?

The French could roll in to Monaco without firing a shot if the Monacans chose not to defend themselves. What if they decided to defend themselves? Should the French continue in and kill a few people? Or a lot of people? Or all the people? How many dead to bring about a Socialist Paradise?

This is getting silly. A blockade of Monaco would do the job without loss of life.

Perhaps you would like to condemn the overthrow of Allende in Chile in the name of Capitalism.

This is my last word on the matter, I thought you were an sensible poster, but it turns out you are just another right libertarian nutter with an allergy to anything that isn't free market fundamentalism.

Generali

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

This is getting silly. A blockade of Monaco would do the job without loss of life.

Perhaps you would like to condemn the overthrow of Allende in Chile in the name of Capitalism.

This is my last word on the matter, I thought you were an sensible poster, but it turns out you are just another right libertarian nutter with an allergy to anything that isn't free market fundamentalism.

No, it's silly to invade another sovereign nation to impose your tax rules on them!

And I'm the nutter? Sheesh!

!!!!!! has Allende and Chillie got to do with anything?

I'm not surprised you won't continue the discussion - you must realise that you posted some rubbish and don't want to back down. I've met you and I don't think you're stupid enough to think that wars should be started over taxation law.

Sir_Humphrey

I am saying no more on the moral right or wrongs of tax havens.
America fought the cold war against countries with economic systems contrary to it's self interest. This comprised a mixture of wars and sanctions. If the USA judges tax havens to be against its national interest, it will use its might to put an end to them, one way or the other.
Realpolitick is amoral by its very nature.

Generali

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

I am saying no more on the moral right or wrongs of tax havens.

Because you know you've been a bit silly!

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

America fought the cold war against countries with economic systems contrary to it's self interest. This comprised a mixture of wars and sanctions. If the USA judges tax havens to be against its national interest, it will use its might to put an end to them, one way or the other.

America fought the Cold War in large part because some of it's citizens had escaped the horrors of Communism and effectively communicated to their fellows the dread hand that would await them if they chose that path. Thankfully, the better side won the Cold War and Communism is no longer a credible threat.

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

Realpolitick is amoral by its very nature.

I think we can agree on that.

Of course declaring war against a country because of tax law is immoral.

Sir_Humphrey

Generali wrote: »

Because you know you've been a bit silly.

There is nothing silly about imposing sanctions backed with the threat of force. It happens all the time (eg against Iran).

Generali wrote: »

America fought the Cold War in large part because some of it's citizens had escaped the horrors of Communism and effectively communicated to their fellows the dread hand that would await them if they chose that path. Thankfully, the better side won the Cold War and Communism is no longer a credible threat.

So their foreign policy was not based on amoral realpolitick then? They did not force Latin American countries to become pro-American?

Generali

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

There is nothing silly about imposing sanctions backed with the threat of force.

How many people would you deem acceptable to kill to impose UK tax law on another country?

Sir_Humphrey

Generali wrote: »

How many people would you deem acceptable to kill to impose UK tax law on another country?

How many people was it acceptable to kill to end Communism (which is ultimately just an economic system)? I never had you down as a pacifist. You are not morally superior to me on this one.

I recommend you read 'Moral Luck' by the late Bernard Williams.

Generali

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

How many people was it acceptable to kill to end Communism (which is ultimately just an economic system)? I never had you down as a pacifist. You are not morally superior to me on this one.

I recommend you read 'Moral Luck' by the late Bernard Williams.

I'm not trying to assert moral superiority. I am interested to know how many people you think it's acceptable to kill to impose the UK's tax system on other countries. 10s, hundreds, thousands? Just an approximate figure would be fine.

Should British soldiers die to achieve your aims or should the UK launch missile attacks until the tax havens give up?

Sir_Humphrey

Generali wrote: »

I'm not trying to assert moral superiority. I am interested to know how many people you think it's acceptable to kill to impose the UK's tax system on other countries. 10s, hundreds, thousands? Just an approximate figure would be fine.

Should British soldiers die to achieve your aims or should the UK launch missile attacks until the tax havens give up?

The method would be with sanctions. I have explained this quite clearly, and I mentioned nothing about missiles. You have conceded the argument about Ricardo without a fight, you concede moral superiority, so you have to misrepresent my arguments.

If the policy of one country has a detrimental effect on the the other, it is not unreasonable for the second country to try to get that policy changed. This would be the case if Monaco imposed a cost on France by dumping refuse over the border. It is also the case with its tax policies, which drain revenue from other countries.

If you respond that the business of each country is to look after its own national interest, then it is illogical to criticise the second country for doing so by intervening. I am surprised that someone (AIUI) who seems to believe in individuals acting in their own economic interest has a hissy fit about states doing the same.

Generali

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

The method would be with sanctions. I have explained this quite clearly, and I mentioned nothing about missiles. You have conceded the argument about Ricardo without a fight, you concede moral superiority, so you have to misrepresent my arguments.

If the policy of one country has a detrimental effect on the the other, it is not unreasonable for the second country to try to get that policy changed. This would be the case if Monaco imposed a cost on France by dumping refuse over the border. It is also the case with its tax policies, which drain revenue from other countries.

If you respond that the business of each country is to look after its own national interest, then it is illogical to criticise the second country for doing so by intervening. I am surprised that someone (AIUI) who seems to believe in individuals acting in their own economic interest has a hissy fit about states doing the same.

You brought up military action as the way forward and so I say again, how many dead from each side do you deem acceptable to impose UK tax law on other countries? Also, do you think it would be reasonable for the Chinese (for example) to invade the UK to impose their tax law?

I'm not having a hissy fit. I'm just interested in the logical conclusion of your argument.