Posted on 01/25/2017 8:52:08 PM PST by TBP
I hadn’t noticed that the Federal tax dollars collected in Montana were being shared with Canada, silly me...or that industries in Canada would be available to the USA in a war situation. If you don’t understand the function of a Nation vs a State you have no business muddying the waters here.
Canada & America are fairly close as Nations but they have a different set of laws and socialized medicine as well as a very Liberal mindset. They set up their country to benefit Canadians not to look after Americans and we should have the same ground rules. Our trade situation with Canada is closer to free trade then with many other countries but we still address specific industries and situations as do they.
Where in your scenerio is the possibility of a foreign Gvt or corporation using Canada as a pass through to undercut our workers?
Many of the people who push “free trade” are either naive idealists or cynicists have duplicitous motives even petty ones such as not wanting to look foolish after spouting off for so many years. Like socialists they want to pretend that other Nations(the people of the world) will take the high moral ground and not work the system against any Nation(the rest of the Socialist’s group) that doesn’t maintain a guard against their actions. Or like the Liberal who thinks that if he writes a law everyone will put away their guns ignoring the reality that the effect will be that only criminals will have guns leaving the honest citizen doubly vulnerable.
Its all the same story.
Trump is reminding them that "the customer is always right."
Uh, not you don’t. CD is the discomfort one feels while attempting to simultaneously believe two contradictory things. It is about the personal discomfort of the person doing the believing that is the keystone.
Without the discomfort, it is just “confusion” which is, apparently, what you suffer from.
A very telling point. Use the muscle that you have to get it done!
Nobody should read this article, because it makes too much sense.
Exactly!
First, you;’re assuming that economics (at least employment) is a zero-sum game, that if there is a job created in China or Mexico, that’s automatically one less job for Americans. Not so. To quote the old saying, “A rising tide lifts all boats.”
Second, you’re assuming that economics is about money. it’s not — it’s about commodities and exchange. Money has no intrinsic value. It’s only good if you can use it to get “stuff”, whether goods or services. Trade is about acquiring and distributing commodities for prices that the most people can sustain.
Those who develop products and services make our lives better, to the point that we’re willing to give them our money because we value what they have more than the money, whether it’s food or a computer or medical care. It’s when government tries to make those decisions for us that we get into trouble.
A tariff is nothing but a tax. It’s a tax on imported goods. If you want to restrict imports, that’s the way to do it — but is that good economic policy? Most economists would argue that it isn’t. It may, however, be good foreign policy. (i.e., you want to punish China, not necessarily because they are making low-priced stuff, but because they are making it with slave labor and using the proceeds to build warheads aimed at us and our allies, among other threats.)
It’s not trade that is killing jobs; it’s the ridiculous costs of regulation, 0bamacare, and other government interference, coupled with exorbitantly high taxes. Fix that and jobs will grow, with or without “protection”. (But keeping the market as unfettered as possible will cause them to grow the most.)
Your comment boils down to “lets ignore what has actually happened” and listen to what economists think.
You are absolutely wrong about what has led to the loss of manufacturing base in the US. Regulations certainly helped but its all down to the mighty $. It was cheaper to make things overseas because our Gvt allowed or in some particulars caused it to be that way. The Gov’t failed us by action, inaction & stupidity with a combination of poor trade deals and bureaucratic/regulatory costs while the economists directed the marching music and gave cover.
My comment is based on years of actual evidence, on what has happened. Decades of evidence support my view of this.
So regulation, regulatory costs, union demands, taxes, and other imposed burdens don’t kill jobs? EVERY economist will tell you that they do — at least every rational one. (Krugman may deny it, but he doesn’t know much about what he’s writing about.)
If you don’t believe that these things kill jobs, then you don’t really believe in free markets.
If you read what I wrote I acknowledged they did but NAFTA started the great sucking sound. I don’t believe in completely unregulated markets. I believe in trade deals that protect the interests of both Nations.
Yopu think NAFTA is a free trade agreement? It isn’t. it’s government-managed, preferred trade.
No where in Adam Smith’s writing does he discuss closing a factory and moving the equipment to a third world country and using virtual slave labor to make products that those peasants will never afford and shipping back to be sold at first world prices duty free! All to increase profits and “displace” workers. Had he known how his work was going to be used to justify this form of “free trade” he probably would have never written anything.
Evolutionists, Free traders and global warmists have a lot in common.
Your reasoning is not linear. Perhaps another time we will agree.
That is why I voted for him.
Elites will have to pay more for their toys - but traditional Americans will have jobs and safer happier communities.
Money for elites isn’t everything.
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.