Would Americans elect a protectionist president?

[Militants]

Maybe future force are 1.200.000 in Armies in US.

 

[Militants]

US money go from 520 billion euro down to 450 billion euro.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Dear, China is a state and so is ohio and both want jobs!! Ohio could ban trade , make their own cars, and thus create 1000's of jobs, 1+1=2 Do you understand??

I understand you're a fucking idiot. China is a country... a Communist country. It's not a state and not part of the United States. Ohio can't ban trade because they are a state in the United States who has a Constitution with a Commerce Clause... so just shut your ignorant pie hole.

dear, the point is that if idiot liberals had their way ohio would ban trade with other states and nations to preserve jobs in Ohio. They could create 1000's of jobs by making their own cars for example. Now have I made it simple enough for you to understand

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

That means, about 150 million Chinese are among the ruling class... they purchased 7.2 million cars in 2006.

You seem so determined to always show how stupid you are? Why? Now Chinese purchase 22 million a year. This is growth from 0, 30 years under liberal communism. there is every reason to think cars and movie sales and general standards of living will continue to improve for all in China at 5-10% per year well into the future.

Now do you understand?

 

[Boss]

Dear, China is a state and so is ohio and both want jobs!! Ohio could ban trade , make their own cars, and thus create 1000's of jobs, 1+1=2 Do you understand??

I understand you're a fucking idiot. China is a country... a Communist country. It's not a state and not part of the United States. Ohio can't ban trade because they are a state in the United States who has a Constitution with a Commerce Clause... so just shut your ignorant pie hole.

dear, the point is that if idiot liberals had their way ohio would ban trade with other states and nations to preserve jobs in Ohio. They could create 1000's of jobs by making their own cars for example. Now have I made it simple enough for you to understand

No, I doubt the people of Ohio are as stupid as you... so they wouldn't. For instance, they would realize they have no iron ore or coal to make steel with and they need steel to build a car. And this is the case with most things that are manufactured... you have to first have resources... they don't just magically appear because you want to make something.

So no jobs would be created and there would be no car production in Ohio. This is ultimately why our founders created something called the "commerce clause" ...so that trade between states would happen, ensuring that all states have the opportunity to obtain various things from other states and sell things they make in their state. And this works well in a free market system because we're all playing by the same rules and using the same rule book... the Constitution. China doesn't play by our rules and has a completely different rule book.

 

[Boss]

That means, about 150 million Chinese are among the ruling class... they purchased 7.2 million cars in 2006.

You seem so determined to always show how stupid you are? Why? Now Chinese purchase 22 million a year. This is growth from 0, 30 years under liberal communism. there is every reason to think cars and movie sales and general standards of living will continue to improve for all in China at 5-10% per year well into the future.

Now do you understand?

Well, I was responding to the graphic posted which showed 7.2 million sold in 2006 and that's what I said... So go fuck yourself.

The only place standards of living are improving in China is among the ruling class elite, which comprise about 15% of their population. Those people are doing quite well but they are the vast minority of the population. The other 85% are living in abject poverty, the likes of which you will never know.

Now you can sit here and idiotically defend the abhorrent human rights violations of the Communist Chinese all you like... I can't stop stupid from happening. But I'm not going to continue wasting my time responding to you.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

China doesn't play by our rules and has a completely different rule book.

Dear, China is a state and so is ohio and both want jobs!! Ohio could ban trade , make their own cars, and thus create 1000's of jobs, 1+1=2 Do you understand??

I understand you're a fucking idiot. China is a country... a Communist country. It's not a state and not part of the United States. Ohio can't ban trade because they are a state in the United States who has a Constitution with a Commerce Clause... so just shut your ignorant pie hole.

dear, the point is that if idiot liberals had their way ohio would ban trade with other states and nations to preserve jobs in Ohio. They could create 1000's of jobs by making their own cars for example. Now have I made it simple enough for you to understand

No, I doubt the people of Ohio are as stupid as you... so they wouldn't. For instance, they would realize they have no iron ore or coal to make steel with and they need steel to build a car. And this is the case with most things that are manufactured... you have to first have resources... they don't just magically appear because you want to make something.

So no jobs would be created and there would be no car production in Ohio. This is ultimately why our founders created something called the "commerce clause" ...so that trade between states would happen, ensuring that all states have the opportunity to obtain various things from other states and sell things they make in their state. And this works well in a free market system because we're all playing by the same rules and using the same rule book... the Constitution. China doesn't play by our rules and has a completely different rule book.

dear, all states and countries have comparative advantages. We don't need Nazis telling us that a state or country's advantage makes trading with them unfair

 

[Unkotare]

That means, about 150 million Chinese are among the ruling class... they purchased 7.2 million cars in 2006.

You seem so determined to always show how stupid you are? Why? Now Chinese purchase 22 million a year. This is growth from 0, 30 years under liberal communism. there is every reason to think cars and movie sales and general standards of living will continue to improve for all in China at 5-10% per year well into the future.

Now do you understand?

Well, I was responding to the graphic posted which showed 7.2 million sold in 2006 and that's what I said... So go fuck yourself.

The only place standards of living are improving in China is among the ruling class elite, which comprise about 15% of their population. Those people are doing quite well but they are the vast minority of the population. The other 85% are living in abject poverty, the likes of which you will never know.

I do know because I've seen for myself. Have you?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

. But I'm not going to continue wasting my time responding to you.

dear, we have free trade all over the world because the world and world's economists
understand that it benefits everyone. If you want to remain stupid and not learn about it I am not surprised. That's how you got to be so slow in the first place- you stick with your prejudices.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

The only place standards of living are improving in China is among the ruling class elite, which comprise about 15% of their population. Those people are doing quite well but they are the vast minority of the population. The other 85% are living in abject poverty, the likes of which you will never know.

why so determined to demonstrate how dumb you are?

For the sake of simplicity, we now call consumers with household incomes in the 106,000 to 229,000 renminbi range upper middle class. In 2012, this segment, accounting for just 14 percent of urban households, was dwarfed by the mass middle class, with household incomes from 60,000 to 106,000 renminbi. By 2022, we estimate, the upper middle class will account for 54 percent of urban households and 56 percent of urban private consumption. The mass middle will dwindle to 22 percent of urban households (Exhibit 1).
Exhibit 1

The magnitude of China’s middle-class growth is transforming the nation.
Why the middle class?

Though many foreign companies have remarked on the importance of China’s middle class as a consumer segment, few realize just how dramatic its ascendance is. From 1995 to 2005, the population of China’s middle class—defined here as households with annual incomes ranging from $6,000 to $25,000—grew from close to zero in 1995 to an estimated 87 million in 2005, according to MasterCard Worldwide, Asia Pacific. China’s middle class will jump to 340 million by 2016 (see Figure 1). The purchasing power—disposable income minus savings—of China’s middle class is also growing. In 2006, around 39 percent of urban households were middle class (see Figure 2). By 2016, that percentage will likely rise to 60 percent. At present, the middle class accounts for 27 percent of China’s total urban disposable income. By 2015, that percentage is expected to rise to more than 40 percent (see Figure 3). Considering its swelling numbers, purchasing power, and trajectory, China’s middle class presents marketing opportunities that companies cannot afford to miss

 

[CultureCitizen]

Could a protectionist win either party's nomination?

It's been done in the past , it can be done in the future.
Licoln was both republican and protectionist.

 

[Agit8r]

Could a protectionist win either party's nomination?

It's been done in the past , it can be done in the future.
Licoln was both republican and protectionist.

Well, sure, mercantilism was America's economic system until 1947 GATT. We haven't had a protectionist president in over a half century though.

 

[Correll]

Could a protectionist win either party's nomination?

It's been done in the past , it can be done in the future.
Licoln was both republican and protectionist.

Well, sure, mercantilism was America's economic system until 1947 GATT. We haven't had a protectionist president in over a half century though.

WHat? YOu afraid of change?

 

[Unkotare]

Lincoln was a Utilitarian.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Could a protectionist win either party's nomination?

It's been done in the past , it can be done in the future.
Licoln was both republican and protectionist.

protecting and crippling our companies is an idea so 100% stupid only a liberal would approve of it.

 

[eagle1462010]

"Free Trade" Was Never Really About Trade

"Free trade" is not trade. Basically, trade is when each country makes things of value for export and gets things of comparable value in imports. In modern globalization, other countries manipulate their currencies, use tax strategies that distort exports and imports, and apply effective well-designed industrial policies to build manufacturing capacity. They export more products to us, and import fewer products from us.
Our trade deficits since NAFTA are over $8 trillion. With trade deficits this large, we are not trading. We are letting other countries produce for us. We borrow, de-industrialize, and ultimately fail to capitalize on future production opportunities. That's not trade. That's getting picked clean.

 

[Agit8r]

Could a protectionist win either party's nomination?

It's been done in the past , it can be done in the future.
Licoln was both republican and protectionist.

protecting and crippling our companies is an idea so 100% stupid only a liberal would approve of it.

Lol. What?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Could a protectionist win either party's nomination?

It's been done in the past , it can be done in the future.
Licoln was both republican and protectionist.

protecting and crippling our companies is an idea so 100% stupid only a liberal would approve of it.

Lol. What?

protecting and crippling our companies is an idea so 100% stupid only a liberal would approve of it.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

"Free Trade" Was Never Really About Trade

"Free trade" is not trade. Basically, trade is when each country makes things of value for export and gets things of comparable value in imports. In modern globalization, other countries manipulate their currencies, use tax strategies that distort exports and imports, and apply effective well-designed industrial policies to build manufacturing capacity. They export more products to us, and import fewer products from us.
Our trade deficits since NAFTA are over $8 trillion. With trade deficits this large, we are not trading. We are letting other countries produce for us. We borrow, de-industrialize, and ultimately fail to capitalize on future production opportunities. That's not trade. That's getting picked clean.

dear , a trade deficit is impossible since every dollar we send to China has to be spent in America. Do you understand? We buy with dollars which would have no value to them unless they could spend them. Do you understand?

Free trade is when free people voluntarily decide to trade because they feel they are both better off. Do you understand?

 

[Agit8r]

Could a protectionist win either party's nomination?

It's been done in the past , it can be done in the future.
Licoln was both republican and protectionist.

protecting and crippling our companies is an idea so 100% stupid only a liberal would approve of it.

Lol. What?

protecting and crippling our companies is an idea so 100% stupid only a liberal would approve of it.

So... Trump and Cruz are liberals?