Vast majority of Economists agree that Free Trade (voluntary exchange of goods between countries) is beneficial to both parties and increases the efficiency of the market
They also agree American citizens on average benefit from this arrangement
Why do you disagree with the opinions of PhD holding economists Sup Forums?
Other urls found in this thread:
americanaffairsjournal.org
84.89.132.1
84.89.132.1
youtube.com
youtube.com
epi.org
youtube.com
epi.org
epi.org
epi.org
epi.org
twitter.com
PhD literally doesn't mean anything. Some people are wise, some people aren't but having a bit of paper that shows that you where fed information and where able to repeat it back doesn't say anything about a person's ability to be more than just a robotic memory machine.
because they love to gloss over labor mobility and its effects
>PhD literally doesn't mean anything.
Most of the economists surveyed in this study are from top schools like MIT, Stanford, and Harvard.
They are the the creme de la creme of economists.
free trade only means removal of tariffs. What you described is just general trade, and it's perfectly fine if tariffs are maintained to account for labor cost differentials.
Also, a PhD has as much expertise in economic policy as a Starbucks barista. If they had real-world knowledge, they wouldn't have holed themselves up in the ivory tower.
And all this is coming from a proud, self-avowed neoliberal. Neoliberalism and free trade fucking SUCK.
Toodles,
r/neoliberal
How are MIT, Harvard, and Stanford 'top schools'? Most real-world economists in the private sector come from regular public universities, while the Ivy Leaguers plagiarize off each other on the campus quad and pretend to be policy experts.
If you want a real education, stop on by to r/neoliberal. We'll sort your populist bullshit right out.
>free trade only means removal of tariffs. What you described is just general trade, and it's perfectly fine if tariffs are maintained to account for labor cost differentials.
A Tariffs is just a tax on the voluntary exchange of goods and services.
>If you want a real education, stop on by to r/neoliberal. We'll sort your populist bullshit right out.
I'm a populist because I want free trade while you're a neoliberal because you want tariffs? You make me laugh
>If you want a real education, stop on by to r/neoliberal
Yes reddit offers a better education than MIT. Get real
A tariff is a tool for protecting domestic industry from the lower labor costs of offshore markets.
I.E. tariffs aren't usually necessary between advanced, industrialized economies, but imports from China/Mexico/SE Asia demand tariffs, or American manufacturers will relocate operations in those markets. This is bad for anyone who doesn't lowkey support fomenting fascist or socialist populism by destroying regional economies.
See you at Davos,
r/neoliberal
Like I've already said, stop on by so we can have a real discussion (in which we shame your populist ignorance and remind you of our superior social class)..
First of all I am a neoliberal and I support free trade because of the Ricardian principle of comparative advantage. Which is a staple of neoliberal policy. It's likely we agree on more issues than we disagree.
I still think redditors like yourself are a bunch of faggots.
> lower labor costs of offshore markets
The lower labor costs will increase the overall efficiency of the domestic market. It's simple comparative advantage.
...
Protectionism worked fine for the British Empire until 1850, USA up to the late 20th cent, Germany in the late 19th cent, etc.
Worth remembering that most countries actually don't pursue unilateral free-trade, even though it is supposed to make them "better off". So what is more likely to be wrong: Ricardo's 200 year old model with no time, and frictionless/costless movement between the production of goods; or, the received wisdom of every government on the planet since 1500AD? Granted trade theory has moved quite some way, it's still Ricardo at its foundations.
Ricardo breaks down if the traded goods are not sustainable, if debt is introduced, if time preferences are introduced; if the negative okun gap from the destruction of existing capital, falling production, and unemployment is larger than the gains of trade; and it produces vast inequalities between the blue collar and white collar workers. It makes the capitalists wealthier, and the workers poorer. It is "rational" for Venezuela to base its entire economy on oil, but then it is at the mercy of exogenous shocks to price. Look at the country now. Saudis also have massive debts to cover their losses in the recent collapse of oil prices--- not smart!
It is INNOVATION that drives the economy, not specialization. Diverse economies have more opportunities for virtuous tail events (innovative breakthroughs) in each sector and are more flexible.
Most academics will parrot the free-trade mantra because that's what they were taught, especially if you're Harvard, the establishment of the establishment for fuck sake, lol. I'm also an economist, I and many others disagree that freetrade is always a good thing. Globalisation and global trade has been a mixed bags. Sick of these helots in the media and elsewhere parroting the line of their neoclassical masters unthinkingly.
There's nothing efficient about free trade and it's only beneficial in uncommon and select circumstances.
>but muh appeal to authority!!!1
Totally irrelevant. Economics has become an indoctrination into religion in academia.
Yup and tax and redistribution is an involuntary exchange of wealth that does not increase market efficiency and creates a ton of useless leeches both procreationally and functionally as a result of policy and human behavior
>muh consensus
>muh authority
98% of experts agree OP is a fag. What economists study at universities are theoretical construct, they're not experts at economical reality but at economic theories.
TL;DR the map is not the terrain.
I'd say that's fairly spot on but you need only say that collective assumptions of perfect competition don't exist in the real world and any theories/models predicated on them are irrelevant and worthless.
It's also productivity, specifically, that drives the economy, not necessarily innovation.
So if free trade is not necessarily good between countries, why not erect artificial trade barriers within countries?
Do you see how this opens up an entirely different can of worms?
It threatens the very foundation of market economics and the voluntary exchange of goods and services.
>the mercy of exogenous shocks to price
> Diverse economies have more opportunities for virtuous tail events (innovative breakthroughs) in each sector and are more flexible.
Why stop at trade barriers between nation states?
Suppose we place artificial trade barriers within countries and between various municipalities and states. This would force them to diversify their economy. Is there such a thing as too much diversification. Personally I think the competition via the global economy more than outweighs these benefits to "diversification".
Agreed my ideal society is one with little to no taxes and no trade barriers. Just enough taxes to fund the courts and judicial system
>why not erect artificial trade barriers within countries
Because the caterwauling of know-nothing academics and special interest types.
>Do you see how this opens up an entirely different can of worms?
No.
>It threatens the very foundation of market economics and the voluntary exchange of goods and services.
How totally absurd. Here's a fun fact: America doesn't have a bunch of auto manufacturing because we have some imaginary advantage, we have those because we still have tariffs and quotas on autos. But golly gosh, looks like we still have a diverse market in autos.
>Why stop at trade barriers between nation states?
Because you only need trade barriers to protect the finances of the domestic government and to eliminate labor, regulatory, and tax arbitrage between nations since the domestic government has no jurisdiction to do that elsewhere.
>Suppose we place artificial trade barriers within countries and between various municipalities and states
There's no point. They're both administered by the same government with the same finances and are subject to the same market conditions.
> Is there such a thing as too much diversification
No.
> Personally I think the competition via the global economy more than outweighs these benefits to "diversification".
Putting all your eggs in one basket doesn't work in investing and it works no better as an economic model. Specialization has lead to many 'a catastrophe throughout history. Venezuela is just a recent example.
>Because you only need trade barriers to protect the finances of the domestic government and to eliminate labor, regulatory, and tax arbitrage between nations since the domestic government has no jurisdiction to do that elsewhere.
Why is the national government more important than the regional government? Look at what's happening in Spain/Catalonia
>There's no point. They're both administered by the same government with the same finances and are subject to the same market conditions.
Fallacy. A country is not a homogeneous group. Flyover country in the US is very different from New York or Silicon Valley. Why not erect trade barriers between various American states.
>Do you see how this opens up an entirely different can of worms?
>No.
Not an Argument.
>Venezuela is just a recent example.
Venezueala is a socialist shit hole not because it over specialized but because its a socialist shit hole
>Specialization has lead to many 'a catastrophe throughout history.
The market will open up business opportunities to allow a region to offset the risks associated with overspecialization.
>Putting all your eggs in one basket doesn't work in investing and it works no better as an economic model.
A state or government should not have the authority to mandate the level of specialization or diversification of an investment portfolio.
Stop talking about pleb shit. The basic problem for regular people is that we continually add money to the money supply. If we didn't do that normal people would be much wealthier
>Why is the national government more important than the regional government?
Because the national government sets all significant rules, regulations, and standards. Regional governments have little ability to make themselves more/less competitive relative to other regions.
>Fallacy. A country is not a homogeneous group. Flyover country in the US is very different from New York or Silicon Valley. Why not erect trade barriers between various American states.
Again, New York and Silicon Valley are administered by the same federal government and subject to the same federal rules, regulations, and standards. There's no point.
>Not an Argument.
Correct, nor was it intended to be.
Why are they economists instead of making billions in the market if they are so smart ?
>Venezueala is a socialist shit hole not because it over specialized but because its a socialist shit hole
They were doing fine until retardian specialization raped their current account and their economy, as specialization always will.
>The market will open up business opportunities to allow a region to offset the risks associated with overspecialization
You mean diversification? Fucking lol.
>A state or government should not have the authority to mandate the level of specialization or diversification
Sure it should, it's in the interest of the nation.
They've tried. What you get is the LTCM fiasco.
> Regional governments have little ability to make themselves more/less competitive relative to other regions.
Yes they do. There's a huge difference in the wages, Cost of Living from one state to another. Regulations are different, taxes are different. A house that's worth 200k in Ohio could be worth 3 million in Sillicon Valley.
>You mean diversification? Fucking lol.
The market will allow that to happen to the extent that is needed, your asking the state to do it for everyone by mandating trade barriers
>What you get is the LTCM fiasco.
It was making billions of dollars and beating various stock indices. Asian and Russian economies collapsed simultaneously which led to their downfall.
Many economists do work at very profitable hedge funds.
>on average
Ah, yes. The statistic don't lie, but the ones who choose them sometimes do. Unfortunately, user, the devil is in the details and what looks great on paper is not actually indicative of how reality plays out.
Obviously a few people might lose but on the whole America wins
The nation does not exist to serve the economy.
>Yes they do. There's a huge difference in the wages, Cost of Living from one state to another.
Uh-huh, which are not the government's doing. Try and follow along.
>Regulations are different, taxes are different
Almost negligibly.
> A house that's worth 200k in Ohio could be worth 3 million in Sillicon Valley.
Because the California or San Francisco government just added a $2.8 million tax, right? lol
>The market will allow that to happen to the extent that is needed
Too bad that doesn't happen. Again, Venezuela.
It's also funny how market fundamentalists always end up showing their ideology to be a faith-based religion.
>your asking the state to do it for everyone by mandating trade barriers
Damn right.
>It was making billions of dollars
Mhm, that can happen when you're borrowing retarded amounts of money. I'd make billions, too, if could borrow ridiculous sums of money to pick up nickels in front of a steam roller like they did.
>Asian and Russian economies collapsed simultaneously which led to their downfall
The hedge fund wasn't hedged, *gasp*
>Many economists do work at very profitable hedge funds
I know you don't even realize the contradiction in that.
Because it actually isn't free trade that we have and the name is just a branding tool. These are just normal trade agreements with the word "free" tossed in... You know, like free healthcare or free peanuts on a flight... They're not free at all and you're paying for it somewhere else in the equation.
You've got that backwards.
>Protectionism worked fine for the British Empire until 1850, USA up to the late 20th cent, Germany in the late 19th cent, etc.
It helped starve Irish people and cause wars.
>Ricardo or the received wisdom of every government on the planet since 1500AD
Ricardo.
>Ricardo breaks down if the traded goods are not sustainable, if debt is introduced, if time preferences are introduced; if the negative okun gap from the destruction of existing capital, falling production, and unemployment is larger than the gains of trade; and it produces vast inequalities between the blue collar and white collar workers.
None of those puncture the basic insight that more can be produced if both countries specialise. You seem to be just spouting a lot of random phrases.
>It makes the capitalists wealthier, and the workers poorer.
Pure populism. Workers are made better off in the long run when they can specialise and take advantage of cheap goods.
>Most academics will parrot the free-trade mantra because that's what they were taught
You're the only one who can think, right. Not any of those PhDs...
Btw
>falling production
Heh
Nah, tariffs and other trade barriers are lower than just about ever before in history. It just leads to debt, deficit, and a race to the bottom which is inconvenient so, "wasn't 'real' free trade!"
>Collectivism is great!
Fuck off, neo-liberal. And remove that gadsden at once, statist.
>opposes collectivism
>also wants to limit people's FREEDOM to buy things from outside an arbritary boundary
Yes, because there is no practical reason to unless the entire world is operating under the same system. Ideology has to be subject to practicality, but practicality doesn't mean actively screwing over the few to give more to the most who already have.
The boundary is not arbitrary. It's there for a reason, namely where our policy regarding trade (or lack thereof) ends and someone else's policy regarding trade begins.
>It helped starve Irish people
That was free trade. The Irish governor refused to put export tariffs on food because 'muh free trade' so the Irish exported their food over to England where it would fetch a higher price.
>and cause wars
Total nonsense.
>None of those puncture the basic insight that more can be produced if both countries specialize
Actually it does, you're just not educated or intelligent enough to realize it.
>Workers are made better off in the long run when they can [specialize] and take advantage of cheap goods.
We're actually in a better position to do that without free trade, thanks.
>You're the only one who can think, right. Not any of those PhDs
>muh appeal to authority!
>That was free trade. The Irish governor refused to put export tariffs on food because 'muh free trade' so the Irish exported their food over to England where it would fetch a higher price.
There is an argument for a tariff in that case. However, they could also have simply repealed the existing tariffs which made it more expensive to import food.
>Total nonsense.
Autarky reduces international dependence leading to war, or at least making war easier. How is this 'total nonsense'? Many agree.
>Actually it does, you're just not educated or intelligent enough to realize it.
Explain it then. You're just hopping on his hastily made up economic mumbo-jumbo because it suits your biases.
What does 'time preference' have to do with countries specialising to increase output? I don't see the relationship.
Do you even have an economic background? Or are you just supporting his theory because it suits with what you want to be believe?
>We're actually in a better position to do that without free trade, thanks.
How are cheap goods and specialisation improved when you are selling to a smaller market and paying $5000 for an iPhone?
>muh appeal to authority!
Not even a real fallacy. They know more about economics than you and they are correct whereas you are wrong.
If you're opposed to free trade, you're a statist.
Reduced prices of underwear and t-shirts does not equate to the multiplier effect of having someone with a job spend money and consume in your local area.
>It was making billions of dollars and beating various stock indices. Asian and Russian economies collapsed simultaneously which led to their downfall.
It's called being a turkey you retard
Do you believe in laws? Rules that society should function under?
>Workers are made better off in the long run when they can specialise and take advantage of cheap goods.
t. bachelor student studying shit-tier economics, believing some theory-based memes that have no basis in reality
>Given that economists have not even considered these issues, it is not surprising that other researchers who have done so have reached conclusions that are diametrically opposed to the biases of economists.
>By analyzing the enormous Standard International Trade Classification database of international trade flows, data scientists at Harvard University, working on what they have christened The Atlas of Economic Complexity,19 have found that diversity, rather than specialization, leads to national success in international trade.
>First time that there's actual proof that diversity is a strength
americanaffairsjournal.org
not if you have a law against stealing but steal from everyone to enforce it
So, you DO believe in laws, just not hypocritical ones. I can agree with that.
Now, if just law is acceptable, what is the purpose of just law? Why would we bother with implementing such rules in society?
Why did you call that other guy a statist? Here you are making statist arguments.
> they could also have simply repealed the existing tariffs which made it more expensive to import food.
There were no tariffs. It just wasn't as profitable to export to Ireland. Even if you accept the retardation of equilibrium theory, you cannot use equilibrium as a value judgment because people can be starving even as equilibrium is achieved.
>Autarky reduces international dependence leading to war
Independence doesn't lead to war. In fact, a nation with a substantial trade deficit has everything to gain from going to war with much less to lose.
>Explain it then
Specializing isn't desirable, all it does is create a fragile and vulnerable economy that wildly ebbs and flows with the conditions of the specialized industry. Increasing output is nothing more than simply reaching economies of scale and that, along with vertical integration, is where the consumer cost savings are. Furthermore, laissez-faire/free trade are both predicated on the collective assumptions of perfect competition which do not exist in the real world and anything built upon those assumptions are summarily irrelevant.
>Do you even have an economic background?
Literally writing a book on it.
>How are cheap goods and specialisation improved when you are selling to a smaller market and paying $5000 for an iPhone?
Again, industry specialization is undesirable. Individuals in a diverse economy have the opportunity to individually specialize in more fields.
There's nothing stopping someone selling their product to other countries even with protectionism and there's also absolutely no necessity in the notion that companies exploiting labor, regulatory, and tax arbitrage need to pass the proceeds onto consumers, as evidenced by the record high corporate margins of this dreadful free trade era. Your icrap wouldn't be "$5,000" without a substantial increase in the margins of Apple.
>Not even a real fallacy
It is, actually. Sorry you don't like that.
Is a king who owns his own kingdom, and has his subjects living on his land as renters, allowed to opposed free trade? And is he a statist if he opposes free trade between his own kingdom, which is his own property, and the outside world?
Becaause I want to reach an agreed upon definition of a statist. I would say any collectivist is a statist, at least defacto.
>Autarky reduces international dependence leading to war, or at least making war easier. How is this 'total nonsense'? Many agree.
>Many agree
Fails to name a single person. Very convincing argument bro.
"Economics" is a meme-tier psueod science that is only good for one thing: propaganda.
If ever you see a "survey" of economists, that means there was no study performed, no data analyzed, no case study examined, nothing other than random opinions of propagandists.
The fact remains "free trade" shipped out many many millions of jobs from NA, and is therefore the enemy of your average person. "Muh GDP" means nothing when we see all that GDP going to a 0.001% of the population.
Remember that in 2007 the world's foremost "economists" went to great pains to tell us all about how there was no subprime mortgage problem and that there was no housing bubble.
Why should anyone take anything they have to say seriously ever again?
Economists = pseudo science propagandists.
>I would say any collectivist is a statist, at least defacto.
>Implying meme-tier anarcho communists dont exist.
Bro light up a joint and read some Chomsky and Kropotkin, bro it'll blow your mind bro
>implying anarcho-communists wouldn't be FORCED to implement an authoritarian state to uphold communism
That's why I said "defacto" and why it's especially retarded, even for communism. Anarchism is a vaccuum, user. This is what I'm talking about when I say ideology has to be subject to practicality.
>Economists = pseudo science propagandists.
You are describing neoclassical and basic bitch tier Krugman Keynesian economists
However, many economic historians have produced very impressive works, read some Braudel and the works of other Annales school historians. Behavioural economists like Tversky and Kahneman have also produced very interesting and good scientific work.
>>implying anarcho-communists wouldn't be FORCED to implement an authoritarian state to uphold communism
>Implying this isn't solely because of the petit-bourgeois allying with the 1% to produce fascism because fucking white males
>economics
>science
yes, i'm talking about the absolute state of modern "economics"
sure, historically speaking some economists did good work, but if you are in economics and you don't like the fact that everyone thinks you're just a meme fake scientist bootlicker, then do something about it and perform actual studies using historical data, not idiotic surveys that prove or show NOTHING
>asserts that economics is not a science
>believes pseudo scientific bullshit about women and black people
Was that for me?
>then do something about it and perform actual studies using historical data, not idiotic surveys that prove or show NOTHING
that's what most economists do
you're just spewing bullshit about economists based on your distorted perception of the field caused by a couple of bs articles you've probabbly read
>>Implying this isn't solely because of the petit-bourgeois allying with the 1% to produce fascism because fucking white males
>implying that communists can even take a piss without getting the front of their pants wet, much less properly analyze society through the lenses of their problem glasses, made opaque by the countless crusted ejaculations of the 1% they denounce yet gleefully, if unknowingly, serve.
>nothing's wrong with the housing market
>t. Economics "Sage"
yes, yes, just a couple of bs articles... you got me, there's no other possible reason why people think modern economists are voodoo-tier pseudo-scientist propagandists
I don't, I'm not an idiot. Tariffs decrease consumption which means a loss of gains from trade (deadweight loss) and increases domestic production, which is a waste of resources that would have gone to more productive use without the tariff.
An attack on trade is an attack on the principle of the division of labor. The benefits of specialization are obvious in smaller communities; no one thinks New York loses from trading with Los Angeles, but if the people you're trading with speak a different language suddenly they're conspiring to steal muh jobs. Trade happens because both parties are better off after the exchange than they were before, trade actually produces wealth. Buying for lower cost or better quality from abroad means you have more resources available to put to use elsewhere, something that is utterly unseen and ignored by protectionists.
Protectionism stems from a misunderstanding about the purpose of economic activity. The true purpose of economic activity is consumption, we work to live better, not for the sake of work. You can prevent other people from stealing your precious jobs by making everything yourself. Good luck surviving alone in the wilderness, I'm sure you'll become fantastically wealthy.
because the market is not me, and helping the market does not help me.
Economics is most definitely a science or at least similar to engineering. It's concerned with building air tight complex mathematical models that describe the interaction of individuals, businesses, and economies.
84.89.132.1
84.89.132.1
>actual studies using historical data
Some economists do that too. There's a new field called experimental economics that popped up recently
youtube.com
"Does the equilibrium model work? Nobel Prize winner Vernon Smith conducted experiments testing this model and found that time and time again, the model did indeed work. "
If we will not accept some work practices in our nation, then a protective tariff of the difference between our accepted means and the means in place is moral and acceptable.
>Buying for lower cost or better quality from abroad means you have more resources available to put to use elsewhere
>means you have
>you
Me? or You? Or us? Or perhaps someone else?
Remember; individuals are the base of society. When you say "you", it's worth looking at who "you" actually means. Free trade can be beneficial or it can be a way to leech wealth out of an economy. We can't truly be silly enough to think the principle is universally applicable without looking at the situation we're applying it to...
>mathematical models
>air tight
you shills are really having a real tough time coming to grips with the fact that everyone knows your "free trade" is a total fraud
TPP got BTFO hard lmao
>t. bachelor student studying shit-tier economics, believing some theory-based memes that have no basis in reality
Okay basically all economists are shit tier but you, a Sup Forums poster, are all knowing.
>By analyzing the enormous Standard International Trade Classification database of international trade flows, data scientists at Harvard University, working on what they have christened The Atlas of Economic Complexity,19 have found that diversity, rather than specialization, leads to national success in international trade.
You're extrapolating way too much from this if you think nobody supports trade any more. Complexity correlates with economic development and urbanisation. Seems like bullshit desu.
>there were no tariffs
Incorrect. Corn laws weren't repealed yet.
>Independence doesn't lead to war.
Yes it does. Because you can attack your neighbours without economic damage.
>In fact, a nation with a substantial trade deficit has everything to gain from going to war with much less to lose.
What the fuck. If you import more you have less incentive to care about your neighbours?
>Specializing isn't desirable
Okay then you can make your own house and electronics now. Lmao.
>Literally writing a book on it.
Literally making shit up / writing bullshit
>There's nothing stopping someone selling their product to other countries even with protectionism
Apart from the tariffs
> Your icrap wouldn't be "$5,000" without a substantial increase in the margins of Apple.
Yes it would be, because of higher costs.
You have no economic background, so kys
>Economics is most definitely a science or at least similar to engineering
Lol.
>It's concerned with building air tight complex mathematical models that describe the interaction of individuals
*In a hypothetical perfect world far beyond the reach of reality.
> the model did indeed work
Lol, there is no tendency toward equilibrium in the real world. In fact there is an observable tendency towards the opposite: disequilibrium.
Wrecked~
See
Simply use google you butthurt simpleton
>Lol, there is no tendency toward equilibrium in the real world. In fact there is an observable tendency towards the opposite: disequilibrium.
>be modern economist
>promote all manufacturing being outsourced, thus jobs being lost
>count "assembly in US" as "production" therefore all outsourced manufacturing can count as US production
at least you admit that millions of jobs were lost thanks to "free trade"
What do you mean by "good"
I don't, they are right.
I can see you're far beneath me intellectually, so we're done here. I'm not keen on wrecking the retarded kid again and again.
Enjoy your debt, deficit, and race to the bottom I guess. :^)
>a total fraud
youtube.com
>Lol, there is no tendency toward equilibrium in the real world. In fact there is an observable tendency towards the opposite: disequilibrium.
See pic related
he's a shill who probably recently graduated and works/interns at some parasitic "think tank" full of bumbling idiots and he has to post here as part of his job description
he'll have to report back "everyone still hates the fake free trade deals" lmao
>doesn't even know what equilibirum is
>i-i'm writing a book on economics
L m a o
Ok go through economics papers and debunk the mathematical models they're using.
>U.S.-Korea Trade Deal Resulted in Growing Trade Deficits and Nearly 60,000 Lost Jobs
epi.org
youtube.com
>See pic related
Cute graph! Too bad reality doesn't look like that. Equilibrium cannot exist in the real world because perfect competition doesn't exist in the real world.
I just assume he's retarded.
>the fake free trade deals
They're real, free trade is just shit.
>Unfair trade deals lower the wages of U.S. workers
epi.org
lmao, do you really want to delve into how well the economic models are at predicting anything? (protip: they're always wrong)
even MSM knows economic models mean jack shit
>Both Parties
>Wealth in America is distributed equally
>Every one will be better off!
Basically Free Trade makes the country wealthier as a collective. But the gains from free trade are not distributed equally.
Basically poorshits always bear the costs of Free Trade, and Richfags end up with the benefits no matter what. Poorfags benefiting from Free Trade is just incidental.
it's just a comment on the propagandistic naming of them as "free", when they're not free, and most of them involve handing over sovereignty of our economies over to globalist institutions run by unelected subversives
in fact the ironic part is that much of the "free trade" deals are protectionism for the multinationals, and then the "economists" try and tell us "protectionism is bad plebs"
>NAFTA’s failure has cost the United States jobs across the nation
epi.org
EPI are openly biased and also famous for promoting the wage stagnation meme
>it's not free unless you pay a tax on ur import
Free trade references 'free of tariffs, quota, embargos, etc.,' not necessarily that it has no cost. Although, that's how the proponents often depict the arrangement.
>"free trade" deals are protectionism for the multinationals
Oh, that's an interesting and very accurate way of looking at it.
>implying "free trade" deals are actually about tariffs
there's nothing free about giant corporations implementing a patent/IP protectionism cartel to fuck over humanity
>Growth in U.S.–China trade deficit between 2001 and 2015 cost 3.4 million jobs
epi.org
I guess facts are biased.
Me: there is no free trade
Also me: tariffs are at the lowest ever, we need to do somthing
lmao xD gottem
>Why do you disagree with the opinions of PhD holding economists Sup Forums?
I don't speak for Sup Forums, I'd guess it's because of one of the following reasons:
>Judaism
>"we've had enough of experts"
>(((globalism)))
>the "Cultural Marxism" conspiracy theory (not as popular a meme among the newfags as it once was tbf)
>because leftists
>something about mass immigration
>Islam
>Wage Stagnation in Nine Charts
epi.org