*Written by Tho Bishop.

Giving us another example of what happens when you mix ego and poor primary performance, the major story going into the South Carolina primary is the new line of attack being employed by Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry on Mitt Romney. Failing to win over voters by attacking Romney’s record as governor, the pair has turned their sights on Romney the CEO. While Rick Perry has introduced us to “Vulture Capitalism”, Gingrich is employing a 22-minute film criticizing Mitt’s time at Bain Capital, depicting Romney as “worse than the evil banker in “It’s a Wonderful Life.””

This approach has appeared to backfire with the conservative base.

Though their critiques on Bain Capital seem more appropriate coming from Chicago, Perry and Gingrich’s underlying instincts are correct. The primary, insofar that it is a referendum on the establishment-favorite, has little to do with Governor Romney, whose only real noteworthy achievement is the despised Romneycare. No, the candidacy of Mitt Romney is based entirely on his history in the private sector. It is his success as a CEO that allows him to claim he is the one candidate who understands “the real economy”.

Unfortunately for the country, Romney’s economic literacy is the biggest myth of the primary.

It would be too easy to highlight the fact that Romney subscribes to the same flawed belief that “fair and affordable housing should be a right, not a privilege,” a major contributor to the environment that created the disastrous housing bubble (after all, he said that as Governor, and Candidate Romney is nothing like Governor Romney). Instead, let’s take a look at one of Candidate Romney’s favorite topics: China.

If you have tuned in to any of the GOP debates, you should already know that he is not a big fan. On the subject of trade policy, his website highlights a plan on “Confronting China,” including the aggressive action of labeling the pseudo-Communist nation as “currency manipulators.” He goes on to criticize the Obama Administration’s “acquiescence to the one-way arrangements the Chinese have come to enjoy.” America, he believes, must be we must be “willing to say “no more” to a relationship that too often benefits them and harms us.” To anyone who would argue that there are benefits to our current relationship with the Asian power, you are being “played like a fiddle.”

As such, it is interesting that one of his top economic advisers is Harvard professor Greg Mankiw.

In 2009, Mankiw took to the New York Times to criticize the Obama Administration for threatening much of the same policy his candidate now advocates. In what would be a fitting response to Romney’s accusation of “cheating”, Mankiw writes:

“Like many economists, I cringe whenever I hear the term “fair trade.” It is not that I am against fairness — who is? — but the word “fair” is so amorphous in this context as to defy definition. Most often, the slogan “fair trade” is little more than a rallying cry for protectionism.”

Protectionism? From the man who believes he is the only one who can save capitalism from Barack Obama? Adam Smith is rolling in his grave.

But what of China’s “currency manipulation” Professor Mankiw?

“Perhaps the oddest thing about [the criticism of currency manipulation] is that [the] complaint seems out of date. The yuan-dollar exchange rate has moved considerably in recent years. After a long period of completely fixing the exchange rate, China allowed its currency to start moving in July 2005. Since then, it has appreciated by 21 percent.” (Since this article was written in 2009, it is worth noting the information is not out of date. The Chiense yuan hit an 18-year high in April of 2011.)

So according to Romney’s own expect, his major claim against China is a complete fabrication.

A cynic may argue that Romney doesn’t believe any of the baloney he preaches about China. That he is using our economic rival as a scapegoat for a public looking for someone to blame for their economic pain. This would contradict a POLITICO report that “Romney is dead serious about…putting new tariffs on Chinese imports,” but information from unnamed insiders isn’t always reliable.

So we must conclude that either Romney doesn’t fully understand the trade policy he advocates, or Romney is a demagogue not above misleading the American people to win an election. Sadly even the latter explanation doesn’t defend the governor from Mankiw’s criticism:

“Directing attention to the China currency issue amid a worldwide recession and growing fears of depression is more than a distraction. It is downright counterproductive.”

If we are to brand Romney an economic expert because of his success in the private sector, how does the GOP defend itself from the criticism of Warren Buffet? Or Bill Gates? Being a good President is different than being a savvy CEO. The failure of Romney’s opponents to credibly attack Romney’s credentials in the economy is the reason Romney’s candidacy has the strength it does today. Interestingly, the candidate who is criticized for “crank economic theory”, almost as frequently as Romney is praised for his understanding, is the only one in the GOP field who identified the housing bubble years before it crippled the US economy – Ron Paul.

*Taken from the Ludwig von Mises Institute. Written by Murray Rothbard.

Protectionism, often refuted and seemingly abandoned, has returned, and with a vengeance. The Japanese, who bounced back from grievous losses in World War II to astound the world by producing innovative, high-quality products at low prices, are serving as the convenient butt of protectionist propaganda. Memories of wartime myths prove a heady brew, as protectionists warn about this new “Japanese imperialism,” even “worse than Pearl Harbor.”

This “imperialism” turns out to consist of selling Americans wonderful TV sets, autos, microchips, etc., at prices more than competitive with American firms.

Is this “flood” of Japanese products really a menace, to be combated by the US government? Or is the new Japan a godsend to American consumers?

CONTINUED..

*Written by Rob Rimes.

1. Introduction:

Is this an unwarranted  smear piece? I know that it may be perceived that way and it is completely justifiable to accuse it as such but I am only stating facts here. The point is, the facts are that bad. Granted my opinion and a bit of name calling will saturate this critique of the GOP’s frontrunner to run against Obama in 2012 but at the end of the day, Rick Perry is still a lying scumbag fuck that needs to be exposed for his lies, his deceit and his apparent lack of humanity. This guy is a vile tyrant and it is no surprise that he is the establishment’s handpicked successor to Barack Obama: almost guaranteed to take the American throne.

Fox News has been sucking this guy’s cock so fucking hard that it is almost sickening to watch. If Perry had foreskin he doesn’t anymore because every time my channel-surfing finger has stopped on Fox News, no matter what time of day, the topic has been Rick fucking Perry. It has gotten so bad that I heard that Fox News is changing its name to the Rick Perry Network. I mean, let’s call a spade a spade because that’s basically what the channel has become.

This Perry love started well before he officially entered the presidential race but it has been insanely magnified the last week since he announced his candidacy. The problem is that all this attention to this election cycle’s “golden boy” takes away time and coverage from the other candidates. The stone cold truth is that they don’t want you to concern yourself with any of the others now that this redneck dragon has pounced on the scene reeking of Aquanet. Hell, they’re already promoting the war of words between Perry and Obama to the point that it looks like he already won the damn primary. Well he hasn’t but apparently Fox News doesn’t care. Their mind is made up and because of that, it just shows how irresponsible they are and that they completely lack any journalistic integrity. The only thing “fair and balanced” over their is the lack of time being given to the other candidates now (well except for Ron Paul and Gary Johnson who are both being ignored).

Rick Perry is not only a horrible candidate to lead this country, he is also a very bad man. Pundits keep saying he is the next George W. Bush, as if that’s a good thing! Some of them are even claiming that he is Reaganesque. Those claiming that are complete fucking morons that just shoot a bunch of shit out of their ass and have no idea what the fuck they are talking about. Rick Perry is definitely not Reagan and he is much worse than Bush II: Back in the Habit. Rick Perry at his core is nothing more and nothing less than terminal fucking cancer eating away at liberty. As harsh as that sounds, after just the next section of this article, you will see why.

2. The Vicious Vaccinator:

It looks like I’m going to hit you with the worst thing first. Why beat around the bush and waste time saving this for the main event on the card? This is the one thing that definitely needs to be brought out in the open for the masses outside of Texas to see. This isn’t something you will hear about on Fox News; well that’s not counting Michelle Malkin, who was the only person with balls big enough to come out this past week and express her distaste for Rick Perry because of this very reason. Thank god it was live because she probably would’ve been edited out otherwise. Of course the host she was talking to just brushed it off like a little bit of dirt on the shoulder.

Nothing Rick Perry has ever done is as inhumane and purely evil as what he did to little girls in Texas. To put it simply, Rick Perry forced young girls in Texas to get vaccinated whether their parents were cool with it or not. Rick Perry used his power to press this medical tyranny on the innocent children of his constituents! Did Perry get away with it? Fuck no! Luckily for the people of Texas the state lawmakers put a stop to Rick Perry’s emperor-like executive order but it doesn’t excuse the fact that Perry was dead set on employing tactics that were reminiscent of Adolf Hitler. For the record, unlike other opinionated commentators and political writers, I don’t throw Nazi comparisons around lightly. This may actually be the first time because typically, I hate when people do it.

When looking a little deeper at this incredibly insane incident, one is left even further aghast by the facts that the media has brushed this under the rug and completely ignored it. You see, the vaccine was Gardasil which has been known to make some people very sick and has even been the cause of death for a few. In his defense, Perry did allow parents the option to opt out. Of course that was difficult and came with a mountain of forms but at least he was open to the concept of allowing parents to attempt to save their daughters from potential death! What a humanitarian!

It’s funny considering that Rick Perry is so vocally opposed to the individual mandate in Obamacare but yet, he was apparently cool with doing this and the ONLY thing that stopped him was dozens of other lawmakers?! Then again in 1993 he did refer to Hillarycare as “most commendable”. Oh yeah, he wrote that after becoming a Republican. If you didn’t know, he was once a Democrat that worked for Al Gore on his 1988 presidential campaign. So where does he stand on all this shit really?

When it comes down to it, why would this follicly formidable fucksack even take a chance on these young girls’ lives? Well, that is because the drug company behind the vaccinations was Merck. You see, Merck and Perry are really tight butt buddies. In fact, Merck contributed heavily to Perry’s gubernatorial campaign and even had in their employ Perry’s ex-Chief of Staff Mike Toomey. This is proof enough for me that Rick Perry is easily bought and just as fucking corrupt as anyone in the Beltway.

The fact that this is not a gigantic dark smear on his campaign is absolutely fucking irresponsible by the mainstream media. The fact that this hasn’t completely ruined the man is mind boggling! The fact that this act wasn’t career suicide is so fucking twisted that it just doesn’t even make any sort of logical sense. The media went ape shit wasting countless months on Obama’s goddamned birth certificate issue but THIS isn’t fucking news?!?! The fact that it isn’t is proof that Fox or any other media outlet that ignores it has the journalistic integrity of Weekly World News.

If you question this, don’t take my word for it, research it yourself. Because as far as I am concerned, after knowing this, anyone who would vote for Perry or just go on ignoring this incident is just as guilty as he is. How could you vote for and support this power hungry megalomaniac almost murderer?

3. The Crown Prince of Porn:

Not only did Rick Perry want to force your daughters to take harmful vaccines but he also wanted to profit off of them in the porn industry. Having invested a significant amount of money into a company that has produced such titles as “Teens Never Say No”, “Teens with Tits”, “Bisexual Barebacking” and “Big Tit Brotha Lovers” shows that Mr. Conservative Rick Perry is a real winner and an icon of morality that deserves our admiration. Now I truly understand why Sean Hannity wants to roll around in barrels of this guy’s cum.

Now I’m not bashing pornography in general; I watch it, I like it and if that is your source of income then do your thing! However I am against a guy who is supposedly this morally superior god-fearing conservative that is really just a hypocrite making serious cheese off of what many consider a morally questionable industry. Granted, this isn’t as bad as forcing needles into the arms of children but it is still worth pointing out.

You see, way back in 1995, Mr. Perry invested in the company Movie Gallery, which is a rather large video rental chain that I am sure most of you have heard of. I used to rent movies there all the time and on my way out I’d grab a box of Nestlé Sno-Caps and a 1L bottle of Dr. Pepper. Movie Gallery was the fucking shit and I always liked them over Blockbuster. One of the main reasons was because their rental fees were really goddamned cheap. The reason for this was because they made a shit ton of money being the largest distributor of pornography in America at that time. Selling porn made so much money that they could price their regular rentals lower than the competition. It always helps to have a second stream of income, doesn’t it?

While Rick Perry was making serious money off of his secret stash of smut, he was parading around with some of the same Christian groups that were out trying to stop and boycott companies like Movie Gallery for pimping this stuff out. What side was Perry on? On a side note: one of these “Christian” groups is now considered “terrorists” by the way. But hey, Slick Rick had a responsibility to make the voters happy, especially the religious right but he also had to make some money. In the end however, his true colors shined bright! Cha-ching!

Now Governor Perry would go on to pass laws that would protect companies like Movie Gallery from lawsuits after they were allegedly caught violating the law by illegally distributing porn across state lines. He even went on to refer to the lawsuit against Movie Gallery as “frivolous”. I guess when it came down to it, fattening his bottom line was more important than representing the people who voted him in power. Seems like a trend between Movie Gallery and Merck. I’m sure cash and kickbacks are a prime motivator for Rick Perry. Is that the type of guy you want leading this country?

Also, I don’t have an issue with porn. In fact, I worked in the industry briefly as a bodyguard. However, I know that a lot of you voting for Perry are true Christian conservatives and I know that this probably doesn’t sit well with you. Perry, contrary to what the glowing box in your living room tells you, is not a true conservative out to protect your rights and support the things you stand for. Realistically, Perry isn’t going to support anything any of us stand for unless there’s a lucrative incentive.

4. The Anti-Capitalist Capitalist:

Rick Perry and his billion-dollar propaganda department on cable television have most of you believing that he is a free market guy. These mindless pundits are pimping out his pro-capitalist panache with unrivaled enthusiasm. The truth is, it’s all bullshit. Perry is not this great free market wizard that the talking heads on the red channel want you to believe. In fact, his record is more like the so-called progressive heroes that you see on the blue channel. As far as economics go, Perry is pretty much a big pile of dog shit. I’m about to give you a fuckload of reasons why.

To start, Rick Perry loves those motherfucking taxes. In fact, since he took office back in 2000, he has not cut taxes at all. On the other hand, this “fiscal dynamo” has supported several tax hikes, as well as new state business taxes, a business property tax, a cigarette tax, a fireworks tax and a toll road tax. Back in the day, as a Democrat, he supported a 5.7 billion dollar tax hike, the largest in Texas history!

What about cutting spending? Nope! The only thing this turkey cut was the concept of fiscal responsibility from his platform. When Perry took office after George W. Bush, state spending was at 49 billion dollars. Right now under Perry, spending is at 92.5 billion dollars. Well, at least he didn’t double it.. yet. Although Rick Perry has nearly tripled the state debt, as in 2000 it was at 13.4 billion dollars compared to today’s 37.3 billion dollars! The debt to GDP ratio is 22.9 percent, which equates to $10,645 per citizen. Now compare that to the 18.7 percent/$9,932 per citizen in the economically ravaged California. Dude’s a fucking rockstar of crap! I mean the debt in Texas under Perry has grown faster than the federal debt under George W. Bush and Barack Obama! Now that’s a fucking accomplishment!

Rick Perry also supported TARP because obviously he’s a real intelligent guy. He also authored a piece of legislation that tripled the amount of money that state legislators make. He received a bunch of farm subsidies. He signed into law the Texas Emissions Reduction Plan which is just climate change bullshit. He supported Lance Armstrong’s 3 billion dollar medical research center, which was obviously paid for with Texans’ tax dollars. He secured a 300 million dollar business handout slush fund, which was just corporate welfare for his friends and colleagues. 20 million of that went to Countrywide Financial which ended up going bankrupt anyway. He also supported Rudy Giuliani last election, who was the frontrunner in 2008 but eventually fell flat on his face.

When it comes to jobs and unemployment, Rick Perry isn’t as badass and effective as he and all the pundits claim. In fact, there are 23 states that have a lower unemployment rate than Texas and this is taking into account the huge Texas oil boom. Also, weekly wages increased about 5 percent in the United States from 2007 to 2011. In Texas however, they only raised by 0.6 percent. Texas also has the largest percentage of workers in the country making minimum wage. In fact, in 2007 221,000 Texans were making minimum wage or less. In 2011 that number has skyrocketed to 550,000! That’s more than double in just four years!

Rick Perry is a blatant liar about his economic credentials or he is just completely delusional, as is anyone who defends him after knowing the facts. Then again, you shouldn’t be selling this douche to the nation without knowing what the actual facts are. To do so is completely irresponsible and doesn’t fix a goddamned thing. In essence, those pushing Perry down our throats are contributing to the dismantling of liberty and the stupidification of America. Fuck you people.

5. The Illegal Immigration Ignorer:

Personally, I am not all that bothered by the huge debate over illegal immigration in this country. I feel that anyone who wants to come here for the right reasons and make a living and truly contribute to bettering America is more than welcome. Yes, I am aware that more often than not, this isn’t the case with many of the illegal immigrants flocking into our country now. However, the problem isn’t the immigration issue itself, it is the issue of the welfare state that creates this atmosphere of freeloading and entitlement. You can read more on my thoughts on the subject in the article “Conservatives & Aliens”. What I am bringing to the light here is Rick Perry’s hypocrisy on the whole issue.

Perry is a big fucking talker and when it comes to the immigration issue he is all gung ho at trying to convince his constituents that the borders need to be secured and that our national security is threatened with the border being wide-open. He’s doing everything he can or so he says. Essentially, Rick Perry is pandering to that large base of Texas voters who want more immigration enforcement.

The truth is that Rick Perry is doing nothing to prevent illegal immigrants from coming into Texas. In fact, illegal immigrants in Texas have added 17.7 billion dollars a year to the state gross product while benefiting from in-state tuition at public universities on top of other entitlements. While this was going on, it was the local governments and the hospitals that shared the burden in caring for this sect of the population. When fellow Republican Tom Tancredo from Colorado was pressuring other GOP leaders to stand firm on undocumented immigration, Rick Perry called him a “racist”.

In 2001, Rick Perry visited Mexico where he promoted his new law that granted the children of undocumented workers the ability to milk the system for a free ride to college. Under Perry, Texas became the first state to implement such a law. He went on to tell the people there, “The message is simple educacion es el futuro, y si se puede.” That translates to “Education is the future, and yes we can.” He borrowed that last line from Cesar Chavez a socialist and a legendary source of inspiration for union thugs everywhere.

In addition to forcing the taxpayer to pay for the education of immigrant children, Rick Perry also forced them to pay for several services such as drug treatment, mental health care, care for special needs children as well as many more freebies. He also keeps tapping into the taxpayer pot to buy cameras and other devices to attempt to “secure” the border but even with all that he just continues to ask the federal government for help. That just translates to dipping into the taxpayer pot of non-Texans for a Texan problem.

To a lot of conservatives, the issue of securing the border and combating undocumented immigration is one of the most important. To Rick Perry it is obviously a joke and his hypocrisy on the issue is very apparent. To conservatives reading this, you need to be aware where he stands on this issue. Then again, I don’t really think he even knows where he stands on it. Maybe he is just trying to please the huge number of hispanics in the state who have helped to get him elected for three terms.

6. The Bionic Bilderberger:

If you are even aware of what the Bilderberg Group is, the fact that Rick Perry is a member of this elite squad of globalist shitcocks should raise some red flags. For those who don’t know, the Bilderberg Group is an organization comprised of the world’s elite that meets annually to discuss the state and the fate of the world. The group meets in secret and the media is left in the dark about what goes on in these meetings. If the work going on at these meetings is noble, then why is it shrouded in mystery? Why does the organization go to such drastic lengths to beef up security and keep the attendees list out of public view? What is it that the leaders of our nations, the most powerful bankers and even the top media executives don’t want us to know?

I know a lot of you may be rolling your eyes at this conspiracy theory “nonsense” but all you have to do is dig a little bit and you’ll uncover the fact that these meetings do happen, these people do shape the world based off of what happens behind these closed doors and almost nearly every single president and various cabinet members in modern history have attended at least one Bilderberg meeting. It was reported that Rick Perry attended in 2007 (see here).

Since that meeting, Rick Perry has pushed forward with the building of the NAFTA superhighway that is being constructed right through the heart of Texas. This gargantuan road is going to eventually stretch from Mexico all the way up to Canada, intersecting the United States. This project is just the start of the globalist plan to create a North American Union between the U.S., Canada and Mexico. Yeah, this is pretty heavy stuff and some of you may be scoffing at the idea but as I’ve stated before, all you’ve got to do is dig a little and the data that supports this is readily available for you to scrutinize and ignore further.

Basically the NAU is our version of the EU or the European Union. Well, we’ve all now seen how well that idea worked out and do we really want to go that route? I’m sure Perry is all for it however if his economic record is any indicator. Then again, the same people pushing for this and the NAFTA superhighway are the same bankers involved in the Bilderberg Group and they have also contributed heavily to Perry’s third campaign for governor as well as his current campaign for president. Also, the companies behind the superhighway have become big supporters of Perry’s as well but really, those companies and the elite are made up of a lot of the same people. Again, do some digging if you question the validity of any of this.

Rick Perry has turned over Texas roads to the foreign company Cintra Concesiones de Infraestructuras de Transport. In doing so, Perry has stated that he was attempting to save Texans from additional taxation as well as finding a solution that didn’t involve him having to go to “the asphalt fairies” in Washington D.C. for help. Yet he can turn the construction and management of our infrastructure over to a foreign entity? And doesn’t he keep turning to the federal government for border security? I’m confused.

When Rick Perry was pressed about his involvement with the Bilderberg Group in a radio interview he simply said, “I found it to be an interesting group of people. I have yet to find out why they want to keep it a secret. I haven’t been invited back and that was 5 years ago, so I guess I didn’t impress them.” Governor Perry is full of shit and just because he hasn’t been back, if that is even true considering the level of secrecy within the group, it doesn’t mean that they aren’t still pulling some strings. The NAFTA superhighway is a huge string and so is the possibility of the NAU.

I find it kind of funny that Perry was ready to kick the TSA out of Texas but ultimately caved. Could that have been pressure from the mysterious elite? I also find it funny that immediately after the 2011 Bilderberg meeting Rick Perry’s name was suddenly being tossed around by the mainstream media as a potential presidential candidate. Odd that it was Fox News doing the propagandist promo work considering that their owner is none other than Rupert Murdoch, who is a major player in the Bilderberg Group as well as someone who just went through a major scandal with his British newspaper News of the World.

At least this last Bilderberg meeting actually had some press coverage. Media outlets outside the mainstream grasp have started paying attention and reporting on the event. It even made it on the Drudge Report. I guess crazy nutty conspiracy theorists like Alex Jones aren’t so crazy after all, now that major media outlets are starting to shine some light on these secretive annual events. But believe whatever the hell you want. Those of you in the know about this can understand why Rick Perry would be disastrous as our president. His interests aren’t the same as the interests of the American people.

7. Conclusion:

Rick Perry is certainly not a conservative and he certainly doesn’t fit the ideals of what the Tea Party represents. If you are a libertarian like me, he’s pretty much the fucking devil. This guy on the ballot would make me vote for Barack Obama, that is how bad I truly believe he is. It is time to wake up and see the forest for the trees and to stop believing all this manufactured hype presented to us by Fox News and other conservative media outlets that support this guy. Fuck, these damn media outlets are forcing this guy down our throats to the point that we’re all left gagging like porn starlets in the Governor’s self-produced film catalog.

As I stated, I can see where this article will be perceived as a blatant smear campaign against this scumbag but all I really did here was try to inform those of you who only get their information from the mainstream media. Many of the issues I discussed here have been kept out of public view and will continue to not be mentioned unless some brave soul on television is willing to put their career on the line to throw the establishment’s golden boy under the bus. Even then, the clueless plebeians, like O’Reilly and Hannity watchers, will just ignore it because unfortunately, most people don’t want to be informed. Ignorance is bliss and the cookies taste better when you don’t know that the chocolate chips are just rat feces.

Besides, when the media treats even the most plausible conspiracy theory as some nutty scheme dreamed up by some inbred maroon sipping battery acid in a shed, people run away from the idea and shun all others who may entertain it because they don’t want to be associated with the tinfoil hat wearing whackos. When one even mentions that the Gulf of Tonkin incident that started the Vietnam war was staged by our government, people go apeshit and call the person saying it a nutjob. It doesn’t matter that the government came out and admitted it later. This is why the Perry supporters write off anybody trying to educate them on the reality of their messiah. They just refuse to believe it because in doing so, their whole world is turned upside down; it’d be fucking anarchy! Their minds couldn’t handle the brave new world that they’d be forced to accept. Maybe it’s time to introduce a little chaos, it would definitely do this country some fucking good.

Where I sit, I just don’t have the time or the wherewithal to deal with those who keep themselves ignorant on purpose. I’ve said my peace, so you can either ignore it and call me names or you can pass the information on. Rick Perry will be the next President of the United States unless we do something about it. If he wins, I’m not going to even bother saying, “I told you so”. I’m just going to laugh when the country falls to shit and you’re still blaming everyone else for your problems. If you haven’t woken up by today, then you’re already too late. Tomorrow is what we make it today and right now, tomorrow looks like the American nightmare.

*Taken from the Ludwig von Mises Institute. Written by Murray Rothbard.

Protectionism, often refuted and seemingly abandoned, has returned, and with a vengeance. The Japanese, who bounced back from grievous losses in World War II to astound the world by producing innovative, high-quality products at low prices, are serving as the convenient butt of protectionist propaganda. Memories of wartime myths prove a heady brew, as protectionists warn about this new “Japanese imperialism,” even “worse than Pearl Harbor.” This “imperialism” turns out to consist of selling Americans wonderful TV sets, autos, microchips, etc., at prices more than competitive with American firms.

Is this “flood” of Japanese products really a menace, to be combated by the U.S. government? Or is the new Japan a godsend to American consumers?

In taking our stand on this issue, we should recognize that all government action means coercion, so that calling upon the U.S. government to intervene means urging it to use force and violence to restrain peaceful trade. One trusts that the protectionists are not willing to pursue their logic of force to the ultimate in the form of another Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Keep Your Eye on the Consumer

As we unravel the tangled web of protectionist argument, we should keep our eye on two essential points: (1) protectionism means force in restraint of trade; and (2) the key is what happens to the consumer. Invariably, we will find that the protectionists are out to cripple, exploit, and impose severe losses not only on foreign consumers but especially on Americans. And since each and every one of us is a consumer, this means that protectionism is out to mulct all of us for the benefit of a specially privileged, subsidized few—and an inefficient few at that: people who cannot make it in a free and unhampered market.

Take, for example, the alleged Japanese menace. All trade is mutually beneficial to both parties—in this case Japanese producers and American consumers—otherwise they would not engage in the exchange. In trying to stop this trade, protectionists are trying to stop American consumers from enjoying high living standards by buying cheap and high-quality Japanese products. Instead, we are to be forced by government to return to the inefficient, higher-priced products we have already rejected. In short, inefficient producers are trying to deprive all of us of products we desire so that we will have to turn to inefficient firms. American consumers are to be plundered.

How To Look at Tariffs and Quotas

The best way to look at tariffs or import quotas or other protectionist restraints is to forget about political boundaries. Political boundaries of nations may be important for other reasons, but they have no economic meaning whatever. Suppose, for example, that each of the United States were a separate nation. Then we would hear a lot of protectionist bellyaching that we are now fortunately spared. Think of the howls by high-priced New York or Rhode Island textile manufacturers who would then be complaining about the “unfair,” “cheap labor” competition from various low-type “foreigners” from Tennessee or North Carolina, or vice versa.

Fortunately, the absurdity of worrying about the balance of payments is made evident by focusing on inter-state trade. For nobody worries about the balance of payments between New York and New Jersey, or, for that matter, between Manhattan and Brooklyn, because there are no customs officials recording such trade and such balances.

If we think about it, it is clear that a call by New York firms for a tariff against North Carolina is a pure ripoff of New York (as well as North Carolina) consumers, a naked grab for coerced special privilege by less efficient business firms. If the 50 states were separate nations, the protectionists would then be able to use the trappings of patriotism, and distrust of foreigners, to camouflage and get away with their looting the consumers of their own region.

Fortunately, inter-state tariffs are unconstitutional. But even with this clear barrier, and even without being able to wrap themselves in the cloak of nationalism, protectionists have been able to impose inter-state tariffs in another guise. Part of the drive for continuing increases in the federal minimum-wage law is to impose a protectionist devise against lower-wage, lower-labor-cost competition from North Carolina and other southern states against their New England and New York competitors.

During the 1966 Congressional battle over a higher federal minimum wage, for example, the late Senator Jacob Javits (R-NY) freely admitted that one of his main reasons for supporting the bill was to cripple the southern competitors of New York textile firms. Since southern wages are generally lower than in the north, the business firms hardest hit by an increased minimum wage (and the workers struck by unemployment) will be located in the south.

Another way in which interstate trade restrictions have been imposed has been in the fashionable name of “safety.” Government-organized state milk cartels in New York, for example, have prevented importation of milk from nearby New Jersey under the patently spurious grounds that the trip across the Hudson would render New Jersey milk “unsafe.”

If tariffs and restraints on trade are good for a country, then why not indeed for a state or region? The principle is precisely the same. In America s first great depression, the Panic of 1819, Detroit was a tiny frontier town of only a few hundred people. Yet protectionist cries arose—fortunately not fulfilled—to prohibit all “imports” from outside of Detroit, and citizens were exhorted to buy only Detroit. If this nonsense had been put into effect, general starvation and death would have ended all other economic problems for Detroiters.

So why not restrict and even prohibit trade, i.e., “imports,” into a city, or a neighborhood, or even on a block, or, to boil it down to its logical conclusion, to one family? Why shouldn t the Jones family issue a decree that from now on, no member of the family can buy any goods or services produced outside the family house? Starvation would quickly wipe out this ludicrous drive for self-sufficiency.

And yet we must realize that this absurdity is inherent in the logic of protectionism. Standard protectionism is just as preposterous, but the rhetoric of nationalism and national boundaries has been able to obscure this vital fact.

The upshot is that protectionism is not only nonsense, but dangerous nonsense, destructive of all economic prosperity. We are not, if we were ever, a world of self-sufficient farmers. The market economy is one vast latticework throughout the world, in which each individual, each region, each country, produces what he or it is best at, most relatively efficient in, and exchanges that product for the goods and services of others. Without the division of labor and the trade based upon that division, the entire world would starve. Coerced restraints on trade—such as protectionism—cripple, hobble, and destroy trade, the source of life and prosperity. Protectionism is simply a plea that consumers, as well as general prosperity, be hurt so as to confer permanent special privilege upon groups of less efficient producers, at the expense of more competent firms and of consumers. But it is a peculiarly destructive kind of bailout, because it permanently shackles trade under the cloak of patriotism.

The Negative Railroad

Protectionism is also peculiarly destructive because it acts as a coerced and artificial increase in the cost of transportation between regions. One of the great features of the Industrial Revolution, one of the ways in which it brought prosperity to the starving masses, was by reducing drastically the cost of transportation. The development of railroads in the early 19th century, for example, meant that for the first time in the history of the human race, goods could be transported cheaply over land. Before that, water—rivers and oceans—was the only economically viable means of transport. By making land transport accessible and cheap, railroads allowed interregional land transportation to break up expensive inefficient local monopolies. The result was an enormous improvement in living standards for all consumers. And what the protectionists want to do is lay an axe to this wondrous principle of progress.

It is no wonder that Frederic Bastiat, the great French laissez-faire economist of the mid-19th century, called a tariff a “negative railroad.” Protectionists are just as economically destructive as if they were physically chopping up railroads, or planes, or ships, and forcing us to revert to the costly transport of the past—mountain trails, rafts, or sailing ships.

“Fair” Trade

Let us now turn to some of the leading protectionist arguments. Take, for example, the standard complaint that while the protectionist “welcomes competition,” this competition must be “fair.” Whenever someone starts talking about “fair competition” or indeed, about “fairness” in general, it is time to keep a sharp eye on your wallet, for it is about to be picked. For the genuinely “fair” is simply the voluntary terms of exchange, mutually agreed upon by buyer and seller. As most of the medieval scholastics were able to figure out, there is no “just” (or “fair”) price outside of the market price.

So what could be “unfair” about the free-market price? One common protectionist charge is that it is “unfair” for an American firm to compete with, say, a Taiwanese firm which needs to pay only one-half the wages of the American competitor. The U.S. government is called upon to step in and “equalize” the wage rates by imposing an equivalent tariff upon the Taiwanese. But does this mean that consumers can never patronize low-cost firms because it is “unfair” for them to have lower costs than inefficient competitors? This is the same argument that would be used by a New York firm trying to cripple its North Carolina competitor.

What the protectionists don t bother to explain is why U.S. wage rates are so much higher than Taiwan. They are not imposed by Providence. Wage rates are high in the U.S. because American employers have bid these rates up. Like all other prices on the market, wage rates are determined by supply and demand, and the increased demand by U.S. employers has bid wages up. What determines this demand? The “marginal productivity” of labor.

The demand for any factor of production, including labor, is constituted by the productivity of that factor, the amount of revenue that the worker, or the pound of cement or acre of land, is expected to bring to the brim. The more productive the factory, the greater the demand by employers, and the higher its price or wage rate. American labor is more costly than Taiwanese because it is far more productive. What makes it productive? To some extent, the comparative qualities of labor, skill, and education. But most of the difference is not due to the personal qualities of the laborers themselves, but to the fact that the American laborer, on the whole, is equipped with more and better capital equipment than his Taiwanese counterparts. The more and better the capital investment per worker, the greater the worker s productivity, and therefore the higher the wage rate.

In short, if the American wage rate is twice that of the Taiwanese, it is because the American laborer is more heavily capitalized, is equipped with more and better tools, and is therefore, on the average, twice as productive. In a sense, I suppose, it is not “fair” for the American worker to make more than the Taiwanese, not because of his personal qualities, but because savers and investors have supplied him with more tools. But a wage rate is determined not just by personal quality but also by relative scarcity, and in the United States the worker is far scarcer compared to capital than he is in Taiwan.

Putting it another way, the fact that American wage rates are on the average twice that of the Taiwanese, does not make the cost of labor in the U.S. twice that of Taiwan. Since U.S. labor is twice as productive, this means that the double wage rate in the U.S. is offset by the double productivity, so that the cost of labor per unit product in the U.S. and Taiwan tends, on the average, to be the same. One of the major protectionist fallacies is to confuse the price of labor (wage rates) with its cost, which also depends on its relative productivity.

Thus, the problem faced by American employers is not really with the “cheap labor” in Taiwan, because “expensive labor” in the U.S. is precisely the result of the bidding for scarce labor by U.S. employers. The problem faced by less efficient U.S. textile or auto firms is not so much cheap labor in Taiwan or Japan, but the fact that other U.S. industries are efficient enough to afford it, because they bid wages that high in the first place.

So, by imposing protective tariffs and quotas to save, bail out, and keep in place less efficient U.S. textile or auto or microchip firms, the protectionists are not only injuring the American consumer. They are also harming efficient U.S. firms and industries, which are prevented from employing resources now locked into incompetent firms, and who could otherwise be able to expand and sell their efficient products at home and abroad.

“Dumping”

Another contradictory line of protectionist assault on the free market asserts that the problem is not so much the low costs enjoyed by foreign firms, as the “unfairness” of selling their products “below costs” to American consumers, and thereby engaging in the pernicious and sinful practice of “dumping.” By such dumping they are able to exert unfair advantage over American firms who presumably never engage in such practices and make sure that their prices are always high enough to cover costs. But if selling below costs is such a powerful weapon, why isn t it ever pursued by business firms within a country?

Our first response to this charge is, once again, to keep our eye on consumers in general and on American consumers in particular. Why should it be a matter of complaint when consumers so clearly benefit? Suppose, for example, that Sony is willing to injure American competitors by selling TV sets to Americans for a penny apiece. Shouldn t we rejoice at such an absurd policy of suffering severe losses by subsidizing us, the American consumers? And shouldn t our response be: “Come on, Sony, subsidize us some more!” As far as consumers are concerned, the more “dumping” that takes place, the better.

But what of the poor American TV firms, whose sales will suffer so long as Sony is willing to virtually give their sets away? Well, surely, the sensible policy for RCA, Zenith, etc. would be to hold back production and sales until Sony drives itself into bankruptcy. But suppose that the worst happens, and RCA, Zenith, etc. are themselves driven into bankruptcy by the Sony price war? Well, in that case, we the consumers will still be better off, since the plants of the bankrupt firms, which would still be in existence, would be picked up for a song at auction, and the American buyers at auction would be able to enter the TV business and outcompete Sony because they now enjoy far lower capital costs.

For decades, indeed, opponents of the free market have claimed that many businesses gained their powerful status on the market by what is called “predatory price-cutting,” that is, by driving their smaller competitors into bankruptcy by selling their goods below cost, and then reaping the reward of their unfair methods by raising their prices and thereby charging “monopoly prices” to the consumers. The claim is that while consumers may gain in the short run by price wars, “dumping,” and selling below costs, they lose in the long run from the alleged monopoly. But, as we have seen, economic theory shows that this would be a mug s game, losing money for the “dumping” firms, and never really achieving a monopoly price. And sure enough, historical investigation has not turned up a single case where predatory pricing, when tried, was successful, and there are actually very few cases where it has even been tried.

Another charge claims that Japanese or other foreign firms can afford to engage in dumping because their governments are willing to subsidize their losses. But again, we should still welcome such an absurd policy. If the Japanese government is really willing to waste scarce resources subsidizing American purchases of Sony s, so much the better! Their policy would be just as self-defeating as if the losses were private.

There is yet another problem with the charge of “dumping,” even when it is made by economists or other alleged “experts” sitting on impartial tariff commissions and government bureaus. There is no way whatever that outside observers, be they economists, businessmen, or other experts, can decide what some other firm s “costs” may be. “Costs” are not objective entities that can be gauged or measured. Costs are subjective to the businessman himself, and they vary continually, depending on the businessman s time horizon or the stage of production or selling process he happens to be dealing with at any given time.

Suppose, for example, a fruit dealer has purchased a case of pears for $20, amounting to $1 a pound. He hopes and expects to sell those pears for $1.50 a pound. But something has happened to the pear market, and he finds it impossible to sell most of the pears at anything near that price. In fact, he finds that he must sell the pears at whatever price he can get before they become overripe. Suppose he finds that he can only sell his stock of pears at 70 cents a pound. The outside observer might say that the fruit dealer has, perhaps “unfairly,” sold his pears “below costs,” figuring that the dealer s costs were $1 a pound.

“Infant” Industries

Another protectionist fallacy held that the government should provide a temporary protective tariff to aid, or to bring into being, an “infant industry.” Then, when the industry was well-established, the government would and should remove the tariff and toss the now “mature” industry into the competitive swim.

The theory is fallacious, and the policy has proved disastrous in practice. For there is no more need for government to protect a new, young, industry from foreign competition than there is to protect it from domestic competition.

In the last few decades, the “infant” plastics, television, and computer industries made out very well without such protection. Any government subsidizing of a new industry will funnel too many resources into that industry as compared to older firms, and will also inaugurate distortions that may persist and render the firm or industry permanently inefficient and vulnerable to competition. As a result, “infant-industry” tariffs have tended to become permanent, regardless of the “maturity” of the industry. The proponents were carried away by a misleading biological analogy to “infants” who need adult care. But a business firm is not a person, young or old.

Older Industries

Indeed, in recent years, older industries that are notoriously inefficient have been using what might be called a “senile-industry” argument for protectionism. Steel, auto, and other outcompeted industries have been complaining that they “need a breathing space” to retool and become competitive with foreign rivals, and that this breather could be provided by several years of tariffs or import quotas. This argument is just as full of holes as the hoary infant-industry approach, except that it will be even more difficult to figure out when the “senile” industry will have become magically rejuvenated. In fact, the steel industry has been inefficient ever since its inception, and its chronological age seems to make no difference. The first protectionist movement in the U.S. was launched in 1820, headed by the Pennsylvania iron (later iron and steel) industry, artificially force-fed by the War of 1812 and already in grave danger from far more efficient foreign competitors.

The Non-Problem of the Balance of Payments

A final set of arguments, or rather alarms, center on the mysteries of the balance of payments. Protectionists focus on the horrors of imports being greater than exports, implying that if market forces continued unchecked, Americans might wind up buying everything from abroad, while selling foreigners nothing, so that American consumers will have engorged themselves to the permanent ruin of American business firms. But if the exports really fell to somewhere near zero, where in the world would Americans still find the money to purchase foreign products? The balance of payments, as we said earlier, is a pseudo-problem created by the existence of customs statistics.

During the day of the gold standard, a deficit in the national balance of payments was a problem, but only because of the nature of the fractional-reserve banking system. If U.S. banks, spurred on by the Fed or previous forms of central banks, inflated money and credit, the American inflation would lead to higher prices in the U.S., and this would discourage exports and encourage imports. The resulting deficit had to be paid for in some way, and during the gold standard era this meant being paid for in gold, the international money. So as bank credit expanded, gold began to flow out of the country, which put the fractional-reserve banks in even shakier shape. To meet the threat to their solvency posed by the gold outflow, the banks eventually were forced to contract credit, precipitating a recession and reversing the balance of payment deficits, thus bringing gold back into the country.

But now, in the fiat-money era, balance of payments deficits are truly meaningless. For gold is no longer a “balancing item.” In effect, there is no deficit in the balance of payments. It is true that in the last few years, imports have been greater than exports by $150 billion or so per year. But no gold flowed out of the country. Neither did dollars “leak” out. The alleged “deficit” was paid for by foreigners investing the equivalent amount of money in American dollars: in real estate, capital goods, U.S. securities, and bank accounts.

In effect, in the last couple of years, foreigners have been investing enough of their own funds in dollars to keep the dollar high, enabling us to purchase cheap imports. Instead of worrying and complaining about this development, we should rejoice that foreign investors are willing to finance our cheap imports. The only problem is that this bonanza is already coming to an end, with the dollar becoming cheaper and exports more expensive.

We conclude that the sheaf of protectionist arguments, many plausible at first glance, are really a tissue of egregious fallacies. They betray a complete ignorance of the most basic economic analysis. Indeed, some of the arguments are almost embarrassing replicas of the most ridiculous claims of 17th-century mercantilism: for example, that it is somehow a calamitous problem that the U.S. has a balance of trade deficit, not overall, but merely with one specific country, e.g., Japan.

Must we even relearn the rebuttals of the more sophisticated mercantilists of the 18th century: namely, that balances with individual countries will cancel each other out, and therefore that we should only concern ourselves with the overall balance? (Let alone realize that the overall balance is no problem either.) But we need not reread the economic literature to realize that the impetus for protectionism comes not from preposterous theories, but from the quest for coerced special privilege and restraint of trade at the expense of efficient competitors and consumers. In the host of special interests using the political process to repress and loot the rest of us, the protectionists are among the most venerable. It is high time that we get them, once and for all, off our backs, and treat them with the righteous indignation they so richly deserve.

Murray N. Rothbard (1926-1995) was professor of economics at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas and vice president for academic affairs of the Ludwig von Mises Institute.

*Written by Tho Bishop, a new contributor and writer for TheSwash.com.

“Thoughts and ideas are not phantoms. They are real things. Although intangible and immaterial, they are factors in bringing about changes in the realm of tangible and material things.” - Ludwig von Mises

Ideas, we are often reminded, have consequences. Television, space travel, Disneyland – these were the results of good ideas, as are any advancement that results in innovation and progress. Mankind has nothing to fear from good ideas.

But what about bad ones?

Lets take a second to turn back time and arrive in 17th Century France under the reign of Louis XVI, the Sun King. Though he famously proclaimed that “I am the State”, his economic policy was handled by his Minster of Finance, Jean-Baptiste Colbert. Colbert believed that it was his duty as the nations leading economist to guide Frances economy in order to meet his desired ends, mainly the development of a French glasswork, French industry and the promotion of national glory. His plan? High taxes on foreign imports (making imports more expensive than they should be in order to encourage French citizens to buy domestically), the Manufacture Royale de Glaces de Miroirs (a government subsidized glass and mirror manufacturer which enjoyed a state mandated monopoly of glasswork) and control of the French money supply.

The results? By artificially increasing the costs of foreign goods, the prices of goods went up. The Manufacture Royale was never profitable during the 23 years it enjoyed it’s state granted privileges and resulted in rising the cost of timber (the 17th Century equivalent to oil). By controlling the money supply, France was able to wage war without considering the costs. Though Louis XVI benefited from Colbert’s policy, the French economy did not. Colbertism failed.

Now lets look at 19th Century Britain. Influenced by Adam Smith’s magnaum opus The Wealth of Nations, post-American Revolution Britain moved from mercantilism reminiscent of Colbertism to Free Trade as advocated by economic liberalism. Smith saw the creations of colonies as primitive and inefficient and instead understood that the unique qualities of nations, like the unique qualities of human beings, gave each country natural economic strengths and weaknesses. For example, Britain climate made it ideal for sheep herding, but poor for sugar cane. Smith understood that instead of raising the prices of Caribbean sugar in hopes that it will encourage a British sugar industry, it was more efficient to exchange wool for sugar.

Instead of believing that he could manage the economy himself, Adam Smith believed in the “Invisible Hand” of the market. Instead of looking at economics on a national level, Smith understood that every economic decision came down to the actions of individuals, acting in their own self interest. Adam Smith would have told Jean-Baptiste Colbert that it takes more than national pride to develop an industry, it requires capital, natural resources and knowledge of the craft. France’s lack of glass industry was the result of French entrepreneurs understanding it’s inability to be profitable at the time. Putting Smith’s philosophy into action, the British Empire rose from the humiliation of American Independence and succeeded in rising to new heights.

The lesson? Government regulation of the economy is a bad idea. Economic freedom is a good idea.

Unfortunately one American disagreed. Alexander Hamilton was a Revolutionary war hero, America’s first treasury secretary and founder of what is referred to as the American School of Economics. Though it is often understood that America was founded upon the idea of individual liberty, the American School advocated a return to pre-Enlightenment mercantilism. In spite of fierce opposition from Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, Hamilton fought for the American Federal government to impose protective tariffs, the subsidization of domestic industry and control of the money supply through the creation of a national bank. The results? A failed attempt to cultivate a government subsidized industrial town in New Jersey, tension between the agrarian South and the industrial North due to the tariffs and massive inflation (prices from 1791 to 1796 went up 76%).

The election of 1800 led to the removal of Hamilton’s Federalist Party in favor of Jefferson’s Republican Party. Jefferson adhered to the philosophy of individual liberty in all areas, especially economics. Where Hamilton favored taxes, Jefferson sought to eradicate them. Where Hamilton saw benefits in a national debt, Jefferson sought to eliminate it. Where Hamilton wanted the government to control the currency, Jefferson wanted it made stable. Where Hamilton wanted to protect manufactures at the expense of consumers, Jefferson wanted free trade for all. Jeffersonian Liberalism was so successful that the Federalist Party was eliminated completely.

Unfortunately Jefferson wasn’t an economist (as shown with his imposition of the disastrous Embargo of 1807) and his economic policy was a product of his passion for individual liberty, not a comprehensive understanding of the market. Though this did not falsify Jefferson’s economic logic, it did allow for future American leaders to adopt Alexander Hamilton as the true economist of the Revolution. Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, FDR, LBJ, George W. Bush and Barack Obama, just to name a few, would all endorse economic policy that advocated protectionism, manipulation of the money supply and the subsidization of industry. The American School of Economics defeated Jeffersonian Liberalism. Hamiltonianism wouldn’t be limited simply to America. German Economist Frederich List became a devout Hamiltonian during a visit to America in the 19th Century. List would inspire the German Historical School as well as such prominent German leaders as Otto von Bismark and Adolf Hitler.

Though the 20th Century saw Hamiltonianism come to dominate Western Civilization (culminating the economic distress we all suffer from today), it would give rise to the greatest Jeffersonian intellectual since the man himself: Ludwig von Mises. Mises understood what Jefferson and Smith did before him, that economics relied upon the interaction of individuals and, as such, any economic system that did not take individual human action into account would be fundamentally flawed.

Where as the most prominent 20th Century economist, John Maynard Keynes, believed that governments could regulate the economy more efficiently than individuals, Mises understood that markets were naturally occurring and that any manipulation would result in unforeseen consequences. Armed with a knowledge of the science of praxeology, Mises recognized that a government bureaucrat spending someone else’s money would never be as efficient as individuals risking their own capital in search of profit. Keynes saw savings as a destruction of wealth, Mises understood savings was the only way to accumulate wealth. Keynesian economics increased the power of politicians and economists (who would be relied upon to guide his regulated economy), Mises advocated empowering the consumer. Is it any surprise that Keynes became the favorite of those in power?

Economics today continues to pit Keynesians v. Misesians, Hamiltonians v. Jeffersonians. While Keynesians like Paul Krugman advocated the artificially low interest rates that created the Housing Bubble, Misesians were warning of it’s dangers. As the Federal Reserve continues to increase the money supply, Misesians warn of it’s inflationary consequences. As Barack Obama advocated subsidizing green jobs and car sales, Misesians advocate allowing consumers to decide which industries succeed.

If Americans wish for their government to continue a policy that gives politicians greater control over what happens with their money, then they should continue to allow Hamiltonianism mark its claim to the American School; but if Americans prefer economic freedom, then I propose a Misesian revolution.

*Taken from Reason. Written by Shikha Dalmia.

China bashing has become a bipartisan sport this election season. But if the bashers won’t heed the economic case for not knocking down America’s second largest trading partner, they ought to consider the political one: Even if they get into office by peddling false economic theories, in order to stay there they will have to produce the right results. This protectionism never has—and never will—deliver.

Every election needs a foreign villain, and with the public ODed on the A-rab threat, our political class has turned its sights further East. And, truth be told, China’s autocracy is not helping itself by choosing this moment to halt shipments of rare metals used in wind mills, solar panels and the like. Still, slashing trade with China will do as much to stimulate America’s moribund economy as a bitch in heat would to stimulate my neutered dog’s libido.

That, however, is not preventing Democrats from pounding the issue. Virg Bernero, the Democratic gubernatorial candidate in Michigan, where I live, has dubbed his opponent, Rick Snyder, Chief Executive Outsourcer (ha, ha). Mr. Snyder’s crime is that he is a successful businessman who invested in a semiconductor company that once employed five—five!—people in Shenzen to sell its products in China. In other words, it is no longer a sin to buy from China. It is also a sin to sell to China! (Where did Bernero get his views on trade theory, anyway? The Kim Jong Il School of Autarky?)

Nor is Bernero alone in the Democratic Party: California Sen. Barbara Boxer is accusing her opponent Carly Fiorina, former CEO of Hewlett Packard, of outsourcing thousands of jobs to “Shanghai instead of San Jose”; Senate Speaker Harry Reid is calling Sharron Angle “a foreign worker’s best friend”; and Richard Blumenthal, Connecticut Attorney General running for Senate, who lied about serving in Vietnam, has the temerity to attack his opponent, the former CEO of World Wrestling Entertainment, for “outsourcing” American jobs because her company got toy action figures manufactured in China instead of America.

Hostility to trade is par for the course for Democrats perennially beholden to Big Labor, but what is the excuse of Republicans—the alleged believers in free markets? In race after race, they too are hitting China to beat Democrats. In West Virginia, Spike Maynard, a Republican running for the House is airing ads against his opponent, complete with Asian music in the background, castigating him for giving stimulus money to a Texas company that happens to be buying windmills from China. Meanwhile, in Virginia Republican Robert Hurt is accusing Rep. Tom Perriell of supporting tax breaks for foreign companies “creating jobs in China.”

But perhaps the blame doesn’t lie with these minions who are, after all, only capitalizing on the frenzy whipped up by this White House: For over a year, it has been accusing China of deliberately depressing the yuan against the dollar and threatening to brand it as a currency manipulator. Some might regard an artificially low yuan as a gift to American taxpayers given that it lowers their cost of financing America’s massive debt from China. But not this administration. It blames the low yuan for widening America’s trade deficit with China, costing export jobs.

This claim is no doubt calculated to deflect attention from the administration’s failure to make even a small dent in America’s unemployment rate after over $1 trillion in stimulus spending. The fact of the matter is that there is no good evidence that a higher yuan necessarily equals a lower trade deficit. Between 2005 and 2008, notes Dan Ikenson, Cato Institute’s trade policy analyst, the yuan rose 21 percent. But the trade deficit, instead of going down, went up by $66 billion. Why? Because while a stronger yuan increases the dollar price of Chinese goods, it also lowers the yuan price of foreign raw material, allowing Chinese manufacturers to keep a lid on the price of their finished goods.

But the idea that selling abroad creates jobs at home and buying abroad destroys jobs at home is an old mercantilist fallacy that Adam Smith handily refuted more than 200 years ago. Back then it at least had intuitive plausibility, but today it is obviously false given that the manufacturing chain spans the whole globe. Indeed, under the intricate global division of labor that currently exists, the whole idea of  “Made in China” is largely a bureaucratic fiction.

Think about the IPod, for instance. It is designed in America and its 451 parts are made in dozens of different countries. But just because it is finally assembled in China, it officially counts as a Chinese import and therefore a contributor to America’s trade deficit—never mind that the Chinese add only $4 to the IPod’s $150 final value. Imposing duties on IPods to slash the deficit, then, won’t just cost Chinese jobs in Beijing assembly plants, but American jobs in Cupertino (Apple’s headquarters) computer labs.

But if raising the barricades against Chinese products will hurt highly-paid techies in America, it will hurt working class folks even more.

Consider the research by University of Chicago economist Christian Broda. Contrary to conventional wisdom, he found that inequality in this country has gone down—not up—thanks to trade with China. Between 1994 and 2005, he found, any rise in income inequality was offset by a decline in prices of goods consumed by poorer households. Indeed, inflation for the richest 10 percent of U.S. households, which tend to spend more on services, was 6 percent higher than the poorest 10 percent, who spend more of their income on household goods supplied by China. “In sectors where there is no Chinese presence,” Broda has pointed out, “inflation has been more than 20%.” In short, China has likely done more to help America’s poor than the stimulus, TARP or any other program invented by Uncle Sam.

This brings us to the political folly of China bashing: There is no doubt that the notion that China should be stopped from taking away “American” jobs has a powerful appeal for many voters. But what candidates need to consider is this: Voters are utterly fickle. They might share your bad ideas and even elect you because of them. But, ultimately, if these ideas don’t produce the desired results, they won’t blame themselves or their support for these policies, they’ll blame you. In a democracy, voters are ruthlessly and irrationally results oriented.

Republicans and Democrats are sowing the seeds for their own destruction by running on an anti-China platform. Rather than vilifying China, they would do themselves—and the American economy—a world of good by trumpeting the benefits of trade with it. There is not just a very good economic—but also a very good political—argument for taking a more enlightened approach to China.