re: Trade deficit comes in better than expectations

quote:

---

And that's not what is being argued.

Period. Maybe read the conversation.

---

No, you are simply trying to make the claim that all of Friedman's beliefs were "in principle only" and that he "changed his views" only when confronted with the reality of policy. In doing so, you make the gigantic leap that somehow Friedman is "pro-tariff," or at a minimum, that Friedman acknowledges that tariffs are necessary. You use Friedman's position on immigration as further proof that there is some sort of "principle v practical reality" divide in Friedman's views, when he has been 100% consistent in this view as well.

This is an asinine attempt to provide an intellectual justification for tariffs, because you can now, in some weird, twisted way, say that Friedman's understanding of tariffs now align with yours, which is utter crap.

quote:

---

No, you are simply trying to make the claim that all of Friedman's beliefs were "in principle only" and that he "changed his views" only when confronted with the reality of policy.

---

No, I simply stated and used his words. One of those phrases is actually "In principle" And in principle he stated "I would like to see free immigration.”

The exact sentence is "In principle I would like to see free immigration.”

The term "In Principle" means you're in favor of it based on what you know. The principle, or the idea, seems good.

Did that mean that he meant that the USA needed to do that? No. Why? Because he saw the issues with policy, which is gov hand outs.

Does that mean he was anti illegal immigration? It certainly does not mean that considering he stated that illegal immigration is good for the USA:

quote:

---

"Look, for example, at the obvious, immediate, practical example of illegal Mexican immigration. Now, that Mexican immigration, over the border, is a good thing. It’s a good thing for the illegal immigrants. It’s a good thing for the United States. It’s a good thing for the citizens of the country. But, it’s only good so long as it’s illegal.”

---

Back to you:

quote:

---

In doing so, you make the gigantic leap that somehow Friedman is "pro-tariff," or at a minimum, that Friedman acknowledges that tariffs are necessary.

---

Wrong. I never stated he was pro tariff. I stated that in principle he believed total free trade was optimal. But he had an opinion on the policy and nobody can deny that. My exact words backed up by his is in this thread. I will bring them to this post:

quote:

---

YES, on paper and principle, Milton was not pro tariffs.

---

See my words? It states clearly "NOT PRO TARIFF"

quote:

---

or at a minimum, that Friedman acknowledges that tariffs are necessary.

---

And again. Those words never came out of my mouth. What I did say was what he stated:

quote:

---

If government intervention in trade is unavoidable, a tariff is less harmful than a quota because it at least generates revenue for the government and provides an incentive for foreign producers to offer lower prices.

---

Back to what you said:

quote:

---

You use Friedman's position on immigration as further proof that there is some sort of "principle v practical reality" divide in Friedman's views, when he has been 100% consistent in this view as well.

---

Let's get your point of view on why he stated:

quote:

---

In principle I would like to see free immigration.”
— Friedman on Charlie Rose, Dec 26, 2005.

---

quote:

---

“Look, for example, at the obvious, immediate, practical example of illegal Mexican immigration. Now, that Mexican immigration, over the border, is a good thing. It’s a good thing for the illegal immigrants. It’s a good thing for the United States. It’s a good thing for the citizens of the country. But, it’s only good so long as it’s illegal."

---

quote:

---

My gas prices are way down and now this?

---

Both are signs of a weakening economy.

But another question, if trade deficits are coming down... how are we going to replace the income tax with tariffs?

I guess you don't shop or notice the prices of anything purchased.

Some don't feel it at checkout, others do.
So, you are not aware or able to speak for all on this.

quote:

---

But your very next sentence was (highlights are mine):

---

Which is correct as pointed out from his own writing:

“The Kennedy Round”
by Milton Friedman

quote:

---

So, do not equivocate. You are definitely trying to insinuate that Freidman is, if only by necessity, aligned with the pro-tariff crowd.

You do this because you cannot simply come out and say that Friedman was dead arse wrong about tariffs.

---

Why are you lying? I suggested neither. Either he wrote this or not:

“The Kennedy Round”
by Milton Friedman


In short, we preach free trade and practice restriction.

We and the world would flourish best under complete free trade. However, tariffs are a lesser evil than quotas. At least, the government gets some revenue, and foreign producers have some incentive to offer U.S. consumers better terms.

Are you truly trying to sell that he never looked at reality and formed an opinion within that reality? He's saying that in a perfect world complete free trade would be great. He is also acknowledging that we don't. And that between the 2 (tariffs and Quotas) that tariffs are the preferred. then he clearly states why:

- revenue
- lower prices to consumers.

quote:

---

You do this because you cannot simply come out and say that Friedman was dead arse wrong about tariffs. Or, more bluntly, Friedman doesn't know anything about trade, or economics in general, because his principles were only based on hypotheticals, and that deep down, he knew tariffs are necessary. And if tariffs are necessary, then somehow, they are good.

This alleviates the obvious conflict. Do you know how absolutely moronic it is to claim that some of the best economists in the last century (Hayek, Friedman, Sowell, etc), who are diametrically opposed to your views, do not understand economics?

---

No, I do so because that's what he stated. I put zero words in his mouth. It is you who is putting words in mine because you need to defend YOUR position.

quote:

---

As far as his quote on illegal immigrants from Mexico, he isn't "pro-illegal" immigration. Keep in mind this was 2004, and while Friedman was in the last year's of his life,

---

So he was losing his mind?

Like I said. You are arguing points not being argued against. You are in a defense mode where nothing is being attacked.

Examples of your defense where none is needed:

- free trade. Milton argued for it. Nowhere has anybody stated he did not.

- free trade. Milton changed his opinions on this over the years based on results. Nobody stated he became pro tariff.

- Tariffs. Milton was clear, between tariffs and quotas, tariffs are preferred. And he told you why. And that's where you get hung up. The fact that he stated they were preferred is a problem for you and what makes it worse is his reasons. Those reasons are revenue for the gov and lower prices for consumers.

- immigration. Once again, he prefers open borders and the free movement of people. That's his words. Yes, he had conditions but that does not change his preference. This is the exact same thing that you can not accept with tariffs vs quotas. You can't accept his own words.

You do understand that in both of these he set conditions right? No welfare state vs welfare state. In one.. open those borders baby!! But since we do not live in a reality of no welfare, that can not happen. He told you why. And we are watching it happening now.

With tariffs, he again told you his preference. None and all the world would freely trade as we sing kumbya! The he carved out a big ole "IF" again. Sorry you don't like that. But he stated it clearly. tariffs over quotas because at LEAST there are benefits.

quote:

---

You do this because you cannot simply come out and say that Friedman was dead arse wrong about tariffs.

---

Why would I say he is wrong about tariffs? I agree with him on it. His words:

- the government gets some revenue
- foreign producers have some incentive to offer U.S. consumers better terms. If they can cut their price, they can gain a larger share of the U.S. market.

I 100% agree with that. It you and the few that can no understand that concept.

Jesus dude

quote:

---

you know what that orange bastard did today, he took credit for americans being able to breathe in quality air. I think you should show him and boycott breathing.

---

On brand for MAGA. Cant discuss issues, just childish insults.

quote:

---

However, the dollar has been strengthening in 2025, right?

---

It's down against the Euro, Canadian Dollar, and Yuan. It was down against the Yen, but after a recent increase, it's close to where it was at the start of the year.

quote:

---

Why are you lying? I suggested neither.

---

I literally quoted what you said back to you. You are trying to use something Friedman said as a justification for tariffs. I will address this more down below.

quote:

---

It is you who is putting words in mine because you need to defend YOUR position.

---

Again I used your words. Not mine. I can’t help if you are the ONLY person on the planet silly enough to use Friedman as an endorsement of tariffs.

Did you know that Friedman said that tariffs on steel help steel workers in a steel mill? Does that mean he supports tariffs on steel? Absolutely not, because he later discusses the ramifications of those tariffs are far worse than the jobs saved in the steel mill. So he prefers tariffs over quotas? That doesn’t mean you can take that statement as a ringing endorsement of tariffs.

quote:

---

Milton changed his opinions on this over the years based on results. Nobody stated he became pro tariff.

---

No, he did not. He always believed in unilateral free trade. Unilateral meaning we should lower our trade barriers regardless of what other countries do. This is indisputable fact. To suggest otherwise is stupid.

quote:

---

Tariffs. Milton was clear, between tariffs and quotas, tariffs are preferred. And he told you why. And that's where you get hung up. The fact that he stated they were preferred is a problem for you and what makes it worse is his reasons. Those reasons are revenue for the gov and lower prices for consumers.

---

Hmmm…so, I guess that’s why he famously said said “tarrifs do indeed protect the consumer. They protect the consumer from lower prices.” In the context you are referring to (Friedman’s Newsweek article) he is simply stating that tariffs lower prices versus quotas. Not that tariffs lower prices compared to not having tariffs. To take any other understanding demonstrates an utter lack of understanding of Friedman, what he said, and what he believes in.