- 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
Protectionism vs. Free Trade
Posted on 1/5/17 at 8:35 pm
Posted on 1/5/17 at 8:35 pm
Listening or reading Milton Friedman's views on the merits of free trade and disservice protectionism does to economies, one could postulate what Trump is doing with the automakers could possibly be detrimental to our economy in the long run. However, I am perplexed by this notion since some of the main reasons these car companies are leaving this country for other countries is due to the burdensome cost of regulations and restrictions this administration and previous admistrations have bestowed on the many sections of the US market. At one point these car manufacturers were making product here in America as opposed to other countries (assuming at the highest possible margins all things considered). That has seemed to change under the past two admistrations.
Overall, I think what Trump is doing is a good thing. He is sending a message letting manufacturing sector of our ecomony to stay put and that tax breaks/deregulation is on its way. However, in terms of Milton Friedman (possibly GOAT economist), what Trump is doing is not a good thing.
What say you?
Overall, I think what Trump is doing is a good thing. He is sending a message letting manufacturing sector of our ecomony to stay put and that tax breaks/deregulation is on its way. However, in terms of Milton Friedman (possibly GOAT economist), what Trump is doing is not a good thing.
What say you?
10
Posted on 1/5/17 at 9:05 pm to nager
I say that we have a lot of people who need to go to work if we are going to mobilize on a scale large enough to steamroll many many middle eastern armies.
We need additional installations in the here and now. Like fricking pronto.
We need additional installations in the here and now. Like fricking pronto.
Posted on 1/5/17 at 9:09 pm to nager
Free Trade is ideal when the trade is actually free Trade.
NAFTA is not free Trade because both Mexico and Canada have a VAT.
So their goods come in to us tax free but our goods get taxed.
NAFTA is not free Trade because both Mexico and Canada have a VAT.
So their goods come in to us tax free but our goods get taxed.
Posted on 1/5/17 at 9:22 pm to Loserman
quote:I just don't understand the problem with this.
So their goods come in to us tax free but our goods get taxed.
Their governments are essentially lining their own inefficient pockets at the expense of the citizens. That's quite unfair to the citizens, so why would we want more government thievery?
Posted on 1/5/17 at 9:29 pm to nager
I believe in Comparative and Absolute Advantage. Therefore, I believe in free trade.
Posted on 1/5/17 at 9:31 pm to buckeye_vol
VAT increases price. Most goods are elastic therefore quantity demanded is reduced at higher prices. When fewer units are purchased, US businesses suffer.
Posted on 1/5/17 at 9:34 pm to buckeye_vol
quote:
So their goods come in to us tax free but our goods get taxed
quote:
I just don't understand the problem with this.
It is effectively the same as a tariff, but by a different name.
Posted on 1/5/17 at 9:39 pm to nager
What policy proposals by Trump are protectionist?
Who should we protect in trade deals? The workers or the corporations? Is it possible to have a balance, aka a fair trade deal?
Why do we even need a trade agreement for free trade? It would seem to me that true free trade only involves a buyer and seller not a third party.
FWIW, your trade deal at Target is not truly free. Both you and Target have to pay a tariff to your local, state and federal governments.
Who should we protect in trade deals? The workers or the corporations? Is it possible to have a balance, aka a fair trade deal?
Why do we even need a trade agreement for free trade? It would seem to me that true free trade only involves a buyer and seller not a third party.
FWIW, your trade deal at Target is not truly free. Both you and Target have to pay a tariff to your local, state and federal governments.
Posted on 1/5/17 at 9:39 pm to Loserman
Correct. Too bad some former posters aren't still on here to add insightful, academic analysis to. This.
Posted on 1/5/17 at 9:45 pm to Loserman
quote:I get that. I'm saying that those that tax imports are hurting the consumer, and worse yet, that money is going to the most inefficient and bloated system: the government.
It is effectively the same as a tariff, but by a different name
Posted on 1/5/17 at 9:47 pm to GumboPot
quote:Neither. The government should get out of the way, like it should in other matters as well.
Who should we protect in trade deals? The workers or the corporations?
Posted on 1/5/17 at 9:48 pm to nager
Trump is not proposing true protectionism. All he's saying is that our trade partners need to deal fairly with us. If they want access to our markets, then we need equal access to theirs. We negotiated these deals poorly for our export goods, and that hurts American workers. In my opinion, he's using tariff threats to let those who would treat us unfairly that we're not going to be steamrolled anymore.... it's beginning negotiations from a position of strength.
This post was edited on 1/5/17 at 9:49 pm
Posted on 1/5/17 at 9:50 pm to buckeye_vol
quote:
Neither. The government should get out of the way, like it should in other matters as well.
Well, this we agree 100%. Unfortunately this is just not practical. Even Reagan implemented protectists trade provisions during his tenure.
Posted on 1/5/17 at 9:57 pm to nager
Free trade is a pipe dream for countries. If it was global governance then sure, free trade away. But we have countries. We have borders to protect. We have enemies out there. If you can't make things, you will lose. We will use steel as an example. China is state run so they can drop the price of steel far below market value and crush the competition bankrupting the free trade nations' steel manufacturers. This slowly deteriorates that country's economy as China could keep repeating this for other industries. Then you can't make anything and you will surely be ripe for the picking.
It is also worth mentioning a lot of ideas from that period worth though of in homogeneous societies. Multiculturalism was thought up by people living around a bunch of white people. Nice in thought, bad in practice.
Free trade works wonderfully between the states since they have the same common goal and theoretically we have no problems with other states. I don't really even like certain states anymore due to their laws like California. I do want smaller federal government but I want it with state citizenships so we wouldn't have to deal with liberals moving from their shite states they fricked up or allowing illegals in.
It is also worth mentioning a lot of ideas from that period worth though of in homogeneous societies. Multiculturalism was thought up by people living around a bunch of white people. Nice in thought, bad in practice.
Free trade works wonderfully between the states since they have the same common goal and theoretically we have no problems with other states. I don't really even like certain states anymore due to their laws like California. I do want smaller federal government but I want it with state citizenships so we wouldn't have to deal with liberals moving from their shite states they fricked up or allowing illegals in.
Posted on 1/5/17 at 9:59 pm to nager
What we have with China isn't "free trade"... it's almost neo-mercantilism, except we're the colonial outpost, economically speaking. If we can get better access to their markets, without cutting off the benefits we get from importing goods we can get from them cheaper than what we can produce, then there still should be a net benefit for American working class people without hurting consumers.
Trump won on a platform of making things better for working people. Working people put him in office. If you now want him to bail on them, well then FU and get ready to never win another election if he does.
Trump won on a platform of making things better for working people. Working people put him in office. If you now want him to bail on them, well then FU and get ready to never win another election if he does.
This post was edited on 1/5/17 at 10:01 pm
Posted on 1/6/17 at 12:53 am to lynxcat
quote:
VAT increases price. Most goods are elastic therefore quantity demanded is reduced at higher prices. When fewer units are purchased, US businesses suffer.
It's worth repeating since I can only upvote this once.
Posted on 1/6/17 at 12:55 am to nager
I want free trade, but Trump should tread lightly with any threats to Toyota. If they pack up and leave Kentucky, there'll be a lot of Americans losing jobs.
Posted on 1/6/17 at 12:57 am to nager
Protectionism will fail, the consumer is the one who is hurting. Free trade increases the quality of life for all.
I'm finding there isn't nearly as many conservatives on this board as I previously thought.
I'm finding there isn't nearly as many conservatives on this board as I previously thought.
Posted on 1/6/17 at 5:16 am to dpd901
I believe this is most likely the case.
It's a win-win. Jobs stay here. Jobs don't go to Mexico. Mexico loses out and this provides Trump the leverage to negotiate a better trade deal with Mexico. Like you said, he is creating a position of strength before negotiations.
It's a win-win. Jobs stay here. Jobs don't go to Mexico. Mexico loses out and this provides Trump the leverage to negotiate a better trade deal with Mexico. Like you said, he is creating a position of strength before negotiations.
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News