Posted on 02/08/2016 2:50:05 AM PST by expat_panama
Donald Trump said Sunday that there's one issue on which he and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont) agree: trade.
In a CNN interview Sunday, Trump pointed out that he and Sanders both opposed the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the multinational trade agreement brokered by the Obama administration.
The deal aims to reduce tariffs and put legal standards in place in the 12 participating countries.
"The one thing we very much agree on is trade. We both agree that we are getting ripped off by China, by Japan, by Mexico, everyone we do business with," Trump said.
But though the mogul suggested that he and Sanders both agreed on the issue, Trump argued that only he could make "absolute gold" out of future trade agreements.
[snip]
Though her State Department once led TPP negotiations, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton came out against the deal earlier this year. She has taken issue specifically with the final product's currency-manipulation-enforcement measures and concessions to the pharmaceutical industry.
(Excerpt) Read more at businessinsider.com ...
We just have to agree to disagree. I believe Trump is exactly who we need at this time warts and all. You support Cruz. Cruz is my second choice because he is better than the rest.
Friedman, like most economic literates, fully understood that. Friedman supported NAFTA and even said that all parties would benefit.
Right. I should always remember that I’m dealing with total economic illiterates like you here.
You said, somewhere in your fog of BS that “Tariffs should be used to protect American industries.”
Yeah, that’s a great idea if you’re a socialist like our friend Bernie. Or a protectionist. Sorry, I repeat myself.
You seem to think a few people should be employed at the expense of everyone else. No matter to you, everyone else only pays a few nickels and dimes here and there to preserve some jobs that shouldn’t exist.
No problem, right? Everyone else will never notice those extra nickels and dimes, right?
Never mind that when you add it all up, we’re all less better off in total.
But, that sounds just great to you, right?
Since you’ll never admit that your proposed tariff policy makes us less well-off as a whole, there’s nothing more to be said.
Other than to suggest that you might want to read some Ricardo on comparative advantage. We do some things better than others. You may not, but the society as a whole does.
Wow...you don’t even read. Friedman warned against NAFTA many times. YES, he wanted free trade in Latin America...NAFTA IS NOT FREE TRADE. It’s a cheap labor bunch of crony BS, just like Cruz’s TPP.
Milton Friedman: I would hope so. NAFTA is misnamed, it’s not a Free Trade Agreement, it’s a Managed Trade Agreement.
http://www.achievement.org/autodoc/page/fri0int-5
Milton Friedman: I would hope so. NAFTA is misnamed, it's not a Free Trade Agreement, it's a Managed Trade Agreement. I supported NAFTA, as a lesser of evils, but it would be better if we in the United States would simply reduce our tariffs across the board for everybody in the world
Thanks for the link. Even though it disproved your claim.
This is why I said, back in the Summer (and still true), I would vote for Sanders before Bush or Rubio.
Actually, and unsurprisingly, you’re wrong. What a shock.
US exports collapsed from about 6 billion to about 2 billion, ‘29 to ‘32. See: http://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTableHTML.cfm?reqID=9
Table 1.1.3.
That’s not less than 4%, that’s about 7% of a 57 billion economy in ‘33. About 4% of the pre-depression economy of ‘29. All by itself, that’s a nasty recession.
Why do you find it surprising that retaliatory tariffs resulted in a collapse of world trade and economic activity in general?
Especially when piled on top of bad monetary policy after a decade of growth.
Your quoted shrinking of the US trade deficit is also wrong, it went from .4 billion to .1 billion. Which means what? We were buying less stuff. Not good.
In any case, we don’t “lose” anything by any trade deficit, it just means that those durn furriners have more money to buy other stuff. Every dime of which has to be denominated in US dollars.
You know, to buy US assets. Surely you’ve heard of a thing called the accounting identity. It all adds up to zero. Trade deficit plus investment surplus = zero.
I agree with you, Trump is mostly a lot of bluster and hot air. If he winds up being the nominee I hope that he’s educable. We’ll see.
No matter what, he can’t possibly be worse than anything the Democrats can put up.
Besides economics, accounting is another weakness he suffers from.
Trump? Luck?
Yes, maybe because he inherited it. And he certainly understands real estate and casinos and how to run over minority shareholders in a bankruptcy action. But not much else.
Assume anything you want about me, I’m talking about Trump. Which has nothing to do with me or anyone else.
I’m sorry that you don’t understand how many US jobs trade has created over the last few decades. You seem to have a very foggy understanding of the US economy.
Something along the lines of “They took our jobs!” straight out of South Park. You actually sound like a natural supporter of Bernie. Those international corporations are all very evil, you know.
Blaming the depression on Smoot-Hawley is like blaming WWII on Polish aggression.
I like how you responded to: "The founding fathers instituted tariffs at an average amount of 15 percent" and then keep straight on with the "you're a socialist! You're an illiterate!" crap. I guess you're smarter than the people who founded this country, though I tend to think that what worked from the founding of the nation until the socialistic income tax was working quite fine without your globalist free trade crap that ended the British empire.
Friedman is a fool of he thinks labor doesn't move to where it's cheapest. You can't have a "free market" when there are countries that pay their employees slave market wages for the same job. This is the stuff of globalism, not the stuff of protecting nations.
Speaking of collectivists, the Founding Fathers instituted tariffs of an average of 15 percent. That's how they funded more than 90 percent of government expenditures.
Well yes, if you're talking about American businesses and interests versus the interests of China or Vietnam. If you're fine with the United States losing to corrupt, communist countries and thus losing all of our labor and manufacturing, then you're a fool. This "Free Trade" stuff is Utopian and detached from reality. Free Trade works within the 50 states. It does not work with other countries.
LOL, so protectionism ended the cold war or something? Funny it didn't end the United States which was founded on tariffs to begin with.
Read much?
I didn’t blame the depression on Smoot-Hawley, although it was certainly an aggravating factor. One of many.
What’s your point?
Well, you certainly are an economic illiterate.
And clearly a protectionist, you admit as much and you think it’s really, really smart stuff. According to you, the British empire would have survived to this day with a few more tariffs and a little less of that nasty free world trade.
And tariffs should work forever, since that’s what we started with as a system of taxation.
Ya know, tariffs are a very blunt tax instrument, a favorite of Luddites and proponents of mercantilism everywhere, but I understand that you absolutely love and adore tariffs.
If you want to go with a consumption tax, I would agree with you — impose an X% tax on all consumption, regardless of the source of the product — and eliminate all income taxes and tariffs.
But that’s not what you want. You want protectionist tariffs in all their rabble-rousing and revenue-raising glory. Until they impoverish everyone, everywhere.
Say, what do you think of the new Florida tariff on Georgia peaches?
And the retaliatory Georgia tariff on Florida oranges?
And the other 50,000 tariffs on interstate trade items that the 50 state legislatures dreamed up after the union dissolved?
Inquiring minds want to know what a protectionist from the 1800s thinks.
My, my you are really uninformed aren't you?
Tariffs between states is prohibited by the U.S. Constitution, and all domestically made products can be imported or shipped to another state tax-free.
Section 9
No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.
No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.
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.