youtube.com
Isn't the discussion of tariffs etc in this video contrary to what Trump wants?
In the Brexit film they're saying Tariffs are bad and make things bad for the consumer.
Doesn't Trump want tariffs?
I'm confused I thought these two people had similar ideas about these sorts of things.
Are Tariffs only bad for UK but good for USA?
≫74416442 (You)
I'm serious. Why is Trump against free trade? Is it because he wants to create jobs but sacrifice product quality or have more expensive products?
No, Trump supports free trade and routinely calls himself a "free trader". He thinks the terms of some of the so-called "free trade" deals (actually managed trade, not free trade) are bad, so he thinks we need to make better deals.
Many people are confused on this point but Trump is not opposed to free trade. He has claimed that he would use threats of tariffs as a negotiating tactic, but he's never actually said anything in favor of tariffs.
Thank you for the serious reply.
Aren't the threats not meaningful then? Who WOULD he impose them on if he had to?
Countries who manipulate their currencies (Japan, China, Mexico). He wants our competitors to cut the shit when it comes to protectionism so we can gave balanced trade instead of money moving one way.
Thanks heaps for the help.
Would you explain what you mean when you say "manipulate their currencies"
Countries will deliberately devalue their currencies in an effort to boost their exports by making other currencies stronger. The USD can't really be manipulated in return because it's the world reserve currency.
How does making the USD stronger increase exports?
I'm sorry, I wasn't clear. China for example keeps their money weak so they can undercut the prices of domestic products, the more dollars China earns from exports, the fewer dollars it spends on imports.
>No, Trump supports free trade and routinely calls himself a "free trader". He thinks the terms of some of the so-called "free trade" deals (actually managed trade, not free trade) are bad, so he thinks we need to make better deals.
Can you give me an example, preferably a real one, but I'll settle for hypothetical of a deal he doesn't like?
I get the idea that deals should be reciprocal and if one person can't get tariffs, no one can. Similar with quotas and direct and indirect subsides to homeland industries.
So what are the bad deals he would change?
Great articles. Thank you for all the help.
Glad there are people here who give proper answers.
He hits NAFTA and the TPP very hard, and I want him to release a policy paper or something so he can elaborate. I'm thinking steel, auto, energy and semiconductors are the top industries he wants to revitalize.
It's no problem.
Can you link to the part where he starts talking about tariffs in the video?
>NAFTA
What about NAFTA did he not like? And I don't mean that lots of jobs went to Mexico, because some of that is expected because Mexico comparative advantage is cheap labor.
What about the terms of NAFTA would he change to get a different and better result for America?
Specifically with China, we're an open market to them. Few of their goods are taxed on entry here. However, they are not an open market with us. Most of our goods are taxed on entry their, if not outright banned.
With emerging markets and certain goods that's fine. We certainly don't want to dump our entire wheat harvest on Ecuador while they give us quinoa in exchange. It would destroy their entire indigenous food production capability. However, we have reached a point where we are making bad deals, and because of that, subsidizing the entire undeveloped/developing world. We need to change course or everything is fucked.
>Doesn't Trump want tariffs?
Trump does not want tariffs. he may imply he does, but it's all talk.
They're a shit country. Honestly that is all. We don't have a problem with out NAFTA buddies trading with us from the north.
>Can you give me an example, preferably a real one, but I'll settle for hypothetical of a deal he doesn't like?
He's publicly stated that he opposes NAFTA, and NAFTA, despite its name, is not a free trade agreement, it's a managed trade agreement.
A true free trade agreement needn't be thousands of pages long.
The United States Constitution has a free trade agreement between the states that fits into a single paragraph:
>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.
Any agreement that carves out a bunch of caveats and exceptions is probably a bad deal.
Perhaps, tariffs are Trump's initial demands, but as he reaches a deal later on, he will be willing to settle for something else? He may think the people he expects to be negotiating with will hate tariffs so much, they will be willing to accept a number of other things, as long as tariffs are taken off the table.
Who knows though. Nobody said Trump was perfect. Hes just the best we have right now.
Threatening to use tariffs is not a threat against foreign countries though, it's a threat against US consumers. US consumers are the ones who have to pay the tax.
All trade is, by definition, balanced. What people call a trade "deficit" is actually a good thing. In fact, it's not a deficit at all. The specific metric of what defines a trade deficit is the Current Account. The flip side to that is the Capital Account which represents an inflow of investment into a country and it is the exact mirror image of the trade deficit.
Also, in this case, China isn't boosting it's economy by "manipulating currency". China is severely harming it's own economy to the benefit of US consumers.
China taxes it's own citizens to subsidize firms in order to sell products to Americans at a loss. Why should Americans be opposed to receiving foreign aid from China?
>US consumers are the ones who have to pay the tax.
Not in conjunction with his tax plan. There's a carrot and stick tied to his economic strategy.
>The flip side to that is the Capital Account which represents an inflow of investment into a country and it is the exact mirror image of the trade deficit.
That's not a flip side. That's a doubling of the deficit.
>Threatening to use tariffs is not a threat against foreign countries though, it's a threat against US consumers. US consumers are the ones who have to pay the tax.
It's a threat against both dummy. Tariffs hurt both consumers and foreign industry. I'm fucking tired of hearing this retarded argument.
> China is severely harming it's own economy to the benefit of US consumers
A weaker Yuen aids their economy by allowing products to be made artificially cheaper. Same way inflation helps us pay off our debts.
>China taxes it's own citizens to subsidize firms in order to sell products to Americans at a loss.
So you admit they're dumping.
>Why should Americans be opposed to receiving foreign aid from China?
Because buying cheap shit isn't the only metric to a healthy economy.
tariffs and the threat of tariffs are crucial to his plan to bring jobs back.
free trade benefits producers, not consumers. consumers don't get lower prices, this is one of the biggest fallacies of international economic theory. producers get higher profits, its been proven in the marketplace.
still waitiing not watching this whole boring shit
He's not.
its at like 40 mins or something. maybe 35
Checked
>sacrifice product quality or have more expensive products?
Neither would happen actually. Unless. Unless. Unless. His proposals are implemented piecemeal or even as singletons.
>sacrifice product quality
vs china? india? u srs? I mean, I know we aren't German or Sweden tier, but we're better than French and Korean and most definitely any other country not listed.
>consumers don't get lower prices, this is one of the biggest fallacies of international economic theory
You're either retarded, or you're a child. Prices on apparel like shirts and sneakers have dropped to a tiny fraction of what they used to be.
And quality has dropped with them. And jobs are gone. Again, the ability to buy cheap shit is not the only metric of a healthy economy.
It is for your intended purposes as goyish cattle.
I reject that future.
Quality is not noticeably different at all, and new jobs were created in different industries to replace the jobs that went elsewhere. We don't need a vibrant sweatshop industry in the United States.
>That's not a flip side. That's a doubling of the deficit.
If I buy a motorbike from Japan, I pay the Japanese producer in US$. There are only 2 things the Japanese $ holder can do with it. Buy US products or invest it in the US. Either way the $ always returns. So if i have a trade deficit of -$1, then i have a capital surplus of +1$. Trade always balances out, it doesn't double the effect.
>A weaker Yuen aids their economy by allowing products to be made artificially cheaper. Same way inflation helps us pay off our debts.
Products are not MADE artificially cheaper. It still costs the same amount of resources to produce a widget as it did before, however the end product itself is cheaper RELATIVE TO American goods. American goods are made far more expensive than they otherwise would be meaning that there is a net loss to the Chinese economy on the whole and Chinese consumers are hurt.
>So you admit they're dumping.
There has never been an instance in history where country A has benefited by "dumping" on country B.
>Because buying cheap shit isn't the only metric to a healthy economy.
No one said that specifically, but more consumer choice is a metric of a healthy economy
>working in manufacturing is a sweatshop industry
wew lad
IF the UK exits and kicks out the muds, We should make them trade priority one.
>Quality is not noticeably different at all
Aaand we're done.
If you're manufacturing apparel, it is.
Not an argument.
It's almost as if tariffs are a tool, and whether they are good or bad depends on how you use them.
No this is nonsense. There are some clothing factories in America still (not a lot, but they exist) and none of them are sweatshops.
>If I buy a motorbike from Japan, I pay the Japanese producer in US$. There are only 2 things the Japanese $ holder can do with it. Buy US products or invest it in the US.
This makes no sense at all. The Japanese producer can use that money for a ton of other things.
>If I buy a motorbike from Japan, I pay the Japanese producer in US$. There are only 2 things the Japanese $ holder can do with it. Buy US products or invest it in the US.
There's a third option; they can convert their dollars back into yen. This weakens the dollar and strengthens the yen, which would arguable serve to help balance trade.
I get it, you just watched a Milton Friedman video on free trade. Milton is right, but you are making his arguments incorrectly, so you are not.
He can trade the $US to another foreigner who wants to hold $US, but then that other foreigner will use those $ to buy US goods or invest it in the US. There are no other uses.
>what is currency exchange
like i said
>He can trade the $US to another foreigner who wants to hold $US
Or to an American who has yen and wants dollars. Yet again, you come off as a retard. Stop posting.
>Buy US products or invest it in the US. Either way the $ always returns
That's not true and is actually counter to reality. The money used to buy the motorbike is invested in Japan, and our motorbikes aren't sold there. Where the fuck do you get the idea the money comes back to the US? There's trillions of dollars stuck outside the US that may never come back.
And that's just the corporate money. Remittance to Mexico is greater than the Mexican oil industry produces domestically. ~$23b leaving the US each year never to come back.
>Products are not MADE artificially cheaper. It still costs the same amount of resources
This is idiotic. If products aren't made artificially cheaper, neither are they made more expensive.
>There has never been an instance in history where country A has benefited by "dumping" on country B.
There's been plenty of instances. We actually control much of the world because of our ability to do it should we choose.
>No one said that specifically, but more consumer choice is a metric of a healthy economy
No one said that specifically except that it's the entire fucking argument. I don't care how cheap my fucking shoes are if I don't have a job.
What are you talking about? Sacrifice quality? Made In America guaranteed the highest quality. We don't need throw-away, Chinese junk that will break apart in a week.
ok thanks, well at 38 minutes they're implying the asians actually invented all that stuff. its ridiculous. the asians are doing manufacturing for foreign firms, no one buys chinese shit. I mean, I have a Huawei phone, but most people have an iPhone. Was the iPhone invented in China? That's their whole argument, hence the use of the "you're so stupid if you don't believe us" circus music... but I'll watch a bit more...
Dr Ruth Lee, implying that industries are being protected that otherwise wouldn't do very well. Yet the very problem we're facing is companies moving overseas who are already operating in the black here in the USA. So if you have no dire need to move overseas, and you are doing it primarily to increase the piece of the pie allocated to the investor stakeholder at the expense of the complete elimination of thousands of middle class worker stakeholders, it has nothing to do with being noncompetitive and everything to do with being greedy. I wonder how much she was paid.
>The only reason you would create a barrier, is because someone else has a better cheaper product.
No. That's asinine. We are being gutted by OUTSOURCING, not foreign competition. We don't need tariffs to otherwise protect against other NATIONS because we have regulations that keep out bargain basement producers. US production is being moved overseas, profits being moved overseas, and its not at the expense of the american consumer, who sees RISING prices, we're talking about tampering the runaway stock market rife with profits
>New guy with slick hair in a suit with a slimy voice tells me that the people who suffer are the consumers
Where do consumers get their money? Why is it that when Ford moves production of a truck over to Mexico the price doesn't decline but the stock price goes up? Does consumer mean stock buyer, or buyer of the product?
>prevented from better, cheaper products
Range Rovers made in UK are not shittier than Range Rovers made in China, are they?
If the money never comes back, that's a wonderful thing. It means that those foreigners have no claim on American goods and we get to keep those goods for our selves. Besides, if the money never comes back, the US treasury always just print the difference. If done accurately, there's no inflation.
Either way, the money always comes back and hence trade is ALWAYS balanced. The fact is that foreigners hold US$ and use them in the US. A person would have to be pretty dumb to hold currency that is never used.
>Range Rovers made in UK are not shittier than Range Rovers made in China, are they?
I don't know about Range Rovers, but I know the difference between Dewalt drills made domestically and those which are imported.
>what is an over-surplus of laws and regulations to intentionally stifle businesses
EU is the state on steroids.
There are some serious voodoo economics you advocating here.
How about the money stays here AND we keep the goods?
>Prices on apparel like shirts and sneakers have dropped to a tiny fraction of what they used to be.
No they haven't. Tiny fraction? Can you quantify 'tiny fraction'? At the expense of what? Was it worth it? What's the markup? What has it been historically?
Over time markups have increased, profits for the investor class have increased and your 'tee shirts are cheap' bullshit isn't going to make america great again.
>keep those goods for our selves
Keep? Shit ain't miracled out of thin air. Do you mean "produce"? If they're not buying, we aren't selling. We buy their shit. They keep our money. We make nothing.
>if the money never comes back, the US treasury always just print the difference. If done accurately, there's no inflation.
The US Treasury does not "print the difference". There's actually so
much wrong with that statement I don't know where to begin.
>A person would have to be pretty dumb to hold currency that is never used.
They don't hold it. They invest it in their country.
Did you graduate from the Scrooge McDuck school of finance or something?
There's so much wrong there I'm actually having a difficult time correcting it. It's like, supply side mercantilism with hard coinage.
We should do a quality test on anyone who says something like this. Have an official Cali-Frame made MAGA hat, and a Chinese knockoff. Then whip the guy in the face with each one, alternating, and see which one comes apart first.
It's classical, mainstream econ dating back to the 1800s
In theory they are bad and nobody would have any, yes, in reality, in the school yard...welcome to the jungle muthafucka.
Like I said...
To a time when nations specialized in product and/or resources, there was no free flow of capital or labor, no fiat currency, artisanship had ended and scales of economy was en vogue, no digital currency exchange....
Econ 101 fail argued by a first year business major.
In theory: reality and theory should approximate.
I'm just saying if a Bangladesh tee shirt costs $4 and retails for $20, and a US tee shirt costs $12 and retails for $20, the US made cap is undeniably bad for the investor in the company, but undeniably good for the nation overall.
We're talking about a pretty shitty industry here, textiles, but each industry needs scrutiny. Are tee shirts really clearly comparatively better produced in sri lanka than south carolina, or is there some shitty trade deal fucking us over? Any trade agreement deserves tremendous scrutiny.
>cap
*shirt
also, didnt realize you agreed with me at first read of your post, most excellent quip my good sir
>they're dumping.
meaningless term
tariffs protect jobs and wages in your country
I assume the UK wants more tariffs since they currently have a huge trade deficit especially in goods. If they were part of the Eurozone they would currently be getting raped by Germany right now like the rest of Europe.
They're actually shittier quality. Shitty stitching. Shitty thread. Shitty fabric. Shitty weaves. If the products were held up side by side you would definitely see the quality difference.
Do an experiment next time you're out and about. Go price a Dewalt cordless drill from say ACE or True Value, and one from Lowes or Home Depot. While you're doing the price comparison, do a quality inspection. With them in your hands. One is made in the USA, the other in China.
How is it a meaningless term?
how is it not? how are cheap goods bad for the consumer? dumping is a term used by businessmen who are afraid of foreign, cheaper competition
>I don't understand what a term is therefore its meaningless
dumping occurs all the time, I can give you a relevant example everyone is talking about:
>Saudi Arabia increases oil production at a time of limited demand, oil prices become so low its no longer profitable for the vast majority of small and new firms recently established to exploit the marcellus shale and bakken oil fields at a time of high oil prices; vast numbers of firms go out of business in these areas, and also around the world like in Venezuela and Russia, and this competition is crushed. The only source is now Saudi Arabia, who slows production, increases prices and takes profits like a bandit.
"Dumping" is an economic term used when an organization is over saturating product on a market at a loss to bankrupt competition. Not all calls of dumping are actual or do exist, but shit for brains admitted China is doing exactly that.
>how are cheap goods bad for the consumer?
In and of itself? It's not. But when combined with all our other shitty practices, it has a cumulative effect, creating conditions where the consumer no longer being able to consume.
Sorry if too harsh before. "Dumping" is a negative term that implies a knowingly malicious act is being committed, and it's malicious because it's also implied that prices from the offending country will be increased later, not to mention whats already been mentioned - its being subsidized by the offenders government at the expense of their own tax payers
what did you major in?
>How is something that fails to fulfill its function bad?
Life. Why?
This is blatant propaganda
>steel tariffs are bad
Yeah SURE if you want to lose control of your country.
Brexit should pass for a multitude of reason, but tariffs and regulations are not a bad thing as long as they don't go overboard.
Steel is a mature industry. They probably need a better business model if they survive solely on a 300% tariff.
Because other countries don't buy as much shit from us as they should. Consequently, we're seeing job losses in the US. We can mitigate that by having US companies produce the same goods that we were buying from places like China, so our money will be employing our people. A tariff is a means of doing that, and it will help revive US domestic production. We wouldn't expect any real economic penalties for that since the cost of production in the US is only marginally larger than getting a good produced in China shipped to the US. Moreover, we aren't really starving ourselves technologically because all China really does in that regard is steal US trade secrets without contributing any real advancements themselves.
Doesn't matter you keep control of your steel market no matter what.
The US is not a captive market. If goods get too expensive, companies will move back to domestic production and the price will decrease. Especially when it comes to things like automobiles and computer hardware.
Tariffs or no tariffs, it would be better for the UK and European countries in general if they could decide potential tariffs themselves out of their specific national interests. Not let bureaucrats in the EU decide that stuff.
I'm not inclined to disagree. But they should rethink what they're doing if they can't survive without bully protection.