[nathanbedford]

As we emerge from the campaign and move closer to actually dealing with trade issues, we begin to see there is more than one side to the story.

Trade is almost never a pure win-win situation. Inevitably, the deal itself favors one segment of our economy at the risk to other segments of the economy. It should not be surprising that consumers benefited from cheaper goods and foodstuffs while some manufacturing concerns were adversely affected. Some agricultural producers were harmed while others prospered in a newly created market. Drivers enjoyed cheaper gasoline prices while automobile manufacturers suffered. Some automobile suppliers prospered while others were harmed.

The point? Sweeping generalizations about trade deals are demagogic and the only way to intelligently deal with the matter is to get deep into the weeds and make everything transparent because ultimately the economics become political issues. In a representative democracy, we expect that the people shall have a voice in the matter the disposition of which should not be left to elitist minority to negotiate a fait accompli for the rest of us, whether by way of an omnibus healthcare bill or a take it or leave it trade package.

Economics becomes politics when we regard the macro scale of trade. On the one hand there is the obvious need to protect the status of the country as a leading manufacturer in the world and generator of technology, or to watch the country slip into degraded status. In other words, it is a political question whether we engage in mercantilism.

On the other hand there is an obvious danger in a top-down managed economy examples of which we have seen over and over ultimately fail. We need only consider our own history in the Great Depression and all of the top-down nostrums imposed on the economy by elitists who only prolonged the misery. We look at the Soviet Union, we look at Japan and we see in the latter case a nation that in the 1970s we thought was destined to master the world become the victim of its own sclerosis. We look at China today and we see the upside numbers of extraordinary growth but we do not necessarily see the internal corruption and decay which might well lead to a very hard landing.

The question of the degree to which we will manage the economy from the top down in the name of trade is one which should be honestly debated, and it was not in the last election. To overstate the matter, we heard only one side of the story, loss of manufacturing jobs, but we did not equally hear the upside to global trade.

If we are to manage trade according to the results of the last election, we should ask ourselves who should manage it, whether the executive or legislative, or both, and upon what principles? For whose benefit? And how will the people be informed of the consequences? We should make an informed decision as a nation about how much we are willing to risk loss of liberty and corruption through the crony capitalism associated with a top-down managed economy and how much we are willing to risk national decay if we take no action.

[WhoisAlanGreenspan?]

"...upon what principles? For whose benefit? And how will the people be informed of the consequences?"

Part of successfully throwing the bums out was a replay of Ross Perot's campaign against NAFTA. "Is it good for our country?" Secret side letters that favor one or more industry prove deals like this can't be allowed to see the light of day.

[expat_panama]

Trade is almost never a pure win-win situation. Inevitably, the deal itself favors one segment...

Pse clarify if you're really saying that virtually all of commerce is exploitation of one party upon another?  That's what "win-lose" is.  The only clear example of win-lose in real life would have to be say, a government mandated forced sale from one vendor, like social security or obamacare.  Other than that, we need to understand that nobody is forced to enter the market place to trade value.

[Hawthorn]

>> If we are to manage trade according to the results of the last election, we should ask ourselves who should manage it <<

I believe you’re definitely on the right track.

Still, whoever might appoint the members of “GOSPLAN” — that is, the body of folks who will “manage” trade and investment — I say it’s unlikely over the long run to make big differences in the ultimate outcome.

My point is that whether the appointment powers over the planning body might rest in Il Duce, the POTUS or the Supreme Soviet, a planned economy ultimately can’t deliver the goods as well as can an economy that runs on the principles of free markets.

Hayek demonstrated this truth convincingly in 1944, with his “Road to Serfdom” — a book that drew its lessons mainly from the experiences of Germany’s National Socialism and Italy’s Fascism, even though the lessons apply equally to Soviet central planning and to New Deal-type American “Progressivism.” It’s clear that none of these “isms” or ideologies has a track record to beat free-market capitalism.

Moreover, logic and experience should warn us that Hayek’s critique of the planned-and-managed economy is likely to apply more or less in the same fashion to a system of Trumpistic crony capitalism if the latter really gains a serious foothold.

Last but not least, the fact that a former conservative eminence like Mike Pence would openly show contempt for the free market, while flirting rhetorically with crony capitalism, is a disappointing — nay, a sickening — commentary on the intellectual state of American leadership in today’s turbulent world.

[central_va]

It is not rocket science and as such the first congress made it a priority. So much so that the first bill ever passed was the tariff act which was signed into law by George W. himself. Your contrived sophistry is sickening.

Tariff Act of 1789:

"Whereas it is necessary for that support of government, for the discharge of the debts of the United States, and the encouragement and protection of manufactures, that duties be laid on goods, wares and merchandise:"

[gogeo]

The question of the degree to which we will manage the economy from the top down in the name of trade is one which should be honestly debated, and it was not in the last election.

Purty words. Would you like to explain what it means in the real world, in English?

[lewislynn]

We look at China today and we see the upside numbers of extraordinary growth

At our expense. China would not be what they are without us. Sadly some people are too stupid to see it.