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

To: SkyDancer

Trade accounted for only 4% of GDP in 1930 so any trade bill could only have a marginal impact.


62 posted on 08/17/2016 6:34:55 PM PDT by central_va (I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies ]


To: central_va

It would not be possible to assess the impact on “percentage of GDP” alone but in the importance to the overall activity of the economy.

We might not be spending all that much of our GDP on imported oil but make that stop by fiat edict and see what happens. Too much of the rest of the economy has leaned upon this convenience to expect anything but a major dislocation.


70 posted on 08/17/2016 7:56:38 PM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (Embrace the Lion of Judah and He will roar for you and teach you to roar too. See my page.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies ]

To: central_va

I would aver that a wiser policy is “balanced trade.” If the US exports enough widgets to Slobbovia to pay for the gimcracks it imports from Slobbovia, a zero tariff deal makes sense. Higher rates can be used as the stick, but balanced should be the carrot.

The problem with us is that we do NOT have balanced trade. We’re putting cheap junk on the national credit card which is already in a ridiculous state.


71 posted on 08/17/2016 8:01:18 PM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (Embrace the Lion of Judah and He will roar for you and teach you to roar too. See my page.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies ]

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