Myths of Protectionism

[editec]

I wouldn't call China a good example to follow when it comes to anything since Mao.

I beg to differ, and I think most Chinese would as well. China is following the same paths as the other Asian countries that rose from poverty - Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Malaysia, Indonesia, etc. Those countries all have issues but they have all come from being dirt poor to being at least middle income countries in two generations, an incredible feet.

Which in large part includes TARIFFS on imports into CHINA.

Of course they call these tariffs VAT taxes, don't they?

 

[editec]

There's never been free trade in the US.

Just like there's never been a free market.

Unless you ask a liberal, of course.

No, actually most liberals would completely agree.

The concept of having a "free market" without an overarching system of laws is preposterous.

As to free trade?

The USA industrial growth happend BEHIND a barrier of tarrifs on imported manufactured and agricultural products.

That's actually (in part, not entirely, of course) how this nation became an industrial powerhouse.

 

[Oddball]

There's never been free trade in the US.

Just like there's never been a free market.

Unless you ask a liberal, of course.

No, actually most liberals would completely agree.

The concept of having a "free market" without an overarching system of laws is preposterous.

As to free trade?

The USA industrial growth happend BEHIND a barrier of tarrifs on imported manufactured and agricultural products.

That's actually (in part, not entirely, of course) how this nation became an industrial powerhouse.

No, America became an economic powerhouse in spite of those barriers.

 

[editec]

There's never been free trade in the US.

Just like there's never been a free market.

Unless you ask a liberal, of course.

No, actually most liberals would completely agree.

The concept of having a "free market" without an overarching system of laws is preposterous.

As to free trade?

The USA industrial growth happend BEHIND a barrier of tarrifs on imported manufactured and agricultural products.

That's actually (in part, not entirely, of course) how this nation became an industrial powerhouse.

No, America became an economic powerhouse in spite of those barriers.

We'll never know if that is true, will we?

But we DO know that as tariffs have been lifted:

1. balance of trade has gone from the USA being the NUMBER ONE creditor nation on earth to the largest DEBTOR nation; and

2. The middle class has been losing purchaing power since 1969.




Could be a mere coincidence, but I rather doubt it.

 

[Oddball]

Inflation is the reason for the middle class -and everyone else for that matter- losing purchasing power. Best confer with the federal gubmint and Fed to address that problem.

The creditor/debtor thing is a fluid situation...Tide comes in, tide goes out.

 

[JBeukema]

The creditor/debtor thing is a fluid situation...Tide comes in, tide goes out.

right...


Dun worry, Vinny. I know we tied an anchor to your leg and we're about to drop you into the middle of the Atlantic, but hey, tide comes in, tides out, right? No worries.

 

[Paulie]

There's never been free trade in the US.

Just like there's never been a free market.

Unless you ask a liberal, of course.

No, actually most liberals would completely agree.

The concept of having a "free market" without an overarching system of laws is preposterous.

As to free trade?

The USA industrial growth happend BEHIND a barrier of tarrifs on imported manufactured and agricultural products.

That's actually (in part, not entirely, of course) how this nation became an industrial powerhouse.

No.

Most liberals think we've had a free market for decades, now.

Their idea of a free market is a little deregulation in a sector.

 

[Ravi]

Free markets only exist in anarchies.

 

[editec]

There's never been free trade in the US.

Just like there's never been a free market.

Unless you ask a liberal, of course.

No, actually most liberals would completely agree.

The concept of having a "free market" without an overarching system of laws is preposterous.

As to free trade?

The USA industrial growth happend BEHIND a barrier of tarrifs on imported manufactured and agricultural products.

That's actually (in part, not entirely, of course) how this nation became an industrial powerhouse.

No.

Most liberals think we've had a free market for decades, now.

Their idea of a free market is a little deregulation in a sector.

You're qualified to speak for "most" liberals?

I rather doubt that.

 

[Supposn]

Torro,

Excerpted message from within
www.USA-Trade-deficit.Blogspot,Com
*** A nation’s trade deficit is always a net economic detriment.

When local producers have perceptively modified their volumes of productions, there is often obvious resonating production modifications within the community. Producers of completely unrelated products and services can be affected, (i.e. factory production affecting beauty parlors revenues). Modification of a community's gross production affects local employment and wage rates. This same phenomenon occurs when the initial catalytic producers were small but acting in concert. (That's often the case within single or allied industries). On a national scale this is all generally dispersed and thus less obvious but no less real.

For over a half century USA's continuously increasing annual trade deficits have been such a significant catalyst. Our annual GDP and median wage has been less than otherwise due to our pursuit of pure unrestricted free trade (among nations that are unwilling and/or unable to sufficiently compensate their laborers).

Trade deficit's detriment to the GDP exceeds the amount of the deficit itself. Anything detrimental to the GDP is also generally detrimental to the median wage. Our trade deficit's net detriment to USA's economy is greatly under-estimated by those influential within and outside of our government; (because its affect upon the median wage is proportionately a greater burden to lower income families)?

Refer to:
www.USA-Trade-deficit.Blogspot.Com
Google: wikipedia, import certificates, warren buffett

Respetfully, Supposn

 

[Supposn]

Toro, you put up a straw-man and then pretend to beat it down. A nation’s global trade is not detrimental to its economy. A trade deficit is always detrimental to the nation’s GDP.

USA can have a market driven trade policy, enjoy cheaper, (but not the absolute cheapest) foreign goods and significantly reduce our trade deficit of goods while increasing our GDP more than otherwise.

Refer to:
www.USA-Trade-deficit.Blogspot,Com
Google: wikipedia, import certificates, warren buffett

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[Toro]

Toro, you put up a straw-man and then pretend to beat it down. A nation’s global trade is not detrimental to its economy. A trade deficit is always detrimental to the nation’s GDP.

USA can have a market driven trade policy, enjoy cheaper, (but not the absolute cheapest) foreign goods and significantly reduce our trade deficit of goods while increasing our GDP more than otherwise.

Refer to:
www.USA-Trade-deficit.Blogspot,Com
Google: wikipedia, import certificates, warren buffett

Respectfully, Supposn

Mercantilism has long discredited.

Mercantilism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Supposn]

Toro, you're dismissing this specific and explicit trade proposal with labels? You’re unable or unwilling to logically and explicitly confront and critique it?

Respectfully, Supposn

 

[2Parties]

Toro, you put up a straw-man and then pretend to beat it down. A nation’s global trade is not detrimental to its economy. A trade deficit is always detrimental to the nation’s GDP.

USA can have a market driven trade policy, enjoy cheaper, (but not the absolute cheapest) foreign goods and significantly reduce our trade deficit of goods while increasing our GDP more than otherwise.

Refer to:
www.USA-Trade-deficit.Blogspot,Com
Google: wikipedia, import certificates, warren buffett

Respectfully, Supposn

A "market driven" trade policy would involve absolutely zero government interference.

 

[JBeukema]

Toro, you put up a straw-man and then pretend to beat it down. A nation’s global trade is not detrimental to its economy. A trade deficit is always detrimental to the nation’s GDP.

USA can have a market driven trade policy, enjoy cheaper, (but not the absolute cheapest) foreign goods and significantly reduce our trade deficit of goods while increasing our GDP more than otherwise.

Refer to:
www.USA-Trade-deficit.Blogspot,Com
Google: wikipedia, import certificates, warren buffett

Respectfully, Supposn

A "market driven" trade policy would involve absolutely zero government interference.

Regulations and incentives are mutually exclusive with neither the capitalist mode of production nor the market.

 

[JBeukema]

2P doesn't think supply and demand are in effect today? That businesses produce goods and provide services for which they detect a market?

 

[2Parties]

The government is not a market. It's a monopoly of force.

Supply and Demand are always in effect in every country ever. It's the nature of man. When government bans something or takes it over black markets spring up to satisfy the demand...

When the government forcefully takes from you and I to pay corn farmers that is skewing the market...

 

[JBeukema]

'you and me'.

If you're going to try to sound smarter than everyone else, try mastering basic grammar.

We skew the market with protective tariffs. he market is 'skewed' in an oligopoly, as well.

The market of your pseudolibertarian pipedream doesn't exist.

 

[2Parties]

What are you rambling about? The government does not make a market free and it can't. The market does exist. It happens in spite of the will of some narcissistic politician.

And what's "he market", is that where you pick up guys?

 

[Supposn]

J. Beukema, then USA’s current trade policy is not market driven because China and many other nations’ governments are pegging there currency to the U.S. dollar? For many decades that’s been the consensus of both Democrat and Republican administrations.

I have more fear of great governments' or corporations' bureaucracies’ arbitrary and discretionary powers to injure me or mine. I have less fear of democratic governments’ explicitly drafted and enforced laws. I have less confidence in CEO’s answerable to their boards of directors and stockholders. I have more confidence in divisions of government’s powers and democratic governments ultimately answerable to their voters.

This is a specific and explicit trade proposal. It will significantly decrease USA’s trade deficit of goods and grants government no discretion of policy. A trade deficit is always detrimental to the nation’s GDP and anything that’s detrimental to the GDP is detrimental to the median wage.

I iterate, can’t any of you guys get past name calling and labels? This is a specific and explicit trade proposal. Isn’t there one you members that can explicitly and logically critique it?

Refer to:
www.USA-Trade-deficit.Blogspot,Com
Google: wikipedia, import certificates, warren buffett

Respectfully, Supposn