Ron Paul Quotes.com
Home Page Contents Congressional Record
16 July 1999
1999 Ron Paul 77:1
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, once again Congress demonstrates that it has no fundamental understanding of free trade or the best interests of the taxpayer. The Africa Growth & Opportunity Act is
1999 Ron Paul 77:2
So what exactly is free trade and how far removed from this principle have those in Washington and the world drafted? Free trade, in its purest form, means voluntary exchange between individuals absent intervention by the coercive acts of government. When those individuals are citizens of different political jurisdictions, international trade is he term typically applied in textbook economics. For centuries, economists and philosophers have debated the extent to which governments should get in the way of such transactions in the name of protecting the national interest (or more likely some domestic industry). Obviously, both parties to exchange (free of intervention) expect to be better off or they would not freely engage in the transaction. It is the parties excluded (i.e. government and those
1999 Ron Paul 77:3
Because governments have for so long engaged in one variety of
1999 Ron Paul 77:4
An example of what now constitutes free trade Washington style can be found within the US ENGAGE Congressional Scorecard. It is insightful to consider what USA ENGAGE regards as
1999 Ron Paul 77:5
China Most Favored Nation (MFN), while politically charged, is perhaps the cleanest genuine free trade vote chosen by USA ENGAGE. The question posed by this legislation is whether tariffs (taxes on U.S. citizens purchasing goods imported from China) should be lower or higher. In other words, when American and Chinese citizens engage in voluntary exchanges, should Americans be taxed. Clearly the free trade position here is not to raise taxes on Americans and interfere with trade.
1999 Ron Paul 77:6
The Vietnam Waiver vote classification as a
1999 Ron Paul 77:7
The Fast Track initiative highlighted in USA ENGAGEs Congressional scorecard has its own particular set of Constitutional problems, but the
1999 Ron Paul 77:8
Constitutional questions aside, like todays H.R. 434, the fast track bill contained provisions which would likely continue our country down the ugly path of internationally-engineered, managed trade rather than that of free trade. As explained by the late economist Murray N. Rothbard, Ph.D.:
1999 Ron Paul 77:9
[Genuine free trade doesnt require a treaty (or its deformed cousin, a trade agreement; NAFTA is called an agreement so it can avoid the constitutional requirement of approval by
1999 Ron Paul 77:10
In truth, the bipartisan establishments
1999 Ron Paul 77:11
Fast track is merely a procedure under which the United States can more quickly integrate an cartelize government in order to entrench the interventionist mixed economy. In Europe, this process culminated in the Maastricht Treaty, the attempt to impose a single currency and central bank and force relatively free economies to ratchet up their regulatory and welfare states. In the United States, it has instead taken the form of transferring legislative and judicial authority from states and localities and to the executive branch of the federal government. Thus, agreements negotiated under fast track authority (like NAFTA) are, in essence, the same alluring means by which the socialistic Eurocrats have tried to get Europeans to surrender to the
1999 Ron Paul 77:12
The harmonization language in the last Congress Food and Drug Administration reform bill constitutes a perfect example. Harmonization language in this bill has the Health and Human Services Secretary negotiating multilateral and bilateral international agreements to unify regulations in this country with those of others. The bill removes from the state governments the right to exercise their police powers under the tenth amendment to the constitution and, at the same time, creates a corporatist power elite board of directors to review medical devices and drugs for approval. This board, of course, is to be made up of objective industry experts appointed by national governments. Instead of the national variety, known as the Interstate Commerce Act of 1887 (enacted for the good reason of protecting railroad consumers from exploitative railroad freight rates, only to be staffed by railroad attorneys who then used their positions to line the pockets of their respective railroads), we now have the same sham imposed upon worldwide consumers on an international scale soon to be staffed by heads of multinational pharmaceutical corporations.
1999 Ron Paul 77:13
The late economist Ludwig von Mises argued there is a choice of only two economic systems — capitalism or socialism. Intervention, he would say, always begets more interventionism to address the negative consequences of the prior intervention: thus, necessarily leading to yet further intervention until complete socialism is the only possible outcome. This principle remains true even in the case of intervention and free trade.
1999 Ron Paul 77:14
To the extent America is
1999 Ron Paul 77:15
Until policy makers can learn enough about trade and voluntary exchange to distinguish them from
1999 Ron Paul 77:16
For these reasons and others, I oppose the
1999 Ron Paul 77:2 how far removed from this principle have those in Washington and the world drafted? probably should be how far removed from this principle have those in Washington and the world drifted?
1999 Ron Paul 77:2 international trade is he term typically applied probably should be international trade is the term typically applied.
1999 Ron Paul 77:3 beltway-dominant pundits probably should be capitalized: Beltway-dominant pundits because Beltway is the name of a highway.
1999 Ron Paul 77:3 widely-used probably should be unhyphenated: widely used.
1999 Ron Paul 77:6 beltway elite probably should be capitalized: Beltway elite.
1999 Ron Paul 77:8 internationally-engineered probably should be unhyphenated: internationally engineered.
1999 Ron Paul 77:10 fan-fare PR fanfare? Here the text is unclear because the word is hyphenated at the end of a line of text in the Congressional Record.