Nafta 2.0 free trade or central planning?

[Toronado3800]

Anyways, I'm providing specifics here and you come back with a benefits of free trade are well documented retort?

Well the way climate change is going to end the world in 2010 is well documented back at ya lol.

Protectionist Policy always ends bad:
Lessons from the 2002 Bush Steel Tariffs - Tax Foundation

The effects of higher steel prices, largely a result of the steel tariffs, led to a loss of nearly 200,000 jobs in the steel-consuming sector, a loss larger than the total employment of 187,500 in the steel-producing sector at the time. The study warns:

In making policy for the revitalization of manufacturing, including the steel industry, our conclusions suggest that the effects across the full industrial spectrum should be considered. The lessons of the impact of higher steel costs should counsel a good deal of caution when import barriers are considered.

The tariffs not only led to domestic pressure characterized by supply shortages and higher prices, but also international pressure. U.S. steel market prices were generally higher than steel prices paid by competitors abroad. This gave foreign producers of steel-containing products a cost advantage over U.S. producers of steel-containing products. In response, customers began shifting orders from U.S. manufacturers to foreign manufacturers.

I'm going to disagree with those findings, but THANK YOU for posting it.

Let's ask a couple questions? How did increasing the tariff cost jobs?

The metal content of your sofas and mattresses went down. Foam content went up.

Increasing the price of steel put us at a disadvantage and exports of goods went down.

Also if people have to spend more on one thing they have less to spend on others.

The first point, yes, but what do we export that has steel? Computers, cars?

The second point, your nouns are messed up on.

If SOMEONE has to spend more on one thing THAT SOMEONE has less to spend on others. The person who sold him the expensive thing has to be taken into account. We're doing macro, big sense country as a whole economics here.

Also in the micro sense I already addressed, ppl don't save money, they spend it. If a fuel injection system for my 68 Mustang is just too expensive because of a tariff or whatever, I'm going to buy an Edelbrock EPS, some gauges and gears, not save money.

I’ve provided a study backing up what I’m saying. What do you have? If protectionist Policy work so well their must be backing.

So if I provide a study saying global warming is going to end Florida in 2010 (play on tenses intentional), it means Florida is underwater now?

It means your study did not convince me. I might be wrong, I might be right. My logic though says the tariff did not cost jobs.

I'll even throw you a bone that Trump should roll this one out slower but a 10% rise in the cost of an item is going to increase its cost 20%. When my car is too dead to be economically viable to afford does that mean I won't buy a new one? Nope. It means I'll buy a stripped down newer one or a used one the parts store is going to sell parts to me or my mechanic to fix. The dollars do not stop flowing.

 

[Brain357]

Some wisdom:

Some timeless wisdom about free trade and protectionism from Milton Friedman in 1978 - AEI

In the international trade area, the language is almost always about how we must export, and what’s really good is an industry that produces exports. And if we buy from abroad and import, that’s bad. But surely that’s upside-down. What we send abroad we can’t eat, we can’t wear, we can’t use for our houses. The goods and services we send abroad, are goods and services not available to us. On the other hand, the goods and services we import, they provide us with TV sets we can watch, automobiles we can drive, with all sorts of nice things for us to use. The gain from foreign trade is what we import. What we export is the cost of getting those imports. And the proper objective for a nation as Adam Smith put it, is to arrange things, so we get as large a volume of imports as possible, for as small a volume of exports as possible.

This carries over to the terminology we use. When people talk about a favorable balance of trade, what is that term taken to mean? It’s taken to mean that we export more than we import. But from the point of view of our well-being, that’s an unfavorable balance. That means we’re sending out more goods and getting fewer in. Each of you in your private household would know better than that. You don’t regard it as a favorable balance when you have to send out more goods to get less coming in. It’s favorable when you can get more by sending out less.

 

[Brain357]

Protectionist Policy always ends bad:
Lessons from the 2002 Bush Steel Tariffs - Tax Foundation

The effects of higher steel prices, largely a result of the steel tariffs, led to a loss of nearly 200,000 jobs in the steel-consuming sector, a loss larger than the total employment of 187,500 in the steel-producing sector at the time. The study warns:

In making policy for the revitalization of manufacturing, including the steel industry, our conclusions suggest that the effects across the full industrial spectrum should be considered. The lessons of the impact of higher steel costs should counsel a good deal of caution when import barriers are considered.

The tariffs not only led to domestic pressure characterized by supply shortages and higher prices, but also international pressure. U.S. steel market prices were generally higher than steel prices paid by competitors abroad. This gave foreign producers of steel-containing products a cost advantage over U.S. producers of steel-containing products. In response, customers began shifting orders from U.S. manufacturers to foreign manufacturers.

I'm going to disagree with those findings, but THANK YOU for posting it.

Let's ask a couple questions? How did increasing the tariff cost jobs?

The metal content of your sofas and mattresses went down. Foam content went up.

Increasing the price of steel put us at a disadvantage and exports of goods went down.

Also if people have to spend more on one thing they have less to spend on others.

The first point, yes, but what do we export that has steel? Computers, cars?

The second point, your nouns are messed up on.

If SOMEONE has to spend more on one thing THAT SOMEONE has less to spend on others. The person who sold him the expensive thing has to be taken into account. We're doing macro, big sense country as a whole economics here.

Also in the micro sense I already addressed, ppl don't save money, they spend it. If a fuel injection system for my 68 Mustang is just too expensive because of a tariff or whatever, I'm going to buy an Edelbrock EPS, some gauges and gears, not save money.

I’ve provided a study backing up what I’m saying. What do you have? If protectionist Policy work so well their must be backing.

So if I provide a study saying global warming is going to end Florida in 2010 (play on tenses intentional), it means Florida is underwater now?

It means your study did not convince me. I might be wrong, I might be right. My logic though says the tariff did not cost jobs.

I'll even throw you a bone that Trump should roll this one out slower but a 10% rise in the cost of an item is going to increase its cost 20%. When my car is too dead to be economically viable to afford does that mean I won't buy a new one? Nope. It means I'll buy a stripped down newer one or a used one the parts store is going to sell parts to me or my mechanic to fix. The dollars do not stop flowing.

My study looked at the effects after the tariffs. Not sure why you keep talking global warming.

 

[Toronado3800]

I'm going to disagree with those findings, but THANK YOU for posting it.

Let's ask a couple questions? How did increasing the tariff cost jobs?

The metal content of your sofas and mattresses went down. Foam content went up.

Increasing the price of steel put us at a disadvantage and exports of goods went down.

Also if people have to spend more on one thing they have less to spend on others.

The first point, yes, but what do we export that has steel? Computers, cars?

The second point, your nouns are messed up on.

If SOMEONE has to spend more on one thing THAT SOMEONE has less to spend on others. The person who sold him the expensive thing has to be taken into account. We're doing macro, big sense country as a whole economics here.

Also in the micro sense I already addressed, ppl don't save money, they spend it. If a fuel injection system for my 68 Mustang is just too expensive because of a tariff or whatever, I'm going to buy an Edelbrock EPS, some gauges and gears, not save money.

I’ve provided a study backing up what I’m saying. What do you have? If protectionist Policy work so well their must be backing.

So if I provide a study saying global warming is going to end Florida in 2010 (play on tenses intentional), it means Florida is underwater now?

It means your study did not convince me. I might be wrong, I might be right. My logic though says the tariff did not cost jobs.

I'll even throw you a bone that Trump should roll this one out slower but a 10% rise in the cost of an item is going to increase its cost 20%. When my car is too dead to be economically viable to afford does that mean I won't buy a new one? Nope. It means I'll buy a stripped down newer one or a used one the parts store is going to sell parts to me or my mechanic to fix. The dollars do not stop flowing.

My study looked at the effects after the tariffs. Not sure why you keep talking global warming.

We're talking about studies and effects so I made off the cuff comments about studies about global warming. Global Warming is an issue but man, studies aren't always correct.

 

[Bush92]

Republicans have again shown they are all for big government control. Ron Paul again has it right:

Last week the United States, Mexico, and Canada agreed to replace the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) with a new United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA). Sadly, instead of replacing NAFTA’s managed trade with true free trade, the new USMCA expands government’s control over trade.


For example, under the USMCA’s “rules of origin,” at least 75 percent of a car’s parts must be from the US, Canada, or Mexico in order to avoid tariffs. This is protectionism designed to raise prices of cars using materials from outside North America.

The USMCA also requires that 40 to 45 percent of an automobile’s content be made by workers earning at least 16 dollars per hour. Like all government-set wages, this requirement will increase prices and decrease employment.


NAFTA 2.0: Free Trade or Central Planning?

NAFTA was a bullshit agreement from the beginning. Thank God President Trump stands by American workers. It’s why he got millions of Democrats to cross over on Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.

 

[Toronado3800]

Some wisdom:

Some timeless wisdom about free trade and protectionism from Milton Friedman in 1978 - AEI

In the international trade area, the language is almost always about how we must export, and what’s really good is an industry that produces exports. And if we buy from abroad and import, that’s bad. But surely that’s upside-down. What we send abroad we can’t eat, we can’t wear, we can’t use for our houses. The goods and services we send abroad, are goods and services not available to us. On the other hand, the goods and services we import, they provide us with TV sets we can watch, automobiles we can drive, with all sorts of nice things for us to use. The gain from foreign trade is what we import. What we export is the cost of getting those imports. And the proper objective for a nation as Adam Smith put it, is to arrange things, so we get as large a volume of imports as possible, for as small a volume of exports as possible.

This carries over to the terminology we use. When people talk about a favorable balance of trade, what is that term taken to mean? It’s taken to mean that we export more than we import. But from the point of view of our well-being, that’s an unfavorable balance. That means we’re sending out more goods and getting fewer in. Each of you in your private household would know better than that. You don’t regard it as a favorable balance when you have to send out more goods to get less coming in. It’s favorable when you can get more by sending out less.

There are some problems here. Most are with degrees.

If your country imports 100% of its cars you are going to live on a Caribbean island waiting to be victimized by your industrial neighbor. Sometimes it isn't pragmatic for Luxemburg to make is own cars, that isn't our place in the world though.

Also I'll counter Milton that if $20 leaves America for a Chinese widget that is $20 China has to build their next carrier with that we don't. Milton frequently has too short a point of view. We're stuck in this for the long game.

 

[Brain357]

Increasing the price of steel put us at a disadvantage and exports of goods went down.

Also if people have to spend more on one thing they have less to spend on others.

The first point, yes, but what do we export that has steel? Computers, cars?

The second point, your nouns are messed up on.

If SOMEONE has to spend more on one thing THAT SOMEONE has less to spend on others. The person who sold him the expensive thing has to be taken into account. We're doing macro, big sense country as a whole economics here.

Also in the micro sense I already addressed, ppl don't save money, they spend it. If a fuel injection system for my 68 Mustang is just too expensive because of a tariff or whatever, I'm going to buy an Edelbrock EPS, some gauges and gears, not save money.

I’ve provided a study backing up what I’m saying. What do you have? If protectionist Policy work so well their must be backing.

So if I provide a study saying global warming is going to end Florida in 2010 (play on tenses intentional), it means Florida is underwater now?

It means your study did not convince me. I might be wrong, I might be right. My logic though says the tariff did not cost jobs.

I'll even throw you a bone that Trump should roll this one out slower but a 10% rise in the cost of an item is going to increase its cost 20%. When my car is too dead to be economically viable to afford does that mean I won't buy a new one? Nope. It means I'll buy a stripped down newer one or a used one the parts store is going to sell parts to me or my mechanic to fix. The dollars do not stop flowing.

My study looked at the effects after the tariffs. Not sure why you keep talking global warming.

We're talking about studies and effects so I made off the cuff comments about studies about global warming. Global Warming is an issue but man, studies aren't always correct.

Global warming studies try to predict the future. My study looked at the effects of something that actually happened. Quite different.

 

[Brain357]

Republicans have again shown they are all for big government control. Ron Paul again has it right:

Last week the United States, Mexico, and Canada agreed to replace the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) with a new United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA). Sadly, instead of replacing NAFTA’s managed trade with true free trade, the new USMCA expands government’s control over trade.


For example, under the USMCA’s “rules of origin,” at least 75 percent of a car’s parts must be from the US, Canada, or Mexico in order to avoid tariffs. This is protectionism designed to raise prices of cars using materials from outside North America.

The USMCA also requires that 40 to 45 percent of an automobile’s content be made by workers earning at least 16 dollars per hour. Like all government-set wages, this requirement will increase prices and decrease employment.


NAFTA 2.0: Free Trade or Central Planning?

NAFTA was a bullshit agreement from the beginning. Thank God President Trump stands by American workers. It’s why he got millions of Democrats to cross over on Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.

It was hardly changed...

 

[Toronado3800]

The first point, yes, but what do we export that has steel? Computers, cars?

The second point, your nouns are messed up on.
I
If SOMEONE has to spend more on one thing THAT SOMEONE has less to spend on others. The person who sold him the expensive thing has to be taken into account. We're doing macro, big sense country as a whole economics here.

Also in the micro sense I already addressed, ppl don't save money, they spend it. If a fuel injection system for my 68 Mustang is just too expensive because of a tariff or whatever, I'm going to buy an Edelbrock EPS, some gauges and gears, not save money.

I’ve provided a study backing up what I’m saying. What do you have? If protectionist Policy work so well their must be backing.

So if I provide a study saying global warming is going to end Florida in 2010 (play on tenses intentional), it means Florida is underwater now?

It means your study did not convince me. I might be wrong, I might be right. My logic though says the tariff did not cost jobs.

I'll even throw you a bone that Trump should roll this one out slower but a 10% rise in the cost of an item is going to increase its cost 20%. When my car is too dead to be economically viable to afford does that mean I won't buy a new one? Nope. It means I'll buy a stripped down newer one or a used one the parts store is going to sell parts to me or my mechanic to fix. The dollars do not stop flowing.

My study looked at the effects after the tariffs. Not sure why you keep talking global warming.

We're talking about studies and effects so I made off the cuff comments about studies about global warming. Global Warming is an issue but man, studies aren't always correct.

Global warming studies try to predict the future. My study looked at the effects of something that actually happened. Quite different.

That doesn't make them or Milton right and me wrong. Much like Donald I'm a bit of a narcissist but it makes me hold myself to higher standards and while I'm annoying it doesn't mean I'm not right.

 

[Hellokitty]

Republicans have again shown they are all for big government control. Ron Paul again has it right:

Last week the United States, Mexico, and Canada agreed to replace the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) with a new United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA). Sadly, instead of replacing NAFTA’s managed trade with true free trade, the new USMCA expands government’s control over trade.


For example, under the USMCA’s “rules of origin,” at least 75 percent of a car’s parts must be from the US, Canada, or Mexico in order to avoid tariffs. This is protectionism designed to raise prices of cars using materials from outside North America.

The USMCA also requires that 40 to 45 percent of an automobile’s content be made by workers earning at least 16 dollars per hour. Like all government-set wages, this requirement will increase prices and decrease employment.


NAFTA 2.0: Free Trade or Central Planning?

Hey dummy...Your last paragraph invited this response.

What it means is that American companies will think twice
before moving to Mexico or Canada. (More Mexico that Canada)
American auto workers, all make 25 bucks an hour or much more.
Mexico pays hardly anything.

Now for Mexico to avoid tariff's they have to pay a minimum of 16
bucks an hour. Auto's made in Mexico have a transportation cost
much higher than in America. It's a great deal farther to drive those
vehicles from plant to dealership, when the plant maybe 5,000 miles
away.

There's no incentive to leave the country...plus, if Mexico ups their
pay, it may keep the Beaners living in their own fucking country
instead of coming here.

Cost of cars isn't going to go up because of 16 and hour. You don't
honestly believe that an American made car is going to retail higher
than one made in Mexico...do you?

The automaker is going to get the going rate. No different than gasoline
or retail or food. The automaker is concerned with his profit. They
put plants in different countries to give them something to offset costs
made in our country.

It's like restaurants. Go to a nice Italian Restaurant. To get 50% profit
on a good steak dinner, they would have to break the 20 dollar barrier.
They avoid that by upping the spaghetti and meatball dinner. I could
make spaghetti and meatball dinners, all day long and get65% profit
selling it for 7 bucks. The bigboys sellit for 14...because they're offsetting
the price of steak and seafood.

Please update your knowledge intake

And how will we be sure Mexico follows that rule? They are known for being quite corrupt.

Did you think Mexico was following the rules set out with NAFTA?

 

[Brain357]

Some wisdom:

Some timeless wisdom about free trade and protectionism from Milton Friedman in 1978 - AEI

In the international trade area, the language is almost always about how we must export, and what’s really good is an industry that produces exports. And if we buy from abroad and import, that’s bad. But surely that’s upside-down. What we send abroad we can’t eat, we can’t wear, we can’t use for our houses. The goods and services we send abroad, are goods and services not available to us. On the other hand, the goods and services we import, they provide us with TV sets we can watch, automobiles we can drive, with all sorts of nice things for us to use. The gain from foreign trade is what we import. What we export is the cost of getting those imports. And the proper objective for a nation as Adam Smith put it, is to arrange things, so we get as large a volume of imports as possible, for as small a volume of exports as possible.

This carries over to the terminology we use. When people talk about a favorable balance of trade, what is that term taken to mean? It’s taken to mean that we export more than we import. But from the point of view of our well-being, that’s an unfavorable balance. That means we’re sending out more goods and getting fewer in. Each of you in your private household would know better than that. You don’t regard it as a favorable balance when you have to send out more goods to get less coming in. It’s favorable when you can get more by sending out less.

There are some problems here. Most are with degrees.

If your country imports 100% of its cars you are going to live on a Caribbean island waiting to be victimized by your industrial neighbor. Sometimes it isn't pragmatic for Luxemburg to make is own cars, that isn't our place in the world though.

Also I'll counter Milton that if $20 leaves America for a Chinese widget that is $20 China has to build their next carrier with that we don't. Milton frequently has too short a point of view. We're stuck in this for the long game.

China sends us real goods and we send them paper. That carrier made from paper?

 

[Brain357]

I’ve provided a study backing up what I’m saying. What do you have? If protectionist Policy work so well their must be backing.

So if I provide a study saying global warming is going to end Florida in 2010 (play on tenses intentional), it means Florida is underwater now?

It means your study did not convince me. I might be wrong, I might be right. My logic though says the tariff did not cost jobs.

I'll even throw you a bone that Trump should roll this one out slower but a 10% rise in the cost of an item is going to increase its cost 20%. When my car is too dead to be economically viable to afford does that mean I won't buy a new one? Nope. It means I'll buy a stripped down newer one or a used one the parts store is going to sell parts to me or my mechanic to fix. The dollars do not stop flowing.

My study looked at the effects after the tariffs. Not sure why you keep talking global warming.

We're talking about studies and effects so I made off the cuff comments about studies about global warming. Global Warming is an issue but man, studies aren't always correct.

Global warming studies try to predict the future. My study looked at the effects of something that actually happened. Quite different.

That doesn't make them or Milton right and me wrong. Much like Donald I'm a bit of a narcissist but it makes me hold myself to higher standards and while I'm annoying it doesn't mean I'm not right.

Yes you are right and the worlds greatest economists and history are wrong...

 

[Toronado3800]

Some wisdom:

Some timeless wisdom about free trade and protectionism from Milton Friedman in 1978 - AEI

In the international trade area, the language is almost always about how we must export, and what’s really good is an industry that produces exports. And if we buy from abroad and import, that’s bad. But surely that’s upside-down. What we send abroad we can’t eat, we can’t wear, we can’t use for our houses. The goods and services we send abroad, are goods and services not available to us. On the other hand, the goods and services we import, they provide us with TV sets we can watch, automobiles we can drive, with all sorts of nice things for us to use. The gain from foreign trade is what we import. What we export is the cost of getting those imports. And the proper objective for a nation as Adam Smith put it, is to arrange things, so we get as large a volume of imports as possible, for as small a volume of exports as possible.

This carries over to the terminology we use. When people talk about a favorable balance of trade, what is that term taken to mean? It’s taken to mean that we export more than we import. But from the point of view of our well-being, that’s an unfavorable balance. That means we’re sending out more goods and getting fewer in. Each of you in your private household would know better than that. You don’t regard it as a favorable balance when you have to send out more goods to get less coming in. It’s favorable when you can get more by sending out less.

There are some problems here. Most are with degrees.

If your country imports 100% of its cars you are going to live on a Caribbean island waiting to be victimized by your industrial neighbor. Sometimes it isn't pragmatic for Luxemburg to make is own cars, that isn't our place in the world though.

Also I'll counter Milton that if $20 leaves America for a Chinese widget that is $20 China has to build their next carrier with that we don't. Milton frequently has too short a point of view. We're stuck in this for the long game.

China sends us real goods and we send them paper. That carrier made from paper?

That carrier of theirs is made from U.S. dollars or Yuans. So are their AA missiles and space program.

Not saying all imports are bad. I'm just saying some tariffs are good.

The only time the railroad seems small is when you're visiting a container yard.

Each one of these is bringing over Chinese raw materials and in effect sending out of this country currency.

Like I said, you can go too far with protectionism but the Marshall Plan did work.

 

[Brain357]

Some wisdom:

Some timeless wisdom about free trade and protectionism from Milton Friedman in 1978 - AEI

In the international trade area, the language is almost always about how we must export, and what’s really good is an industry that produces exports. And if we buy from abroad and import, that’s bad. But surely that’s upside-down. What we send abroad we can’t eat, we can’t wear, we can’t use for our houses. The goods and services we send abroad, are goods and services not available to us. On the other hand, the goods and services we import, they provide us with TV sets we can watch, automobiles we can drive, with all sorts of nice things for us to use. The gain from foreign trade is what we import. What we export is the cost of getting those imports. And the proper objective for a nation as Adam Smith put it, is to arrange things, so we get as large a volume of imports as possible, for as small a volume of exports as possible.

This carries over to the terminology we use. When people talk about a favorable balance of trade, what is that term taken to mean? It’s taken to mean that we export more than we import. But from the point of view of our well-being, that’s an unfavorable balance. That means we’re sending out more goods and getting fewer in. Each of you in your private household would know better than that. You don’t regard it as a favorable balance when you have to send out more goods to get less coming in. It’s favorable when you can get more by sending out less.

There are some problems here. Most are with degrees.

If your country imports 100% of its cars you are going to live on a Caribbean island waiting to be victimized by your industrial neighbor. Sometimes it isn't pragmatic for Luxemburg to make is own cars, that isn't our place in the world though.

Also I'll counter Milton that if $20 leaves America for a Chinese widget that is $20 China has to build their next carrier with that we don't. Milton frequently has too short a point of view. We're stuck in this for the long game.

China sends us real goods and we send them paper. That carrier made from paper?

That carrier of theirs is made from U.S. dollars or Yuans. So are their AA missiles and space program.

Not saying all imports are bad. I'm just saying some tariffs are good.

The only time the railroad seems small is when you're visiting a container yard.

Each one of these is bringing over Chinese raw materials and in effect sending out of this country currency.

Like I said, you can go too far with protectionism but the Marshall Plan did work.

Yes raw materials in and paper out... Sounds good to me.

 

[Toronado3800]

Some wisdom:

Some timeless wisdom about free trade and protectionism from Milton Friedman in 1978 - AEI

In the international trade area, the language is almost always about how we must export, and what’s really good is an industry that produces exports. And if we buy from abroad and import, that’s bad. But surely that’s upside-down. What we send abroad we can’t eat, we can’t wear, we can’t use for our houses. The goods and services we send abroad, are goods and services not available to us. On the other hand, the goods and services we import, they provide us with TV sets we can watch, automobiles we can drive, with all sorts of nice things for us to use. The gain from foreign trade is what we import. What we export is the cost of getting those imports. And the proper objective for a nation as Adam Smith put it, is to arrange things, so we get as large a volume of imports as possible, for as small a volume of exports as possible.

This carries over to the terminology we use. When people talk about a favorable balance of trade, what is that term taken to mean? It’s taken to mean that we export more than we import. But from the point of view of our well-being, that’s an unfavorable balance. That means we’re sending out more goods and getting fewer in. Each of you in your private household would know better than that. You don’t regard it as a favorable balance when you have to send out more goods to get less coming in. It’s favorable when you can get more by sending out less.

There are some problems here. Most are with degrees.

If your country imports 100% of its cars you are going to live on a Caribbean island waiting to be victimized by your industrial neighbor. Sometimes it isn't pragmatic for Luxemburg to make is own cars, that isn't our place in the world though.

Also I'll counter Milton that if $20 leaves America for a Chinese widget that is $20 China has to build their next carrier with that we don't. Milton frequently has too short a point of view. We're stuck in this for the long game.

China sends us real goods and we send them paper. That carrier made from paper?

That carrier of theirs is made from U.S. dollars or Yuans. So are their AA missiles and space program.

Not saying all imports are bad. I'm just saying some tariffs are good.

The only time the railroad seems small is when you're visiting a container yard.

Each one of these is bringing over Chinese raw materials and in effect sending out of this country currency.

Like I said, you can go too far with protectionism but the Marshall Plan did work.

Yes raw materials in and paper out... Sounds good to me.

Play Stations in, dollar bills out, by the tens of millions.

There is a strategy here of pumping Saudi Arabia dry of oil before yourself.

I don't think thats what were doing with China.

 

[Brain357]

Some wisdom:

Some timeless wisdom about free trade and protectionism from Milton Friedman in 1978 - AEI

In the international trade area, the language is almost always about how we must export, and what’s really good is an industry that produces exports. And if we buy from abroad and import, that’s bad. But surely that’s upside-down. What we send abroad we can’t eat, we can’t wear, we can’t use for our houses. The goods and services we send abroad, are goods and services not available to us. On the other hand, the goods and services we import, they provide us with TV sets we can watch, automobiles we can drive, with all sorts of nice things for us to use. The gain from foreign trade is what we import. What we export is the cost of getting those imports. And the proper objective for a nation as Adam Smith put it, is to arrange things, so we get as large a volume of imports as possible, for as small a volume of exports as possible.

This carries over to the terminology we use. When people talk about a favorable balance of trade, what is that term taken to mean? It’s taken to mean that we export more than we import. But from the point of view of our well-being, that’s an unfavorable balance. That means we’re sending out more goods and getting fewer in. Each of you in your private household would know better than that. You don’t regard it as a favorable balance when you have to send out more goods to get less coming in. It’s favorable when you can get more by sending out less.

There are some problems here. Most are with degrees.

If your country imports 100% of its cars you are going to live on a Caribbean island waiting to be victimized by your industrial neighbor. Sometimes it isn't pragmatic for Luxemburg to make is own cars, that isn't our place in the world though.

Also I'll counter Milton that if $20 leaves America for a Chinese widget that is $20 China has to build their next carrier with that we don't. Milton frequently has too short a point of view. We're stuck in this for the long game.

China sends us real goods and we send them paper. That carrier made from paper?

That carrier of theirs is made from U.S. dollars or Yuans. So are their AA missiles and space program.

Not saying all imports are bad. I'm just saying some tariffs are good.

The only time the railroad seems small is when you're visiting a container yard.

Each one of these is bringing over Chinese raw materials and in effect sending out of this country currency.

Like I said, you can go too far with protectionism but the Marshall Plan did work.

Yes raw materials in and paper out... Sounds good to me.

Play Stations in, dollar bills out, by the tens of millions.

There is a strategy here of pumping Saudi Arabia dry of oil before yourself.

I don't think thats what were doing with China.

I think we are getting a sweet deal on Chinas resources.