President Trump is not a protectionist

Dinesh nailed it. The reason people want to scream "protectionist" is to silence anyone who disagrees with them. There is nothing wrong with free trade as long as it is fair trade.

Why don't people stop fear mongering long enough to understand those who disagree with these lousy trade agreements?

 

That has nothing to do with what he said. Why do you make things up; just to deceive? Are you betting no one will watch and call you out on your deceptions?

Rampant inflation and a trade war will only will hurt the consumers. And we don't have the option to buy domestic products instead. They do.

If people like Trump didn't produce their products overseas we wouldn't have a problem.

 

Err....ummm....sure it has something to do with what he said. It is called having an opinion.

You are only spewing propaganda.

 

Trump is certainly protectionist. Think about the euphemism "fair trade". What does it mean? It means the government assumes the responsibility to determine what is fair. This determination is exactly the argument for protectionism.

Trump has already shown with policy that he is protectionist. Approving the pipeline on the condition that they use American steel is protectionist. Threatening companies that use overseas labor is protectionist. Its silly to argue that he's not, it's a major platform of his campaign. Maybe instead try and argue that protectionism is the way to go? (Its not in my view)

 

When the so-called president spoke about slapping a tariff on goods made out of our country and then imported into our country, THAT IS THE DEFINITION OF PROTECTIONISM.

Okay, since he lies so often, could well be he didn't mean it. The trouble with a liar is you don't know when to believe them. When he talks about tariffs, or when he says he isn't protectionist.

 

Absolutely. The OP is just trying to polish another Trump turd.

I heard a piece on NPR this morning about the G20 meeting. The nations are at an impasse because the US representatives are not interested in fair trade, they are interested in US benefit ONLY. However, there can be no trade when one country wins and everyone else loses. Trade needs compromise, something that Trump is incapable of. Thus, likelihood is that all trade will decrease. That's protectionism.

 

Dinesh is possibly the most dishonest person in politics today. This is a guy CONVICTED of election fraud by the way

And Trump was PROUDLY protectionist in his campaign. That got him millions of votes. Is he really?

Who knows

 

Nope. A protectionist would be against any dealings with the outside nations. Wanting fair trade deals is just common sense.

 

Maybe Trump isn't lying. Trump may not know what "protectionist" means.. He sure isn't well-educated.

 

President Trump has much common sense. This is why ideologues do not like him.

 

This is not a standard definition of protectionism. He wants higher barriers of entry to goods that he perceives are undercutting american goods. It's protectionism, just not complete autarky. If you like the sound of that then you have protectionist instincts, argue for them with pride rather than trying to nebulously deflect definitions.

As for the OP video, he talks of tariffs in Japan or China, and sure there are taxes on imports, but why argue against TPP which would have lowered these in east Asia then? It's worth pointing out for instance, Japan doesn't put an import tax on US cars anyway see point 7: http://www.jama.org/questions-and-a...industry-and-the-trans-pacific-partnership-2/

Nothing is mentioned of Trump's disdain for NAFTA and supposed Mexican undercutting, where the tariffs are equal, i.e. none or extremely low. But there is still a decent argument to be made for having 0 import taxes even if they tax your goods, as your consumers will get cheaper goods and be able to spend money elsewhere, possibly saving it or investing it.

Or would you rather the money went to the government rather than extra for consumers?

 

Oh I see. So protectionism is not a bad thing. Got it.

 

No.. Trump has NO common sense.. He misses all the signals in human interaction.

 

"Human interaction"....ugh, what a liberal thing to say. I think I am going to puke.

 

No I would argue for 0 tariffs, and no protectionism.

But at least you accept you think protectionism is good.

 

I am not so closed minded I guess.

So if you are for zero taxes on imports then what about the taxes other countries put on American made products?

You see trade is a bigger issue than what some think. I know this but then I can walk and chew gum at the same time.

 

You can see my comment further up. If countries want to tax imports then so be it, their consumers get more expensive goods and are less able to invest and save, a situation that I would rather avoid.

There are some problems with free trade and short term job displacement, this doesn't mean import tariffs are a good idea aside from a few rare cases such as when China dumped a mass of steel on the market relatively recently.

Protectionism is only really good for higher prices and worse goods.

 

Free and unfair trade is only good for job losses. Labor costs do not set prices. Prices are determined by how much a customer is willing to pay.

 

So China doesn't have an advantage due to cheap labor? Why does China make so many goods now then, why does a customer prefer a Chinese good?

Most recent job losses are due to automation anyway.

 

LOL! A smorgasbord of propaganda does not cloud the facts.

China devalues its currency also but I see you are a big fan of human rights violators.

 

Why do you keep shifting?

What is bad about cheap good for US consumers?

Why do you want the government to raise prices for US consumers by imposing tariffs?

Do you really think labor costs don't have an effect on prices?

These are all basic Econ 101 level ideas, of course it gets more murky past that but you seem to be struggling with the first hurdle.

 

Who gets cheap goods? Not US consumers. Prices are not determined by labor costs alone. Prices are determined by how much people are willing to pay for an item. The people who make and sell these products are the ones benefitting.

 

This "Econ 101" mentioned is really elitist idiocy. Prices are not determined by labor costs. Period. There are factors that determine prices but labor costs is not the determining factor.

Companies and individuals are getting wealthy by exploiting cheap labor to make products to sell in the US where the middle class is dwindling. Wealth is being drained.

So where are we going? We are headed for worldwide poverty thanks to globalism.

 

OK so labor costs don't really matter.

Hold on, they DO matter.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

Extreme poverty has halved in the past 20 years, so nope.

 

Labor costs only matter to the wealthy who are getting even more wealthy. Labor costs do not matter to the average person. The price stays the same.

Who said anything about extreme poverty? Fact: The middle class is shrinking and the rich are getting richer. Do the math.