The Foreign Trade Thread

[n_huffhines]

Only one percent of American businesses export. 1%. Again, for the people in the back. 1%.

 

[Velo Vol]

It's good for businesses that have imported input costs, which is basically all businesses. Only one percent of American businesses export. 1%. Again, for the people in the back. 1%.

But even if you don't export, cheaper imported goods can undercut your business.

Like everything, there are positives and negatives to a policy.

You got to try to find where there's maximum positives.

 

[Burger]

Link?

If trade were that simple, Trump would understand it.

Is modern monetary theory nutty or essential? . I am wrong about Krugman on MMT.

Trade is not really as complicated as people make it out to be. What makes it complicated is the fact that it dives into politics and trade is used as a bargaining chip.

You guys are absolutely correct on the short term positives in terms of cheaper goods. I would be a complete idiot to deny that. The problem is we do not have free trade at all. We have a trade policy with China where we pay to deal with them. This turns into other threats when they start stealing technology. China has completely outsmarted the US Government, and the US worker is paying for it.
We have to make at least an effort to keep the US worker working through deregulation, lower taxes, and free + fair trade policies.

Nobody is completely against free trade, but we cannot make ourselves uncompetitive in the long term if we keep getting manipulated.

 

[n_huffhines]

But even if you don't export, cheaper imported goods can undercut your business.

Like everything, there are positives and negatives to a policy.

You got to try to find where there's maximum positives.

The number of businesses that gain from free trade greatly outnumber the businesses that are hurt by it.

 

[n_huffhines]

Is modern monetary theory nutty or essential? . I am wrong about Krugman on MMT.

Trade is not really as complicated as people make it out to be. What makes it complicated is the fact that it dives into politics and trade is used as a bargaining chip.

You guys are absolutely correct on the short term positives in terms of cheaper goods. I would be a complete idiot to deny that. The problem is we do not have free trade at all. We have a trade policy with China where we pay to deal with them. This turns into other threats when they start stealing technology. China has completely outsmarted the US Government, and the US worker is paying for it.
We have to make at least an effort to keep the US worker working through deregulation, lower taxes, and free + fair trade policies.

Nobody is completely against free trade, but we cannot make ourselves uncompetitive in the long term if we keep getting manipulated.

That's one guy. You said "these are the same people". Just because one guy believes something stupid doesn't discredit all of them. The point of the cartoon is that all different kinds of economists agree on this. There was a recent poll done with like 115 trade economists and something like 90% said it's the best policy and 10% said not sure. People can discredit the field for it's poor forecasting and inability to come to an agreement on a lot of things, but you cannot lump in consensus economic wisdom with the areas that are murky. There is consensus for good reason.

 

[Burger]

That's one guy. You said "these are the same people". Just because one guy believes something stupid doesn't discredit all of them. The point of the cartoon is that all different kinds of economists agree on this. There was a recent poll done with like 115 trade economists and something like 90% said it's the best policy and 10% said not sure. People can discredit the field for it's poor forecasting and inability to come to an agreement on a lot of things, but you cannot lump in consensus economic wisdom with the areas that are murky. There is consensus for good reason.

I will admit being wrong on the bold. I am in the club of the war can't go on for too long ,or we start hurting ourselves. We could do the smart thing and put the Tariff money into infrastructure, but our government is too stupid.

My wonder is if we can stay focused long enough with it to win a war of attrition. China is a nation of long term planning.

 

[Velo Vol]

The number of businesses that gain from free trade greatly outnumber the businesses that are hurt by it.

And the employees?

 

[Velo Vol]

China has completely outsmarted the US Government, and the US worker is paying for it.

Has it? Or does it play with a different set of rules?

 

[Burger]

Has it? Or does it play with a different set of rules?

Both.

 

[n_huffhines]

And the employees?

They stay employed and enjoy cheaper goods with their wages.

Also, the employees that want to strike out on their own and start new businesses....free trade makes that easier, and then they will benefit, as well as their future employees.

And so on.

 

[hog88]

They stay employed and enjoy cheaper goods with their wages.

Also, the employees that want to strike out on their own and start new businesses....free trade makes that easier, and then they will benefit, as well as their future employees.

And so on.

If only there was such a thing as free trade.

 

[n_huffhines]

If only there was such a thing as free trade.

There you go, siding with the protectionists again. What a surprise.

The problem with this deflection you and other protectionists keep regurgitating is that there doesn't need to be perfectly free trade in order for less protectionism to create net benefit. It's a spectrum, and the freer the trade, the better, regardless of reciprocation.

 

[hog88]

There you go, siding with the protectionists again. What a surprise.

The problem with this deflection you and other protectionists keep regurgitating is that there doesn't need to be perfectly free trade in order for less protectionism to create net benefit. It's a spectrum, and the freer the trade, the better, regardless of reciprocation.

I’m not siding with protectionist, I’m just pointing out the fallacy of your argument. Unless the standards are the same there is no free trade, someone is at a disadvantage. I’m for reducing regulations to equal the playing field.

 

[n_huffhines]

I’m not siding with protectionist, I’m just pointing out the fallacy of your argument. Unless the standards are the same there is no free trade, someone is at a disadvantage. I’m for reducing regulations to equal the playing field.

You're not making an argument about the logic of my position, you're making a semantic argument. These other regulations you and I oppose are a completely different conversation that have no bearing on whether or not we should reduce our protectionism.

 

[hog88]

You're not making an argument about the logic of my position, you're making a semantic argument. These other regulations you and I oppose are a completely different conversation that have no bearing on whether or not we should reduce our protectionism.

That would be like cutting off your nose just to spite your face without reducing regulations.

 

[n_huffhines]

That would be like cutting off your nose just to spite your face without reducing regulations.

Your ass is on backwards, bro.

Reducing barriers to trade is good for our economy.

Reducing regulations is good for our economy.

Either one without the other is good for our economy.

Exacting tariff taxes on Americans in a misguided effort to level a playing field that other internal policies made uneven is cutting off your nose to spite your face. Two wrongs don't make a right.

 

[hog88]

Your ass is on backwards, bro.

Reducing barriers to trade is good for our economy.

Reducing regulations is good for our economy.

Either one without the other is good for our economy.

Exacting tariff taxes on Americans in a misguided effort to level a playing field that other internal policies made uneven is cutting off your nose to spite your face. Two wrongs don't make a right.

I look at like a prison bitch, they bend over and take it because they might get an extra pudding, don’t get beat up and all they have to do is bend over. Then one day the ****ers decide they don’t have to give you an extra pudding and start slapping you around because you’re to weak to stop being bent over.

You have to fight back and let them know you’re not getting screwed anymore even if you get hurt a little doing it.

 

[n_huffhines]

I look at like a prison bitch, they bend over and take it because they might get an extra pudding, don’t get beat up and all they have to do is bend over. Then one day the ****ers decide they don’t have to give you an extra pudding and start slapping you around because you’re to weak to stop being bent over.

You have to fight back and let them know you’re not getting screwed anymore even if you get hurt a little doing it.

What in the hell does this ^ have to do with our regulations creating an unlevel playing field? You completely shifted gears and now you're saying it's because of what our trading partners are doing to us, not what we're doing to ourselves.

You're all over the place and grasping at straws, but at least you're no longer pretending that you don't support protectionism.

 

[Burger]

Your ass is on backwards, bro.

Reducing barriers to trade is good for our economy.

Reducing regulations is good for our economy.

Either one without the other is good for our economy.

Exacting tariff taxes on Americans in a misguided effort to level a playing field that other internal policies made uneven is cutting off your nose to spite your face. Two wrongs don't make a right.

None of those things were Done. We do not have Free Trade with China, and we want Free Trade. I am more concerned with the IP Theft and the currency manipulation than Tariffs.

 

[n_huffhines]

None of those things were Done. We do not have Free Trade with China, and we want Free Trade. I am more concerned with the IP Theft and the currency manipulation than Tariffs.

For the last time, we will never have perfectly free trade with anyone, so holding any relationship to that impossible standard will always prevent us from reducing protectionism and doing the right thing for America.

It's fine if you want to make it about IP theft, but we're never going to get anywhere with that. The fact of the matter is Trump and his fanboys make blanket endorsements of protectionism, regardless of the question of IP theft. It's not just about China. We've been ****ing ourselves over with various relationships.

 

[Velo Vol]

 

[85SugarVol]

We protect the shipping lanes because we use them, yes.

Are we required to protect vessels sailing under the Chinese flag in said lanes?

I’m genuinely asking.

Bump

I am curious, if anyone knows.

 

[Velo Vol]

 

[Velo Vol]

 

[85SugarVol]

How is Japan going to fill that gap? They don’t manufacture all that mass produced **** China does.