Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
The Challenge of Free Trade: How Does One Side Win When Everyone Cheats?
I used to be a believer in Free Trade. No matter what, I thought the trade policy of America should be that there are no limits whatsoever to trade. If the other side had all sorts of restrictions, it did not matter, because it was always better for Americans on the whole to have total free trade. Why did I believe this? Because learned people said it was so, and that was good enough for me.
However, as I have aged, I have grown more an more uncomfortable with the idea that one side trading free and the other side putting up restrictions is always best for the most Americans. It is counterintuitive, to say the least. For instance, how can it be better for me as an American, that American farmers cannot sell their goods in the EU so that EU farmers are protected? How does that help Americans as a whole, exactly, when American farmers have to compete on an uneven playing field? Less competitive EU farmers get the benefits of higher prices, while American farmers have to run even leaner. How does that help the average American?
From a security standpoint, the US armed forces are buying electronics from one of our two rivals. I cannot imagine that the Chinese government is using this to spy on us somehow, but setting that aside, if we went to war with China, where will get the parts? It makes no sense to outsource a strategic industry to another nation. At least to me. I am sure it makes 100 percent sense to the Free Traders. All Free Trade, no matter what, all the time. Nothing is zero-sum, everything is win-win, even when the other partner is a geopolitical rival. Germany should not worry if it is dependent on Russia for its power, because that is the best way to get power, and if the whole Germany power industry goes down, well, that is just free trade to Russia. No worries.
So, I no longer believe in Free Trade at all times. If you are a free trader, I’d love to have my mind changed.
Published in General
I like your optical illusion.
I have demonstrated areas where free trade does not appear called for, and at best, the arguments have been,
“well, that’s not trade”. I guess the bottom line is, I am for protecting the interests of America, using any tools at our disposal, even if sometimes that means there is some corruption, or sometimes, the outcome is not great for any given person today, but sets us on a path for it to be better in the future. What I see in defense of 100% all the time free trade is a shrug of the shoulders and faith that while we cannot measure it, trust us, it is better over all.
And I am the one it is implied and not being rational. Heh.
The problem is that those who support free trade believe it is the best path to a better future.
I think we all agree on the end goal, we just disagree on the best way to get there.
That is true for Democrats and Republicans, free traders and central planners, Red Sox fans and Yankee fans.
I don’t know if this thread will endure much longer, but I want to thank Bryan and everybody who participated on both sides of the debate (if you want to call it that), as I have learned a great deal. I’ve never followed a thread that went more than a couple hundred comments, but this one is a doozy. I’m a little irritated that I didn’t get to be commenter #500!
And Squared, I’m not so sure about Yankee fans(!?)
Can you outline a specific policy position that falls under the high-level rubric? Also, what are the limiting principles of this philosophy?
Well, they want a better future, they just disagree with Red Sox fans on what a better future looks like.
This is just a tweet, but it seems to imply Trump believes the high tariffs will be permanent and will raise trillions in revenue.
At least it’s a tax on poor people that won’t cause him to lose votes from the people most hurt by it. In that sense, it is politics genius.
So true!
Double genius if he’s bluffing about the whole thing, which I concede he might be. I’m not super-optimistic he is bluffing, but bluffing also is supposed to be part of his dealmaking toolkit, and a bluff has to be convincing in order to work.
Perhaps he’s mastered the quantum art of hovering in an undetermined state that’s simultaneously bluffing and not-bluffing.
One of his inherently contradictory positions on trade must be a bluff. We just don’t know which one is the bluff and which one is the real position.
Unless you mean both positions are bluffs, which I suppose is a possibility.
Yes, I consider both positions being bluffs a possibility.