You have your nuclear analogy backward though. Unbridled on-sided free trade is the weapon of mass destruction not the other way around.
Posted on 05/07/2016 5:55:33 PM PDT by stratboy
You have your nuclear analogy backward though. Unbridled on-sided free trade is the weapon of mass destruction not the other way around.
I'm not against Trump in general. He has some good ideas. But when you really listen to his trade ideas they just stink. Go listen to his comments on the 45% Chinese tariff proposal in his Chris Wallace interview. When challenged he basically admits that his proposal is just a bargaining tool and would never be imposed. The reason: The Chinese would back down when faced with the economic depression that would result. Even Trump knows that large tariffs are not really going to happen. Just bargaining chips with the Chinese and others.
What people don't get about the "Trade Deficit" is that the those $Billions flow back into the U.S. as investments. Some admittedly goes to finance our Federal Government but much of it is invested in U.S stocks and bonds and real estate. Those investments create American jobs.
There is NO BALANCE OF TRADE. We import goods. We export goods. We import more than we export. Money ends up overseas and is invested back in the U.S. That what actually happens. Tax that transaction with tariffs and you will get less goods and less investment. And you will sell a lot less to the Chinese.
I wish these talking pinheads would make up their mind. Is Trump a protectionists or a globalist? Jeez, pick one, Levin, and stick to it.
“You should have made yourself clear in the first place: You are opposed to ANY Constitutional amendments, whether proposed by Congress or by an Article V convention.”
I’m not though. Now leave me alone.
Nice post.
Now I know that there are at least 2 of us here on FR who agree that Trump is wrong on tariffs and trade. There are probably many others but I'm thinking we are the 1%.
I'm going to keep working to move that up to at least 2%. You should too.
“You have your nuclear analogy backward though. Unbridled on-sided free trade is the weapon of mass destruction not the other way around.”
‘Unbridled one-sided free trade’ sounds like a leftist phrase, along with ‘obscene corporate profits’, ‘income inequality’, ‘one percenters’.
Perhaps you didn’t mean it that way, but in any case, I’m not getting your meaning.
In my book, free trade is when two parties enter into an exchange willingly, freely. The price is mutually agreed upon without restrictions imposed by third parties.
“Bridled” means restricted, i.e. NOT free, therefore the term “unbridled free trade” is redundant. “One-sided free trade” is an oxymoron.
I think this is the first time I’ve ever seen a phrase that is both an oxymoron and redundant!
I know - the ‘Trade Deficit’ is offset by the ‘Current Account’. In business school I was taught economics by the best: Walter Williams. He always stressed that point.
However, there are problems with the trade. The capital investment that comes back to the US is not always job producing investment, often it is real estate, or stock ownership with no net change in jobs or production, but a loss of controlling interest in our own industry. As we have found with energy, there are scrutiny benefits to being self reliant, having a healthy domestic production of natural resources, food, technology.
There is no doubt that our standard of living is falling while that of our trading partners increases.
Still I agree tariffs are not good - best see as a bargaining chip and never actually used. That was my whole point! Peace through strength is the same principle - maintain superior military power, and the reputation for using it if necessary, and hopefully never have to use it.
That was outstanding - great comments!
We already have over 12,000 tariffs on a wide variety of goods. Unilateral tariff increases never happen. The exporting country responds in kind.
Foreign trade is best left to the free market unless one side cheats. Then put the hammer on them.
The people who would ATTEND the Convention would not be the people who would RATIFY any amendments. The amendments would have to be ratified by the STATE LEGISLATURES, just like amendments proposed by Congress.
The more you boast about how well-informed you are, the more you say inaccurate things.
Nit picking. You all know what I mean.
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.