Trump Disastrous Socialist Trade Policy would hurt all Americans

[Syriusly]

A great Op-Ed piece on Trump's proposed Trade Policy
Trump’s tariffs are the opposite of the free market

Imposing crushing tariffs on imports from other countries, ostensibly to protect American jobs, is the classic definition of trade protectionism. This should be deeply troubling to Donald Trump’s conservative supporters concerned about taxes, government regulation, economic growth and jobs. Tariffs and other trade barriers are hidden federal consumption taxes paid by American consumers (not the Chinese or Mexicans) through higher prices on foreign and domestic products. These taxes particularly hurt poor, working families. Trade protectionism is a system through which the government, not the free market, dictates to its citizens what they will be allowed to buy, in what quantity and at what price. The government bureaucracy necessary to control this system would look like something cooked up by a Soviet apparatchik.

Trump’s tariffs are the opposite of the free market

 

[Syriusly]

A President Trump could destroy the world economy

These policies benefited the American people, too — though by no means all of them, a fact that has caused understandable concern, especially in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis. Seizing on this backlash, and dissenting radically from the long-standing bipartisan consensus, Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump speaks of “bringing back” American jobs by repudiating international trade agreements and resorting instead to pressure tactics, such as threatening tariffs against China and other trading partners.

The United States needs to ensure that more of its own middle class shares in the benefits of globalization. Mr. Trump’s policies, however, could trigger a trade war, or wars, thus threatening the achievements of the past three decades without helping Americans who need it most.

And he would have considerable uncheckable power, as president, to keep his dangerous promises. Could he “immediately renegotiate” the North American Free Trade Agreement, and pull out of it if Canada and Mexico don’t go along? Yes: NAFTA’s Article 2205 says any party may withdraw after giving six months’ notice, and nothing in U.S. law requires the president to get congressional approval to do so. A similar argument applies to Mr. Trump’s threat to pull out of the World Trade Organization, a multilateral consortium the United States and its allies painstakingly constructed to support economic freedom and the rule of law in the postwar world.

A 45 percent tariff on China (or any country) imposed as punishment for “manipulating” its currency to the United States’ detriment? That, too, could well be legal, at least temporarily, under any of several statutes whereby Congress has broadly delegated the president power to raise tariffs to meet a national emergency or protect national security. As lawyer-economist Gary Hufbauer of the Peterson Institute for International Economics has argued, Congress could not stop Mr. Trump without an unlikely veto-proof two-thirds majority; court challenges would take months even in the unlikely event they succeeded. To be sure, Mr. Trump’s team has recently cast his threats as negotiating positions — examples of how he, unlike previous presidents, would play hardball in defense of U.S. workers and businesses. This is hardly reassuring: He seems to have no response prepared for trading partners’ inevitable pushback.

 

[Iceweasel]

It isn't free trade if our companies can't set the rules. Our government does and the deals are not in our favor. Socialist trade? I don't get it.

 

[defcon4]

This is hilarious! The WP became anti socialist defying their long standing beliefs in social engineering and promoting socialist principles.

 

[TNHarley]

None of our current trade policies are "free market".
Taxing imports? SOCIALISM

 

[defcon4]

None of our current trade policies are "free market".
Taxing imports? SOCIALISM

Protecting domestic industry with leveling the playing field on international trade thus protecting jobs is not socialism per se. It is the redistribution of wealth that is socialism.

 

[TNHarley]

I don't think we need trade deals at all. It is a legal 'loophole' for greedy corporations to bypass our nations environmental and labor laws.

 

[Siete]

if Donnie plans to lower the national debt by taxing our creditors he doesn't know jack shit about the national debt.

 

[defcon4]

I don't think we need trade deals at all. It is a legal 'loophole' for greedy corporations to bypass our nations environmental and labor laws.

What's the purpose of tariffs in international trade?
1/ protecting domestic industry and agriculture
2/ regulating the flow of goods through borders
3/ government revenue

Actually government's main revenue source should be taxing foreign interests instead of the feudalistic, confiscatory taxation of its own citizens.

 

[defcon4]

if Donnie plans to lower the national debt by taxing our creditors he doesn't know jack shit about the national debt.

The national debt can be easily controlled with fiat money. You don't know jack shit about fiat money.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

A great Op-Ed piece on Trump's proposed Trade Policy
Trump’s tariffs are the opposite of the free market

Imposing crushing tariffs on imports from other countries, ostensibly to protect American jobs, is the classic definition of trade protectionism. This should be deeply troubling to Donald Trump’s conservative supporters concerned about taxes, government regulation, economic growth and jobs. Tariffs and other trade barriers are hidden federal consumption taxes paid by American consumers (not the Chinese or Mexicans) through higher prices on foreign and domestic products. These taxes particularly hurt poor, working families. Trade protectionism is a system through which the government, not the free market, dictates to its citizens what they will be allowed to buy, in what quantity and at what price. The government bureaucracy necessary to control this system would look like something cooked up by a Soviet apparatchik.

Trump’s tariffs are the opposite of the free market

But battling to keep Walmart and its good jobs and low prices out of Democrat neighborhoods somehow helps the poor....Liberal Logic 101

 

[bendog]

A great Op-Ed piece on Trump's proposed Trade Policy
Trump’s tariffs are the opposite of the free market

Imposing crushing tariffs on imports from other countries, ostensibly to protect American jobs, is the classic definition of trade protectionism. This should be deeply troubling to Donald Trump’s conservative supporters concerned about taxes, government regulation, economic growth and jobs. Tariffs and other trade barriers are hidden federal consumption taxes paid by American consumers (not the Chinese or Mexicans) through higher prices on foreign and domestic products. These taxes particularly hurt poor, working families. Trade protectionism is a system through which the government, not the free market, dictates to its citizens what they will be allowed to buy, in what quantity and at what price. The government bureaucracy necessary to control this system would look like something cooked up by a Soviet apparatchik.

Trump’s tariffs are the opposite of the free market

Thanks. It's unfortunate that neither party really debated what's good, and bad, about free trade. In fact, there is a real moral issue about free trade's effect on emerging markets. Our agreements have pretty much ignored the effect of currency manipulation, tax policy of our trading partners, workers rights .... and even if that results in "cheaper shit," it's not in our interest. However, it's very much in our interest to export agricultural goods, and have for auto and airplane plants here.

 

[Siete]

I don't think we need trade deals at all. It is a legal 'loophole' for greedy corporations to bypass our nations environmental and labor laws.

What's the purpose of tariffs in international trade?
1/ protecting domestic industry and agriculture
2/ regulating the flow of goods through borders
3/ government revenue

Actually government's main revenue source should be taxing foreign interests instead of the feudalistic, confiscatory taxation of its own citizens.

tax foreign interests, foreign interests raise the price of their goods, passing the increase to American taxpayers.

yeah, that'll fix some shit .. shit being the keyword

 

[defcon4]

I don't think we need trade deals at all. It is a legal 'loophole' for greedy corporations to bypass our nations environmental and labor laws.

What's the purpose of tariffs in international trade?
1/ protecting domestic industry and agriculture
2/ regulating the flow of goods through borders
3/ government revenue

Actually government's main revenue source should be taxing foreign interests instead of the feudalistic, confiscatory taxation of its own citizens.

tax foreign interests, foreign interests raise the price of their goods, passing the increase to American taxpayers.

yeah, that'll fix some shit .. shit being the keyword

Pay attention. Foreign interest should be taxed instead of confiscatory taxation of citizens.

 

[Syriusly]

It isn't free trade if our companies can't set the rules. Our government does and the deals are not in our favor. Socialist trade? I don't get it.

Free Trade removes governmental barriers to Trade.
What Trump is proposing is Big Brother determining what is best for American companies- and putting up trade barriers and tariffs which will benefit some American companies- and hurt other American companies.

 

[Siete]

I don't think we need trade deals at all. It is a legal 'loophole' for greedy corporations to bypass our nations environmental and labor laws.

What's the purpose of tariffs in international trade?
1/ protecting domestic industry and agriculture
2/ regulating the flow of goods through borders
3/ government revenue

Actually government's main revenue source should be taxing foreign interests instead of the feudalistic, confiscatory taxation of its own citizens.

tax foreign interests, foreign interests raise the price of their goods, passing the increase to American taxpayers.

yeah, that'll fix some shit .. shit being the keyword

Pay attention. Foreign interest should be taxed instead of confiscatory taxation of citizens.

you pay attention .. I'll go slow

1 tax foreign interests,

2 foreign interests raise the price of their goods,

3 passing the increase to American taxpayers.

get it?

 

[Syriusly]

A great Op-Ed piece on Trump's proposed Trade Policy
Trump’s tariffs are the opposite of the free market

Imposing crushing tariffs on imports from other countries, ostensibly to protect American jobs, is the classic definition of trade protectionism. This should be deeply troubling to Donald Trump’s conservative supporters concerned about taxes, government regulation, economic growth and jobs. Tariffs and other trade barriers are hidden federal consumption taxes paid by American consumers (not the Chinese or Mexicans) through higher prices on foreign and domestic products. These taxes particularly hurt poor, working families. Trade protectionism is a system through which the government, not the free market, dictates to its citizens what they will be allowed to buy, in what quantity and at what price. The government bureaucracy necessary to control this system would look like something cooked up by a Soviet apparatchik.

Trump’s tariffs are the opposite of the free market

But battling to keep Walmart and its good jobs and low prices out of Democrat neighborhoods somehow helps the poor....Liberal Logic 101

But battling to impose a 35% tax on Walmart 'and its good job and low prices' somehow helps the poor.

Right wing nut job logic 101

 

[Iceweasel]

It isn't free trade if our companies can't set the rules. Our government does and the deals are not in our favor. Socialist trade? I don't get it.

Free Trade removes governmental barriers to Trade.
What Trump is proposing is Big Brother determining what is best for American companies- and putting up trade barriers and tariffs which will benefit some American companies- and hurt other American companies.

Trade means two ways, not one. Free trade would mean their companies and ours can set the terms. If we are paying duties on our exports, which we do, it isn't free trade. Then there's currency manipulation.

 

[defcon4]

It isn't free trade if our companies can't set the rules. Our government does and the deals are not in our favor. Socialist trade? I don't get it.

Free Trade removes governmental barriers to Trade.
What Trump is proposing is Big Brother determining what is best for American companies- and putting up trade barriers and tariffs which will benefit some American companies- and hurt other American companies.

You mean hurting internationally controlled companies? Internationally controlled companies do not have the best interest in mind for Americans but for their own purse.

 

[defcon4]

you pay attention .. I'll go slow

1 tax foreign interests,

2 foreign interests raise the price of their goods,

3 passing the increase to American taxpayers.

get it?

"2 foreign interests raise the price of their goods,"

..or they get out of our market or they will stay competitive with domestic industry prices... so, pay attention...