Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

NAFTA 2.0: Upgrading Economic Ties To Boost Competitiveness
Investors Business Daily ^ | Dec. 15, 2016 4:36 PM ET | REP. WILL HURD

Posted on 12/16/2016 2:33:36 AM PST by expat_panama

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-116 next last
To: central_va
15% AV debt

Ummmm....

1789 to 1913. 124 years with zero debt.

Liar said what?

61 posted on 12/16/2016 9:37:30 AM PST by Toddsterpatriot ("Telling the government to lower trade barriers to zero...is government interference" central_va)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: econjack
My Ph.D. is in economics and I’ve taught it for almost 30 years at several universities.

You taught destructive economic theory in a political vacuum. Hopefully the globalist ere is ending and with it dinosaurs like you disappear before the USA is forced into socialism.

62 posted on 12/16/2016 9:39:23 AM PST by central_va (I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: Toddsterpatriot
I take it back. I was wrong it was not zero but almost by today's standards. 15% vs %110 percent is basically no debt. Do yo disagree?

So again I was wrong it took a while to reach zero debt after the Revolution - 1830. The graph proves tariffs control debt and progressive income taxes, that you guys love, cause debt.

63 posted on 12/16/2016 9:43:09 AM PST by central_va (I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Toddsterpatriot

Not avoiding but refocusing.

Yearly trade deficits w/China add to our debt by virtue of the reasons I previously discussed.


64 posted on 12/16/2016 9:43:23 AM PST by JonPreston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: central_va
You taught destructive economic theory in a political vacuum.

How would you know what I taught? All of my courses centered on the teaching of Milton Friedman and the free market economy. My Principles students were required to read the Review and Outlook in the WSJ everyday just so they would get a realistic dose of economics and everyday politics. Oh, and by the way, there's a reason they used to call it Political Economy: Once you have selected a political system, you have also determined the political system. Handing more and more power to Washington is why this country is drifting away from a free market towards Socialism; a drift I detest. So, to correct you, I am a Friedmanite and all that he stood for and you have no clue how I taught.

65 posted on 12/16/2016 9:47:41 AM PST by econjack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: JonPreston
Not avoiding but refocusing.

The focus was your confusion between trade deficits and national debt. And your avoidance of showing how a purchase of Canadian beer leads to a higher national debt.

I'll help you get started.

1) I buy beer.

2)...

3)...

4)...

5)...

6)...

7) National debt increases

If steps 2-6 aren't enough, feel free to add more.

Or continue avoiding.

66 posted on 12/16/2016 9:48:03 AM PST by Toddsterpatriot ("Telling the government to lower trade barriers to zero...is government interference" central_va)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: central_va
I take it back. I was wrong it was not zero

I don't disagree. You were wrong.

67 posted on 12/16/2016 9:49:42 AM PST by Toddsterpatriot ("Telling the government to lower trade barriers to zero...is government interference" central_va)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Toddsterpatriot

Maybe he is operating from the axiom that one doesn’t drink beer, but only borrows it for a while?


68 posted on 12/16/2016 9:53:40 AM PST by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: econjack

You’re an idiot. Tariffs free the American people from government. Income taxes are a form of slavery/tyranny.


69 posted on 12/16/2016 9:57:07 AM PST by central_va (I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Toddsterpatriot
The focus was your confusion between trade deficits and national debt.

There isn't confusion on my part but rather obstinance on yours.

China uses their trade surplus to lend to the United States by buying Treasuries. This increases our debt. The scheme will go on until either we make trade equitable or China stops buying treasuries. This is the ball and chain Free Traitors have fixed to our leg. All hail David Ricardo!

So that's it, trade deficits increase our debt.

Now go have a domestic beer.

70 posted on 12/16/2016 10:29:12 AM PST by JonPreston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: JonPreston

I’ll try to use plain English because you are being obtuse. Government debt increases because the government spends more and more, not because the Chinese or Japanese or Americans buy it. And raising tariffs solves nothing if the government spends $1.40 for every $1.00 it collects, and that ratio is heading the wrong way.


71 posted on 12/16/2016 10:44:48 AM PST by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy

We spend more and more because we have repeatedly been able to raise our debt ceiling thanks to now wealthy nations like China buying our debt. Our trade policies have made our enemies wealthy while decimating the American middle class. That way of doing business is over, and if it isn’t, we, as a nation, will be. This is the American populism that propelled Trump past the bought & paid for politicians of both parties.


72 posted on 12/16/2016 10:59:30 AM PST by JonPreston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: central_va
You’re an idiot. Tariffs free the American people from government. Income taxes are a form of slavery/tyranny.

Tariffs don't prevent the product from coming into the country. It simply means the tariff is added onto the price of the product. Who gets the tariff money? The gov't. Who pays the higher price for the product? You do. How is that any different than a tax, you idiot.

73 posted on 12/16/2016 11:53:57 AM PST by econjack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: JonPreston
China uses their trade surplus to lend to the United States by buying Treasuries. This increases our debt.

You are incorrect. I could balance the budget tomorrow and China could still increase their holdings of Treasury debt.

The scheme will go on until either we make trade equitable or China stops buying treasuries.

China could stop buying Treasury debt tomorrow, hell, they could sell the debt they currently hold and their actions wouldn't do a thing to make our politicians discover fiscal responsibility.

So that's it, trade deficits increase our debt.

Your surplus of confusion is increasing.

74 posted on 12/16/2016 12:14:59 PM PST by Toddsterpatriot ("Telling the government to lower trade barriers to zero...is government interference" central_va)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: econjack
How is that any different than a tax, you idiot.

He used to claim that if we put a tariff on imported oil, domestic oil prices would remain unchanged.

75 posted on 12/16/2016 12:16:26 PM PST by Toddsterpatriot ("Telling the government to lower trade barriers to zero...is government interference" central_va)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: Toddsterpatriot
He used to claim that if we put a tariff on imported oil, domestic oil prices would remain unchanged.

Who did...and where's the quote?

76 posted on 12/16/2016 12:27:58 PM PST by econjack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: econjack
Econojackwagon the whole point of a tariff is to raise the price on imports so that domestic industries will be more profitable and to squeeze out foreign goods. That is good thing. It is consumption tax, another good thing. It wouldn't take much of a tariff to level the playing field.

Out founders understood this basic concept but you are too dogmatic to even consider what I am saying.

More tariffs and less income taxes. But that doesn't fit into your progressive play book.

77 posted on 12/16/2016 12:43:40 PM PST by central_va (I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: central_va
Our founding fathers were trying to bolster a country that had no infrastructure, no manufacturing, and no distribution system. Yet, they were trying to compete with the economic power of the day: England. There were no business or personal income taxes, so they used tariffs to both raise income and protect a nascent economy. Look it up...it's call the Infant Industries Argument for Tariff Protection. That's hardly the situation today.

A tariff approach does nothing to make our industries expand, become more efficient, hire more workers, or solve this country's economic problems. Tariffs protect the status quo; they mask the problem. The only winner is the gov't because it gets the tariff income. We pay higher prices because tariffs kill competition as well as any incentive to be more efficient in production over the long run. There is nothing "progressive" about it, it's simply getting the gov't out of the economic system and let the market work.

If you're happy with the way things are, your approach is fine. If you want a robust, growing economy with expanding job opportunities for your kids, you'll lower taxes on corporate and personal income. Look back at history: Every time we've done that (e.g., the Kennedy and Reagan tax cuts), the economy has boomed.

78 posted on 12/16/2016 1:28:59 PM PST by econjack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: Toddsterpatriot
I could balance the budget tomorrow and China could still increase their holdings of Treasury debt.

Well yeah.

Carry on.

79 posted on 12/16/2016 1:34:53 PM PST by JonPreston
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: econjack
tariff approach does nothing to make our industries expand, become more efficient, hire more workers, or solve this country's economic problems. Tariffs protect the status quo; they mask the problem.

Taken to its logical extreme a tariff becomes an embargo. So you are saying in the event of a complete embargo the USA would have no TV's ever again? No domestic industry would come on line to fill the void? Really? HOW STUPID DO YOU THINK THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE?

You said our founders were trying to bolster manufacturing. Well we have whole sectors of manufacturing that have completely disappeared from the USA. Consumer electronics being one of them.

So your example completely trashes your own position. LOL! But you are too mentally indoctrinated to see that.

80 posted on 12/16/2016 1:38:30 PM PST by central_va (I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-116 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson