President Trump is not a protectionist

You think the price for a car with the same materials, expertise and so on would be the same if produced by labour that costs 3 times as much in the US as it does in China?

You don't understand how business tries to get the cost of their product down to increase market share and drive out competition?

You might want to read this, sit down first:

https://www.minneapolisfed.org/publications/the-region/where-has-all-the-income-gone

 

The only way to claim he isn't a protectionist is to redefine protectionism.

 

Well, the trade deals are going to be renegotiated....




Oh yeah!

 

The word you’re thinking of is isolationist. Protectionists aren't against foreign trade. They are against what they perceive to be unfair foreign competition.

 

Oh, well in that case it is exactly what we need.

 

No, we don't need a central authority deciding for us what's fair and who we are allowed to compete with.

One of the main reasons for unfair foreign competition is restrictive domestic regulation. If these regulations are good, then our competition will soon find them necessary as well (see China & pollution regs). If they are bad then we should do away with them to level the field (see minimum wage law)

 

Blind ideology is not a good thing. Thinking that it is ok to open up the US while other countries practice unfair trade policies is a recipe for disaster. If you are for fully open trade then you should expect other countries to open their markets as well.

 

Why wouldn't they practice their own protectionism if you're doing it too? Protectionism can strengthen local competition, but ultimately the restraint just hurts the consumer, you. Unfairly cheap consumer goods are good for consumers, and their ability to consume them frees up resources for other locally produced goods they would otherwise not be able to afford.

 

That is the problem:They are practicing it....the US is not.

The problem with your ideology is that you argue from a theoretical viewpoint. It is fantasyland. A free market will NEVER exist in the real world. Why? Because everyone does not believe in it. There are waaayyyy too many people who push for big government. This will not change.

The answer? For common sense folks to take over and push these ideologues back into their think tanks where they can dream about their fantasy worlds while the rest of us get on with our lives in the real world.

 

1. All political policy arguments are theoretical.
2 Voluntary markets do exist. We call them black markets. They arise every time too much government gets in the way of voluntary trade.

Now let's see if we can sum up your argument: Some people believe in too much government. We need to solve that problem with more government.

See the problem there?

You think you're arguing from a position standing within "the real world" for a policy that attempts to put handcuffs on foreign traders. You also think I'm arguing from a position within some fantasy world when I demand that our own government takes it handcuffs off of you. Maybe you should take a look at your own theoretical hands and see if I'm right before arguing that it's best when everyone is handcuffed equally.

 

1)Wrong. An argument about actual trade policy in place is an argument about what is real.

2)Wrong again. I know in the real world one must look at what is real and possible. Free markets as some argue for are not possible. Not in the real world we are dealing with.

The problem is you are married to an ideology like a religion. Your belief is that if we just follow a certain philosophy then everything will turn out peachy. This is the folly of those who are religious about their beliefs. Liberal progressives are the worst, then libertarians are next. These ideologies oppose one another and have our society in gridlock.

The existing trade deals are a failure. If you count the number of folks who supported Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump( who both oppose these trade deals) then the verdict is in. These trade deals gotta change. It is America first.

 

Your proposed solutions to so called real problems are entirely theoretical. They are things that economists argue about from an entirely theoretical standpoint. Your argument that meddling with the economy to impose fairness is entirely theoretical. It's the same kind of meddling theory that leads to the realities on the ground in Venezuela.

I refer you to the Milton Friedman quote in my signature.

As opposed to being married to the government like a religion. My belief is not that we all must follow a certain philosophy. It's quite the opposite. My belief is that the government cannot impose a certain philosophy. Not only is it unable to prevent people from adopting different philosophies, it's bad for it attempt to prevent that from peacefully taking place. It can only attempt to punish those that refuse to follow that philosophy, and in doing so it stifles the ability to develop and improve new and better philosophies.

Sure. But are you so certain you've identified the cause of that failure that you're willing to impose your solution on everyone? That's the problem right there, isn't it?

 

So I guess you are against the federal government defending its own people? Sorry but that is one of the basic responsibilities of our government.

There is nothing theoretical about negotiating and putting America first. I expect the government to look out for my interests when it comes to basic things. I do not expect the government to give me money for nothing but there is a common sense approach.

Truth is free trade is good with a level playing field. As it stands the US has been at a disadvantage for years and it is taking its toll. A shrinking middle class with more people falling into poverty is how countries like Venezuela and Cuba end up socialist. If these lousy trade deals and illegal immigration continues we will be Venezuela and libertarians cannot do anything to stop it.

 

You think it is the federal government's job to defend people from their own decisions? I thought that was the definition of the "Nanny State."

 

As Yardmeat said, you think the people need you to defend them against inexpensive foreign goods? Thank you, but I don't need your help deciding which goods are of value to me.

What's the difference between your foreign protectionism, and say farm subsidies, price control, production quotas, labor quotas etc? Once you go down the rabbit hole, what's the limit to government interference in the name of fairness?

 

So you can handle going mano a mano against another country? Well, Chuck Norris got nothing on you.

Whether it is flooding the country with cheap goods or bringing in some deadly virus, the US government has a duty to protect its people and borders.

 

This is the problem with the libertarian thought. It makes sense for a while and then goes haywire with idiocy.

So you do not think the federal government should protect its borders and citizens? Then why do we have a country?

 

So you do favor the federal government existing to protect people from their own decisions. Just verifying the double standard.

 

Where did I say that?

 

I don't have to go into hand to hand combat with another country in order to buy goods. I have to go into Wal-Mart and buy a rug. That's not warfare. Its shopping.

If I happen to be a rug maker then I have to compete with the Chinese rug maker using the brains in my head. My advantage is access to higher quality materials, higher quality machinery, and more highly skilled labor. His advantage is low cost labor and a government willing to tax me. Those are not obstacles that I need the government to help me surmount.

 

Hey protectionist, why do you think its a good idea to force low income and middle class people to have to buy more expensive goods?

Because fairness...

Riiiight.

 

So you think that is all that is involved in international commerce? lolz! You have no clue. Once again you have gone off the rails and proven why your ideology is dying.

 

Who is forcing anyone to buy anything?

 

The true signs of a losing argument are the inability to rebut the counter argument and the use of ad hominem. This discussion is not about my knowledge of everything that is involved in international trade. Its about the merit or lack thereof of protectionist policy.

Your argument attempts to engineer "fairness" for American producers. This so called fairness comes at the expense of American consumers who are forced to bear the cost of those protectionist penalties.

After all your concern is that American consumers choose to purchase foreign goods not on the merit of their production alone but also consider value. In short, cheap. This cheapness is what you find unfair so you think the price must be inflated artificially so that American goods can compete. So again, how is this good for the American consumer? Why should he have to pay more for a car made with American steel rather than less expensive Chinese steel?

 

Businesses don't pay tariffs and taxes. Consumers do.