Posted on 03/17/2016 7:27:44 PM PDT by Rockitz
Thursday on CNBC’s “Squawk Box,” Jim Cramer, host of his network’s “Mad Money,” argued that Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump was on the right side when it comes to trade.
Cramer said that over the last decade, U.S. trade deals have tended to favor other countries as far as surpluses go and that Trump’s trade policy proposals would lend themselves to be pro-worker.
“I’m with Trump on this,” he explained. “Look, we lose on every trade deal. I ask all these people from either party: name me one trade deal we have had a surplus on in the last decade. They can’t name any. I always find it amusing to think people don’t seem to mind that we lose in these deals because we’re able to export a lot of premium products that are not made necessarily by people in our workforce.”
“People should understand this has been his view from day one,” he added. “It has always been pro-worker.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
Wow, first Krauthammer and now this...is the tide turning?
I like watching Him but I think global trade might be over his head.
Until human rights are recognized trade disparities will persist. Nations that use prisoners as a part of their workforce should be punished for it. Tarrifs are not a good way to do it. They just make things more expensive for the consumer. It isn’t a tax on that country or its businesses. It’s a tax on us, the consumer.
Tarrifs also cause the nation we are targeting to impose tarrifs on our goods shipped overseas. That exasperates the trade imbalance and hurts our companies.
Ask Herbert Hoover how well it works.
We lose on trade deals because these elites are making much more money and they have every senator and congressman on speed dial. The corruption in congress is off the charts.
I do think the threat of tariffs works, especially if the trade deficit is in the offending county’s favor. This is exactly how Trump get Mexico to pay for the wall.
“Tarriffs NO! Better trade agreements, YES!”
The founding fathers favored high tariffs. The developing US economy prospered in the 18th, 19th, and early 20th centuries under high tariffs. During that time the tariff funded the federal government.
Since the modern trade agreements began to be negotiated and signed (past 25 years) the average standard of living of the American family has declined for the first time in US history, the US manufacturing sector has been gutted, and economic growth in the US has stalled. Where are the analyses proving the zero tariff policy has been positive for US workers and the US economy? They do not exist. The 25 year free trade experiment has been an abysmal failure.
Any free trade agreement requiring thousands of pages to document, a bureaucracy to administer, and the surrendering of national sovereignty to perpetuate has nothing to do with freedom. Why does the TPP require over 5000 pages. It takes a lot of paper and ink to spell out the special privileges, exemptions, subsidies, and other provisions favoring specific countries, industries or individuals.
One of the latest international trade bureaucracy rulings was to penalize the US for a law passed by Congress requiring country of origin to appear on imported foods. What is wrong with letting the consumer know where food or other products originated? It is free trade for an international body to order the US to stop country of origin labeling? Yes, our Republican Congress caved to this international body interfering with our national sovereignty.
Bring back the tariffs. Subsidized foreign factories should be paying for access to the US market. It is not free trade when foreign factories receiving export credits from their home governments have free access to the US market and US companies pay the highest corporate tax rates in the world for the same privilege. End these one sided trade deals.
Mark Levin will tell you that high tariffs led to the Great Depression under Hoover. I suspect he is leaving out other salient facts.
>>>Tarriffs NO!
Yep, that’s the big elephant in the room. Trump could tank the economy.
Hopefully, if he’s pres, conservatives will stop this huge mistake.
If you want to decrease wages, decrease exports, increase prices, decrease the standard of living, increase the cost of doing business, then you’re for tariffs.
They *may* make sense for a small beginning economy; not now.
research Smoot–Hawley, 1930.
When dealing with China, you have to give them wiggle room. If they can’t come out of a deal looking good they will escalate.
I’m sure trump knows that, but threats won’t work with the Chinese.
“Tarrifs also cause the nation we are targeting to impose tarrifs on our goods shipped overseas. That exasperates the trade imbalance and hurts our companies.
Ask Herbert Hoover how well it works.”
The Fordney-McCumber of 1922 was virtually the same as the Smoot-Hawley Tariff of 1930.
Fordney-McCumber was followed by the Roaring 20s. Smoot-Hawley by the Great Depression.
The Great Depression was caused by a collapse of the American banking system that resulted in a 30% contraction of the US money supply. The tariff had nothing to do with that.
“Mark Levin will tell you that high tariffs led to the Great Depression under Hoover. I suspect he is leaving out other salient facts.”
He’s not leaving anything out. He simply doesn’t know what he’s talking about regarding the cause of the Great Depression and is parroting “common wisdom”.
“research Smoot–Hawley, 1930.”
Research Fordney-McCumber, the tariff of 1922.
Virtually identical to Smoot-Hawley, yet followed by the Roaring 20s.
The Great Depression was triggered by an American banking system collapse with its resulting 30% contraction of the US money supply, not the Smoot-Hawley tariff. Described in detail in the long ‘Great Contraction’ chapter in Milton Friedman and Anna Schwartz’s A Monetary History of the United States.
Fordney–McCumber included huge loans so europe.
Is Friedman a proponent of trade barriers in your view?
“Fordney–McCumber included huge loans so europe.”
That was the Dawes Plan of 1924, not the Fordney-McCumber tariff.
“Is Friedman a proponent of trade barriers in your view?”
I doubt it, but that has nothing to do with his view of the origin of the Great Depression. The cause was the collapse of the banking system due to a series of Federal Reserve blunders. Smoot-Hawley didn’t merit a mention, it was a minor event compared to the 30% contraction of the American money supply.
Perhaps tariffs will be the stick that leads to better deals........
OTOH, perhaps tariffs would lead to better deals as a way of making other countries willing to deal......
How are we not paying more when we run a half a trillion trade deficit with China? It may not show up on the price tags, but it is exacted via the IRS.....
Exactly! Tariffs are the stick you hold while you're negotiating for a better deal.
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.