Trump Is Losing His Own Trade War

Reason ^ | 7/4/2019 | VERONIQUE DE RUGY

[Political Junkie Too]

An economy is made up of three major sectors, primary, secondary, and tertiary.

The primary sector is agriculture; a nation has to feed itself. The agriculture sector is made up of wheats and grains, fruits and vegetables, meats, nuts, juices, etc. A nation without an agriculture sector will starve.

The secondary sector is industry; a nation has to be able to make things. This sector is made up of metals and ores, chemicals and materials, refining and manufacturing, intermediate and finished products, etc. A nation has to make things to grow.

The tertiary sector is services; a nation has to maintain itself to sustain. This sector is made up of the trade services (electrical, plumbing, A/C, automotive, etc.), professional services (advertising and marketing, sales, information, tourism, sciences, etc. A nation has to service its industry or it will collapse.

The United States has been offshoring its secondary sector to China. Environmental extremism has been slowly eating away at our primary sector (see how California destroyed its San Juaquin valley growing region). If we have to buy our food and materials from elsewhere and are left to just provide services amongst ourselves, we will transfer wealth back and forth amongst ourselves only to the point where we have to buy food and supplies. At that point, the wealth leaves our economy for good.

Bidirectional trade only works when we make things that others want, and they make things that we want. When we no longer make things and only buy things, we will inevitably give our wealth away and consume what we get in return until there is no more money to trade for things.

-PJ

[MichaelCorleone]

Actually I was referring to how we are going about achieving a more equitable trade situation, rather than whether or not it is in our best interest to begin with.

Regarding the first quote from Karl Marx, it seems we could substitute ‘illegal invasion’, and it would fit in there quite nicely.

(”it breaks up old nationalities and pushes the antagonism of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie to the extreme point.”) - is this not exactly what years of illegals coming here, reproducing here, voting here, and costing us untold amounts of dollars doing now?

[trebb]

So - what’s your take? Or are you just another concern troll trying to foment antipathy towards the best President....EVER?

BTW - we’re in another FReepathon to keep FR funded...lots of “Donate” buttons around for the non-leeches (maybe we can start terming them “Amashes”) around.

MAGA!!!

[central_va]

Yes textiles/clothing are examples of something that is labor intensive to manufacture. This is why the disingenuous globalists always use that as an example. Almost all mass produced widgets are not labor intensive whether it is produced in the USA or the 3rd world. This is the same tactic that MSM uses is to make the singleton outlier the norm.

I think of a tariff as an insurance policy against idiots like you. A guardrail. Which every lunatic the Dems pick they will be against tariffs because Trump is for them So vote for them and GTHOOMP.

[central_va]

You can't point me to a society that's prospered, or even survived, by walling itself off and ignoring the changes going on around it?

That is a stupid supposition, isn't it? A tariff is a tool and doesn't embargo or wall anything off you moron.

Here are some examples where protectionism worked:

1. The USA from 1789 to 1940. We made everything in the USA under a protectionist umbrella and became the most prosperous country in history because of protectionist tariffs.

2. Another example is China from 1980 to the present. They have some of the highest import tariffs around.

3. British mercantilism and trade policies created a powerful empire.

I could go on.

Name a country that de industrialized and became more prosperous? You're a historical dunce.

[bert]

now is not then

Americans like now. Unlke you, Americns do not worship then

[central_va]

I put it that way because of the damage off shoring creates. The welfare is the secondary infection. The horse is out of the barn and as such what good is cutting welfare now if the local economic engine, the local hometown factory, is boarded up?

[central_va]

I know. We need a higher tariff.

[central_va]

Every Democrat running is anti tariff so take your pick and get the hell away from me you globalist sellout a$$hole. I know what your position is on trade, bent over both cheeks spread wide open with goofy smile on your ugly mug.

[semimojo]

Yes textiles/clothing are examples of something that is labor intensive to manufacture. This is why the disingenuous globalists always use that as an example.

You refer me to an article about the closing of a textile mill in Danville and then whine about naughty globalists who cite textiles as an example.

Good to see you're maintaining your normal consistency.

[MichaelCorleone]

I know you did.

It’s just you painted a picture of a day when ‘rugged individualism’ was the norm, when picking yourself by your bootstraps was expected of all except those who truly cannot.

A time when getting something without giving a fair equivalent in return was unheard of.

You get the picture I’m sure. Something about how you phrased it got me all nostalgic!

[semimojo]

Name a country that de industrialized and became more prosperous?

According to you America has de-industrialized yet our President says we're the strongest we've ever been and have the best economy in history.

[central_va]

Drive around the south and you will see what I am talking about,

[central_va]

The Globalist Old Plutocratic (GOP) Party took away 50% of America’s rice bowl. Blame them.

[central_va]

I said clothing and textiles are more labor intensive than the vast majority of manufacturing. I never said it could also be done in the USA and IMO it should. The USA didn’t import much until 1980 and someone as a kid growing up in the USA I was never once forced to go naked.