Hunter is right on many issues. Trade is definitely not one of them.
How difficult is the concept that government shouldn't interfere with trade which is merely an extension of capitalism?
Supply and demand. Nothing more complicated than that.
When government interferes, it manipulates the market making things more expensive for everyone. If it would just butt out, the markets would work their magic and everyone would benefit. The gospel of Adam Smith really does make sense.
But Hunter wants government to manipulate the markets and he's considered a friend of the farmers because he wants to use your tax dollars to manipulate agriculture as well.
He's just wrong about that. There's nothing conservative and certainly nothing libertarian about wanting the government to micromanage the economy. It's the fatal mistake the Soviets made.
If Hunter is the Republican nominee, which I strongly doubt he will, I will support him. But it will be in spite of this serious flaw in his political character.
That's why you never hear him complain about Japan, Britain, Austrailia, etcetera...
When our manufacturing moves to China it doesn't mean the Chinese own it. Sixty percent of what China exports is made by foreign owned firms.
That may be so, but it's certainly a national security risk if they ever take hostile actions against us (it'd be kind of hard to access those manufacturing plants in China if they don't let us in...and I certainly hope it never comes to that, but better safe than sorry).
Unless the cheat. And they do. All the time. Hence, Hunter will put an end to that.
They 'interfered' when they gave tax break/subsidies to NGOs for relocating over seas.
They 'interfered' when they let corporations write trade legislation.
They interfered when they refuse to enforce immigration and trade laws.
I agree, get the government OUT of trade.
Reference please.
So you opposed N/CAFTA, right?