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.
Republican Self-Sabotage
The latest CBS poll suggests that the Trump juggernaut continues to roll, with 35 percent of Republicans supporting him. Ted Cruz, his nearest rival, garners 18 percent. Jeb Bush, the candidate who should have been the obvious choice if conventional wisdom about money and politics were even remotely true, is dead last with 4 percent. In vain does Ted Cruz protest that Donald Trump is not a conservative. Among those who describe themselves as “very conservative,” 35 percent favor Trump versus 30 percent for Cruz, and 12 percent for Rubio.
In South Carolina, Trump is ahead among the evangelical voters Ted Cruz targeted as his savior army that would rise up to carry a true conservative to victory. According to a Fox News poll (2/18), Trump leads Cruz 31 percent to 23 percent among evangelical Christians. And while Cruz leads among those who identify as “very conservative” it’s a razor-thin edge (well within the margin of error).
As in New Hampshire, Trump leads nationally among a broad swath of voters. Not only those with just a high school diploma (47 percent), but also those with some college (33 percent), and college graduates (25 percent). He is the preference of men and women, and among all income groups including those earning more than $100,000.
Any number of theories have been advanced about the Trump voters – that they represent the downscale whites who have been abandoned by the Republican Party, or that they are enraged by Republican failure to secure the border.
But as noted, Trump does well among upscale voters too. As for the great immigration rage, it’s not all it’s cracked up to be. Immigration was listed last among matters that were on voters’ minds in Iowa and New Hampshire. Besides, Trump did well even among voters who said they favored a path to citizenship for illegals living here.
No, there’s a better theory for why 35 percent of Republican primary voters are ready to hand the nomination to a bullying, loutish con man who accuses George W. Bush of war crimes while promising to commit some of his own (killing the wives and children of suspected terrorists, stealing the oil of Middle Eastern nations).
For the past several years, leading voices of what Matt Lewis has called “con$ervative” media, along with groups like Heritage Action, and politicians like Sen. Ted Cruz, have ceaselessly flogged the false narrative that the Republican “grassroots” have been betrayed by the Republican leadership in Washington.
Rather than aim their anger at President Obama and the Democrats, right wing websites, commentators like Ann Coulter and Mark Levin, and many others have instead repeated the libel that “Republicans gave Obama everything he wanted.” There has been a flavor of the “stab in the back” to these accusations. But for the treachery of the Republican Party, they claim, a party too timorous or too corrupt to stand up to Obama, we could have defunded Obamacare, balanced the budget, halted the Iran deal, you name it.
Aiming fire at your own side can be very satisfying for radio wranglers, et al. They have zero influence on Obama, but they can take down Eric Cantor. They can’t do much about Eric Holder, but they can dethrone John Boehner.
This is not to say that Republican leaders were perfect or that they couldn’t have done more in some instances to put bills on Obama’s desk – even if only to force vetoes and lay down markers for the next election. But the list of Obama initiatives Republicans thwarted is very long (universal pre-K, gun control, “paycheck fairness,” higher taxes). Moreover, the bloc of conservatives in the House that refused to vote for any budget made it that much more difficult for leadership to exert pressure on Democrats. Lastly, who believes it makes no difference that Republicans control the Senate in the wake of Justice Scalia’s death?
So congratulations to those conservatives who’ve been preaching the “betrayal” of the base by the establishment. You’ve won. You’ve convinced 70 percent of the Republican primary electorate (per the CBS poll) that the most important quality in a candidate is that he will “shake up the political system.”
With all its faults, the Republican Party is the only vehicle for conservative ideas in this country. Conservatives themselves, or at least those who styled themselves conservatives, may have sabotaged it, handing the reins not to a moderate, nor even to a liberal Republican, but to a lifelong Democrat.
Published in General
I don’t think Trump has the first clue about macro-economics or foreign trade whatsoever. I think he could in fact be the least informed president in terms of economics ever, if he was elected. Cutting deals, greasing government palms, building casinos, doing PR, and being a celebrity on TV require zero understanding of economics at all.
His stated policy is a 45% tariff on imported goods from China. So yes.
Trump had said that he would use the threat of a large tariff on China to get better deals. This might be a bad idea but it is not advocating for a trade war.
By this logic, Rubio and Kasich have both advocated for an increased naval presence in the South China Seas to deter Chinese actions, they must be in favor of a shooting war.
As China expands its military using American money, as China expands its reach occupying islands near to the Philippines, one might consider that there is more here than just the financial consideration. There is a global situation evolving as China reaches for a hegemony in that part of the world; challenging the US for supremacy and causing our allies to wonder if we can be trusted.
Agreed. However, when the phenomenon is explained in terms of emotional outbursts and tantrums, when the issues at play are not acknowledged or are even mocked – not saying you do any of this – then people feel the spatter and they feel it keenly because in truth it gets all over them whether it was intended or not.
Better deals for who? How? He’d be POTUS not lead negotiator for GM.
Not buying Chinese goods only makes the US poorer and limits our economic growth. Lower economic growth doesn’t help our ability to have a strong military to counter Chinese militarism. Plus, you obviously missed the point about the capital investment imbalance. China is doing more to finance our military than we are theirs. What’s more, the amount of Chinese money tied up in US treasuries and US banks gives us a huge amount of leverage over the Chinese should they decide to get too chesty.
Not to mention the fact that China is in fact on the verge of economic and financial implosion. The corrupt banking system and corrupt central planning and development of their economy has reached it’s limit. The amount of capital flight from China in the last year has been mind blowing. China may be building up its military but that is the only thing that is currently growing in China. The answer to Chinese militarism isn’t less trade with China, it’s a strong military response and strong international leadership from the US.
So just to peg the principle: there would be nothing wrong with India selling us $1 trillion worth of goods and us selling them nothing, because that $1 trillion would come back to the US in the form of capital investment? So we would get $1 trillion worth of goods and 1 trillion of capital investment?
Step 4: Profit!
Yes.
Plus we have the added benefit of having cheaper goods, which frees up consumer money for more economic activity.
This is a good podcast for people worried about our foreign trade imbalance.
http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2008/01/don_boudreaux_o.html
If you want to skip to the part directly relevant to this discussion, go to about the 43 minute mark.
Here is another great econtalk specifically about the Chinese/US trade relationship.
http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2010/11/don_boudreaux_o_4.html
This seems to track with what Marco Rubio is saying.
“We will seek enhanced access across the region and deploy additional air and naval assets to contested areas. We will confront Chinese propaganda in Asia by highlighting U.S. resolve and the flimsiness of China’s territorial claims. And if China continues to use military force to advance its illegitimate claims, I will not hesitate to take action.”
I am not arguing this is a bad policy. My question is can we have increased military tension with China, up to military action, and not also risk a Trade War? Can we point guns or shoot guns at each other and not have that effect trade?
China has more to lose in a trade war with us than we do.
What do they get? Invisible ink?
Ok, so why not a trade war before/instead of a shooting war?
How do you think trade deals between countries happen? GM may lobby for what it wants but they are not at the table. The Office of the United States Trade Representative is responsible for negotiating trade deals. This office is within the Executive Office of the President. It’s head is appointed by the President and part of its stated job is to advance the President’s trade policy. So how would he negotiate for better deals? This would be within the existing executive functions and powers.
Better deals for who? This is more vague, the canned answer would be American and American workers. It is possible that he could get some improvements regarding Chinese tariffs or currency manipulation, it is also possible this would be a big disaster.
They get $1 trillion. But those dollars don’t just sit in the mattresses of the Indian companies the US has traded with. Those dollars, in order to be worth anything, have to make their way back to the US because they can only be used in the US. They come back to the US either through buying US goods, or by investing in the US economy. If the US dollars that go to other countries don’t ever make it back to the US, it means that the foreign trader who sold goods for US dollars is just sitting on his profit and doing nothing with the money he made from the sale. Businesses that sit on their profits don’t stay in business.
Here is an explanation of the current account and capital account relationship.
Because a trade war is probably more harmful to the US than a military war, even though we could ultimately win it. It’s just a question of which tactic would have the biggest cost.
It depends on what they do with the dollars. They could either keep them in their own banks (essentially we get something for nothing). They could reinvest it in American companies or government bonds (we get financing for expanded economic grown or help fund our deficit). They can use it to buy goods from other countries (essentially meaningless to us, we still get something for nothing). Or they could use it to buy goods from us eventually which would ease the trade deficit but lower the value of the dollar hurting the American consumer, however the longer the dollars stay outside of the US the less inflation makes them worth so we come out ahead in the end.
Those trade deals establish frameworks that companies operate under at the end of the day trade is still conducted business to business. So what “better deal” does Trump seek that is better than simply lowering all trade barriers and restrictions into and out of the US? That’s where the cronyism comes in.
This. A trade war sounds nice and non-violent until prices surge and you have lines around the block for basic consumer goods.
I prefer Cruz. The problem isn’t the candidate as much as it is the voters (51% at least). People know nothing of economics, want government to rob their fellow man for their benefit, and believe they have a moral right to have everything for free. For Dems, the ends justify the means so a corrupt candidate who gives them what they want is OK. Despite all we know about Clinton, Rep Clyburn endorsed her yesterday. Must suck to have to sell out your character for your party. We are no longer culturally one country and I don’t particularly want to share my portion with a secular liberal. Despite all the hope for a reversal, society is too debased to want a return to the Constitution we cherish and I don’t predict we can survive as a country if we don’t. Yes, I am negative about our prospects, History has given us the game plan for destroying civil society and the left is following it to a T.
I still confused. Are you suggesting that we could be shooting at China and China shooting at the US, and trade would not be affected? It would seem to me that once a significant enough military war started the economic impact would be the same as a trade war alone.
A military war might end more quickly. Also, we have a bigger comparative advantage miltarily, meaning China would probably see less chance of winning a military war, so would back down from a military threat quicker than it would the threat of a trade war.
ok thanks that makes sense
I hate money. Sorry can you explain this to me. The said “indian” (we mean china right?) company doesn’t have any dollars at all. The US buyer exchanges his one dollar for an equal amount of rupees and the goods are sold in rupees. So the business can spend the rupees in the indian economy ie. payroll/investments.
Isn’t reason we’re “sending money to china” is because the Chinese are building huge US currency reserves by buying US dollars with yuan and sitting on it. So the US dollars in circulation decrease, raising our dollar and the Chinese yuan flood the market devaluing theirs?
I used Indian because Ed gave the example of buying Indian goods. As far as the process of exchanging the currency, I am simplifying for the sake of clarity, but yes, the US buyer would exchange the US dollars for Rupees, but the Rupees would ultimately be coming from an Indian bank, so an Indian bank would be receiving US dollars. The Indian (or Chinese) bank would then either invest those US dollars in the US economy themselves, or lend those US dollars to others who needed dollars to transact business or invest in the US. No matter what the details of how the currency changes hands and is processed, dollars ultimately only have value inside the US, so ultimately all dollars used in transactions make their way back to the US economy. Of course people can sit on dollars for various reasons, one of which you mention below.
The Chinese manage their reserves of dollars in order to keep the Yuan at a relatively constant value to the dollar. They “peg” the value of the Yuan to the dollar within a certain narrow range of fluctuation. So the Yuan is essentially rising and falling in value relative to other international currencies in concert with what the US dollar is doing.
The main way that China gets reserves is by buying US treasuries. This helps keep US interest rates low and that is ultimately good for US business investment. This doesn’t keep US dollars on the sidelines really, because the US is buying those dollars back with interest. As long as the US economy grows at a higher rate than the return it owes on the Treasuries, this is a good deal for the US economy.
Interesting to observe the tone of the OP versus the tone of the opposing comments. First page has the word ‘hate’ and a CoC violation.