Posted on 08/30/2015 6:00:11 AM PDT by GeronL
Here's a historical fact that Donald Trump, and many voters attracted to him, may not know: The last American president who was a trade protectionist was Republican Herbert Hoover.
Obviously that economic strategy didn't turn out so well — either for the nation or the GOP.
Does Trump aspire to be a 21st century Hoover with a modernized platform of the 1930 Smoot-Hawley tariff that helped send the U.S. and world economy into a decade-long depression and a collapse of the banking system?
We can't help wondering whether the panic in world financial markets is in part a result of the Trump assault on free trade.
Trump is also now running full throttle on an anti-immigration platform that could hurt growth as well and alienate Republicans from ethnic voters that the GOP needs if it is going to win in 2016.
We call this the Trump Fortress America platform. He clearly sees international trade and immigration as a negative sum game for American workers.
He recently announced that as president he would prohibit American companies like Ford from building plants in Mexico. He moans pessimistically that "China is eating our lunch" and is "sucking the blood out of the U.S.?"
But strategic tax cuts and regulatory relief after the anti-business rule-making assault by Obama, not trade and immigration barriers, are the solution to America's competitiveness deficit.
A draft of Trump's 14-point economic manifesto promises that, as president, he would "modify or cancel any business, or trade agreement that hinders American business development, or is shown to create an unfair trading relationship with a foreign entity."
Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/Finance/LarryKudlow/Donald-Trump-21st-Century-Protectionist-Herbert-Hoover/2015/08/28/id/672495/#ixzz3kIqVddzd Urgent: Rate Obama on His Job Performance. Vote Here Now!
(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com ...
I’m still sorting a lot of this out, but getting some breaks in exchange for all the billions in aid we give seems reasonable.
There’s a lot I don’t know/understand about the global economy but I’ve always thought Milton Friedman brilliant and my natural inclination is to side with more freedom.
It really sucks to be a member of the perpetual outraged group.
Trump could actually blemish the outstanding freeper record of supporting losers.
I’m sticking with Milton Friedman. The car companies continue to build plants in this country when the threat of tariffs is near zero.
Oh, go to hell with your superity. What is it with you Trump haters that make you think you’re smarter than anyone on FR? I’ll test my intelligence against yours any day of the week, you conceited jackass.
Kudlow is a RINO who loves illegals and is the world’s worst talk show host. This is what comes of letting amateurs into the radio biz.
They are truly desperate; now they are breaking out the “boogie man” Herbert Hoover to try and scare voters away from voting for TRUMP! Oh nose, we’re all gonna die!!!!!
**********************************************************************
Hey, I heard that Trump hates old people and is going to take away their s.s. checks. (or has that one already been used?)
Kudlow’s right on one thing, anyway. Limiting the foreign invasion of our country would be bad. Why? Because the foreign invaders are, by definition, criminals. Criminals vote Dem, and it would be a terrible mistake to attempt to curtail the flood of new Dem voters. Also, the Chamber of Commerce might not be so generous with their bribes, er, campaign contributions, if there were the slightest check placed on the invading horde.
Last but not least, don’t try to tell me Obama doesn’t love the fact that his fundamental transformation of the country is progressing apace. Fewer foreign invaders would slow that pace. This would sadden Obama. Making the first black pres sad is racist. So as Kudlow would be the first to tell you, better to be overrun and annihilated than be racist.
I'm not a Trump supporter - yet, and I'm generally for free trade, so I agree with some of Kudlow's points. However, this is an outright lie:
His immigration stance would not just deport illegal immigrants, but even lock the golden doors to those who come lawfully for opportunity, freedom and jobs. This could hardly be further from the Reaganite vision of America as a "shining city on a hill."
It's a typical tactic of the left - conflate all immigration with illegal immigration. When pundits resort to lies to make their points it ruins their credibility.
Yeah that bothers me to if we arent mostly self reliant like we were in WW2 then if we ever go to war with china(a non nuclear one) we will lose an attrition battle. Sure we can defeat anyone with fast heavy strikes conventionally but if it doesnt end quickly over time our ability would dwindle.
Edmund is confusing many people that do not understand this. Have to admit, I was once there too until I found out what was really happening.
Yes conservatives agree with Milton Freeman’s philosophy, and overall like Ronald Reagan a lot. Edmound uses these names as a debate weapon to win people over that do not quite understand these agreements. He wants to play to conversations emotions. Which is a debate tactic to win people over that are not sure.
However, Edmound is discussing philosophy vs. what is actual happening in reality.
It’s kind of like the Soviet Union invoking Karl Marx philosophy, but they were not really practicing at all what they preach.
Keep in mind this too.
Our Republic since its inception had tariffs in it all the way up until 1996.
Every president from George Washington up to Bill Clinton had tariffs. We were the leaders of the free world and became a Super Power.
So according to Edmund all the previous Presidents were all “Protectionist” and this was bad for the United States. In other words the United States was on the wrong path from 1787 to 1996. That’s why he calls people “protectionist”.
What is the opposite of the word protection? Here are some words for you.
Unprotected, exposed, threat, danger, insecurity, uncertainty, harm, injury, destruction, doubt and attack.
So wanting to protect the Untied States, from being unprotected, exposed, threat, danger, insecurity, uncertainty, harm, injury, destruction, doubt, attack, etc...., to be the leaders of the free world and the loan super power is a bad thing...... according to Edmund, the Clinton’s, the Bush’s and Obama.
Edmund likes to mention Reagan....
You do know that Reagan told Japan and European car companies they can avoid tariffs if you build your car plants here in the United States. Reagan used tariffs as advantage to bring jobs to the United States. Guess what Toyotta, BMW, etc... all came here.
So don’t let Edmund confuse you about Reagan’s position on this.
Free trade is only good IF everyone is playing by the same rules. Right now here are the facts.
1) The United States STILL PAYS TARIFFS while at the very same time China and Mexico do not. How is that fair?
2) China can manipulate currency with no type of punishment. How is that fair?
3) China, Mexico and the rest of the world are exempt from federal regulations while U.S. companies have to comply ONLY in the United States.
4) United States companies pay a higher capital gains in order to encourage them to leave the United States. That way we can import lower prices. How is that fair?
5) We import Engineers from China and India to replace American workers at lower cost. Google what Disney did recently to their I.T. department. The American workers had to train their foreign replacements , here in the United States for 1/3 the cost. While at the same time we export Engineer students from M.I.T., Georgia Tech, etc... to places like China and India.
6) In addition we now have open borders(never done before until this year, and allow illegal immigrants to welfare, free housing, free health care and free education. No other country in the world does this except us. This is being done in order to drive wages down.
This is what guys like Edmund, Obama, the Bush’s and the Clinton’s think is great for America.
If you are still not certain, then ask yourself this question?
Was the United States a stronger country with tariffs from 1945 to 1996 than without tariffs from 1997 to 2015?
Milton Freeman did not advocate for rigged trade deals.
Only for free trade deals where every side is playing by the same rules. Not where the United States pays tariffs and China and Mexico do not. Milton Freeman never advocated for that.
Or what about when China manipulates its currency. Milton Freeman never advocated for that.
The current trade agreements are like rigged poker game. You cannot win a rigged poker game period!
What we get in cheaper products has gained us more crime and illegal aliens and the loss of lower paying wages which would have helped the very poor that need such benefits.
The North American Free Trade Agreement: Ronald Reagan's Vision Realized
'...The NAFTA also will offer Americans cheaper goods, and increase U.S. exports by making them more affordable for the rest of the world. Moreover, it will create an estimated 200,000 new jobs for Americans, reduce illegal immigration from Mexico, help tackle drug trafficking, strengthen Mexican democracy and human rights, and serve as a model for the rest of the world.'
“However, the general view is that while it had negative results, the Smoot-Hawley Tariff was not one of the main causes of the Great Depression because foreign trade was only a small sector of the U.S. economy.”
True. The statistical data does not support the Smoot Hawley tariff being a significant contributor to the economic depression of the 1930’s because trade was a small factor.
The main contributor to the Great Depression in the United States was the mismanagement of the money supply by the Federal Reserve. From 1929, the year of the stock market crash to 1933, the deepest year of the economic depression, the Federal Reserve reduced M2 by 30% and M1 by 25%. As the money supply declined banks raised interest rates to levels businesses and people could not afford.
Friedman did not advocate protective tariffs. Give me a reference that indicates he did. Tariffs are simply a way of transferring money from my packet and yours to the Federal Government.
This post was a tour de force. THANK YOU.
First, Milton Freeman is an economic philosopher.
He was against ALL TARIFFS....
The current trade agreements have it where the United States still pays Tariffs. That’s the opposite of Friedman’s philosophy.
That is where much of the problem is at. So to invoke that Milton Freeman though the United States should pay tariffs is simply not true.
Thanks! :)
Exactly!
You are a bit confused about tariffs.
Friedman doesn’t believe foreign governments should impose tariffs on American goods. But the only power we have to counter those policies is to apply tariffs on goods being imported from those countries. Friedman opposed that.
When a foreign government imposes tariffs it is a tax on their citizens not ours. They are free to do so if they choose.
I can’t disagree that much of what you say shows the unfairness at work in the current global market. But I have a knee-jerk reaction to the word fair, as I think it’s an ideal, not a reality in the world and the very instant I hear the word I begin to have pictures of fairness being legislated. We can see the results are rarely helpful, and most often to those who were “unfairly treated”.
Of course freedom is also abused, and the endless tension between free and fair continues.
I will do some more reading and I greatly appreciate your post and explanation of your views! Time I started paying more attention.
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.