- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Protectionism is not the answer
Posted on 2/24/17 at 11:19 am to LSURussian
Posted on 2/24/17 at 11:19 am to LSURussian
quote:
What government agency do you work for? Also, what did you bring for lunch today in your brown bag?
U.S. Navy
1
Posted on 2/24/17 at 11:20 am to I B Freeman
quote:
We literally impose tens of thousands tariffs today.
Do you have a link to data regarding our tariffs versus the rest of the world and their tariffs on our goods?
Not being a smartass at all. I'd like to see some data on the matter. Maybe I would agree with you.
Posted on 2/24/17 at 11:21 am to CoachDon
quote:
Given the current trade deficit, by putting the tax on imports and not taxing exports, we raise revenue. The revenue off the border adjustment will be like $100 billion a year.
Issues?
Yes. First off that is not true and second off why do I care if the government takes in another $100 billion??
The only time this country operated with a trade surplus was during the depression. I do not wish to return to those days.
There is a reason we operate at a trade deficit and it is a good one----we consumer far more per capita than do the countries we import from because we are a wealthy country.
We can have a trade surplus---if that is our goal and a stupid goal it would be---by simply mandating consumers quit spending.
This post was edited on 2/24/17 at 11:25 am
Posted on 2/24/17 at 11:21 am to MrCarton
quote:The whole reason free-markets are so superior is that they self-correct and naturally evolve. Of course, artifical intrusion by governments is often detrimental, but the beauty of the FREE market response is that it often finds an ideal manifestations of that intervention, which often really in negative, unintended consequences for those that artificially intervened.
Free trade means that markets can "fight back" for themselves.
Knowing it is illogical to respond with artifical intervention, when we know there will likely be negative, unintended consequences as a result.
Not to mention, it's ridiculous to say "I'm for free markets" then advocate for the opposite. At least be honest and say, "I'm not really that much for free markets."
Posted on 2/24/17 at 11:22 am to roadGator
quote:
Do you have a link to data regarding our tariffs versus the rest of the world and their tariffs on our goods?
Do you?
I can send you to the link to look at our tariffs but you will have to find the links for the rest of the world.
Posted on 2/24/17 at 11:23 am to I B Freeman
Posted on 2/24/17 at 11:23 am to I B Freeman
You sound like my wife. Why answer a question with a question?
You either have links to the data you seem to be up on or you don't. Jeebus.
You either have links to the data you seem to be up on or you don't. Jeebus.
Posted on 2/24/17 at 11:25 am to Zach Lee To Amp Hill
quote:
is it the multiple bankruptcies that is the evidence for this or do you have something else?
I think he has 4 bankruptcies, all Chapter 11. I don't know why people give him such a hard time about this. Any good businessman knows when to cut losses. If you need to trim debt, then why not? What's the alternative? Keep losing money?
Posted on 2/24/17 at 11:26 am to MrCarton
quote:
Just stop man. for the love of god.
Free trade means that markets can "fight back" for themselves. If China wants to "dump" steel, then the free trade solution is to allow people to buy cheap steel. The government attempt to protect Americans who produce steel is not "leveling the playing field", it's actually hurting the CONSUMERS of steel for the benefit of the employees or Producers of steel. there is nothing fair about free markets, and nothing free about fair markets
So the solution is to buy cheap steel fine and let consumers save money? You let a foreign govt. cripple a major industry and possible kill it so consumers at home can reap the rewards.
Ok fine, then what do you do when all the steel is foreign and they decide to leverage that against us. Do you just let consumers take it below the belt and pay obscene prices now?
And what happens to all the employees who got laid off by the steel companies locally? They wind up getting public assistance, or possibly taking lesser paying jobs and in the end the govt. and yes the taxpayers gets hammered all because a foreign government undercut the market.
If a foreign govt. is attacking our private businesses, our govt. should fight back. Letting a foreign govt. run unabated over the markets is a serious threat to our economy and can be a serious threat to our national security.
Remember OPEC? Remember the Carter years?
Free trade is no longer free trade when one of the trading partners is cheating.
Posted on 2/24/17 at 11:26 am to roadGator
quote:
. Why answer a question with a question?
Because you didn't offer anything to back up any thing you said but expect to be hand fed the education you need to actually be posting on the subject.
This post was edited on 2/24/17 at 11:37 am
Posted on 2/24/17 at 11:27 am to Zach Lee To Amp Hill
quote:That explains your lack of business knowledge and experience, including business negotiations.
U.S. Navy
Thank you for your service.
Posted on 2/24/17 at 11:27 am to I B Freeman
I didn't ask you to support your assertion because I was being an arse. I was asking you for info about a subject that you seem to know something about.
Damn. You are easily fired up.
Posted on 2/24/17 at 11:37 am to doubleb
quote:Sure.
You let a foreign govt. cripple a major industry and possible kill it so consumers at home can reap the rewards.
quote:No, I would expect the market to respond, and that industry would come back to life naturally. Fortunately for us we have the ability to respond quickly.
Ok fine, then what do you do when all the steel is foreign and they decide to leverage that against us. Do you just let consumers take it below the belt and pay obscene prices now?
quote:Find another job.
And what happens to all the employees who got laid off by the steel companies locally?
Crazy. quote:Well then we better ban technology and innovation since it does the very same thing.
They wind up getting public assistance, or possibly taking lesser paying jobs and in the end the govt. and yes the taxpayers gets hammered all because a foreign government undercut the market.
quote:The government is our savior, huh? That's the type of mentality I expect from socialists, not the other side.
If a foreign govt. is attacking our private businesses, our govt. should fight back.
quote:Maybe in rare exceptions, but the statists love this argument.
and can be a serious threat to our national security.
quote:And what had changed since then? More energy independence, maybe?
Remember OPEC? Remember the Carter years?
quote:But responding with anti-free trade policies, is a step further away from it.
Free trade is no longer free trade when one of the trading partners is cheating.
People can support that, but it's dishonest to pretend that they are for free trade when they advocate for policies further from it.
Posted on 2/24/17 at 11:40 am to buckeye_vol
OPEC and Carter are very good examples of why government interference with markets are a bad idea.
No way the OPEC embargo would have had any impact on US supply had price caps initiated by Nixon and continued by Carter not been in place.
Reagan ended them his first month in office and no embargo has been successful since. They can't even collude effectively to raise oil prices any more.
No way the OPEC embargo would have had any impact on US supply had price caps initiated by Nixon and continued by Carter not been in place.
Reagan ended them his first month in office and no embargo has been successful since. They can't even collude effectively to raise oil prices any more.
This post was edited on 2/24/17 at 11:42 am
Posted on 2/24/17 at 11:41 am to buckeye_vol
I will never understand people who say that another country is not acting with free market principles and their solution is to restrict the market further instead of letting the market correct itself.
How are additional trade restrictions ever going to make the market more free? It's the same thing with taxing businesses that use overseas workers instead of trying to make our workforce more competitive.
How are additional trade restrictions ever going to make the market more free? It's the same thing with taxing businesses that use overseas workers instead of trying to make our workforce more competitive.
This post was edited on 2/24/17 at 11:45 am
Posted on 2/24/17 at 11:41 am to LSURussian
quote:
quote:Protectionism is not the answerOf course it's not the answer. But Trump is a master negotiator and threatening protectionism is a genius tactic to begin negotiations for new truly 'free' trade agreements.
This and when trade is not balanced, measures might be necessary to balance the situation to be used later as leverage in negotiation. When trade is one sided and you simply accept an out of balance situation, this becomes the norm and you have no means of negotiation.
Posted on 2/24/17 at 11:44 am to Antonio Moss
quote:
And creates inflation which in turn decreases revenue - unless of course you want central price controls which leads in a whole different discussion.
True, but it would also raise the dollar’s exchange rate, which could offset or cancel out some of these other effects in time. The impact on real GDP and employment would depend on how these effects panned out, and how the Federal Reserve reacted to the increase in inflation.
Posted on 2/24/17 at 11:44 am to GurleyGirl
quote:
When trade is one sided and you simply accept an out of balance situation
What does that mean?
You want to count dollars between countries??
Does that mean we have put tariffs on some country like Columbia because we buy so much coffee from them but their economy is too small to offset those purchases with purchases from us???
That would be stupid wouldn't it?
Posted on 2/24/17 at 11:46 am to CoachDon
quote:
And creates inflation which in turn decreases revenue - unless of course you want central price controls which leads in a whole different discussion.
True, but it would also raise the dollar’s exchange rate, which could offset or cancel out some of these other effects in time. The impact on real GDP and employment would depend on how these effects panned out, and how the Federal Reserve reacted to the increase in inflation.
Those assumptions are simply wild guesses. The last time we had a trade surplus and huge tariffs we did not have inflation---we had the Great Rosevelt Depression.
Posted on 2/24/17 at 11:47 am to I B Freeman
quote:
Protectionism is not the answer
sure it is.
just ask the right question and protectionism is the correct response.
here's the question Trump is answering:
Red China has been trading at a rate for its currency which gives unrealistic and unfair trading advantage to China. 15 years of this.
we have asked them politely to increase the Yuan's value by double. they reserve the right to do as they please.
the answer is to place a punitive tax on Chinese exports.
the intention of Trump, verbalized during the primary
is to force China to increase the value of their Yuan so dollars and pounds are not at such a disadvantage .
This post was edited on 2/24/17 at 11:49 am
Page 3 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News