Conservatives and the Free Trade Straw Man

[TheTexan]

But there would be less billionaires in America. The Walton family would have a business which may have grown enough to compete with JC Penny. They would not be billionaires. Jeff Bezos would be working as a programmer somewhere.

True, although I think Wal Mart was quite successful even before it went international.

[TheTexan]

Even from a global wealth perspective free trade is a dumb idea.

Option 1) Buy a wooden chair from your neighbor for $30, hand-made with lumber from his land
Option 2) Buy a wooden chair from China for $25, and pack and ship it 8,000 miles

With option #1, the world as a whole gained $30 in wealth.

With option #2, the world only really gained $5 in wealth. $20 was literally thrown in the ocean to get it shipped 8,000 miles.

[Brian4Liberty]

True, although I think Wal Mart was quite successful even before it went international.

Yep. They were regional, and could have gone national under your scenario. But they wouldn't do it via importing cheap products from China.

[A Son of Liberty]

If you hate America, look at it then at a smaller scale.

Replace "America" with "your family & friends".

Would you rather:
1) Buy a $30 lawn chair from your friend, who frequents your shop often in turn, or
2) Buy a $29 lawn chair from some random dude in China so he can spend it in China

Is the $1 savings worth it?

I don't hate America. Your appeal to emotion is probably working on douche nozzles like Swordsmyth, but I'm entirely uncompelled by it.

"America" and "my family & friends" are in nearly no way analogous.

[TheTexan]

I don't hate America. Your appeal to emotion is probably working on douche nozzles like Swordsmyth, but I'm entirely uncompelled by it.

It was sarcasm. I don't care if you hate America. I hate America. But as long as I'm an involuntary member, I may as well want the best for America. Because it involuntarily includes me.

"America" and "my family & friends" are in nearly no way analogous.

They are, though. Economic effects that happen at the micro level, happen exactly the same at the macro level, unless there's a compelling reason to think otherwise.

[TheTexan]

If tomorrow every country except the US just disappeared from the globe, the people gone, and the land replaced with oceans,

It would take like 1 year to recover economically.

Then things would keep going on as they always have.

And we would be just as productive as we have always been.

And you would still have affordable lawn chairs.

Trade with other nations, is overrated.

[Krugminator2]

I use China as an example but really the above formulation applies to every transaction with any person or any country.

If we are in agreement that:
A consumer purchase is a transfer of future economic security from one person to another.

Can we agree then that the below is true?
When America imports consumer goods, it has a negative effect on America's economic future and corresponding positive effect on the other country's economic future
When America exports consumer goods, it has a positive effect on America's economic future and corresponding negative effect on the other country's economic future
When America builds and then consumes those consumer goods, it has a positive effect on both America's present and America's futures

If you disagree with the above statements, can you tell me why we can agree that it can be true for an individual transaction, but is no longer true when considered in the aggregate?

I already did. Green squares aren't eaten or used as decoration. They ultimately flow back to the US either in the form of investment or in purchasing products that will be exported to China. If imports made the US poorer, then the value of the dollar would drop relative to Yuan until you hit a new equilibrium where imports and exports would be in balance if you include investment.



A pretty good rule of thumb in life is whatever Milton Friedman says on any topic is correct. And if you think you know better you need a really good explanation and it helps to have other smart people in the field of economics on your side. Instead the only economists against free trade are far left wing economists like James Galbraith and Joseph Stiglitz and Dean Baker. That is not good company. You are choosing between Milton Friedman and the guy who thinks Hugo Chavez was doing a great job. https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna21246144

[TheTexan]

I already did. Green squares aren't eaten or used as decoration. They ultimately flow back to the US either in the form of investment or in purchasing products that will be exported to China. If imports made the US poorer, then the value of the dollar would drop relative to Yuan until you hit a new equilibrium where imports and exports would be in balance if you include investment.



A pretty good rule of thumb in life is whatever Milton Friedman says on any topic is correct. And if you think you know better you need a really good explanation and it helps to have other smart people in the field of economics on your side. Instead the only economists against free trade are far left wing economists like James Galbraith and Joseph Stiglitz and Dean Baker. That is not good company. You are choosing between Milton Friedman and the guy who thinks Hugo Chavez was doing a great job. https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna21246144

First off, USDCNY has indeed dropped since its peak in 1994. (though I disagree that should be used as a measuring stick of relative wealth anyway)

Second, you're making a lot of assumptions that aren't backed up by reality. You are assuming that every dollar sent out flows back to the US. They don't. You're also assuming that the dollars flow back to the US for the same class of goods (consumer vs b2b). Again - they don't.

[TheTexan]

A pretty good rule of thumb in life is whatever Milton Friedman says on any topic is correct. And if you think you know better you need a really good explanation and it helps to have other smart people in the field of economics on your side. Instead the only economists against free trade are far left wing economists like James Galbraith and Joseph Stiglitz and Dean Baker. That is not good company. You are choosing between Milton Friedman and the guy who thinks Hugo Chavez was doing a great job. https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna21246144

I don't need someone else to tell me how I should think. Economics is not hard - its just human action, and I am just as much human as any of those "economists".

[Krugminator2]

I don't need someone else to tell me how I should think. Economics is not hard - its just human action, and I am just as much human as any of those "economists".

That's a point of difference. I know that I know nothing. Therefore I listen to people who spent their life to studying a topic and have a track record of being right and who have worked critiqued and debated among other people who have spent their lives studying a topic.

Maybe you are Ray Dalio and worth listening to. Most likely you aren't so I'll stick to citing Milton.

[TheTexan]

That's a point of difference. I know that I know nothing. Therefore I listen to people who spent their life to studying a topic and have a track record of being right and who have worked critiqued and debated among other people who have spent their lives studying a topic.

Maybe you are Ray Dalio and worth listening to. Most likely you aren't so I'll stick to citing Milton.

Pretty much any economic theory can be "right" depending on how you choose to interpet it and in what context. Most economic theories are shielded from rational criticism by hiding behind the complexities of global human behavior.

It's only by shedding the complexities and looking at first principles can you actually understand something. You don't need an expert to understand first principles.

[Swordsmyth]

I already did. Green squares aren't eaten or used as decoration. They ultimately flow back to the US either in the form of investment or in purchasing products that will be exported to China. If imports made the US poorer, then the value of the dollar would drop relative to Yuan until you hit a new equilibrium where imports and exports would be in balance if you include investment.

You will reach that equilibrium when the American people are as poor and enslaved as the Chinese.
Only you won't even reach it then while China tariffs us and subsidizes their own industries.

[Krugminator2]

You will reach that equilibrium when the American people are as poor and enslaved as the Chinese.
Only you won't even reach it then while China tariffs us and subsidizes their own industries.

Your free market capitalism causes poverty takes are amusing and useful.

I also enjoy your immigrants ruin the country takes (all the while typing and using technology that was likely developed by immigrants). Your businesses shouldn't have free association with speech codes or vaccines takes but kicking blacks off the lunch counter should be allowed takes are great. I am sure I am missing other takes but it gets hard to juggle the dog's breakfast of agrarian populism and theocracy that you and phil and RJB and sammy have.

[Swordsmyth]

Your free market capitalism causes poverty takes are amusing and useful.

I also enjoy your immigrants ruin the country takes (all the while typing and using technology that was likely developed by immigrants). Your businesses shouldn't have free association with speech codes or vaccines takes but kicking blacks off the lunch counter should be allowed takes are great. I am sure I am missing other takes but it gets hard to juggle the dog's breakfast of agrarian populism and theocracy that you and phil and RJB and sammy have.

Nice strawmen.
"Free trade" is not free market capitalism, it is globalist capitalism.
It subjects the free market to the distortions of unfree markets, even if the whole world was composed of free market countries it wouldn't be worth the possible increase in wealth that it might create in theory to lose our independence to interdependence.
And since the world is not and never has been economically uniform it is an absolute fact that the imbalances will be used to enrich the powerful and impoverish the weak, the whole pie may or may not be larger but the piece that the American middle class gets to eat is diminished both as a fraction of the pie and in simple weight/calorie count.

Immigrants are ruining the country and they are not worth the inventions that they may or may not have created and that may or may not have been invented by others instead. (not to mention that we can allow some limited immigration of the best while excluding the barbarian hordes)
And you do know that we can obtain inventions created in other countries, right? we do it all the time.

Businesses have every right to speech codes for their employees on the clock, they do not have a right to them for their customers when they collude with government and monopolize the speech industry while advertising free speech.
Kicking minorities out of the diner is a borderline issue, it can be argued either way, especially if the diner is the only source of food in town.
Forcing people to inject experimental substances into their bodies in order to participate in the economy while colluding with government is unconscionable and absolutely not anyone's right.

I'll take a "dog's breakfast of agrarian populism and theocracy" over your lockstep globalist positions every time and so did the Founding Fathers.

[TheTexan]

It shouldn't be controversial to say, that the more means of production that you own (as an individual, entity, or nation), the better off you will be economically in the future.

It also shouldn't be controversial to say, that the US' means of production in the manufacturing industry has been exported to China.

The only way that the US isn't sabotaging its future with that export, is if the US gained some means of production as a result of that trade that I simply am not seeing. All I see that we received from China as a result of that trade are lawn chairs and plastic dildos.

The following argument has merit: "hey its my right to sacrifice the nation's future so I can have lawn chairs and plastic dildos".

However I do not see how one can make the argument: "The US is better off as a result of exporting our manufacturing to China".

[Invisible Man]

It shouldn't be controversial to say, that the more means of production that you own (as an individual, entity, or nation), the better off you will be economically in the future.

That statement is so ridiculously and provably false, and contradicted by the entirety of the economic history of the human race in every place and time, as well as simple logic, that it's a wonder people still can think it. Especially on a forum where free market economics is as respected as it is here (or at least was prior to the Deplorable take over).

[TheTexan]

That statement is so ridiculously and provably false, and contradicted by the entirety of the economic history of the human race in every place and time, that it's a wonder people still can think it.

So ridiculously and provably false? .... I am interested in how you can prove, that owning and productively using means of production, does not contribute to your economic future.

Please - enlighten me, lol

[Krugminator2]

It also shouldn't be controversial to say, that the US' means of production in the manufacturing industry has been exported to China.

It might not be controversial because the average person is a moron but it is false. The US manufactures more stuff now than at any point in history. I don't understand this fetish to have the US make tchotchkes. The US typically makes stuff that requires higher skill.

Most Americans unaware that as U.S. manufacturing jobs have disappeared, output has grown

Manufacturing jobs in the United States have declined considerably over the past several decades, even as manufacturing output – the value of goods and products manufactured in the U.S. – has grown strongly. But while most Americans are aware of the decline in employment, relatively few know about the increase in output, according to a new Pew Research Center survey.

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...put-has-grown/


Think nothing is made in America? Output has doubled in three decades https://www.marketwatch.com/story/us...des-2016-03-28

You're Not Going To Believe This But US Manufacturing Is Now Bigger Than Ever Before https://www.forbes.com/sites/timwors...h=1f603390578d

[TheTexan]

It might not be controversial because the average person is a moron but it is false. The US manufactures more stuff now than at any point in history. I don't understand this fetish to have the US make tchotchkes. The US typically makes stuff that requires higher skill.

Most Americans unaware that as U.S. manufacturing jobs have disappeared, output has grown

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...put-has-grown/


Think nothing is made in America? Output has doubled in three decades https://www.marketwatch.com/story/us...des-2016-03-28

You're Not Going To Believe This But US Manufacturing Is Now Bigger Than Ever Before https://www.forbes.com/sites/timwors...h=1f603390578d

Both things can be true without contradiction.

It remains uncontested by anything that you have said, that America has exported (a significant portion of) its manufacturing to China.

[Krugminator2]

Both things can be true without contradiction.

It remains uncontested by anything that you have said, that America has exported (a significant portion of) its manufacturing to China.

---------------------------------------->

It also shouldn't be controversial to say, that the US' means of production in the manufacturing industry has been exported to China.

[Matt4Liberty]

It might not be controversial because the average person is a moron but it is false. The US manufactures more stuff now than at any point in history. I don't understand this fetish to have the US make tchotchkes. The US typically makes stuff that requires higher skill.

Most Americans unaware that as U.S. manufacturing jobs have disappeared, output has grown

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...put-has-grown/


Think nothing is made in America? Output has doubled in three decades https://www.marketwatch.com/story/us...des-2016-03-28

You're Not Going To Believe This But US Manufacturing Is Now Bigger Than Ever Before https://www.forbes.com/sites/timwors...h=1f603390578d

This garbage has been posted repeatedly by globalists for decades. Growing up in manufacturing, i can tell you what a load of crap this tagline really is. We might be the point of final assembly for more things than ever, but we do not produce more than we ever have.

Final assembly from imported components is not more manufacturing than ever. Complicated manufactured products like vehicles, aircraft, machinery, etc... might have been assembled here but who makes the components? The reason these types of manufactured goods are important to your economy is because each vendor gets a piece of the pie. It's not like an iPhone where the actual production cost is pretty much inconsequential. Take an aircraft for example. Is it domestic manufacturing when Boeing takes several large sub assemblies from everywhere accept the US and has a few people click them together like LEGOs?

[TheTexan]

---------------------------------------->

My statement was not intended to mean literally all of America's manufacturing was exported. America still manufacture some items obviously. It should be equally obvious, that America has exported a significant portion of its manufacturing to China.

If you want to get into numbers, the below link has good detail.

https://www.propelplm.com/blog/ameri...ing-statistics

But the bottom line is that we manufacture about 2 trillion worth of things and we import about 2 trillion worth of things.

Of that 2 trillion we import a large part of it comes from China - either directly (400 billion) or indirectly.

Additionally, as I'm sure you're aware, US manufacturing is increasingly narrowing in scope to technology products. Products such as textiles and clothing are increasingly being imported from China and elsewhere.

All these things are compounding factors that explain the loss of US dominance in manufacturing. The US was absolutely dominating manufacturing exports in the 70s. Now China has that role.

The US squandered its manufacturing lead and in exchange we received lawn chairs and plastic dildos.

[TheTexan]

Manufacturing as a % of GDP is also down significantly.

Where did it go? (Hint: china)

https://www.macrotrends.net/countrie...cturing-output

[Swordsmyth]

This garbage has been posted repeatedly by globalists for decades. Growing up in manufacturing, i can tell you what a load of crap this tagline really is. We might be the point of final assembly for more things than ever, but we do not produce more than we ever have.

Final assembly from imported components is not more manufacturing than ever. Complicated manufactured products like vehicles, aircraft, machinery, etc... might have been assembled here but who makes the components? The reason these types of manufactured goods are important to your economy is because each vendor gets a piece of the pie. It's not like an iPhone where the actual production cost is pretty much inconsequential. Take an aircraft for example. Is it domestic manufacturing when Boeing takes several large sub assemblies from everywhere accept the US and has a few people click them together like LEGOs?

That's all his side has to trick people with.
Lies, damn lies, and statistics.

[TheTexan]

This garbage has been posted repeatedly by globalists for decades. Growing up in manufacturing, i can tell you what a load of crap this tagline really is. We might be the point of final assembly for more things than ever, but we do not produce more than we ever have.

Final assembly from imported components is not more manufacturing than ever. Complicated manufactured products like vehicles, aircraft, machinery, etc... might have been assembled here but who makes the components? The reason these types of manufactured goods are important to your economy is because each vendor gets a piece of the pie. It's not like an iPhone where the actual production cost is pretty much inconsequential. Take an aircraft for example. Is it domestic manufacturing when Boeing takes several large sub assemblies from everywhere accept the US and has a few people click them together like LEGOs?

This effect is extremely notable with things like Apple products. An iPad may sell for 700 but only cost 300 to produce. Based on the "value added" this is counted as 400 towards US manufacturing.

But in reality, the 400 worth in US "manufacturing" was just final assembly. Screwing a few parts together.

That 400 gets counted towards total US manufacturing when really the total value add from US manufacturing itself is minimal.

The product is 99% made in China but the way the numbers come out, America gets half the credit (from a statistics perspective)