Conservatives, Global Economics and Tariffs

What exactly is (and what should be) our position about the global economics. On one hand, aren't we the champions of Capitalism, Free Enterprise, Free Trade and Market Powers? Just a minute weren't we in the past the champions of Isolationism and Protectionism. The truth is that we are both and we are neither. We are the champions of fair play, alright, but what is fair play really
According to a common myth, conservatives are for the Rich, allegedly we want to keep and widen the economic gap between rich and poor and so on. Now, we know very well that it is not the case; we are for anybody to succeed in what they do according to their abilities (which I will cover in a future entry.) So in light of that let's examine the Global Economics
It is clear that if the price of some resource in a foreign country is by far cheaper then it is here, the consumer of that resource will flock to that foreign country in order to use that resource and lower their own product cost and stays competitive. The two questions that we have to ask are
a. Is that resource really cheaper?
b. Should we at all bother with question #a
If we look at the currency exchange rate then, when a company from India (for example) offers us a skilled IT person for $30 an hour off shore (including all the overhead costs,) while an American worker costs let's say $60 an hour then we must say that the American worker costs us double of the Indian. But if we look at the same question in economical basket terms (i.e. the buying power of the local currency) we may find that the exchange rate of the Dollar to the local currency generates enough Rupees for the Indian to buy similar house, car and other items deemed necessary for the local consumer. It means that the exchange rate is fraudulently held higher then it should to the benefit of those who could take advantage of the situation, in the expense of those who can't. Not exactly a staple of fair game
When the imports that take advantage of such artificial exchange rate are a small fraction of the economics then, we might not want to bother with the issue. We might not even know about it as the importer would probably sell the product only slightly lower then the American product and pocket a VERY handsome profit. When, on the other hand, such imports are of significant percentage of the American economics to the effect that American workers and businesses loose their livelihood en mass than we must take steps to return to fair game. There are two ways to do that
a. We may impose exchange rate adjusted to the economic basket terms
b. We may just force these adjustments by imposing tariffs and do away with the free trade altogether
It is not really important which step we take and in reality we probably do not have to take it altogether. The mere threat that we consider taking such corrective step might shake the Global Economics enough to correct itself

Conservatism, Preserving the Lost Values of the Past or a Struggle to Renew Ultimate Values

The political arena of the United States (and elsewhere) is flooded with terms that at best are misleading but in reality are fraudulent misnomers. This terms are results of either misunderstanding of the people who created them or concerted propaganda efforts to cast dark light on the opponents while presenting one's side at its best. One of the most vicious examples is the efforts of the Socialists (of all shades) to present themselves as progressive, alluding to be the best and advanced while presenting their opponents as a bunch of backwards people who, so to speak , stand in the way of the positive progress. Never mind that in the name of that progress, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and other monsters in human form, murdered, starved, maimed, and otherwise tortured tens of millions of people.
But, it is not the enemy that I care for today. It is the side that is known as Conservatives that I want to discuss and suggest a new agenda.
By using the term conservatives and its derivatives, both by our side and by its opponents we allude to be those who mean to preserve some values of the past, those who actually may stand in the way of new advanced ideas that may resolve issues and bring true progress to the world. We are not active but passive, busy in preserving (maybe using formaldehyde to preserve some corpses) rather then what we really are, the voice of the ultimate values of decency and freedom within the boundaries of responsible society... and yes we like to preserve the traditions that are unique to our own society while recognizing the rights of other societies in other locales to do the same. We do not oppose to free movement of people between locales (a.k.a legal immigration) but we oppose to concerted invasion of people of other cultures en mass (a.k.a illegal immigration) to our locale with the seemingly purpose to destroy our own traditions and replace them with the invaders' traditions.
But, there is more then a name to this term. Historically, conservatives are awaken to action only after the change has became the new reality, after the turf was pulled from underneath them and they already became irrelevant. At that point, the power of change already holds the power and the conservative struggle is pathetic and result with predicted failure.
The case today is not different, when the radical left in the United States describe itself as the power of Change, they do not really speak about the changes that they will implement. No, they speak about the consolidation of the power of the change that has already been. There is almost no doubt that they will win the 2008 election in both the legislature and executive branches (and by implication in the judicial branch as well after some time) and with filibuster proof congress they will have almost absolute power. The Second Amendment will be the first to go by twisting its meaning with their Newspeak. The First Amendment is already being twisted with political correctness and this trend will not reverse itself. The future of the right for private property, already in question by the existence of the IRS and its extra constitutional powers and by the liberal attack on the right for self defence, is not too rosy as well.

So lets have a fresh look at our position before its too late. Let's examine what we really want to mean by the term conservatism. Are we concentrating in preserving the lost values of the past or are we ready for a struggle to renew our ultimate values. The first step should be to redefine our core values. No, those values are NOT the constitution of the United States. The constitution was an effort to formulate those values into some legal document. But legal documents have limitations and the most obvious is the fact that they are subject to legal manipulations by people who speak legalese. When these people do not believe in the core values that were behind the constitution, then the result is something else, different then what the framers meant. It is a legal document that use the exact smae words as the original, yet it means the exact opposite of the original.
So let me please repeat what I believe we really are, the voice of the ultimate values of decency and freedom within the boundaries of responsible society... and yes we like to preserve the traditions that are unique to our own society while recognizing the rights of other societies in other locales to do the same. We do not oppose to free movement of people between locales (a.k.a legal immigration) but we oppose to concerted invasion of people of other cultures en mass (a.k.a illegal immigration) to our locale with the seemingly purpose to destroy our own traditions and replace them with the invaders' traditions.
Yes, I know that this definition is broad and vague, yet we all understand it and once we go to the details and try to formulate them, we are sure to fall in the same trup as did the framers of the constitution.
The next step that we have to take is to understand that the turf was pulled from underneath us and we are really in the loosing side in the long term. At this point it is all too easy to blame somebody for our failure, blame people of certain ideologies or, historically more popular reaction, blame some high visibility ethnic group. The problem is that such blame is pointless because firstly it is not true and second, even if it was true, the blamed culprits are no longer in any power. The real group that should take the blame is the conservatives a s a whole. We failed to notice what is going on and act on it in any coherent way. There were people who tried to tell us what is going on but we allowed the other side to present them as eccentrice loners that should at best be tolerated because of this accidental First Amendment that does not allow us to silence them altogether.
However, who cares about who should take the blame. We have a more important task by far. We have to prepare for a struggle that would be of almost revolutionary magnitude. A struggle to fight and win against the evil power that is destroying all signs of decency and all our traditions.

There is a flaw in the logic

Old readers of my blog (I know that there are not so many of them) are privy to my ideological argument with Rav Shimon Schwab Ztz"l. I do return to that subject of Jewish History and the cover-up system that took its license from his opinion because I think this subject is one of the most important issues if we want to fight corruption in the Jewish people. I've just had a revelation that is so obvious and clear that I may only lough at myself for not seeing it before. Rav Schwab, in his article "Jewish History" (mitteilungen, Dec. Mar 1984-1985) that could be found also on the internet (http://www.tzemachdovid.org/gedolim/essays/ravschwab.htm) says: "Suppose one of us today would want to write a history of Orthodox Jewish life in pre-holocaust Germany. There is much to report but not everything is complimentary. Not all of the important people were flawless as one would like to believe and not all the mores and lifestyles of this bygone generation were beyond criticism." Now, wait a minute, Rav Scwab admits, nah, he states as a matter of known and undisputable truth. that not everything WITHIN the Orthodoxy was fine and holy. He testifies that there was a lot to be desired. Ohmigosh, do you understand that?! This is not a statement from some Epikoires who could not and should be trusted. This is a statement from one of Gedoilei Yisroel. a man that the truth is his guiding light
Now, when we read the actual inspirational stories that he proscribed in this article and then we read this article itself, we KNOW that what is written in those stories is not the truth, because Rav Schwab told us that it is not! And here is the issue. In order to justify something that is untrue one must admit, at least to himself that it is untrue. But once you've admited it, nothing would make it true, not in your eyes and not in the eyes of your oponents