Why are you opposed to free trade?

Economists nearly universally agree on it being a good thing for the economy.

Other urls found in this thread:

nytimes.com/2015/04/26/upshot/economists-actually-agree-on-this-point-the-wisdom-of-free-trade.html
cato.org/blog/super-majority-economists-agree-trade-barriers-should-go
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

(((Economists)))

free trade models assume zero immigration between countries

Free trade is how the Juden monopolize the goyims markets and squeeze everyone else out. Favouring themselves and never buying anything other than what another Jew sells. There is a reason they kept getting expelled from countries in the past.

>Better make sure you have a great ecomony for when you get decapitated for eating pig

I'm not opposed to my dick oscillating in and out of that qts asshole though

Ravenous capitalism is as much an enemy as communism.

Being Jews isn't an argument, Richard Feynman's physics aren't wrong because he was a Jew, etc.
No they don't, you can account for immigration if you want to in any model.
Free Trade creates wealth for both parties involved, reduces regulatory, bureaucratic, and administrative overhead generally, gets rid of economic inefficiencies and unnecessary exchanges between countries allowing for the capital to be put to better use elsewhere, and in general is just good for the economy, your argument about muh jooz ruining everything just isn't right.

Let me tell you about zenith. The largest manufacturer of electronics in America. They no longer exist.

they no longer exist because the Japanese via governmental intervention and dumping destroyed their business. The winner is known as (((Sony))).

And why did zenith die even though thy sued the US government for protection? Becaus the (((economists))) argued that the free market and free trade would produce the best outcome.

And it did for Japan... So basically any private enterprise in the United States, even the largest most powerful companies in the world, are subject to destruction via a short term commodity war by a foreign government to create a future monopolistic market.

Real great (((economic plan))) you got there. It's almost like it's designed to destroy white countries. Weird.

babbies' first class in economics

> Babbies'
> A supermajority of Ph.D. economists unilaterally support the idea

nytimes.com/2015/04/26/upshot/economists-actually-agree-on-this-point-the-wisdom-of-free-trade.html
cato.org/blog/super-majority-economists-agree-trade-barriers-should-go

Because pol is a nu-male edgy board where people oppose mainstream politics.

Sage, duh.

Sanity check here...are the memes for real?
> Whit genocide via replacement migration and affirmative action is real.
> destruction of marriage and family via unjust laws and normalizing of transkin has already happened.
> a group of rich investors, mostly Jewish, that wants open borders and one world government, controls the mainstream media and both sides of major political parties today, especially in the USA, today, and has for decades.
> Hitler was basically a good guy as political leaders go, and killed less than 5% of the number of civilians his enemies (Soviet Communists) killed.
> Communism = Jewish takeover. The Bolsheviks were almost all Jews.
> Global warming is a lie designed solely to push creating a world government that benefits rich capital owners.
> At current rates, White Americans will be a minority in about 20 years, and will lose political power (ie go below 30%, with non-whites unified against us) in about 40 years, leaving only a handful of elite families ruling over a mulatto slave class. Whites still free and unified at that time will be murdered by non-white mobs who believe they are doing the Lord's work, as happened to the Rhodesian nation when Britain backed their enemies.
> No one knows what we will experience after death, so I can't take comfort in an afterlife fantasy, ie I cannot an hero out of the coming struggle.

Please confirm for me that this (I lose my job in ~20 years, and get killed by hostile minorities in ~40 years) is the true state of affairs, and I am not insane.

And yet if you asked Ph.D. Historians they would come up with wildly different ideas about what works, and their opinion would be worth more because it has already proven to be correct

I agree that competition is a viable aspect of a thriving economy.

Yes, they get rid of all those pesky regulations that disallow rampant capitalism to ruin the environment of where ever it is they operate. The Jews aren't the be all and end all in this regard but they own or are the heads, of many multinational corporations that devastate countries and their environments, thus creating yet more "refugee" hordes.

Overall economic growth does not trump all other social considerations.

Countries with strong free trade agreements are among the countries with the greatest environmental protections and regulations in other areas meant to protect consumers, minimize corruption, etc. Free trade in general correlates positively with societal development and regulation to protect people and better society.

/thread

A supermajority of Ph.D economist will also be the first ones to piss off to a place where they still didn't ruin it.
A supermajority of Ph.D economists were staring like a bunch of slack jawed faggots when the markets in 2008 tanked.
A supermajority of Ph.D economists should be continuously whipped by groups of giant niggers.

what does this image have to do with your question?

THIS!!!!!

Sup Forums is not about being right, it's about being edgy.

Economists weren't close to being unanimous in having faith in the economy/markets in 2008, a lot of them did predict a crash.
Nothing obviously, but it attracts attention from the low-attention span people on the board in a board where this would otherwise filter through and get overwhelmed by stupid shit like BLACKED, Venti, and Antifa meme threads.

Yes, but as others have said, it's not always the case. If your only concern is wealth generation you will inevitably head towards opulence and decadence (the west today). Free markets also have plenty going on under the hood that no one sees but is quite detrimental to a nation with corruption etc. Not to mention it foster capitalism to the degree in which the corporate heads want to bring in countless foreigners to have wages drop to slavery levels.

I'm not opposed to a certain amount of competition, but the state should have a tight control on who is the heads of these companies and that their march for profits never overtakes their stewardship of the nation and it's people.

Economist need to base every theory on assumptions. For example:
>People have rational preferences among outcomes that can be identified and associated with a value.
>Individuals maximize utility (as consumers) and firms maximize profit (as producers).
>People act independently on the basis of full and relevant information.

There are many others. But my point is, economist agree on free trade because they use the assumption that free trade works. It's a loop.

Cos it's not free trade sage

>And it did for Japan...

And for every other American who no longer had to buy garbage Zenith products.

Protectionism is just right-wing welfare. You're all cucks.

Doesn't actually work. Coal mining near the barrier reef, gulf of Mexico, all covered under free trade and environmental considerations.

>trusting economists after the failure of trickle down economics
>"B-but muh PhD"
There are PhDs in feminism. Doesn't make it right tough.

t. urban and metropolitan retard

fuck off chang/ahmed

>undercutting and destroying your middle class to allow international corporations to exploit third world child slave labor is good for everyone, go-...er guys!

>getting a better deal for your product is wrong

not sure how anything happening recently means anyone is against free trade

I love Sup Forums Bunch of fucking morons arguing about things none of them understand.

If it could be experimentally tested and shown to not damage the environment that much, or if the impact could be minimized I don't see why not. We still need energy, even if it's from something like coal and isn't perfect for the environment.
Trickle-down is a meme term used by people who don't know anything about economics or economic policy.

The problem with free-trade is that is not really "free". Trade deals imply revoking the rules made by "nations" to protect citizens and impose rules made in the best interest of "corporations"