Sounds great! The truth is that the American economy is shockingly insular, even with decades of free trade deals. There are simple reasons for that: A continent to itself simply doesn't need a whole lot from around the world. The fact of the matter is that under the current economic systems free trade benefits the rich and is a detriment to the poor. I'm not against free trade in principle, I'm not even against free trade in practice, I'm against free trade as a principle to be followed in spite of practice.
The economy in China is like a Formula 1 race car. The driver and crew make adjustments as needed to gain optimum performance. In the USA the economy is like a jalopy with two drunken teenagers fighting over the steering wheel.
I quit listening. This guy on a nice motorcycle has only interfaced with the middle class in the USA. I was born during World War II before the Baby Boomers wrecked things. Growing up the USA was a far different country than it is today. Today there are two huge classes: the middle class and the poor. The poor includes hard working people as well as homeless. People had a chance in the late 1940s and 1950s. Toward 1970 things changed. College was no longer free or very inexpensive. People could get in with a B or C average. Housing was very inexpensive compared to today. Housing, health care, and education all have shot up far faster than inflation. And jobs are no longer good careers. They are low wage gig jobs like Uber and service jobs.
What you said was true until the middle of the last century. Free trade isn't responsible for our income disparity. Many European countries that do a lot of trading have much less desparity than we do.
1800 billion in 2004. A simple, flat number with no comparisons made. Of course, when I say that we're "insular" I mean "insular as compared to the rest of the world." The American trade-to-GDP ratio is 26%, a very low number by global standards. On the opposite end of that spectrum is a country like Vietnam, at 200%. I agree, but it definitely does contribute to and reinforce it. Certainly, and even in the European case I would argue that the interplay between wealth disparity and trade are much too severe.
Boomers were more than a decade from power when Regan came along. The oldest Boomers were 34 when Reagan was elected President.
They may not have been in positions of direct power, but they were the most important voting bloc even before then.
I'm not familiar with Europe. I do not know the details of trade. I understand that much of service work is protected against foreigners through education and apprenticeship requirements. I believe a carpenter in Germany might require two years of tech school and three years of apprenticeship to work on a job. This is enforced by workplace raids. In Germany many jobs are protected by govt as US MD, RN, and teacher jobs are protected. I was watching a youtube video about some Brit in Norway. She said she ordered some food from Britain and it came with a 100% duty, to protect local business. Norway is not some ignorant backward country. The devil is in the details.
Again, trade isn't the problem. We have increasing returns to capital driving the growing income disparity and the naïve public thinking the way the economy determines worker/investor incomes is justifiably fixed. It isn't.
Didn't say it was "the" problem, in fact I'm implying the opposite with my stance on the importance of trade to the United States, but that it is problematic given our current system. I know. I would go further in my own reasoning, even, but that's not what we're discussing here.
European tariffs are barely more than ours--1.79% vs. 1.66%. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_tariff_rate That said, I agree that European countries often take measures to enhance worker incomes, some by protecting their jobs, other measures to enhance workers' ability to compete, and still more by redistributing income through the tax system.
It had some some of what I expected, but they focused more on activist types than degeneracy. Basically, their claim was that Americans (and Westerners in general) complain too much and don't blindly support their own nation. It was a little fasci.
He thinks we gave all the high paying jobs to china and kept the low paying ones. When in fact we gave the sh!t jobs to China and gave the high paying ones to the robots.
They began voting when they were 18 or 21 depending on when they were born. In the late 1960s they were a big force in getting Johnson out because of the Vietnam War. Interestingly the Boomers had no compunction about sending younger people to Iraq, Afghanistan, et cetera to die or be maimed. The Kennedy, Clinton, Obama crowd never reversed, or even stopped, the income and wealth inequality. In 2016 this inequality wasn't even discussed on the debates.
I didnt say it inthat quote but if you mean china they want to beat America economically And use that advantage to dominate the world incuding America politically and militarily
We have a trade deficit of $350-400 billion with china That employs a lot of people in china and puts a lot of Americans out of work
You are mistaken about china The central government knows nothing except brute force and are not very efficent that making and selling stuff
