'If We Didn't Trade,' Trump Argues, 'We'd Save a Hell of a Lot of Money'

[TheCount]

"Our trade deficit ballooned to $817 billion," Donald Trump said during a speech (https://www.c-span.org/video/?448971-1/president-trump-delivers-remarks-illinois-trade-tariffs-policy)to steelworkers in Granite City, Illinois, yesterday. "Think of that. We lost $817 billion a year over the last number of years in trade. In other words, if we didn't trade, we'd save a hell of a lot of money."

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the president exaggerated the size of the 2017 trade deficit by 48 percent (https://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/statistics/historical/gands.pdf). But that's a mere quibble compared to his fundamental misunderstanding of what that number means, which in turn reflects a zero-sum view of economic exchange that does not bode well for the outcome of a tariff war supposedly aimed at promoting free trade.

"If we didn't trade," Trump argues, "we'd save a hell of a lot of money." But that does not mean we'd be better off, since we would not have all the things we buy with our money, which we clearly value more than the money itself, since no one forces us to exchange one for the other. The analysis is the same whether or not the people who sell us things happen to be located in the United States.

http://reason.com/blog/2018/07/27/if-we-didnt-trade-trump-argues-wed-save

This is what protectionists actually believe.

[phill4paul]

http://reason.com/blog/2018/07/27/if-we-didnt-trade-trump-argues-wed-save

This is what protectionists actually believe.

You're right. We should have let the deficit get higher and then be all like "Yo, we're Americans, we live better than all of yo because we buy a lot of yo shit. And a lot of us don't even have to work for it. Our government pays us not to work. But, we got some side jobs, yo. Suckas!!!!" Then these other countries would be like, "Oh shit!!! America just dissed us. Ah, hell noes. We gotta buy mo of their shit and work less!" Brilliant.

[juleswin]

That begs the question "why do we trade?". This is the sort of deep economical questions a high IQ president like Trump presents to us every time. I am so glad we have a man as intelligent as him in the white house.

At the risk of giving ammo to the people that call me a communist, I think for a country as big and blessed with so many resources(man and mineral), we can thrive with little to no trade. We would miss out on exporting our excess produce but in years adjustments and industries could reconfigure to produce just what the country needs.

[Swordsmyth]

http://reason.com/blog/2018/07/27/if-we-didnt-trade-trump-argues-wed-save

This is what protectionists actually believe.

We would save a lot of money but that is not the only factor involved in trade, please notice that Trump never said it was the only factor, he is simply pointing out to our trade "partners" that we have a very big reason to demand a fair deal and that we are capable of diminishing or even halting trade with them in order to get one.

[Zippyjuan]

One third of our GDP depends on selling things to other countries. Another roughly third relies on imported resources to produce products here. Trade lets the world function more efficiently- those who are better at something produce it at a lower cost for the rest. Resources are better allocated and overall prices are lower (and jobs tend to be higher).

Just as a single person could in theory produce everything they need themselves, they are better off at just producing what they are best at and trading for the rest of what they want/ need, so do countries. We could do it, but are better off by trading.

[oyarde]

I will continue to live well regardless .

[juleswin]

I will continue to live well regardless .

Look up your pc/cell phone/pad and tell us where it was made. Maybe this community wouldn't be there without imports.

[Swordsmyth]

Look up your pc/cell phone/pad and tell us where it was made. Maybe this community wouldn't be there without imports.

We can make those here and we will if necessary.

[oyarde]

Look up your pc/cell phone/pad and tell us where it was made. Maybe this community wouldn't be there without imports.

I can always go back to smoke signals .

[Danke]

I will continue to live well regardless .

Aren’t those one-armed bandits on your reservation made in China?

[oyarde]

Aren’t those one-armed bandits on your reservation made in China?

LOL , no , I generally try and keep vices like gambling to a minimum but exempt myself of course .

[juleswin]

I can always go back to smoke signals .

But I dont know how to do smoke signals. That means u wont be able to real my informative, funny and thought provoking posts. That would definitely take a few years out of your lifespan :)

[juleswin]

We can make those here and we will if necessary.

And would I still be able to afford it at said price?

[Swordsmyth]

And would I still be able to afford it at said price?

Probably, after wages rose from bringing industries home you certainly would.

[oyarde]

Probably, after wages rose from bringing industries home you certainly would.

I think the labor cost of those type of items is very insignificant . I have been involved in some very advanced Mnfg and matl's were where the money was which then determines pricing .

[CaptUSA]

Some people LOVE them some central planners! :rolleyes:

[thoughtomator]

Trump is expressing the breathtaking degree to which the US gets ripped off in international trade.

Some people here seem to have less trouble with us being scammed than they do with reasonable measures of self-defense.

Same people who never seem to have the American people's best interests in mind.

[CaptUSA]

Trump is expressing the breathtaking degree to which the US gets ripped off in international trade.

Some people here seem to have less trouble with us being scammed than they do with reasonable measures of self-defense.

Same people who never seem to have the American people's best interests in mind.

Protectionism is the scam. If we got scammed on any trade, you wouldn’t need government mandates to stop it. People would stop trading with that partner all on their own.

[Swordsmyth]

Protectionism is the scam. If we got scammed on any trade, you wouldn’t need government mandates to stop it. People would stop trading with that partner all on their own.

When foreign companies are given free access to our market but American companies are not given the same access to the foreign market it hurts Americans, it is the responsibility of the government to negotiate equally free trade by countering foreign trade war tactics.

[CaptUSA]

When foreign companies are given free access to our market but American companies are not given the same access to the foreign market it hurts Americans, it is the responsibility of the government to negotiate equally free trade by countering foreign trade war tactics.

I’m sorry. The economically illiterate forum is on another site. This is RPF. I know it’s condusing, what with all the nationalistic fervor being spewed here lately, but this forums really does believe in the economic principles that Ron Paul shares.

[Swordsmyth]

I’m sorry. The economically illiterate forum is on another site. This is RPF. I know it’s condusing, what with all the nationalistic fervor being spewed here lately, but this forums really does believe in the economic principles that Ron Paul shares.

Free trade is exactly what I was discussing, when foreigners subsidize their industries and tariff ours it isn't free trade.

[CaptUSA]

Free trade is exactly what I was discussing, when foreigners subsidize their industries and tariff ours it isn't free trade.

Ron Paul favors lowering ALL of our tariffs regardless of what other countries may do. Ron Paul understands economics. Be like Ron Paul.

[dannno]

Ron Paul favors lowering ALL of our tariffs regardless of what other countries may do. Ron Paul understands economics. Be like Ron Paul.

Trump is trying to use the power of the US economy against the globalists to lower tariffs across the board, that was made clear the other day in a thread that was posted, did you miss it? If so, let us know, Swordsmyth or I can dig it up. But it's precisely what I've been saying since the beginning of Trump's tariffs.

Technically Trump is right tho, due to monetary and trade policies China has been saving a lot of money and the US has been going into debt. If we didn't trade, we wouldn't be going into debt and we would be "saving" more. So we would "save" (as opposed to go into debt) more if we didn't trade.. or, if there was free trade. Trump however is smart enough to know there are huge benefits to free trade which is why he is taking the measures he has been taking. But that doesn't mean his statement is incorrect.

[Swordsmyth]

Ron Paul favors lowering ALL of our tariffs regardless of what other countries may do. Ron Paul understands economics. Be like Ron Paul.

I understand economics and I understand that turning America into a giant welfare state is bad for liberty, if the domestic government put Americans out of work and then subsidized their purchases you would object but when a foreign government does it you cheer.

A one-way valve does not produce free-flow in a system and the current state of affairs is not free trade.

[CaptUSA]

I understand economics and I understand that turning America into a giant welfare state is bad for liberty, if the domestic government put Americans out of work and then subsidized their purchases you would object but when a foreign government does it you cheer.

A one-way valve does not produce free-flow in a system and the current state of affairs is not free trade.

Like I said. The economically illiterate forum is elsewhere.

At least dannno is still buying the 46D chess con. You just don’t get economics. Which wouldn’t be so bad, but you refuse to try to learn. Not even “one iota” - your words.

[oyarde]

Personally I am all for free trade . You do not have it nor will you . Since those are the facts I am not opposed to tariffs . While I doubt the effectiveness of them it certainly can be considered as a tool . I also would not really care if it was used as a tax mechanism to replace other tax monies for authorized and legal spending requirements as outlined in Article One Section Eight .

[Swordsmyth]

Like I said. The economically illiterate forum is elsewhere.
You should go there.


At least dannno is still buying the 46D chess con.
Dannno said nothing I didn't.


You just don’t get economics.
I understand it better than you do.


Which wouldn’t be so bad, but you refuse to try to learn. Not even “one iota” - your words.
You refuse to learn as well, one of is right and has no need to "learn", that person is me.

[Zippyjuan]

Like I said. The economically illiterate forum is elsewhere.

At least dannno is still buying the 46D chess con. You just don’t get economics. Which wouldn’t be so bad, but you refuse to try to learn. Not even “one iota” - your words.

He just favors trade wars because they cause conflict between countries. He likes to divide.

[timosman]

He just favors trade wars because they cause conflict between countries. He likes to divide.

Your logic is flawless today, Zippy. Did you come up with this on your own? :D

[CaptUSA]

Trump is trying to use the power of the US economy against the globalists to lower tariffs across the board, that was made clear the other day in a thread that was posted, did you miss it? If so, let us know, Swordsmyth or I can dig it up. But it's precisely what I've been saying since the beginning of Trump's tariffs.

Technically Trump is right tho, due to monetary and trade policies China has been saving a lot of money and the US has been going into debt. If we didn't trade, we wouldn't be going into debt and we would be "saving" more. So we would "save" (as opposed to go into debt) more if we didn't trade.. or, if there was free trade. Trump however is smart enough to know there are huge benefits to free trade which is why he is taking the measures he has been taking. But that doesn't mean his statement is incorrect.

Hey dannno, maybe you want to educate your friend, SS, there? I mean, is your fidelity still to the principles of Ron Paul, or is it to Trump now? Because they are completely at odds over this. Now, you suggest that it's just Trump playing a game and he really supports lowering all tariffs and the protectionist act is just a shtick. But your buddy, SS really likes protectionism and sees it as putting America first.

So who's right? Is Trump a protectionist or is it a game to do just the opposite? And please explain it to SS - perhaps you'll have more success.

[Swordsmyth]

He just favors trade wars because they cause conflict between countries. He likes to divide.

That must be why he agreed to a trade truce with the EU.:sarcasm:

[Swordsmyth]

Hey dannno, maybe you want to educate your friend, SS, there? I mean, is your fidelity still to the principles of Ron Paul, or is it to Trump now? Because they are completely at odds over this. Now, you suggest that it's just Trump playing a game and he really supports lowering all tariffs and the protectionist act is just a shtick. But your buddy, SS really likes protectionism and sees it as putting America first.

So who's right? Is Trump a protectionist or is it a game to do just the opposite? And please explain it to SS - perhaps you'll have more success.

How do you see any difference between Dannno's position and mine? I said that the ideal is to negotiate free trade or close to it on both sides many times now.

[Zippyjuan]

That must be why he agreed to a trade truce with the EU.:sarcasm:

That actually referred to you. Your posts favor stirring up conflicts.

[Swordsmyth]

That actually referred to you. Your posts favor stirring up conflicts.

That must be why I celebrated Trump agreeing to a trade truce with the EU.:sarcasm:

[timosman]

That actually referred to you. Your posts favor stirring up conflicts.

I thought you never attacked anybody personally? What happened?:confused:

[Zippyjuan]

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/398645-rand-paul-blasts-trump-remove-your-tariffs-dont-give-welfare-for-farmers


Paul blasts Trump: Remove your tariffs, don't give 'welfare for farmers'

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) on Tuesday ripped President Trump's offering $12 billion in aid to farmers impacted by his recent retaliatory tariffs — instead of removing the initial tariffs altogether.

1021791878663090177

The Department of Agriculture (USDA) announced earlier Tuesday it would offer $12 billion in emergency aid for farmers impacted by the tariffs on American grain, produce and meat exports.

Trump has faced criticism from some Republicans for his tariffs on goods from traditional U.S. trading partners such as China, as well as close allies including the European Union, Canada and Mexico.
Those countries responded with tariffs on U.S. agricultural products like soybeans, beef, corn and poultry.

Paul was critical of Trump’s tariffs last month when responding to the retaliatory measures on Kentucky whiskey.

Paul told The Hill in a statement at the time that the retaliatory tariffs “would be a major blow to Kentucky's economy and our country's recent economic gains.”

“While I agree we must take a tough stand against countries that are cheating, I do not believe the solution is to impose taxes on consumers and our most important trading partners,” he said.

[Swordsmyth]

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/398645-rand-paul-blasts-trump-remove-your-tariffs-dont-give-welfare-for-farmers
Paul I know; but who are ye?

[spudea]

Yes we send hundreds of billions of dollars overseas buying foreign stuff we could easily make ourselves, and then foreign investors turn around and use their dollars to finance our out of control federal spending and buy our real estate pushing prices up so the middle class gets wiped out. such a great trade...

our trade imbalance is just one component of several unfortunate realities we face today.

[oyarde]

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/398645-rand-paul-blasts-trump-remove-your-tariffs-dont-give-welfare-for-farmers

He is right . There should not be farm subsidies or a USDA .

[thoughtomator]

Protectionism is the scam. If we got scammed on any trade, you wouldn’t need government mandates to stop it. People would stop trading with that partner all on their own.

I forgot just how severe the level of stupid here was.

Now I remember.

[euphemia]

Let’s just look at this. I drive an “import” that was built right down the road in Alabama. I think the trade off is that I buy a vehicle made in America by Americans and they drive it 225 miles up the road. Actual production costs might be a little higher, but I can’t see it being more expensive than building it in Japan and putting it on a boat for 7000 miles and then having to ship it on the road for another 400 miles.

It sure will be less than a Ford or Chevy built in Mexico.

[CCTelander]

I forgot just how severe the level of stupid here was.

Now I remember.


If you find "the level of stupid here" [sic] to be so terribly vexing you are perfectly welcome to GTFO. I'm quite certain that a goodly number of the rest of us would not object in the slightest, and you have been threatening to do just that for many, many months now. A man of his word would have been gone already.

But I guess you just couldn't bear to leave us without the "benefit" of your "superior wisdom." What a guy.

[TheCount]

I'm flabbergasted by the number of people here who think that trade makes people poorer.

[Swordsmyth]

I'm flabbergasted by the number of people here who think that trade makes people poorer.
Unfair trade makes some people extremely wealthy and lots of other people poor.

[TheCount]

Unfair trade makes some people extremely wealthy and lots of other people poor.
I think that you might have caught some of the cultural communism.

Unfair trade doesn't exist. If people are making an economic choice, they are doing so because it is to their benefit. If trade were a net negative, primitive man never would have started to do it in the first place.

[oyarde]

Many people may not understand how trade is supposed to work . I do trading everyday . When I trade it is good for me and the other guy needs to feel the same .

[Swordsmyth]

I think that you might have caught some of the cultural communism.

Unfair trade doesn't exist. If people are making an economic choice, they are doing so because it is to their benefit. If trade were a net negative, primitive man never would have started to do it in the first place.

So when foreign governments tariff our goods and subsidize theirs that is fair?
Who knew government intervention could be such a great thing?
:rolleyes:

[Danke]

So when foreign governments tariff our goods and subsidize theirs that is fair?
Who knew government intervention could be such a great thing?
:rolleyes:

Especially when it drives out the competition, then those foreign companies can raise their (now monopoly) prices.

[Swordsmyth]

Especially when it drives out the competition, then those foreign companies can raise their (now monopoly) prices.

Or cut off/throttle supply.

[nobody's_hero]

So when foreign governments tariff our goods and subsidize theirs that is fair?
Who knew government intervention could be such a great thing?
:rolleyes:

The essential problem is that no one really cares as long as they get cheap sh*%. If the owner of Target gets punched in the face every time someone passes through the checkout line while Wal-Mart gets a pat on the back, eventually Target gets fed up and throws in the towel. No one cares about the rigged game because, hey, cheap sh*%.

[acptulsa]

We would save a lot of money but that is not the only factor involved in trade, please notice that Trump never said it was the only factor, he is simply pointing out to our trade "partners" that we have a very big reason to demand a fair deal and that we are capable of diminishing or even halting trade with them in order to get one.

Didn't anyone ever tell you it's not safe to spin this hard during tornado season?

[timosman]

Didn't anyone ever tell you it's not safe to spin this hard during tornado season?


https://vgy.me/RF7wzf.jpg

[acptulsa]

https://vgy.me/RF7wzf.jpg

Who'd waste sparkling wit on such lame spin?

[CaptUSA]

So when foreign governments tariff our goods and subsidize theirs that is fair?
Who knew government intervention could be such a great thing?

Progressives always seem to use that word, "fair"... :rolleyes:

Let me make this simple - trade is between the buyer and seller. If they both agree to the terms, then it is "fair". They both benefit.

And you want our government to intervene just because another government does??!! If they subsidize, they hurt their taxpayers to the benefit of the buyer and seller. If they tariff, they hurt their buyers because now they have to buy more expensive goods and reduce their benefit. So because they do that, you want our big government to match theirs??!

[timosman]

Progressives always seem to use that word, "fair"... :rolleyes:

Let me make this simple - trade is between the buyer and seller. If they both agree to the terms, then it is "fair". They both benefit.

And you want our government to intervene just because another government does??!! If they subsidize, they hurt their taxpayers to the benefit of the buyer and seller. If they tariff, they hurt their buyers because now they have to buy more expensive goods and reduce their benefit. So because they do that, you want our big government to match theirs??!

Do you think you might be overanalyzing the situation? :confused:

[nikcers]

If I didn't go to work I'd save a lot of money.

[CCTelander]

Progressives always seem to use that word, "fair"... :rolleyes:

Let me make this simple - trade is between the buyer and seller. If they both agree to the terms, then it is "fair". They both benefit.

And you want our government to intervene just because another government does??!! If they subsidize, they hurt their taxpayers to the benefit of the buyer and seller. If they tariff, they hurt their buyers because now they have to buy more expensive goods and reduce their benefit. So because they do that, you want our big government to match theirs??!


Not to mention the fact that in a state of freedom there are no guarantees that anything will be fair. Ever. Just the freedom to pursue "fairness" as you see it. Some, however, seem to want to run to momma and papa government to protect them from the aweful "unfairness" and risk that liberty entails.

[thoughtomator]

If you find "the level of stupid here" [sic] to be so terribly vexing you are perfectly welcome to GTFO. I'm quite certain that a goodly number of the rest of us would not object in the slightest, and you have been threatening to do just that for many, many months now. A man of his word would have been gone already.

But I guess you just couldn't bear to leave us without the "benefit" of your "superior wisdom." What a guy.

I'll do whatever the hell I like and your opinion has no value whatsoever in the equation.

[Origanalist]

Not to mention the fact that in a state of freedom there are no guarantees that anything will be fair. Ever. Just the freedom to pursue "fairness" as you see it. Some, however, seem to want to run to momma and papa government to protect them from the aweful "unfairness" and risk that liberty entails.

A lot of that going around these days.

[acptulsa]

A lot of that going around these days.

It's downright bipartisan, too.

[Zippyjuan]

So when foreign governments tariff our goods and subsidize theirs that is fair?
Who knew government intervention could be such a great thing?
:rolleyes:

Treating everybody fairly would be socialism wouldn't it? Protecting those who did not "win"?

[Swordsmyth]

Progressives always seem to use that word, "fair"... :rolleyes:

Let me make this simple - trade is between the buyer and seller. If they both agree to the terms, then it is "fair". They both benefit.

And you want our government to intervene just because another government does??!! If they subsidize, they hurt their taxpayers to the benefit of the buyer and seller. If they tariff, they hurt their buyers because now they have to buy more expensive goods and reduce their benefit. So because they do that, you want our big government to match theirs??!
They also hurt the American businesses and workers that that they steal sales from and block from selling in their markets, their trade warfare requires a government defense just as real warfare would.

[Swordsmyth]

Treating everybody fairly would be socialism wouldn't it? Protecting those who did not "win"?

Equality of outcome is socialism, equality of opportunity is not.

[Swordsmyth]

Not to mention the fact that in a state of freedom there are no guarantees that anything will be fair. Ever. Just the freedom to pursue "fairness" as you see it. Some, however, seem to want to run to momma and papa government to protect them from the aweful "unfairness" and risk that liberty entails.
In a state of freedom everyone would have a fair opportunity.

[CaptUSA]

They also hurt the American businesses and workers that that they steal sales from and block from selling in their markets, their trade warfare requires a government defense just as real warfare would.

You do realize that no business has a "right" to buyers, right??? If they want to hurt their people and drive up the costs of getting US goods, that sucks for them. And yes, it affects the producers of those goods. But nobody has a "right" to those buyers. And we certainly shouldn't be doing the same thing to our own citizens.

[nikcers]

In a state of freedom everyone would have a fair opportunity.
Lol that's real funny, no freedom doesn't mean no one goes hungry, freedom means a mob can't take food out of your mouth by force and give it to their friends. It's a system that makes less people go hungry though because the people leading the mobs don't have any incentives to stop wasting money because they are rewarded for wasting money.

[Swordsmyth]

You do realize that no business has a "right" to buyers, right??? If they want to hurt their people and drive up the costs of getting US goods, that sucks for them. And yes, it affects the producers of those goods. But nobody has a "right" to those buyers. And we certainly shouldn't be doing the same thing to our own citizens.
A foreign government picking winners and losers is not somehow virtuous, it is destructive and Americans have a right to be protected from it.

[Swordsmyth]

Lol that's real funny, no freedom doesn't mean no one goes hungry, freedom means a mob can't take food out of your mouth by force and give it to their friends. It's a system that makes less people go hungry though because the people leading the mobs don't have any incentives to stop wasting money because they are rewarded for wasting money.
What part of the word "opportunity" don't you understand?

[The Gold Standard]

You do realize that no business has a "right" to buyers, right??? If they want to hurt their people and drive up the costs of getting US goods, that sucks for them. And yes, it affects the producers of those goods. But nobody has a "right" to those buyers. And we certainly shouldn't be doing the same thing to our own citizens.

Don't have any rep for you. It's too bad this has to be explained over and over again, but this place has been a lost cause for a while now.

[CaptUSA]

A foreign government picking winners and losers is not somehow virtuous, it is destructive and Americans have a right to be protected from it.

Ah, now the neocon appears. Yes, of course, our government has not only the right, but the obligation, to force other countries to open their markets to us! And dammit, if they don't do it, we'll either bomb 'em to smithereens or tax our own citizens to death! That'll show 'em! :rolleyes:

[Zippyjuan]

A foreign government picking winners and losers is not somehow virtuous, it is destructive and Americans have a right to be protected from it.

Only the US is allowed to do that!

[CCTelander]

Ah, now the neocon appears. Yes, of course, our government has not only the right, but the obligation, to force other countries to open their markets to us! And dammit, if they don't do it, we'll either bomb 'em to smithereens or tax our own citizens to death! That'll show 'em! :rolleyes:


That this kind of rabid insanity passes for any kind of sound economics, especially here, boggles the mind. Some of these people are truly hopeless.

[Origanalist]

Ah, now the neocon appears. Yes, of course, our government has not only the right, but the obligation, to force other countries to open their markets to us! And dammit, if they don't do it, we'll either bomb 'em to smithereens or tax our own citizens to death! That'll show 'em! :rolleyes:

Serves us, er, them right.

[Swordsmyth]

Ah, now the neocon appears. Yes, of course, our government has not only the right, but the obligation, to force other countries to open their markets to us! And dammit, if they don't do it, we'll either bomb 'em to smithereens or tax our own citizens to death! That'll show 'em! :rolleyes:

If they want access to ours they must give us equal access to theirs, there is no need to bomb them over it because we don't need access to their markets, we can just treat them the way they treat us.

[Swordsmyth]

Only the US is allowed to do that!
We can try to keep our own government from doing directly, the only way we can protect Americans from foreign governments doing it is to tariff them until they agree to stop.

[nobody's_hero]

Equality of outcome is socialism, equality of opportunity is not.

That's a critical distinction.

[thoughtomator]

If they want access to ours they must give us equal access to theirs, there is no need to bomb them over it because we don't need access to their markets, we can just treat them the way they treat us.

The anti-tariffists have all the class, grace, and charm of someone who insists that a rape victim is to blame if she declines to ask for a second date.

[Swordsmyth]

The anti-tariffists have all the class, grace, and charm of someone who insists that a rape victim is to blame if she declines to ask for a second date.

They also love government intervention as long as it benefits them and they can pretend that it doesn't matter because it is a foreign government doing it.

Most of them also favor the crony tax cut deals for just one company.

[CCTelander]

Ah, now the neocon appears. Yes, of course, our government has not only the right, but the obligation, to force other countries to open their markets to us! And dammit, if they don't do it, we'll either bomb 'em to smithereens or tax our own citizens to death! That'll show 'em! :rolleyes:


Another point along these lines, trade wars, historically, have a tendency to result in actual hot, shooting wars. Apparently, our trade warrior "friends" are willing to take that risk with the lives of my children, or grandchildren pretty soon now. I'm not.

How very noble and patriotic of them.

[Swordsmyth]

Another point along these lines, trade wars, historically, have a tendency to result in actual hot, shooting wars. Apparently, our trade warrior "friends" are willing to take that risk with the lives of my children, or grandchildren pretty soon now. I'm not.

How very noble and patriotic of them.



Some have and others haven't, as long we don't fire the first shot we should be safe.
There are other foreign policy actions that are much more worrisome on that issue and don't even have a legitimate purpose to defend Americans.

You sound like the "Better Red Than Dead" crowd during the cold war, we shouldn't have gone abroad in search of monsters to destroy but we absolutely should defend Americans.

[thoughtomator]

If asking others to deal fairly with us is a causus belli, then that war was coming anyway.

[Superfluous Man]

You're right. We should have let the deficit get higher and then be all like "Yo, we're Americans, we live better than all of yo because we buy a lot of yo $#@!. And a lot of us don't even have to work for it. Our government pays us not to work. But, we got some side jobs, yo. Suckas!!!!" Then these other countries would be like, "Oh $#@!!!! America just dissed us. Ah, hell noes. We gotta buy mo of their $#@! and work less!" Brilliant.

So you support tax increases because you think they reduce the federal deficit?

[Zippyjuan]

The anti-tariffists have all the class, grace, and charm of someone who insists that a rape victim is to blame if she declines to ask for a second date.

1021791878663090177

[phill4paul]

So you support tax increases because you think they reduce the federal deficit?

I support renegotiating trade deals that leave us with a deficit. Even if it means temporarily increasing tariffs to force other countries to the table.

[Superfluous Man]

I support renegotiating trade deals that leave us with a deficit. Even if it means temporarily increasing tariffs to force other countries to the table.

Are you talking about a trade deficit?

[Zippyjuan]

I support renegotiating trade deals that leave us with a deficit. Even if it means temporarily increasing tariffs to force other countries to the table.

We were engaged in many trade negotiations when Trump decided to start tossing out tariffs. Progress on them has since died- not moved along. Threats make people dig in and resist- not capitulate.

[Zippyjuan]

Another Paul on the issue: http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2018/march/12/tariffs-are-not-the-answer/


Tariffs Are Not the Answer

written by ron paul

President Trump’s planned 25 percent tariff on steel imports and 10 percent tariff on aluminum imports may provide a temporary boost for those industries, but the tariffs will do tremendous long-term damage to the American and global economies. Tariffs raise the price of, and reduce demand for, imported goods. Tariffs ensure the preferences of politicians, instead of the preferences of consumers, to determine how resources are allocated. This reduces economic efficiency and living standards.

Some justify these economic inefficiencies as being worth it to save American jobs. This ignores how tariffs increase costs of production for industries reliant on imported materials to produce their products. These increased costs lead to job losses in those industries. For example, President Trump’s proposed steel tariff could cost nearly 40,000 jobs in the steel-dependent auto manufacturing industry. Tariffs also cause job losses in industries reliant on exports. This is especially true if — as is likely to be the case — other countries respond to President Trump’s actions by increasing tariffs on US products.



More at link.

[phill4paul]

We were engaged in many trade negotiations when Trump decided to start tossing out tariffs. Progress on them has since died- not moved along. Threats make people dig in and resist- not capitulate.

Yes. I'm sure Obama had many trade negotiations running that if, gosh darn, Hillary could have only continued with his agenda, all trade would be free and open right now. :rolleyes: You're losing it , man.

[phill4paul]

Are you talking about a trade deficit?

Since that is what this thread is about, then, yes.

[Zippyjuan]

Yes. I'm sure Obama had many trade negotiations running that if, gosh darn, Hillary could have only continued with his agenda, all trade would be free and open right now. :rolleyes: You're losing it , man.

https://euobserver.com/economic/132376


TTIP: EU offered 97% cut on US tariffs, secret papers show

The TTIP negotiations entered a decisive phase on 15 October 2015. That’s when US and EU negotiators laid their cards on the table, exchanging offers for tariff reductions. Up until then, the US had only broached hypothetical reductions; now they were openly offering to reduce 87.5 percent of all tariffs to zero.

That was more than the EU expected. European negotiators had to come up with a better offer or risk derailing the deal. A week later, they came up with a new deal: cutting 97 percent of tariffs to zero.

The EU’s secret offer, which website Correctiv has seen in its entirety, is made up of 181 pages of densely-printed text. It’s got almost 8,000 categories: every species of fish, every chemical has its own tariff category. Importing a parka? Its tariff will depend on whether it's wool, or polyester for example.

Trade deals are like poker games. Europe’s big offer comes with a big hope: that the US will open up its public bidding process to European firms. That way, European construction companies like Hochtief could bid on contracts to build US highways, or BMW could sell cop cars to American sheriffs.



More at link.

What have they offered Trump?

[Superfluous Man]

We were engaged in many trade negotiations when Trump decided to start tossing out tariffs.

You missed the stipulation Phill4Paul (btw, what Paul is he for? Obviously not Ron or Rand, unless Phill has changed his views since then) made, which is that these must be trade negotiations aimed at the US not having a deficit, by which I can only assume he meant a trade deficit.

So PhillAgainstPaul wants the US to enter trade agreements designed to impose such restrictions on trade as will force us not to import any more than we export.

Whatever negotiations you're talking about surely weren't being made with that goal in mind.

[Superfluous Man]

Since that is what this thread is about, then, yes.

Then say "trade deficits."

[phill4paul]

https://euobserver.com/economic/132376



More at link.

What have they offered Trump?

The devil is in the details.

[phill4paul]

Then say "trade deficits."

I followed the discussion in the OP. Not my fault you can't keep up.

[Zippyjuan]

The devil is in the details.

Trump's offer from the EU for now is to not add any more tariffs if the US doesn't add any more (not getting rid of any) and they will START to maybe talk about such "details" at some unknown time in the future.

[phill4paul]

Trump's offer from the EU for now is to not add any more tariffs if the US doesn't add any more (not getting rid of any) and they will START to maybe talk about such "details" at some unknown time in the future.

I'm sure someone will release the secret trade deals anytime now so that we will know for sure.

[Origanalist]

I'm sure someone will release the secret trade deals anytime now so that we will know for sure.

I'm sure glad that someone who has experience in bankruptcy is negotiating secret trade deals for us 'Muricans.

[Swordsmyth]

1021791878663090177

Paul I know; but who are ye?

[phill4paul]

I'm sure glad that someone who has experience in bankruptcy is negotiating secret trade deals for us 'Muricans.

Is there any other way, at this point, of not needing the experience of bankruptcy to negotiate a deal for the U.S.A.? I'm not saying one way or the other. I do know that since the election there is a noticeable shift in "help wanted." So much so that employers are head hunting employees. And this is in the food chain minimum (and rising without government mandates) service sector.

Edit: Last week I just gave myself a $10 an hour raise. I've not been turned down for handyman jobs since. So, whether because of Trump, or despite him, <shrug> the economy, locally, is ticking up. In measurable quantities. A city of 40k. Mostly retirees. Half-back Yankees.

[Swordsmyth]

We were engaged in many trade negotiations when Trump decided to start tossing out tariffs. Progress on them has since died- not moved along. Threats make people dig in and resist- not capitulate.

None of those deals were good for America, threats are required to get thieves to stop plundering.

[Swordsmyth]

Another Paul on the issue: http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2018/march/12/tariffs-are-not-the-answer/



More at link.

Paul I know; but who are ye?

[Swordsmyth]

https://euobserver.com/economic/132376



More at link.

What have they offered Trump?

The TTIP was globalist managed crony trade.

[TheCount]

I support renegotiating trade deals that leave us with a deficit. Even if it means temporarily increasing tariffs to force other countries to the table.

I'm confused. No trade is allowed if it produces a deficit? IE: No American can buy anything from a foreigner unless another foreigner from the same geographical area buys something from a different American?

[Swordsmyth]

You missed the stipulation Phill4Paul (btw, what Paul is he for? Obviously not Ron or Rand, unless Phill has changed his views since then) made, which is that these must be trade negotiations aimed at the US not having a deficit, by which I can only assume he meant a trade deficit.

So PhillAgainstPaul wants the US to enter trade agreements designed to impose such restrictions on trade as will force us not to import any more than we export.

Whatever negotiations you're talking about surely weren't being made with that goal in mind.

Phill wants to negotiate REAL free trade and let the market sort things out.

[Swordsmyth]

Trump's offer from the EU for now is to not add any more tariffs if the US doesn't add any more (not getting rid of any) and they will START to maybe talk about such "details" at some unknown time in the future.

Both sides agreed to reduce or even eliminate tariffs, the details will be worked out on an ongoing basis.

[Swordsmyth]

I'm confused. No trade is allowed if it produces a deficit? IE: No American can buy anything from a foreigner unless another foreigner from the same geographical area buys something from a different American?

Phill wants to negotiate for REAL free trade and let the market sort things out, he trust the market to reduce or even eliminate our trade deficit.

[phill4paul]

I'm confused. No trade is allowed if it produces a deficit? IE: No American can buy anything from a foreigner unless another foreigner from the same geographical area buys something from a different American?

The concept of "trade" is measured in dollars. The concept of "free market" is not. There would be no reason to. But, we don't have a free market. We have trade. That creates corporate/state entities attempting to control the market. Which is why we have trade laws. Too many of them that have given competitors advantage for too long. "Free markets" are the ideal. What America has is trade. And that leads to trade wars. Trade wars in which millionaires can transfer stock before the initial release of a fatwah and come out doubling their worth.
But, as far as I am concerned Trump has spark divides and debates more so than any status-quo POTUS in a long time.
I at least respect that.

[Origanalist]

Is there any other way, at this point, of not needing the experience of bankruptcy to negotiate a deal for the U.S.A.? I'm not saying one way or the other. I do know that since the election there is a noticeable shift in "help wanted." So much so that employers are head hunting employees. And this is in the food chain minimum (and rising without government mandates) service sector.

Edit: Last week I just gave myself a $10 an hour raise. I've not been turned down for handyman jobs since. So, whether because of Trump, or despite him, <shrug> the economy, locally, is ticking up. In measurable quantities. A city of 40k. Mostly retirees. Half-back Yankees.

The economy around here has been better than a lot of places for some time so your perspective is probably different from mine.

[Origanalist]

Phill wants to negotiate REAL free trade and let the market sort things out.

:rolleyes:

[phill4paul]

The economy around here has been better than a lot of places for some time so your perspective is probably different from mine.

America is a big ole wonderous place. So, I'm sure, miles may vary.

[acptulsa]

Edit: Last week I just gave myself a $10 an hour raise. I've not been turned down for handyman jobs since. So, whether because of Trump, or despite him, <shrug> the economy, locally, is ticking up. In measurable quantities. A city of 40k. Mostly retirees. Half-back Yankees.

Either that, or the people who had money all along recognize that the dollar has dropped in value since the last time you raised your rates.

[Origanalist]

Either that, or the people who had money all along recognize that the dollar has dropped in value since the last time you raised your rates.

Oh ya.

[phill4paul]

Either that, or the people who had money all along recognize that the dollar has dropped in value since the last time you raised your rates.

Absolutely doubt it, but could be. But, my point still stands...


So, whether because of Trump, or despite him, <shrug> the economy, locally, is ticking up.

[Origanalist]

Absolutely doubt it, but could be. But, my point still stands...

You would be foolish to doubt it, it's a undeniable fact.

And it's not going to stop in the foreseeable future.

[Swordsmyth]

You would be foolish to doubt it, it's a undeniable fact.

And it's not going to stop in the foreseeable future.

Which is worse a declining dollar and an economy where ordinary people can't raise their prices to compensate OR a declining dollar and an economy where ordinary people can raise their prices to compensate?

[Origanalist]

Which is worse a declining dollar and an economy where ordinary people can't raise their prices to compensate OR a declining dollar and an economy where ordinary people can raise their prices to compensate?

I'm a ordinary person and I raised my prices to compensate, not sure what you mean.

[acptulsa]

I'm a ordinary person and I raised my prices to compensate, not sure what you mean.

Makes as much sense as...


Paul I know; but who are ye?


Paul I know; but who are ye?

But, you know, that last might be out of context and totally inappropriate to the conversation so it makes no sense in the thread. But at least it's from the Bible, and makes sense when it's at home.

But at least it's funny to see him speaking in the voice of an outcast evil spirit. So that's something.

[phill4paul]

You would be foolish to doubt it, it's a undeniable fact.

And it's not going to stop in the foreseeable future.

Well, as I've said mileage varies. Around here there is demand, sparked by whatever, but not enough tradesman. And it's just not the "rich." It's everybody. Over the last four weeks I've worked in two "mansions," , "Mc" dontcha know, and three lower middle class homes. People just need shit done and there is no one to do it. The ones that do aren't getting younger. I have a church that needs two rooms done in sheet rock. I wish you lived here. I'm a great patcher, but I generally don't like installing sheet rock. The trouble is that the two guys that I recommended for good, honest, work just retired. I asked them if they knew a crew and they told me, there ain't none around anymore. I dunno man. All I can speak to is locally. For those of us that still do its not bad.

[specsaregood]

Absolutely doubt it, but could be. But, my point still stands...


So, whether because of Trump, or despite him, <shrug> the economy, locally, is ticking up.


My business is national mostly, some global, definitely not local. Last year was our best year in over a decade and this year is currently on a trajectory to beat last year. Way outpacing the rate of inflation.

[Swordsmyth]

I'm a ordinary person and I raised my prices to compensate, not sure what you mean.

More people can now than before Trump.

[Origanalist]

More people can now than before Trump.

This could be true, I don't know. I know I haven't really seen much change but that is just anecdotal. One thing is for sure, the dollar will continue to decrease in value under current circumstances.

[acptulsa]

This could be true, I don't know. I know I haven't really seen much change but that is just anecdotal. One thing is for sure, the dollar will continue to decrease in value under current circumstances.

Especially with Trump hounding the Fed whenever they do anything deflationary.

Well, Zippy says that's a good thing, so that's one person who Spinsmith can agree with.

[nikcers]

4D chess- Trump Just wanted to get people to talk about free markets and capitalism.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

I'm flabbergasted by the number of people here who think that trade makes people poorer.

No, you just made that up with your progressive shrewdness. Being flabbergasted is the last thing coming from you.