>he doesn't believe in free trade How does it feel to be back in the 18th century?
Mercantilism died long ago yet people still spout the same stupid lines based upon protectionism and economic isolationism. >muh infant industry >muh exported jobs >muh nationalism
Read a modern economics book you creeps. You'd realize that Free Trade allows everyone to gain. This is not a zero sum game. Your kind of thinking is how America got the Smoot-Hawley tariff (over some Swiss watches) passed back in the 1930s and fucked up the economy in more ways than people realized would happen. Countries that trade have incentives to avoid war. That brings us to the peace between developed nations we have today.
But by all means, go ahead. Destroy and counterract everything that brought the entire world to the wealth that we have today. Totally ignore that most industrial jobs are being replaced by ROBOTS and are not "being exported".
I can tell you have never read any of those free trade agreements. they aren't free at all, they are full of quotas designed to create particular social outcomes, in the same way carbon taxes are. that's why so many of us want to put a stop to them.
Isaiah Lewis
When a nation, for example the USA, removes tariffs, regulation, and "mercantilism", those who benefit the most are OTHER mercantilist nations (i.e. CHINA).
In such a scenario, do you firmly believe that China will realize the same insight you have, and proceed to remove their regulations?
>mercantilism is dead so long as there are nations that trade, there will be mercantilism. If the US did exactly what you're proposing, two things would happen: >China would benefit because of their mercantilist policies >These policies would not be removed, ever, by Chinese politicians
Oh wait, that already happened, and is happening. Good thing we have someone besides you in charge.
>inb4 triggered
Daniel Morris
I just realized I bumped a Sup Forums tier thread, so I thought hey, might as well pop back thread about to die, but I feel like this could go somewhere
Ryder Bennett
>muh progress >muh smoot-hawley
How does it feel to be a retard?
Alexander Evans
Yup.
Easton Phillips
free trade = freedom of movement of labour = mass shitskin immigration
Andrew Turner
China literally gives us incredibly cheap shit at the cost of the average Chinese person. They literally pay us to take their stuff.
Gabriel Morgan
The goal isn't to put up a wall of tarrifs, the goal is to get china amd other nations to tear theirs down.
It's not free trade if they can sell to us and we can't sell to them.
Ryan Gonzalez
isn't the chart in that video the charting of the westernization of the world? the more western the way of thinking the better the countries are off.
Anthony Carter
Looking for a recommendation for a modern economics book
non-jewish author pls
Nathaniel Hall
are you in disagreement with me? We do what you described as mercantilist nations accept that this will never happen, please, because it wont, and I don't want to be on the wrong end of that
Lincoln Baker
East India Company called, with their own coin mint, legal system, ability to draft soldiers and mandate to take and hold city states.
Landon Kelly
>accept that this will never happen, please, because it wont, and I don't want to be on the wrong end of that >I don't want to be on the wrong end of that nigger, on avereage, every bit of economic activity you do is taxed 35% you are ALREADY on the wrong end
Leo Thomas
>what you described as Huh? I'm saying nobody in the U.S. should complain about China subsidizing our purchases of their products, since it only benefits U.S. consumers and firms.
They're not "killing us" on trade - they're literally making our lives better by making their own lives worse.
Leo Jones
> Free Trade allows everyone to gain. It's also creating a global tyranny fucko
Juan Campbell
I don't really understand protectionist policies. Labor in other countries is cheaper, they sell us cheaper goods. We have a different area of specialization and they specialize in cheap raw labor, but they aren't necessarily in direct competition with our labor force, which are more educated and do different jobs.
The people who get the short end of the stick on free trade policies are small but heavily concentrated like coal towns. So theyre just really loud and visible.
Christopher Gray
>China will never let us export to them. They protect their companies. But we must accept their imports, at the detriment of our companies.
Globalism on display, ladies and gentlemen.
Isaiah Thompson
We export a good amount to China. The thing is is that most of the things we export are more than 95+% of Chinese people can afford. They fuck over their own people by deflating the value of their currency to make their goods more enticing to foreign buyers. That is only good for the foreign buyers (which includes us) unless you have a huge interest in the conditions of the average Chinese person who suffers from that policy.
Kayden Jackson
Sup Forums really doesn't understand globalism except when they see a minority at the mall.
Big concepts such as free trade has no meaning to them until you start taking away their cheap shit at Walmart.
Levi Evans
Even then they wouldn't get it - they'd just think something like "everything is so expensive" and be mad without having any understanding (or any desire *TO* understand) the causes of price inflation.
Ryder Taylor
>Read a modern economics book you creeps. You'd realize that Free Trade allows everyone to gain. This is not a zero sum game.
Obvious troll is obvious. If not trolling then retard equals confirmed.
Go 69 your mom's dick
Brayden Torres
That's only good for us as far as consumers.
The bad part is where is destroys US industry, sends investment dollars and tax revenue overseas, and ensure chinese are too poor to ever buy anything from us.
Yeah, wonderful policy. Such free trade.
You'd lose your shit if the US attempted half the shit china gets away with.
Nolan Turner
>that's only good for us as consumers Literally everyone is a consumer. Producers are all consumers, and when producers have more money in their pockets they can invest in things like capital, which increases productivity and output in the long run.
It does not destroy U.S. industry, it moves industry to different - and more profitable - sectors in which people are more competitive and their output is more valuable.
Robert Williams
So you're praising the ASPE while shitting on it without knowing what you're doing.
Gabriel Evans
lol, in OP's wet dream, I get taxed 35%, and have no job
US and China do what you described... while being mercantilist >China subsidizes our purchases of their products If I'm reading this right, you mean that China is paying us to take their goods, but that's not true, they tax us however here: you make some good points >unless you have a huge interest in the conditions of the average Chinese person who suffers from that policy. I kinda do
Michael Sullivan
OP is a Communist.
I'm not interested in "allowing everyone to gain."
>This is not a zero sum game.
Yes. It is. The quicker you learn that the better off you'll be.
>Countries that trade have incentives to avoid war.
Yeah, of course they do. They trade. No one wants to get rid of "free" trade. They want the deals renegotiated. That's it.
>This isn't globalism. This is human interaction via the international market. This is why the West is wealthy.
It's the very definition of globalism you Commie faggot.
Julian Wilson
>How does it feel to be back in the 18th century? Fun actually
Robert Morris
I love how you people love free trade.
Free movement of goods and labour, right? But as soon as we create free movement of money, you get assblasted.
Nono, take your global tarif free trade somewhere else.
John Howard
>How does it feel to be back in the 18th century?
Ah the Paris salons, the georgian houses going up in Dublin, mass rebellion.
Good times.
Kayden Butler
You sure showed him
Justin Jenkins
The U.S. does not artificially intentionally devalue its currency as long-term monetary policy.
>If I'm reading this right, you mean that China is paying us to take their goods Yes - that's exactly what they do. >but that's not true Yes it is true.
>I kinda do Good - I think it's wrong too, both as a Christian and as a free trade man. But my solution to that is not to fuck over people in the U.S. by putting up just as immoral tariffs on other people's goods.
Connor Cooper
The person arguing in support of free trade and market economics is the Communist?
Just how dumb are you?
Adam Thompson
>can invest in things like capital yeah in other countries. how does that benefit us here aside from making plastic shit at walmart a few cents cheaper?
Lincoln Cook
a flat tariff between countries would be a blessing, right now we have ten thousand hidden taxes and impediments usually we're open while the other countries cheat with everything from regulations to VAT also I would much rather have a tariff and protect US companies than have no tariff and have to subsidize them directly other countries
Luke Sanchez
>how does that benefit us here By making plastic shit at Walmart a few cents cheaper... for hundreds of millions of people many times a year.
Cameron Diaz
I'm not arguing against the benefits of economic efficiency. I'm saying the benefits are largely occuring in southeast asia, because china has rigged trade to favor them.
You really think the US can remain a super power by moving all production to china while we sit on our asses and consume what they make? Just how sustainable do you think that is long term?
PRODUCTION makes nations wealthy. Not consumption. That's why China's GDP is exploding while we sit at less than 3% for nearly a decade.
James Brown
The benefits are mostly to us, since we're not the ones shouldering the cost of their currency devaluation since we don't trade in Chinese yuan.
We would never move all our production there. That's not how trade functions. If I could give you a not terribly long video, it sums up the situation pretty well. If you take any issue with anything posited during it I'd be happy to talk about it.
Okay, as someone with a background in economics, let me spell out what their argument is without taking a side. Just because I understand their position doesn't mean I agree with them or you, but you don't seem to understand the scenario.
In order to facilitate 'free trade' borders and nationalism must be attacked. This is because without free movement of labor, free trade is not actually realisable, and this is something that anyone with knowledge of proposed free trade ideas will admit.
This is, in itself, an attempted form of globalism, or international socialism.
As a humanist, I think that socialism can (and has) been achieved on a national level in many western countries, and free migration of labor, the dissolution of nation, stands to undermine this.
That said, socialism is not communism, and the distinction needs to be made. The 'guiding hand' of the free market resulting in trickle-down economics has proven to be flawed, as historically, economists underestimated the wealthys ability to retain wealth accrued, in addition to aquiring more.
In other words, entrenched classism, setting the seeds for class warfare.
Liam Davis
user, I'm a fan of freidman. I've seen all those videos on youtube. I'm not some protectionist commie.
But you keep posting free trade arguments as if I'm arguing against the benefits of real free trade, which I'm not. I'm saying it doesn't actually exist in reality. If free trade was a thing, we wouldn't need free trade agreements, would we?
The model doesn't work well unless BOTH sides are dealing in good faith. One side engaging in free trade, while another engages in protectionism, does not create a system of "free trade". All it's doing is de-industrializing the US and sending capital, the very benefit of capitalism - overseas.
Step away from the econ philosophy textbook arguments for a second and look at the reality of things.
And getting back to the OP - I don't even think trump is wanting to put up tariff walls. I think he is wanting China and other countries to play by the same rules, so we can actually see capital flow to where it is most efficient, NOT where it is being steered through manipulated markets.
If china still has an edge after removing their tarrifs, matching our wage and environmental regs (which need reform), and letting their currency valuation rise, then so be it. Then we will have free trade.
Ryan Thomas
No shit governments fuck with people freely trading dude. Did I ever deny that?
>The model doesn't work well unless BOTH sides are dealing in good faith In this case it does for one party - namely us as consumers of Chinese goods that the Chinese people subsidize for us. Definitively. We net benefit by *ALOT* from their policy of currency devaluation.