Rush does a mea culpa on 'free' trade

Rush Limbaugh ^ | 7/26/18 | Central VA

[central_va]

Sorry for the vanity but Rush did a 180 on trade today and I am proud of him.

Rush confessed he was wrong all of these decades about trade, live on air just a few minutes ago! He also admitted Perot was correct and the the one sided trade the US( and its workers ) have been subjected to was wrong and it was erroneously pawned off as 'free trade'. He said he was duped by economists.

I just listened in amazement committing free trade heresy live. It was a great radio show today! Awesome!

Rush is off my S list. He is big man for doing this.

[Oatka]

Odd, Perot was the person who coined the phrase "giant sucking sound" when NAFTA was signed.

I remember when Perot was running for President, and during one of his Show and Tell TV spots, he showed a picture of a Ford factory in Mexico and asked "What's wrong with this picture?"

I couldn't see anything until he pointed out that there were no parking lots - the people who worked there, unlike their American counterparts, couldn't afford to buy the products they made. They were bussed in from the barrios.

I worked in Macon, GA at the time, and when NAFTA went through, there was an article about a small black community where the only jobs were at a broom factory. They packed up and headed for Mexico and the whole town had to go on welfare.

Later on I landed a gig in the midwest and drove through areas where there were abandoned facories. I went through the same area and the factories were torn down as taxes on bare land was lower that on empty buildings. I thought at the time that we'd never see them come back. Glad I was wrong.

[SoFloFreeper]

i agree.

[lewislynn]

You went a long way on your Rush apology tour there.

So which is it?

He was lying to appease his rich friends AKA party elites?
or
He's not as deep a thinker as he pretends to be.

Which one is the lie?

[nonsporting]

Senator, don't pee down my back and tell me it's raining .

"I don't want to hear NAFTA dead. I want to see NAFTA dead."

[BeauBo]

Sounds like Levin is holding on to his anti-tariff position tonight.

[Dapper 26]

WHAT??

[Dapper 26]

Free trade, no tariffs is great. We also need to guard against our trading partners “subsidizing” their manufacturers / producers. Additionally, we have experienced foreign governments accuse us of “subsidizing” our manufacturers by reducing their taxes or reducing onerous environmental regulations.

[BeauBo]

“Rush - which is it? He was lying or He’s not as deep a thinker as he pretends (by previously opposing tariffs)”

My take on Rush is that his best area of expertise is politics - that he has great political instincts about how people are feeling, and what motivates people and politicians.

I take his bluster and over-the-top self promotion as just tongue-in-cheek humor, like trash talking in a locker room. I don’t think he seriously pretends to be a deep thinker on International trade. So the answer to your question is the second option - with a caveat, that he often pokes fun at his own (playfully) proposed infallibility.

He is admitting that he was not right about the use of tariffs - sometimes they can be warranted/useful to bring unfair trade partners back into line.

In fact, when trading partners are placing unfair barriers on us, our leaders really have a duty to fight back somehow, and represent/defend our interests. Nonetheless, tariffs will remain highly subject to corrupt abuse by politicians looking to sell favors, and businesses looking to buy them. They also can inflict a strong distorting effect on prices and efficiency. So tariffs, as a general rule, should be minimized wherever possible. Just as killing people is a very bad thing in general, there are times when it is not only the lesser of two evils, but it can be be imperative to do it in some circumstances. So we do it when we have to, and try to arrange things to avoid it being necessary.

But I think there is something to your first point as well (appease his rich friends AKA party elites). My take on Rush is that he is more focused on politics than economics or International relations. I think that what he may be seeing as the big picture, is the approaching midterm elections, and the need to unify the Party, and deflect likely attacks from the Left.

No doubt he gets lobbied by Party elites to shill for their positions, and has to constantly sift through a lot of attempted manipulation to get at the truth, and to chose his positions. None of us are perfect, but Rush is fundamentally a loyal American, who is entertaining, who has excellent insight into the Left, as well as lots of high level sources to inform him. Much more good than bad (the only perfect person got nailed to a cross a long time ago).

[BeauBo]

“We also need to guard against our trading partners “subsidizing” their manufacturers / producers.”

True. There are mountains of non-tariff barriers that countries use to rig trade. It can get more convoluted than relations between the sexes.

[central_va]

They also can inflict a strong distorting effect on prices and efficiency. So tariffs, as a general rule, should be minimized wherever possible

I think that is a crock of poo poo based on the history of the USA. Your "expertise" in this area is almost comical.

For your information the USA, from 1787 thru 1913, funded the government with tariffs and there was no income tax. Did you even know that? So what you are saying is not backed up by history at all. The USA during that time period experienced unparalleled dynamic economic industrial development. We'd be so lucky to ditch the income tax and go back to the tariff.

You do not know what you are talking about. Get off my thread.

[central_va]

Levi is a big a$$hole.

[Eisenhower Republican]

Rush is kind of a winsock most of the time, but at least he’s hanging the right direction for a change.

[central_va]

Rush has at least stopped gulping the globalist Free Traitor™ kool aid. He made a big step today and on the air no less!

[techworker]

I listen to Bongino and he is basically with Levin.

With the exception that he is not so obnoxious in his disagreement. He recognizes Trump’s ability to use that to win in negotiations.

[spokeshave2]

The EU just completely capitulated after only two weeks of tariffs, pledging true fair trade, eliminating THEIR tariffs on everything except automobiles ...

And the icing on the cake...(two scoops) is that the EU will work with USA against China on trade and tariff issues.

[BeauBo]

“the USA, from 1787 thru 1913, funded the government with tariffs and there was no income tax. Did you even know that?”

Yes, I knew that.

“The USA during that time period experienced unparalleled dynamic economic industrial development.”

Despite tariffs, not because of them. International trade was a tiny percentage of economy then, partly because we had oceans between us and other economic powers. By the way, growth in England was faster during that time frame of the industrial revolution and the height of the British Empire. So US economic growth was patently not “unparalleled” before 1913.

“We’d be so lucky to ditch the income tax and go back to the tariff.”

The US budget is about $4 Trillion per year, and additional major liabilities like Social Security and Medicare are managed off budget. The total of US imports from all sources is about $2.4 trillion, so well over 100% tariffs would be needed on everything, for your madcap proposal - even if the the Government first eliminated all discretionary spending (which would include the entire defense budget).

From a strictly mathematical perspective, tariffs of more than 100% would reasonably qualify as “a strong distorting effect on prices”, which you dismissed as “a crock of poo poo”.

As an example of inefficiencies, oil constitutes about 1/10th of the total dollar value of our imports (half of the oil we use). More than doubling it’s price would make American petroleum derivative products like asphalt, fabrics, paint, plastics and fertilizers uncompetitive, in addition to its direct effects on motorists, truckers, airlines and electricity prices. Less desirable substitutions would have to be made, and otherwise profitable businesses would have to be shut.

“Levi is a big a$$hole.”

OK, I’ll bite. Who is Levi?

[Herakles]

Politicans lie, news reporters lie, economist lie, they ALL lie! If their mouths are moving they are lying!

[central_va]

Despite tariffs, not because of them. International trade was a tiny percentage of economy then, partly because we had oceans between us and other economic powers. By the way, growth in England was faster during that time frame of the industrial revolution and the height of the British Empire. So US economic growth was patently not “unparalleled” before 1913.

That's laughable. Consumption based taxes are superior to income taxes. Every true conservative knows that. There is no way an income tax would have helped industrial development then. LOL! What kind of idiot thinks like that?

The US budget is about $4 Trillion per year, and additional major liabilities like Social Security and Medicare are managed off budget. The total of US imports from all sources is about $2.4 trillion, so well over 100% tariffs would be needed on everything, for your madcap proposal - even if the the Government first eliminated all discretionary spending (which would include the entire defense budget).

You really are confused. Social security and medicare are paid( should be anyway ) through payroll taxes and not income taxes, so my proposal to go back to tariffs would not cover those, it would be combination of a 20% import tariff, payroll taxes and a NRST. No income tax!

SS, and medicare are half the budget! Those need to be addressed separately. The tariff and the NSRT could easily cover the other half of the budget ($1.7T FY 18).

From a strictly mathematical perspective, tariffs of more than 100% would reasonably qualify as “a strong distorting effect on prices”, which you dismissed as “a crock of poo poo”.

What Free Traitors want you to believe is that the supply function is static and no new domestic suppliers will EVER come on line. Despite their best efforts to the contrary, brand new factories are still being built in the USA all the time. Not as many as are closed mind you, but the situation is dynamic and not static. With more domestic supply will mean pressure to reduce prices.

The winning for the American worker is in the dynamism not the globalist status quo.

[central_va]

Economist make lawyers look good. At least American economists do. The rest of the world has great economists who know how to take advantage of our stupid ideologically driven loser economists. Our economists are the laughing stock of the world!

[BeauBo]

“You really are confused. Social security and medicare are paid( should be anyway ) through payroll taxes and not income taxes”

“Payroll” is “Income”.