Trump Shill Calling Itself Economist Attempts To Trumpsplain Tariffs on FOX

[r3volution 3.0]

A truly revolting spectacle...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WDnmuc6bIBo

...you know the guest is utterly full of shit when he makes Chris Wallace look like a good journalist.

[TheCount]

"There are no downstream price effects on our industries that are significant"


If the effects are insignificant, why impose the tariff at all?

[dannno]

"There are no downstream price effects on our industries that are significant"


If the effects are insignificant, why impose the tariff at all?

To move some of the production back here?

[Zippyjuan]

To move some of the production back here?

About three percent of our steel comes from China. How much production is going to come back?

The tariffs will make steel and aluminum more expensive for companies using it so they may demand less- possibly offsetting any moving of production. It could cost more jobs in those industries than it saves in the steel and aluminum production industries.

[dannno]

Lol, Chris Wallace just said "the urine peein Commission" 6:45

[TheCount]

To move some of the production back here?

We put tariffs on raw steel imports.

Other countries put imports on our finished steel exports.

Demand for our exports drops.

Production doesn't "come back here" because nobody wants what we're producing.

[dannno]

About three percent of our steel comes from China. How much production is going to come back?

The tariffs will make steel and aluminum more expensive for companies using it so they may demand less- possibly offsetting any moving of production. It could cost more jobs in those industries than it saves in the steel and aluminum production industries.

With the end consumer costs being less than 1% on most items, I doubt demand will suffer much.

[dannno]

We put tariffs on raw steel imports.

Other countries put imports on our finished steel exports.

Demand for our exports drops.

Production doesn't "come back here" because nobody wants what we're producing.

Or they decide to make deals and lower their tariffs so we lower ours, or don't further impose tariffs on them.

[Zippyjuan]

Or they decide to make deals and lower their tariffs so we lower ours, or don't further impose tariffs on them.

Curious why the amazing deal maker Trump has not been able to make any economic deals with anybody. Only threats.

If we raise tariffs on their things, why would they decide to lower theirs against us?

[r3volution 3.0]

To move some of the production back here?


Lol, Chris Wallace just said "the urine peein Commission" 6:45


With the end consumer costs being less than 1% on most items, I doubt demand will suffer much.


Or they decide to make deals and lower their tariffs so we lower ours, or don't further impose tariffs on them.

Dun da da dunnnnn!

Orange knight to the rescue!

http://piq.codeus.net/static/media/userpics/piq_255795_400x400.png

[Krugminator2]

Political party
Democratic (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_(United_States))



"Navarro ran for office in San Diego (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Diego), California (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California) three times as a Democrat."https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Navarro


For some reason I thought Trump would get talked out of the tariffs. I guess this is what happens when your Commerce Secretary made his money getting special treatment for select industries like coal and steel and you hire Democratic economists to advise you.

[Zippyjuan]

Political party
Democratic (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_(United_States))



"Navarro ran for office in San Diego (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Diego), California (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California) three times as a Democrat."https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Navarro


For some reason I thought Trump would get talked out of the tariffs. I guess this is what happens when your Commerce Secretary made his money getting special treatment for select industries like coal and steel and you hire Democratic economists to advise you.

Navarro lost every time he ran- nobody liked him.

[Krugminator2]

Or they decide to make deals and lower their tariffs so we lower ours, or don't further impose tariffs on them.

How about we just do unilateral free trade and not worry what other countries do?

[r3volution 3.0]

How about we just do unilateral free trade and not worry what other countries do?

Yup, and then devote some of this energy to solving actual problems, like crushingly costly regulation or reckless overspending

[juleswin]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXgLivY41Xc

Watch a bunch of progressives scratching their heads as to why Trump is all of a sudden veering left on guns and trade. Little did they know that the man has been a democrat all his life. He even said that the economy does best under democrats, he voted for Obama and up until he decided to run as a R, he was a campaign booster for the worst kind of democrats in Schummer, Pelosi and Reid.

To be fair to him anyone who believed his campaign rhetoric is just asking to be fooled. He has a long public history of promoting progressive policies.

[dannno]

How about we just do unilateral free trade and not worry what other countries do?

Because that hasn't worked.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WtttradeH8I

[Zippyjuan]

Yup, and then devote some of this energy to solving actual problems, like crushingly costly regulation or reckless overspending

Nah- that requires tough decisions and serious discussions. It is easier to say "it is his fault!"

[juleswin]

So if the tax is just on raw steel and aluminum, what would stop foreign countries from just making the finished product in their country and ship it over? i.e. ship the finished car instead of the steel to make the car with or are the tariffs on finished products higher than that of raw metal? If not, then this tariff is going to destroy the little manufacturing bas we have now.

[Krugminator2]

Because that hasn't worked.



Works 100% of the time.

[Krugminator2]

he voted for Obama



He contributed to and endorsed McCain in 08. http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/18/trump-endorses-mccain/
He endorsed Romney in 2012.https://www.cnn.com/2012/02/02/politics/campaign-wrap/index.html


To be fair to him anyone who believed his campaign rhetoric is just asking to be fooled. He has a long public history of promoting progressive policies.

Sure. He deserves all the criticism he has coming to him for the gun comments, spending and tariffs. The problem is you didn't give him credit on the deregulation, good judges, corporate tax cuts, staying out of Syria for the most part and the handful of other things he did his first year. You made the same comment when he was making good decisions.

[Zippyjuan]

Because that hasn't worked.



How many jobs came back to the US when Bush instituted 30% tariffs on steel in 2002?

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/06/us/bush-puts-tariffs-of-as-much-as-30-on-steel-imports.html


BUSH PUTS TARIFFS OF AS MUCH AS 30% ON STEEL IMPORTS

President Bush took some of the broadest federal action in two decades to protect a major American industry today, imposing tariffs of up to 30 percent on most types of steel imported into the United States from Europe, Asia and South America. The tariffs will last three years, he said, to give American steel producers time to consolidate operations and stem layoffs.

Mr. Bush's action is likely to send the price of steel up sharply, perhaps as much as 10 percent, a cost American consumers will ultimately bear in higher prices for autos, appliances and housing. The United States imports about a quarter of the steel it consumes, though Mr. Bush exempted steel made in Mexico, Canada and developing nations from the tariffs announced today. The nations hardest hit are Japan, South Korea, China, Taiwan, Germany and Brazil.



Did that one work?

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/03/steel-tariffs-consequences/554690/


The last time the U.S. imposed steel tariffs, back in 2002, the project was abandoned after 20 months. A 2003 report commissioned by industries that consumed steel estimated that the Bush steel tariffs cost in excess of 200,000 jobs—or more than the total number of people then employed in the entire steel industry at the time.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CzK7-g1XUAAvl-V.jpg

[Ender]

George W. Trump, Protectionist
Thomas DiLorenzo


One of the first things Dub-Yuh did as president was to impose tariffs on steel imports. The U.S. steel industry has claimed to deserve “infant industry” protection with tariffs and quotas for at least the past 160 years. Some people never grow up. Trump has followed suit with tariffs on steel and aluminum imports, which will increase the price of everything made of steel and aluminum (i.e., American-made cars), rendering vast portions of the U.S. economy less competitive in international competition. Thousands of American workers will lose their jobs as a result. It will also loot the pocketbooks of American purchasers of American-made goods that contain steel and aluminum, i.e., Trump’s working-class political base, with higher prices. Other countries will retaliate with high tariffs on American-made goods, causing even more unemployment among Trump voters in the export-related industries. Trump just shot himself in the foot with a bazooka.

The beneficiaries will be the Crooked Hillarys of American industry — the sleazy, corrupt, plunder-seeking steel and aluminum corporations and their unions. There is nothing more anti-populist than that, which has now become the defining economic policy of this supposedly “populist” president. What a joke. If Trump is an “economic populist” then I’m the pope.

I explained this thirty years ago in an article that was eventually reprinted in Readers Digest, which at the time had some 30 million readers around the world in several languages.

[dannno]

Works 100% of the time.

No leverage (watch the video)

[dannno]

How many jobs came back to the US when Bush instituted 30% tariffs on steel in 2002?

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/06/us/bush-puts-tariffs-of-as-much-as-30-on-steel-imports.html



Bush is no Trump, lol.....

Scott Adams talks about this at length in the video I posted.

[kahless]

Americans are getting screwed on trade.



2017 US Trade Deficits in Billions

1 China -375.2
2 Mexico -71.1
3 Japan -68.8
4 Germany -64.3
5 Vietnam-38.3
6 Ireland -38.1
7 Italy -31.6
8 Malaysia -24.6
9 India -22.9
10 Korea, South -22.9
11 Thailand -20.4
12 Canada -17.6
13 Taiwan -16.7
14 France -15.3
15 Switzerland -14.3

Source: https://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/statistics/highlights/toppartners.html#def



US Trade Deficit at 9 Year High
https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/balance-of-trade
https://d3fy651gv2fhd3.cloudfront.net/charts/united-states-balance-of-trade.png?s=ustbtot&v=201802061652v

Trump hit China steel but he needs to do more, it is not enough. Imagine balanced trade the jobs, wealth, quality and lead time of products we would have for the people here.

A Libertarian system would be ideal within our own borders. Outside of that the open border ideology is completely retarded unless you are sadist or intent on making the US a shit hole country or are one of the global elite that benefits screwing the American people.

[Zippyjuan]

Bush is no Trump, lol.....

Scott Adams talks about this at length in the video I posted.

Actually they sometimes sound a lot alike. From my NY Times link above:


There were strategic considerations: Mr. Bush's national security aides are concerned that relations with Europe and Asia have already been strained by Mr. Bush's rejection of the Kyoto protocol on global warming; his withdrawal from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty with Russia; and his description of Iraq, Iran and North Korea as an ''axis of evil.'' But in the end he decided that further damage to those ties was outweighed by the scope of the crisis in the steel industry.

Relations with allies strained- check.
Trump walks away from climate agreement. Check.
Withdraw from other treaties (TPP). Check.
Threaten Iran and North Korea (and other countries). Check.

Sometimes Trump also sounds more like Nixon.

[Zippyjuan]

Americans are getting screwed on trade.



US Trade Deficit at 9 Year High
https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/balance-of-trade
https://d3fy651gv2fhd3.cloudfront.net/charts/united-states-balance-of-trade.png?s=ustbtot&v=201802061652v

Trump hit China steel but he needs to do more, it is not enough. Imagine balanced trade the jobs, wealth, quality and lead time of products we would have for the people here.

A Libertarian system would be ideal within our own borders. Outside of that the open border ideology is completely retarded unless you are sadist or intent on making the US a $#@! hole country or are one of the global elite that benefits screwing the American people.

US steel imports from China account for less than $2 billion a year. A drop in the bucket. Libertarians should oppose tariffs.

Ron Paul does. http://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/ron-paul-calls-steel-import-tariff-immoral


Former Congressman Ron Paul (R-Texas) said President Trump’s proposed import tariff on foreign steel is simply “immoral”.

“It should be immoral to prohibit people from buying stuff where they want to. In a free society, you’re supposed to protect that not interfere with that,” Paul told FOX Business’ Kennedy.

Will tariffs reduce our trade deficit? We impose tariffs, other countries respond with tariffs on our goods. We buy less from them- they buy less from us. Trade deficit may stay the same. US exporters lose jobs.

[r3volution 3.0]

The problem is you didn't give him credit on the deregulation

He deserves as much credit for deregulation as Obama did for cutting spending (remember Obama's "line by line" review of the budget in 2009 that saved a whipping $100 million?). Trump's regulatory cuts (estimated (https://www.reginfo.gov/public/pdf/eo13771/FINAL_TOPLINE_All_20171207.pdf) as having saved $570 million/year) are totally totally insignificant in the context of the overall regulatory burden (estimated (http://www.nam.org/Data-and-Reports/Cost-of-Federal-Regulations/Federal-Regulation-Executive-Summary.pdf) at well over $2 trillion/year). That's a 0.02% cut: a teaspoon from the ocean.


good judges

TBD


corporate tax cuts

...of little/no value without spending cuts.


staying out of Syria for the most part

He sent more troops and launched the first direct attack against Assad

[Krugminator2]

US Trade Deficit at 9 Year High


The trade deficit is at a 9 year high. And you mean to say that is a good thing, right? The trade deficit dropped in the Great Recession. Just like the US ran a trade surplus for almost the entirety of the Great Depression.

Do you want to know which countries tend not to have trade deficits? Countries that have underperforming economies like Japan and Germany. The US runs a trade deficit because the whole world invests in the US which doesn't count toward the balance of trade. Part of the trade deficit is because the US doesn't save as much as we should, which is bad, but a trade deficit in and of itself is not a bad thing.

[Danke]

Because that hasn't worked.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WtttradeH8I


interesting.

[Zippyjuan]

The trade deficit is at a 9 year high. And you mean to say that is a good thing, right? The trade deficit dropped in the Great Recession. Just like the US ran a trade surplus for almost the entirety of the Great Depression.

Do you want to know which countries tend not to have trade deficits? Countries that have underperforming economies like Japan and Germany. The US runs a trade deficit because the whole world invests in the US which doesn't count toward the balance of trade. Part of the trade deficit is because the US doesn't save as much as we should, which is bad, but a trade deficit in and of itself is not a bad thing.

Our trade deficit tends to grow larger when our economy is strong- because we can afford to buy more imported items. It can also grow larger when the dollar is stronger. A strong dollar makes imports cheaper for us to buy (saving people money) and makes our exports to other countries more expensive- so the buy fewer of them.

[Krugminator2]

He deserves as much credit for deregulation as Obama did for cutting spending (remember Obama's "line by line" review of the budget in 2009 that saved a whipping $100 million?).

I can't believe how much time has passed. It has been seven years since the Tea Party shutdown. But Obama signed the Sequester (for the wrong reasons). It went into effect in 2013 and here were the results. www.thebalance.com/deficit-by-president-what-budget-deficits-hide-3306151 (http://www.thebalance.com/deficit-by-president-what-budget-deficits-hide-3306151)

President Barack Obama: Total = $6.785 trillion, a 57 percent increase.


FY 2017 (https://www.thebalance.com/how-trump-amended-obama-budget-4128986) - $666 billion (https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-ran-666-billion-deficit-in-fiscal-2017-sixth-highest-on-record-treasury-says-1508522722?mod=trending_now_4). Although Trump requested additional spending, Congress did not approve it.
FY 2016 (https://www.thebalance.com/fy-2016-federal-budget-3882293) - $585 billion.
FY 2015 (https://www.thebalance.com/fy-2015-u-s-federal-budget-and-spending-3306304) - $438 billion.
FY 2014 (https://www.thebalance.com/fy-2014-u-s-federal-budget-and-spending-3306303) - $485 billion.
FY 2013 (https://www.thebalance.com/fy-2013-u-s-federal-budget-and-spending-3306319) - $679 billion.
FY 2012 (https://www.thebalance.com/fy-2012-u-s-federal-budget-and-spending-3306318) - $1.087 trillion.
FY 2011 (https://www.thebalance.com/fy-2011-u-s-federal-budget-and-spending-3306313) - $1.300 trillion.
FY 2010 (https://www.thebalance.com/fy-2010-u-s-federal-budget-and-spending-3306312) - $1.547 ($1.294 trillion plus $253 billion from the Obama Stimulus Act that was attached to the FY 2009 budget).

[r3volution 3.0]

The trade deficit is at a 9 year high. And you mean to say that is a good thing, right? The trade deficit dropped in the Great Recession. Just like the US ran a trade surplus for almost the entirety of the Great Depression.

Do you want to know which countries tend not to have trade deficits? Countries that have underperforming economies like Japan and Germany. The US runs a trade deficit because the whole world invests in the US which doesn't count toward the balance of trade. Part of the trade deficit is because the US doesn't save as much as we should, which is bad, but a trade deficit in and of itself is not a bad thing.

Foreign investment in the US today is not as it was in the 19th century.

A lot more of it consists of financing non-productive debts (treasuries, consumer debt) contra building railroads, factories, etc.

https://www.americanthinker.com/images/bucket/2017-03/198136.jpg

The first period of deficits was a result of industrialization.

The second is a result of debt-fueled consumption (financed from abroad and by the Fed).

[r3volution 3.0]

I can't believe how much time has passed. It has been seven years since the Tea Party shutdown. But Obama signed the Sequester (for the wrong reasons). It went into effect in 2013 and here were the results. www.thebalance.com/deficit-by-president-what-budget-deficits-hide-3306151 (http://www.thebalance.com/deficit-by-president-what-budget-deficits-hide-3306151)

President Barack Obama: Total = $6.785 trillion, a 57 percent increase.


FY 2017 (https://www.thebalance.com/how-trump-amended-obama-budget-4128986) - $666 billion (https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-ran-666-billion-deficit-in-fiscal-2017-sixth-highest-on-record-treasury-says-1508522722?mod=trending_now_4). Although Trump requested additional spending, Congress did not approve it.
FY 2016 (https://www.thebalance.com/fy-2016-federal-budget-3882293) - $585 billion.
FY 2015 (https://www.thebalance.com/fy-2015-u-s-federal-budget-and-spending-3306304) - $438 billion.
FY 2014 (https://www.thebalance.com/fy-2014-u-s-federal-budget-and-spending-3306303) - $485 billion.
FY 2013 (https://www.thebalance.com/fy-2013-u-s-federal-budget-and-spending-3306319) - $679 billion.
FY 2012 (https://www.thebalance.com/fy-2012-u-s-federal-budget-and-spending-3306318) - $1.087 trillion.
FY 2011 (https://www.thebalance.com/fy-2011-u-s-federal-budget-and-spending-3306313) - $1.300 trillion.
FY 2010 (https://www.thebalance.com/fy-2010-u-s-federal-budget-and-spending-3306312) - $1.547 ($1.294 trillion plus $253 billion from the Obama Stimulus Act that was attached to the FY 2009 budget).



I'm not sure what you're getting at...

My point was about the pitiful scale of Trump's regulatory cuts (comparable to Obama's "line by line" charade [not part of the sequester]).

[Krugminator2]

Foreign investment in the US today is not as it was in the 19th century.

A lot more of it consists of financing non-productive debts (treasuries, consumer debt) contra building railroads, factories, etc.

Probably true which goes along with a trade deficit being a savings deficit. It should be noted people don't have to directly invest in factories. They can buy financial assets like US equities and corporate debt. The US has the most liquid capital markets and probably least corrupt capital markets. The whole world directs capital to Wall Street. For some reason people don't like to count financial services as something that is productive, but it is.





The second is a result of debt-fueled consumption (financed from abroad and by the Fed).

Sure. I think that's what the very next sentence says.


Part of the trade deficit is because the US doesn't save as much as we should, which is bad, but a trade deficit in and of itself is not a bad thing.

[Krugminator2]

I'm not sure what you're getting at...

My point was about the pitiful scale of Trump's regulatory cuts (comparable to Obama's "line by line" charade [not part of the sequester]).

The Sequester cut the deficit in half. That seems like something.

[r3volution 3.0]

The Sequester cut the deficit in half. That seems like something.

O I agree, but my point wasn't to say that Obama did nothing good on spending.

I mentioned his $100 million "line by line" thing only as an example of something as trivial in scale as Trump's reg cuts.

P.S. I have to add, though the sequester helped, it didn't cut the deficit in half. A lot of that was the recovery in tax revenues.


Probably true which goes along with a trade deficit being a savings deficit. It should be noted people don't have to directly invest in factories. They can buy financial assets like US equities and corporate debt. The US has the most liquid capital markets and probably least corrupt capital markets. The whole world directs capital to Wall Street. For some reason people don't like to count financial services as something that is productive, but it is.

Certainly, that's what was done in the 19th century. And financial services are indeed productive (though perhaps not as they once were, given all the non-productive, 'rent-seeking' activity that goes on alongside the sound practices). Incidentally, when Mises was asked how to quickly determine whether a country had a market economy, he said, 'look and see if they have a stock market.'

[kahless]

Ron Paul does. http://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/...tariff-immoral

What is immoral is China's high tariffs, quotas and restrictions on our imports while we do nothing. It is immoral that there is no allegiance to the people here that our government is meant to serve which causes people to lose their jobs as these companies close or shift overseas due to economic policy imbalance between the two countries.

Applying Libertarian beliefs through policy outside of our borders with countries which reject these values at the expense of Americans in favor of the global elite is immoral and foolish.


US steel imports from China account for less than $2 billion a year. A drop in the bucket. Libertarians should oppose tariffs.

This is why I said he is not doing enough. The US should counter China restricting our imports through their use of high tariffs, various taxes, quotas and restrictions on trading rights in tech sectors.



Will tariffs reduce our trade deficit? We impose tariffs, other countries respond with tariffs on our goods. We buy less from them- they buy less from us. Trade deficit may stay the same. US exporters lose jobs.

They already respond with higher taxes on our goods and are only screwing themselves by raising it higher. Worst case, manufacturing returns to the US which means less unemployed and less people on government assistance. Americans first.



“It should be immoral to prohibit people from buying stuff where they want to. In a free society, you’re supposed to protect that not interfere with that,” Paul told FOX Business’ Kennedy.

I agree with the rest of what Ron said in that article but this kind of talk above is not helpful and out of character since it is not prohibition. I assume he made that statement to be outrageous as everyone else is these days since Trump came on the scene to get attention but disappointing to see him do that.

It is one thing if the US was already a Libertarian country which if at that point adhered to the philosophy internationally with other open belief systems. Doing so now however where most people are ignorant to the belief system only sends the message that Libertarianism is a system that favors the global elite at the expense of the American low/middle classes. This besides it is already being solidified in the average Americans mind that Libertarianism equals open borders. Another strike against citizens for jobs and being displaced demographically.

It is almost as if Libertarians are setting themselves up to always be a non-factor and <2% in national elections. If this is what Libertarians are going to be associated with then rightfully slow.

[CaptUSA]

Kahless, you need remedial economics, I'm afraid.

Just try listening to Ron Paul instead of trying to read into what he is saying trying to get it to match your beliefs. Just try learning instead of misunderstanding.

[CCTelander]

Kahless, you need remedial economics, I'm afraid.

Just try listening to Ron Paul instead of trying to read into what he is saying trying to get it to match your beliefs. Just try learning instead of misunderstanding.


I'd +rep you if I could, brother.

[Swordsmyth]

Kahless, you need remedial economics, I'm afraid.

Just try listening to Ron Paul instead of trying to read into what he is saying trying to get it to match your beliefs. Just try learning instead of misunderstanding.

You are the one who needs remedial economics, consumption without production causes bankruptcy.

[CaptUSA]

You are the one who needs remedial economics, consumption without production causes bankruptcy.

:confused:

Why are you on Ron Paul Forums if you don't understand free market economics and the message of Ron Paul?

[Swordsmyth]

:confused:

Why are you on Ron Paul Forums if you don't understand free market economics and the message of Ron Paul?

Because I support Ron because he is right on more things than any other politician, I also support low tariffs when other countries aren't subsidizing their industries and imposing sky high tariffs on our goods.

[CaptUSA]

Because I support Ron because he is right on more things than any other politician, I also support low tariffs when other countries aren't subsidizing their industries and imposing sky high tariffs on our goods.

When other countries are subsidizing their industries to "dump" materials on you, the best thing to do is to take as much as you can before they figure it out! (BTW, we subsidize all sorts of industries and do the exact same thing in other arenas)

Seriously. Try David Ricardo. Comparative advantage.

[Swordsmyth]

When other countries are subsidizing their industries to "dump" materials on you, the best thing to do is to take as much as you can before they figure it out! (BTW, we subsidize all sorts of industries and do the exact same thing in other arenas)

Seriously. Try David Ricardo. Comparative advantage.

That works great until you run out of money and the ability to produce anything and are then hooked like a junkie who has to steal to support his habit, sooner or later you run out of luck stealing and then you are in real trouble, the prodigal son having spent his inheritance will be reduced to a 3rd world nation.

[Swordsmyth]

I don't support subsidizing our industries but that doesn't mean we can ignore the damage it does to our economy when others subsidize theirs.

[CaptUSA]

That works great until you run out of money and the ability to produce anything and are then hooked like a junkie who has to steal to support his habit, sooner or later you run out of luck stealing and then you are in real trouble, the prodigal son having spent his inheritance will be reduced to a 3rd world nation.

Again, you have no idea what you're talking about. If you take the goods from another country at a lower price, your country has MORE wealth - not less. But you're only looking at one sector. You're not considering all of the other sectors that have benefited from the lower costs. Let's use cars as an example. If each American saves a couple of dollars on a car because the steel used to make it was cheaper, then we will use that money on other things. So we will have the car AND something else. That something else is an INCREASE in wealth over what we would have had if the car and the steel was more expensive.

Starting to learn, yet? Or are you complacent in your ignorance?

[CaptUSA]

I don't support subsidizing our industries but that doesn't mean we can ignore the damage it does to our economy when others subsidize theirs.

No, Dammit! It HELPS our country! At the expense of theirs!! That's just Austrian economics, plain and simple! Hell, it's not even strictly Austrian - it's just basic economics! If someone is selling you a good at a loss to themselves, you take the deal!

[Origanalist]

No leverage (watch the video)

I think you watch too many video's. Free trade always works.

[Swordsmyth]

Again, you have no idea what you're talking about. If you take the goods from another country at a lower price, your country has MORE wealth - not less. But you're only looking at one sector. You're not considering all of the other sectors that have benefited from the lower costs. Let's use cars as an example. If each American saves a couple of dollars on a car because the steel used to make it was cheaper, then we will use that money on other things. So we will have the car AND something else. That something else is an INCREASE in wealth over what we would have had if the car and the steel was more expensive.

Starting to learn, yet? Or are you complacent in your ignorance?

You are conflating consumables with production infrastructure, you will go bankrupt if you trade away your production capacity for consumables, you may live high on the hog for a while but you will lose everything.

[Origanalist]

I'd +rep you if I could, brother.

I could, and did.

[Origanalist]

That works great until you run out of money and the ability to produce anything and are then hooked like a junkie who has to steal to support his habit, sooner or later you run out of luck stealing and then you are in real trouble, the prodigal son having spent his inheritance will be reduced to a 3rd world nation.

You have no faith in the free market and you're peddling fear.

[CCTelander]

No, Dammit! It HELPS our country! At the expense of theirs!! That's just Austrian economics, plain and simple! Hell, it's not even strictly Austrian - it's just basic economics! If someone is selling you a good at a loss to themselves, you take the deal!


Economists have recognixed for hundreds of years now that tariffs are always economically destructive to the country that erects them. Sadly, here on a liberty oriented forum there is still rather contentious debate over the matter. SMH

[CaptUSA]

You are conflating consumables with production infrastructure, you will go bankrupt if you trade away your production capacity for consumables, you may live high on the hog for a while but you will lose everything.

Ok, you are starting to come closer to making sense, but you are still falling for economic fallacies. Let me explain. First of all, there is a concern that we lose our production infrastructure in a sector or two, but you don't do that in a vacuum. In fact, the wealth gained will automatically boost other sectors beyond their current capacities. If, by some chance, every other country in the world banded together to "dump" their goods into the US in every sector (something that obviously would never happen), then we would be the beneficiaries of more wealth than we could imagine. If they all of the sudden stopped and our entire infrastructure was gone, we'd have such a huge surplus of wealth that we'd be able to either start back up immediately, or more likely, find sellers in other places that would be willing to part with their goods for a premium - a premium that we'd be able to afford.

But again, that is all fantasy land. Because it's never going to happen like that. No, we get the benefit of other countries subsidizing their goods and we use that benefit in other places. As Ron Paul was trying to teach you, if you put restrictions in the way, you are really just helping out one industry while harming all the rest. Ultimately, it results in a loss of wealth for the country that makes that mistake.

[Origanalist]

This forum is chock full of people who purport to be smarter than the person it's dedicated to these days.

[dannno]

I think you watch too many video's. Free trade always works.

Of course free trade is optimal, but we don't have free trade, we have managed trade deals and inflationary monetary policies, all of which are hurting us.

Trump is creating some leverage to negotiate better deals, more free trade.

[Zippyjuan]

Of course free trade is optimal, but we don't have free trade, we have managed trade deals and inflationary monetary policies, all of which are hurting us.

Trump is creating some leverage to negotiate better deals, more free trade.

The only trade deal currently being negotiated on is NAFTA- and that is going nowhere so far. The Great Negotiator?

[Origanalist]

Of course free trade is optimal, but we don't have free trade, we have managed trade deals and inflationary monetary policies, all of which are hurting us.

Trump is creating some leverage to negotiate better deals, more free trade.

Noooo, tariffs never mean more free trade and Trump isn't doing anything to alleviate inflationary monetary policies, quite the opposite.

[Danke]

Because that hasn't worked.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WtttradeH8I


Did anyone watch this?

[Origanalist]

Did anyone watch this?

I think you're the only one who watches dannno's video's.

[Danke]

I think you're the only one who watches dannno's video's.


Sadly, you are probably right. A lot was addressed, but you guys keep at it. Carry on.

[Origanalist]

I'm waiting to see a video on demand side economics.

[dannno]

Noooo, tariffs never mean more free trade and Trump isn't doing anything to alleviate inflationary monetary policies, quite the opposite.

Ya I totally disagree. I know how trade wars work. One country puts up a 5% tariff, the other country gets pissed off and puts up a 6% tariff or something, and they keep one upping each other to the detriment of the economy.

So the theory is, since Trump instituted a tariff, other countries are going to raise their already high tariffs in response. There are mainstream media articles all over the place discussing this. But that just isn't going to be the case, as what most of the mainstream media predicts about Trump is never the case. If you had watched the Scott Adams video I posted, he explains why this is.

So what is going to happen, is this tariff isn't going to hurt us much at all, I mean, the math is already out there. A couple cents for a six pack of soda, and $175 on a new $30k car. Not that I want to pay that extra amount, but when other countries lower their tariffs in response to all this, which is what is going to happen after they talk to Trump, we are going to see net gains.

The reason why it is different in this case is because we don't "trade war" and so countries institute whatever tariffs they want. If they want to make cars, they institute tariffs on cars and produce their own, then export their cars to the US for free. In theory, there should be a better way for them but that is what they have chosen to do, because they know we will never institute tariffs.

But now, that has all changed. Trump put tariffs on the table, which means more tariffs could come which could ruin their industries. Rather than doing that, they will negotiate some better trade deals so that we can start exporting more and they can keep their industries afloat.

Ron Paul is a principled statesmen, every country should do what he says. But in our messed up situation where we are facing heavy tariffs across the board almost solely due to the fact that other countries don't have to negotiate with us on that front and do whatever they want, we can actually negotiate some better deals with them now that we have signaled that we aren't just going to sit around and do nothing.

The fact is, I couldn't do this, most people could not do this. Trump can. That is why people voted for him. He will make it happen, with people on the left and the right kicking and screaming along the way. We we have more trade and more prosperity as an end result.

[Swordsmyth]

The only trade deal currently being negotiated on is NAFTA- and that is going nowhere so far. The Great Negotiator?

NAFTA is going nowhere because Canada and Mexico still think it is a bluff, we will pull out (which is the best outcome by the way) and then everyone else will see we aren't bluffing, then we will move on to the other deals.

[Zippyjuan]

NAFTA is going nowhere because Canada and Mexico still think it is a bluff, we will pull out (which is the best outcome by the way) and then everyone else will see we aren't bluffing, then we will move on to the other deals.

What other deals? We aren't in any other trade negotiations. Trump's behavior will make countries think twice about negotiating deals with the US if we are just going to walk away from them.

[Swordsmyth]

What other deals? We aren't in any other trade negotiations. Trump's behavior will make countries think twice about negotiating deals with the US if we are just going to walk away from them.

We have other trade deals we are already in that DJTvsg will renegotiate.

If they don't want to trade with us on an even playing field it will be worse for them than for us and they will change their minds.

[dannno]

What other deals? We aren't in any other trade negotiations. Trump's behavior will make countries think twice about negotiating deals with the US if we are just going to walk away from them.

You don't have to be in a trade deal to negotiate.

[r3volution 3.0]

I think you're the only one who watches dannno's video's.

I would assume that Molyneux watches his own videos, and over and over again.

[dannno]

I would assume that Molyneux watches his own videos, and over and over again.

He has the biggest philosophy show in the world.. He is starting his own platform.

[TheCount]

Did anyone watch this?
Scott Adams believes in subjective reality and "emotional truth." There's no point listening to anything that he has to say.

[nikcers]

Scott Adams believes in subjective reality and "emotional truth." There's no point listening to anything that he has to say.
Scott Adams is like Ron Paul on steroids

[r3volution 3.0]

Scott Adams believes in subjective reality and "emotional truth." There's no point listening to anything that he has to say.

Reason's for (Trump)cucks.

[CCTelander]

Reason's for (Trump)cucks.


Apparently, so is the wisdom of some of the brightest economic minds from the last several hundred years. I can feel America being made great again as I type.

[r3volution 3.0]

Apparently, so is the wisdom of some of the brightest economic minds from the last several hundred years. I can feel America being made great again as I type.

Economics is a Jewish conspiracy against good socialistic white people, doncha know.

[r3volution 3.0]

He has the biggest philosophy show in the world.. He is starting his own platform.

I preferred barnum and bailey.

And they didn't even pretend to be philosophers.

[TheCount]

That works great until you run out of money and the ability to produce anything and are then hooked like a junkie who has to steal to support his habit, sooner or later you run out of luck stealing and then you are in real trouble, the prodigal son having spent his inheritance will be reduced to a 3rd world nation.
Did you support or oppose Trump's tax cut plan?

[Swordsmyth]

Did you support or oppose Trump's tax cut plan?
I'm not going to answer an irrelevant question and derail the thread, go look in the threads about the tax cut and see what I said.

[dannno]

I preferred barnum and bailey.

And they didn't even pretend to be philosophers.

His Great Great Great Great Grandfather was best friends with John Locke.

[TheCount]

I'm not going to answer an irrelevant question and derail the thread, go look in the threads about the tax cut and see what I said.
I already know the answer, I'm just pointing out to you your complete lack of logical consistency.

[r3volution 3.0]

Logic is unimportant.

This is the age of feelz.

[Swordsmyth]

I already know the answer, I'm just pointing out to you your complete lack of logical consistency.

There isn't one.

[CCTelander]

I preferred barnum and bailey.

And they didn't even pretend to be philosophers.


Well, they do seem to adhere to the same basic outlook where their audiences are concerned. (There's a sucker born every minute.)

[r3volution 3.0]

Well, they do seem to adhere to the same basic outlook where their audiences are concerned. (There's a sucker born every minute.)

True, but they only charge a few dollars for admission, and they provide some entertainment in return.

They also don't try to rob or kill you.