Free trade vs protectionism. Which are you for and why?

free trade vs protectionism. Which are you for and why?

Other urls found in this thread:

mises.org/library/end-socialism-and-calculation-debate-revisited
youtube.com/watch?v=7DhagKyvDck
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-German_cooperation_until_1941#Early_Sino-German_relations
magic-city-news.com/Paul_Streitz_67/Milton_Friedman_s_Smoot-Hawley_Lie13239.shtml
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Protectionism, insofar self-sufficiency can isolate you from extreme economical events, both bubbles and busts

i am for good trade deals

100% of economists believe free trade is good

Planned economy.

free trade within US, and protectionism with Foreign countries.

Californian can compete with Indiana

Indiana can not compete with China, mexico - wage differences are too much

I'm for Jesus Christ. If you're in government you just gotta work for God and ask him for assistance in all situations.

Free trade is only advantages with comparative advantage, which no longer exists in modern trade, thus it is the tool of the eternal jew.

Protectionism is vital to the survival of the nation-state

>100% of economists believe free trade is good

No, they agree that free trade increases GDP, which it does - until the bubble pops, and the economy collapses.

its not like Mexico is selling Mexican brand/company cars here...

Ford is making Fords in Mexico with American technology, where its cool to pollute everything... and selling the Fords in the US with NO tariff...

free trade wins for both parties but it can't be made with countries who heavily subsidize or protect their markets

Third worlders need industries so they stay in their own country but autarky is important too.

lol, nope.
trade doesn't stir bubbles, monetary stimulus does.

Plan a bullet to your brain commie

Everyone should laugh at this man
mises.org/library/end-socialism-and-calculation-debate-revisited

Are you trying to have a rational political discussion on Sup Forums ? gtfo

Huehue's got it right. I believe in free-trade in so far as the other countries we are trading with are on a level playing-field. We shouldn't be trading with China if they are using slave-like wages for their industries, because there is no way we could ever realistically compete with them; our industries would just relocate to china.

yeah if the rest of the world gets 500,000,001 dollars and I lose 500,000,000 dollars that is a netgain to economists.

> trade doesn't stir bubbles, monetary stimulus does.

What about the tulip crash, the very first recorded crash?

Thoughts on this video?

youtube.com/watch?v=7DhagKyvDck

which is an inevitable outcome of free trade, as currencies become overvalued and debt spirals out of control

If you have global "free trade" you don't even have a sovereign nation.

fuck off friedman is a kike

I'm for tariffs. foreigners can fund the government instead of us.

Protectionism. Free trade is for good goys.

>Austrian economics

Can't make this shit up

>friedman
>supporter of free trade
He was only for the actual free market on paper. In reality, Friedman was a proponent of what is called """free trade""" but was not free trade at all.

>le trade deals meme
You don't need trade deals. Trade deals is how cronies make sure only they benefit from trade. If you want to control trade for any reason (e.g. protecting infant industries) just use a tarriff

Last time I checked this is what caused the first world war dumbfuck

what gave you that idea

Also smoot Hawley tarriff in the early twentieth century similar to what Trump has proposed, is what caused the great depression

Not i didn't

Germany and Britain were engaged in a trade war for access to new international markets, for which Germany also desired new colonial outposrs, literally nothing to do with protectionism

You DO know that the depression started in 1929 right?

Your retarded

>one tariff can cause a global meltdown

That's not how economics works. People have written very big, thick books about the causes of the great depression. Perhaps you should read one?

ffs, you keep on mentioning and quoting outdated economists and bunk theories

>american education

trump is for free trade. unfortunately, lots of americans are retarded, so trump has to pander to them.

>It wasn't the series of alliances or the assassination.
>It was trade tariffs.

How many mental gymnastics did you have to do to get there?

The reason you have heard of Korea is multi-generational, brutally militant protectionism. They have relaxed somewhat, now that they're successful, but without intelligently done protectionism they would be behind the Phillipines.

source?

This. The "Washington Consensus" is a fucking meme that has impoverished every nation stupid enough to embrace it (though in Friedman's defense, that was what it was designed to do.)

Problem with "free trade" is companies such as Gibson Guitars pay off Congress to pass a tariff on imported guitars (Ibanez, ESP, Caparison) because of "muh jobs"..... And Gibson then jacks up the prices of their USA guitars to meet the tariff padded prices of the others...

Also--- no way the USA competes with *any* 3rd world laborer.... that has been discusses here in Sup Forums 1000000 times....

It's the "middle man" who rakes in the cash... they get it from wholesalers at 5x cost and sell it to retailers at 10x cost and retailers take only 5% - 8% profit margin to compete with Amazon.

>it's true.

Protectionism. Increasing the GDP is all well and good when it doesn't come at the expense of national interests. And keeping the average American employed and keeping vital industries at home is very much within the national interest.

>free trade within US, and protectionism with Foreign countries.

Full retard

The McRib.

>you got it.

>Thinks Smoot-Hawley was one tariff
>Tells others to read books about the great depression

No it wasn't for New markets it was for new colonies which would give them access to more resources and markets within their own empire, that was the point of imperialism in the nineteenth century which Germany was left out of because they technically didn't become a country until like 1871 leading them to bellicose decision making, partially because of their rapid militarization and arrogance. They couldn't achieve colonies through diplomacy because everything was pretty much already taken so they tried to do it through force failing miserably, leading to the first world war. The whole idea was to try to become entirely self sufficient and stop all international trading which is what led to imperialism.

But where are the jobs ?

"Unskilled" labor is gone. The next generation of USA kids (26 and under) only understand iPhones and working at JC Penney.

The Asians and Nigerians and Indians are going to rule the top jobs.

>can't explain

...

It was a chain reaction that led to everyone engaging in isolationist economic policies

free trade gives you more options for diplomacy

e.g. - look at the situation with Russia, if we couldnt pull the lever of trade sanctions first we would have to escalate to military actions

suspending trade is a way to send a message without getting too aggro

> within their own empire

that claims makes zero sense

One of the objectives of German economical policy before World War 1 was the expansion of commercial exchange with China, totally independent from actually conquering them

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-German_cooperation_until_1941#Early_Sino-German_relations

> During this period, Germany did not actively pursue imperialist ambitions in China, and appeared relatively restrained compared to Britain and France. Thus, the Chinese government saw Germany as a partner in helping China in its modernization. In the 1880s, the German shipyard AG Vulcan Stettin built two of the most modern and powerful warships of its day—the pre-dreadnought battleships Zhenyuan and Dingyuan—for the Chinese Beiyang Fleet that would see considerable action during the First Sino-Japanese War. After China's first modernization efforts apparently failed following its defeat in the First Sino-Japanese War, Yuan Shi-kai requested German help in creating the Self-Strengthening Army (Chinese: 自強軍; pinyin: Zìqiáng Jūn) and the Newly Created Army (新建陸軍; Xīnjìan Lùjūn). German assistance not only concerned military, but also industrial and technical matters. For example, in the late 1880s, the Chinese government made a contract with the German company Krupp to build a series of fortifications around Port Arthur.

You would have me believe that Germany wanted to conquer all of China and then integrate it into its markets? Nonsense

There's nothing good about free trade.

People are idiots. They can be easily swindled by anybody.

They need the government to regulate what they can buy so that retards don't crash a countries economy by purchasing stupid shit.

North America just needs to reisolate itself. Canada as the source of precious resources, America as the breadbasket and main consumers, Mexico as the labour force. Add some consistent international research deals and trade foreign for luxury goods and everything Is solved

>Sup Forums will disagree with this

China though isn't hurting the US because of slave-like wages because those jobs wouldn't be filled in the American market anyways. You should be more worried about their currency though.

>Free trade
>with Communist countries

US hurts Brazil especially when it comes to heavily subsidizing their corn crops (which btw are worse in productivity than brazilian one's and you should be importing this type of thing and focusing your economy on more industry and etc).

In the end both parts lose.

We tried friedman it didn't work...We lost almost all of our manufacturing...He said that inflation would negate the third worlds lower income.....They cheat and manipulate their currency..
FRIEDMAN WAS WRONG


Or Sup Forums is right and a kike destroyed the middle class on purpose

growth in the monetary supply by the Bank of Amsterdam, one of the first central banks of the world

that is now what happened tho

Speculation is independent from monetary policy

user, you're fucking retarded.

* not

It hurts their middle class too though. They can't grow income nor productivity.

Free trade is code word for making factories in nonregulated areas. This means gov't eggheads have to work harder detecting lethal materials in those products. I'm not willing to risk "made in China" shit.

I like free trade

speculation is a symptom, not a cause.

Free trade will never work if you're putting massive regulations and taxes in place on your local industry while none on foreign.

Yeah it hurts everyone but the (((1%)))

How about both?

This guy got the right idea.
Taxes hurt almost nothing compared to what bureaucracy does.

people expected that tulips would widely rise in value... it didn't happen, people default

there, you have a crash without monetary policy

Well, it hurts their future prospects too, a stagnant economy in terms of productivy means less profit.

But, it also means less risks and therefore wealth keeps in the hands of those who currently have it.

Huefriend I know this might seem like a foreign concept to you but in civilized countries we learned long ago that you have to regulate industry or else they start doing crazy shit like dumping their toxic refuse out into public water ways.

The developed world does not need less regulation. The developing world just needs more.

You are confused. Manufacturing is coming back because it was never truly cheaper in China, they made it artificially cheaper by dumping (using their giant combined mandatory savings accounts to allow profitless low prices). It "left" and is "coming back" because Americans did those jobs. What you call America was specifically made possible by manufacturing jobs. The actual wages are meaningless both by normal calculus (since they are not tied to capitalist profits but are part of long term central planning) and as a criterion for American willingness (since no American would have to work that job for that wage).

Why not enact free trade with countries that wont devalue their currencies and have slave labor, basically countries on an equal playing field and then use protectionism against countries that we cannot compete against because of slave labor and so on.

I'm not wealthy enough to be impacted by the difference.

>smoot hawley maymay

Opinion discarded

and what caused people's rising expectation on tulip prices? it must be some sort of a collective delusion right?


meh, it was government directed policy to tulip commerce and massive capital inflows due to bad monetary policy, which made people invest in tulips and rise their prices without any meaningful value (because the offer also expanded with supply although the value kept rising). people have a delay of detecting that, but when they did, suddenly, a crash happened.

My main point was that Friedman was wrong.....His main arguement was that free trade wouldn't lead to American companies moving overseas because inflation would balance out the lack of regulations and low wages....HE WAS WRONG.

Protectionism because almost none of what Friedman said in his nice lectures from decades ago has come true.

The only good thing about free trade was that it killed the corrupt American unions, everything else about it has been shit

The same shit that was said when the car industry moved to Japan in the 80s.

China is a bubble and it is going to burst anyway.

Yeah, he was wrong.

hamilton used tariffs.

therefore they r ok

Collective delusions can happen when you have a completely new, exotic product which price has still not being determined by the market, and for which a late entry can transform into lost opportunities of wild margins (what tulip was for Europe back then)

>trusting the predictions of an economist

I mean no monetarist nor keynesian could see the bubble bursting in 2008. Economists have this weird, very weird, thing that their predictions fail all the time.

Or, you know, they're Jews that work for multinational plutocrats and it isn't in their financial interests to talk about things like that.

You're confusing cause and effect my friend.
Exotic products appear because of massive monetary stimulus.

Just look at 2008's crisis, the massive amount of crazy financial products associated to mortgages.

Free trade but with a single land value tax

Georgeism ftw,,, fuck these fat cats just sitting on land and stealing the value the community creates for it

how can someone own land anyway? Land /= property.. you are entitled to all the fruits of your labor but you cant produce land

considering I am not a global citizen nor global capitalist, protectionist.

the question of protectionism vs free trade is ultimately a question of labour competitiveness and trade deficit.

Free trade is ultimately better and results in greater production surplus as economies specialise, but only in an environment where exports are roughly in line with imports, and the trade deals themselves are well negotiated.

our current circumstance in many western countries sees us with a growing and unsustainable trade deficit and national debt, in many ways this is due to un-competitiveness of the labour markets themselves,as well as uncompetitive tax rates and overhead costs (like energy).

economic puritanism is good and fine, so long as you're not on the receiving end of a crippled economy. protectionism will help redevelop some industries, but unless sweeping tax and labour reform is also made, it won't count for much, and could potentially make the u.s. worse off. that said, there's not much room in the future for human labour in manufacturing, so perhaps the right kind of tax reform would do the trick.

I don't really think collective bargaining is a bad thing. Without the employees having any power it's easy to lower wages and benefits especially when there is a surplus of labor. Even if the labor surplus is temporary.

...

Friedman BTFO on Tarrifs:
magic-city-news.com/Paul_Streitz_67/Milton_Friedman_s_Smoot-Hawley_Lie13239.shtml

>The only good thing about free trade was that it killed the corrupt American unions

That's a bad thing. Non-public sector Unions are god-tier.

Also there's the associated risk that protectionism often creates an uncompetitive industry and helps to create monopolies.

>The purpose of foreign trade is simply not to trade. As with any business, the objective is to sell more than you buy. It is true that some industries may sell less if foreign trade is reduced, but the overall national objective is to have a surplus balance of trade. Smoot-Hawley moved the United States closer to that objective.

Milton Friedman was a conservative on government spending, sound money, limiting the Federal Reserve and government regulation. Therefore, Conservatives bought into Milton Friedman on the issue of Free Trade.

If Friedman ever made a convincing, statistical argument for the benefits of free trade, I have yet to see it. He has given no detailed, exhaustive economic and historical investigation as he did with his monetary history. Rather, he gives simple-minded and often deceptive support for Free Trade. He briefly covers Free Trade in Capitalism and Freedom, but there is no scholarly, detailed and comprehensive examination on the scale such of his monetary history.

>In general, the statistical arguments made by current Free Traders are deceptions. They generally say something like, "the United States economy grew after NAFTA." That may be true, but there is a growing population driven by massive immigration.

>At the same time, they simply ignore the loss of manufacturing jobs and the impending bankruptcy of all U.S. auto companies, soon to be a reality.

>Despite the facts of the matter, the hysteria from The Wall Street Journal (that supports mass immigration for the same reason of cheap labor) and other conservative economists continue the canard of Smoot-Hawley to this day. Remember, being a conservative in economic measures does not necessarily make one a nationalist concerned with the best interests of the United States.

Why should we trade freely with other nations when employers and employees can't trade freely with each other?

Free trade can't work for both countries when one country has a steep comparative advantage in labor. Either force them to raise their minimum wage, abolish ours, or shut the fuck up and lets fill the gaps with tariffs.

>Among those consequences is a repeat of the single action that turned the recession of 1929 into the Great Depression -- the Hawley-Smoot Act of 1930, which destroyed the international trade system through vindictive tariffs. The "Buy American" clause of the Obama stimulus would have the same exact result. The appalling thing here is that Obama appears to have no understanding of this fact.) - Obama's Busted Bubble, J.R. Dunn, consulting editor of American Thinker.
As seen in the facts shown above, Smoot-Hawley did not destroy the international trade system. It reduced trade into the United States, but to declare that it "destroyed the international trade system" is simply scare mongering.

>Milton Friedman was a globalist peddling his utopian economics of Free Trade. Everything would be better when nations traded without limitation. All boats would rise. The rich nations would be richer because of lower cost goods, and the poor nations would be richer. Free Trade was the emperor's new clothes, smoke and mirrors, song and dance.

>Friedman's globalist economics totally focus on consumption and ignore the problem of production. Free Traders blithely state the United States will solve the loss of core industries by inventing new industries, the dot.com business and other delusions.

>It is also worth pointing out that Friedman supported Open Borders. His only caveat was that our social safety net of welfare was attracting massive immigration and illegal immigration. If the United States opened its borders to five million immigrants a year, that would have been fine with Milton.

The steel industry has a problem like this in the US. Over-subsidization removes the motivation for technological growth.