I have grave misgivings about a Romney presidency. While I am in full agreement with Steve Kates and most Catallaxy readers about the appalling Obama presidency, I fear that Romney is the most protectionist Republican candidate in history. Perhaps even the most protectionist presidential candidate in history. His pronouncements have been exclusively about an insular US, fear of China, and “protecting jobs”. Where is the vision for an open economy? In truth Romney is a died in the wool mercantalist.
A Romney administration promises cuts in Government spending – which I applaud – but probably a less efficient tax system. Most fundamentally, a Romney administration would put up the shutters and move to a ‘self sufficient’ United States. That would be a disaster for the US and a disaster for the world.
Anyone who has read my musings will recognise a pretty conservative and right-wing leaning. But I have a lexicographical preference for free trade and a free market.
I fear that Romney will make the US market less free than he would inherit from Obama. Perhaps the BBC poll that Steve cites is right for the wrong reasons: supporting Obama because he is less bad than the alternative?
From Steve’s perspective it is probably fortunate I don’t get to vote. But can anyone – please – give me one reason to vote for Romney rather than against Obama? In my recent post I wrote
Obama does not deserve a second term
That is true, but does Romney deserve a first term? I suspect not.
If I were voting, it would be for a write-in candidate. But it doesn’t really matter, as I still think Obama will win with around 332 electoral votes against Romney’s 206. When the GOP chose Romney, they voted for an Obama victory.
Samuel
His tax policy seems okay to me. Remove deductions and lower the rates to the extent allowed by the sum total of deductions. While this could be later manipulated by the left for higher rates at a later stage, I’d don’t quite see the problems you do here.
As I said he’s nasty about China but he also wants to expand trade with the south.
Energy policy is also pretty decent.
He has John Taylor , mankiw and some other well known dude from Columbia advising on economic policy. These are first class economists.
Are we looking at the same candidate?
And let’s not forget his promise to repeal kenyancare and to chop the limbs off the EPA.
In other words I didn’t arrive at my support for him on tribal grounds.
>Perhaps the BBC poll that Steve cites is right for the wrong reasons: supporting Obama because he is less bad than the alternative?
If most of the worlds population could not name the Republican candidate, I doubt they could cite his Free trade position.
>If I were voting, it would be for a write-in candidate.
Why don’t you just draw a picture of Donald Duck on it, or not bother to show up? Same result.
>A Romney administration promises cuts in Government spending – which I applaud
This alone is enough to garner a vote in my book.
The priority of any rational voter is to remove central-planning socialists from office. Once that is achieved, then other things should be pursued from this position.
Here’s more…
Repealing large swathes of Dodd Frank which were put in place merely to punish the banks and control prices.
Gutting the shit out of sarbanes oxley which has basically destroyed the incentive to go public with start ups and therefore employment.
These are all good policies Samuel.
I hope you’re right JC. I’m being a bit provocative because most of the posts and comments are anti Obama rather than pro Romney. But I have been skeptical of Romney from the beginning.
Good policies yes but domestic. What Bout free trade which trumps the rest?
Good policies yes but domestic. What about free trade which trumps the rest?
One more term of Obama and the US is finished. Realistically, your third candidate is a non-starter, and hoping for one is delusional.
* Keystone will go ahead.
* Active support for tapping the untouched reserves of petrol will lead to exploration across the country.
* Removing many of the limitations on coal.
All will help the economy.
The best thing Romney has going for him is that it would be nice to see Obama ousted. He is merely the lesser evil. And even on that count I’m not unequivocal.
Go Gary Johnson!
After Ryan joined the ticket and at the Tampa convention the Repubicans were sounding positive about trade and economic policy.
Then the econo-retard fest that was the DNC convention happened and fluffy reporting fanned desires fro protectionism and regressive policies.
Through that time Ryan has been too busy call bullsh*t to the Dems economic claims (the $5 Trillion claim has been slapped down & proven wrong but the MSM keeps reviving it), so Romney/Ryan have not been able to move beyond that to expand on the positive economic messages.
Your concern is understandable as Republicans traditionally would fall back to crony capitalism. The test will be the Tea Party caucus in Congress who are for all the things you state.
I’ve got to hit some deadlines today so i don’t have time to drag up reports on how the Tea Party caucus gave the establishment republicans the sh*ts during the past 2 years stopping them induldging in the old crony ways. It is out there.
E.g. Check out what Eric Cantor was doing when Boehner was trying to cut a deal with Obama/Biden in 2011.
SJ,
Like channelling Cwth Treasury for your election forecast from this morning, now you seem to be channelling Ken Henry for your voting preferences. You sure you’re on the right blog?
Yes, the best reason of all:
Because a vote for Romney is a vote against Obama!
Free trade is a great deal with your wages @ $5 / hr making Nike’s.
What compensates for the loss of US process worker jobs?….not tech innovation, not Boeing, not the dole.
Check out current US unemployment to counter the furphy of better deployment of capital creating more US jobs. Tariffs on US companies who shifted production to China and reexport to the US might be an excellent idea.
There are many different bases for trade. Similar and dissimilar incomes both qualify.
A firm in China with low wage rates doesn’t make people in the US unemployed. What matters, net of on costs, is unit labour costs.
Even if the US took a significant wage cut (50%) to solve the unemployment crisis, the “competitive” wage rate would still be many times lower than the US wage rate. You really would have to employ people in very low productivity jobs for it to “work”. Chinese wages from memory average around 8500 AUD in Bejing and America (all localities) is around 42 000 AUD.
Alfonso, then why is our unemployment so much lower than theirs?
We are talking complex systems here, so simplistic answers such as tarriffs are just that – simplistic, and serve more for popularity than anything else.
Well said, Dot.
Alfonso is conveniently forgetting the cost to the rest of the economy in forcing up the price of goods. Demand would weaken, exacerbating the recessionary effects. America needs economic stagnation like a hole in the head.
“the cost to the rest of the economy in forcing up the price of goods”
Horrendous I’m sure, the fluctuation of oil from $30 to $100 caused even greater but cope-able variations.
Yep, the price of Chinese shirts rising will, like a butterfly flapping in Brazil, cause a hurricane of non purchases of US made Ford vehicles. So much glib extrapolation, while the unemployed US underclass who used to have jobs adopt the attitude of mendicants. A societal evil far more horrendous than more expensive shirts.
Good for future Obamas however.
Sometimes there are more important events in play than free market purities.
The US underclass are not oppressed by low wage, low skill, low productivity workers in China.
The US oil price rise helped caused the first wave of the recession in 2007.
Glib.
Voting for a write-in candidate is handing the office to Obama by default. Let’s face it; Mitt is the least worst candidate. Yes, his campaigning emphasises populist policies to get elected but the influence of Paul Ryan and the Tea Party suggests that a Romney/Ryan administration will not be as protectionist or populist as feared. Slashing regulations and cutting government spending won’t happen under the Wun.
US Min wage workers get to buy more stuff with the wage they do get.
Why? Because people in china are willing to fill their local wal-mart with stuff made for peanuts.
You could stop the flow of cheap wal-mart goods by tariffs on China. But would that really improve the lot of the low-wage USA resident?
No.
Of course my points are easily countered by showing an economy which has successfully raised standards of living for all when protective tariffs have been erected.
I won’t bother waiting up, because you won’t find one.
The thing that will help the US middle class more than anything is being allowed to fight with two hands instead of one tied behind their back.
Simply exploiting the energy potential of the country properly would create a massive amount of well-paid jobs and lower the cost of living for the rest.
It’s like Australia calling the Kimberley off-limits to iron ore mining the way domestic energy policy is currently handled in the USA.
No, I am correct.
Glib is slashing US wages by more than 80% (by diktat) to make high productivity workers with high on costs competitive with low skilled workers with low on costs, and then calling the transition period “manageable” – then saying the US oil price rise was no big deal.
A difference in wages doesn’t invalidate comparative advantage or resource endowments.
With a massive unemployed underclass (who used to have exported production line jobs) you will create a comrade underclass that will change the US. Not even FDR could do that.
Reap the wild wind…..Obama is the first result.
Oddly enough, a large proportion of the swing states are ones where Ron Paul won the state processes.
The bastardry that went on may well come back to bite.
“Yep, the price of Chinese shirts rising will, like a butterfly flapping in Brazil, cause a hurricane of non purchases of US made Ford vehicles. So much glib extrapolation, ”
I didn’t extrapolate, Alfonso, you did. I asserted a comparable cost equal to the tariff, which reduced disposable income for other spending, such as vehicles.
I’m only free trade insofar as I can see the negative effects of market distortions. Otherwise it would be ideology for ideology’s sake.
@brc 12:04pm
China
I think you are wrong about Romney Samual J… America is undervalued. Taken for granted. Romney is going to change that dynamic. He is going to put a higher price on American value. The proper price. He is going to start threatening withdrawal of service. His price for admission is going to go up.
For too long too many countries have been getting a free ride on America’s dime. So much so, that they don’t even have viable armed forces to protect their own interests or even be good allies… America does all that.
Without having to spend on meaningful defence budgets, these nations can indulge in welfarism, and have. Without a defence culture, the leadership becomes weak and ineffectual and is taken over by their internal enemies, now unrecognized. Their external enemies are only thwarted by America’s alliance.
If countries wish to align themselves with Socialism…. Don’t expect America to pay for it anymore. Not with Romney or the Republicans running the ship. You either become a worthy partner, or your price of admission goes right up, so to speak…. The conservatives within those countries will rise to the fore, and regain control. The internal enemy of socialism re-recognized… In some cases, it may get bloody.
Nice trolling, Samuel.
Keep it simple. Vote for the guy who has been a success at everything he has ever tried versus the guy who has no record of success anywhere….ever
The Republicans have no history of protecting American jobs. Why would they start now? He’s just saying the usual political soothing words so the vote flipping (from machines owned by companies connected to him…look it up) doesn’t look so obvious. It worked for Obama when they portrayed him as some kind of Luther King figure while running the worst possible Repub candidates against him. They made him easy to vote for. If you make the fraud too obvious even the controlled media get worried about looking too compromised.
Samuel’s trolling is he Chowder? Did he dare to not be in lockstep with you?
Paul has no credibility.
His woeful contributions on this thread disclose an author of low IQ
I don’t think Samuel is trolling at all. That’s silly. Samuel has some legit concerns about Romney and should be undertsood that way.
This post by Samuel J is depressing.
He’s even surpassed the stupidity of TerjeP.
This nonsensical rationale gibes libertarianism a bad name such that the sane find themselves slowly backing away from that identity whilst trying not to make any sudden moves or otherwise draw attention to themselves.
One question JC.
Equivalent to ‘concern’ about Obumma?
Romney has written a book ffs telling us his philosophy.
His history is of competence.
My preference was Santorum cos I thought he was a better campaigner and would stitch up the Reagan Democrat vote in the Upper Mid-West better than Romney.
He is also clearly more reliably a natural constitutional conservative than Romney.
And … – not that it’s strictly relevant – Romney knows X100,000 more about job creation than Samuel or Tjere
Pingback: Romney and Obama at Catallaxy Files
The only states where Ron Paul had a plurality were Iowa, Maine, Minnesota, and Louisiana.
Obama won Maine by +17.3 in 2008. It is not a swing state.
Obama won Minnesota by +10 in 2008. It is not a swing state.
McCain won Louisiana by +18.7 in 2008. It is not a swing state.
The current “swing states”/”toss-up states” are Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Wisconsin.
So that leaves us with Iowa (which Obama won by +9.5 in 2008) in the column of swing states won by Paul in the GOP primaries. One swing state out of eleven is not “a large proportion”.
Santorum won the Iowa caucuses but Romney was declared the victor on the night, dog.
That non-win win scuppered Santorum’s ability to raise cash and have momentum in the NH and SC primaries
If you were voting, and enough Americans thought things out the way you do, we’d get another Obama term and that would be an insane thing to wish for.
It’s Romney or it’s bust.
Santorum won Iowa, yes, but Paul did score a plurality of delegates there.
I was being facetious, is that okay?