There are 521 comments.

1. Member
   Ekosj

   @Ekosj

   5:58 PM EDT ⋅ Jul 30, 2018

   Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

   Ekosj (View Comment):

   Jamie Lockett (View Comment):
   As long as the present value of the temporary cost is less than the present value of the future benefits, A should take this action. It is the exact same calculation one would make to analyze whether or not to forego some present consumption and invest that forgone consumption into some interest bearing investment. As long as the present value of the cash flow from the investment is bigger than the present value of the cost, one forgoes the consumption and makes the investment.

    

   Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

   Ekosj (View Comment):

   Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

   Ekosj (View Comment):
   Is A also worse off? Yes.

   If A was worse off than A would not have engaged in trade.

   A is better off than in a no trade situation, but worse off than in the situation where B imposes tariffs.

   I thought that was clear.

   B is worse off too. So the proposed solution is to make both participants even worse off?

   Temporarily. Yes. You are fixated on a static, one period analysis. The proper analysis is done over a longer time horizon. Multiple periods. I’m certain that was clear.

   As long as the present value of the temporary cost is less than the present value of the future benefits, ‘A’ should take this action. It is the exact same calculation one would make to analyze whether or not to forego some present consumption and invest that forgone consumption into some interest bearing investment. As long as the present value of the cash flow from the investment is bigger than the present value of the cost, one forgoes the consumption and makes the investment.

   Except what is being advocated here is that government mandarins know what the long term benefits will be and force the choice on people through taxation.

   Actually, you seem to be just as adamant about your knowledge of the future costs.     So let’s throttle back on that.   Your free trade mandarin crystal ball is no clearer than theirs.

   The one thing that is certain is that we are faced with a situation where other countries engage in unfair trade practices against the US.    Ricardo is silent on what should be done to move them closer to free trade.    That too is certain.   

   What is virtually certain is that doing will leave the situation unchanged and perpetuate the US losses.    

    Any action aimed at changing their behavior is risky, uncertain.   So is any investment.   Sometimes they don’t work out.    What I have demonstrated is that in a multi period framework, it is possible for temporary tariffs to be a long term benefit by levering counter parties closer to free trade.   It is not the slam dunk cinch that tariffs are always and everywhere a net loss.   Again, in a multi period model they can be a net benefit.  

2. Inactive
   Mike H

   @MikeH

   6:00 PM EDT ⋅ Jul 30, 2018

   Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

   Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

   Hammer, The (Ryan M) (View Comment):

   Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

   Hammer, The (Ryan M) (View Comment):

   Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

   Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

   Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

   Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

   Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

   Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

   If trade didn’t make both parties better off it wouldn’t occur.

   If there are national security concerns then the federal government would do better to support those businesses by purchasing from them. Lockheed isn’t going out of business anytime soon.

   OK, what about things like microchips and what not? Does that mean we should subsidise their manufacture at home?

   Subsidize no, but make purchases from US-based vendors doesn’t seem unreasonable.

   So, in theory, that is government support for some industry, and therefore all free trade all the time is not always 100% a good idea?

   I don’t see how the US government purchasing planes from Lockheed is a major impediment to free trade. Can you flesh it out for me?

   I am talking about computer parts, but hey, if Free trade is 100%, why not buy all our defense stuff from the EU. Bet we could get better prices.

   ok – I’ll bite on that. Why not? If states in the EU can make high-quality computer parts or even “defense stuff” at a lower price than we can here in the US, why should we not purchase these things from them and utilize our resources elsewhere?

   Because the greatest power in the world should not oursource its weapons development to others. That is why. And if you cannot see that, you have no sense of long term strategy.

   Actually – I cannot see why. I would like you to explain to me why, as a matter of fact. Because I disagree that I lack a sense of long-term strategy. Quite the opposite, in fact.

   What is your worst-case scenario, exactly? We suddenly go to war with the entire world? Ok… so, then do we also suddenly lose our entire defense capabilities? Our weapons and technology become outdated so quickly that we just roll over in defeat? We entirely lack the capability to produce anything? I suppose that, under this scenario, we bear virtually no influence across the world in other ways, right? So how exactly did we allocate those now-freed resources that we lack the capacity to exercise any global influence, such that virtually no other technology-producing nations will trade with us?

   I’d really like to know how this worst-case scenario works out, such that it is so essential that we be permanently self-sufficient (and this is even stipulating that we wouldn’t actually be self-sufficient if necessary).

   Lets put aside the fact that countries that trade extensively rarely go to war with one another and just ask: doesn’t this apply to virtually any product? We have to make all our food here because if we don’t and war breaks out people will starve. We have to make all our clothing here because if we don’t and war breaks out everyone will be naked! We have to…

   Yes, a nation should be able to feed itself if it wants to engage in a long war. In fact, starving someone out was the way to defeat an enemy in the old days.

   Please explain to me the situation where America gets “starved out.” Somehow we’ve alienated our allies enough and our adversary are so strong as to have successfully blockaded us?

3. Member
   Jamie Lockett

   @JamieLockett

   6:01 PM EDT ⋅ Jul 30, 2018

   Hank Rhody, Probably Mad (View Comment):

   Umbra of Nex (View Comment):

   Hank Rhody, Probably Mad (View Comment):

   Umbra of Nex (View Comment):

   A-Squared (View Comment):

   I would guess most of those people don’t think Trump believes in free trade and wants the tariffs to be permanent. Trump has a long history of being an anti-free-trade mercantilist.

   Exactly.

   Whatever happened to, “Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program?”

   Fair point, but I wish it was more explicitly stated up front. “I don’t trust Trump to do it well” is a different argument than “It doesn’t work.”

   You know, because a “Nuh-uh! Yuh-huh!” argument about Trump would have been more productive.

   This has nothing to do with Trump. I don’t trust anybody to do this well.

   Also a fair point.

   Assuming that free trade is a better state for both players than any one-sided protectionist deal, what methods would you suggest for breaking down someone else’s protectionism?

   I don’t think it matters. If other countries wish to tax their own citizens to provide us with cheaper goods why should we complain?

4. Inactive
   A-Squared

   @ASquared

   6:05 PM EDT ⋅ Jul 30, 2018

   I found this in the Democratic Party platform

   Promoting Trade That is Fair and Benefits American Workers

   Democrats acknowledge that for millions of Americans, global trade has failed to live up to its promise—with too many countries breaking the rules and too many corporations outsourcing jobs at the expense of American workers and communities. 

   Over the past three decades, America has signed too many trade deals that have not lived up to the hype. Trade deals often boosted the profits of large corporations, while at the same time failing to protect workers’ rights, labor standards, the environment, and public health. We need to end the race to the bottom and develop trade policies that support jobs in America. That is why Democrats believe we should review agreements negotiated years ago to update them to reflect these principles. Any future trade agreements must make sure our trading partners cannot undercut American workers by taking shortcuts on labor policy or the environment. They must not undermine democratic decision-making through special privileges and private courts for corporations, and trade negotiations must be transparent and inclusive.

   Democrats’ priority is to significantly strengthen enforcement of existing trade rules and the tools we have, including by holding countries accountable on currency manipulation and significantly expanding enforcement resources. China and other countries are using unfair trade practices to tilt the playing field against American workers and businesses. When they dump cheap products into our markets, subsidize state-owned enterprises, devalue currencies, and discriminate against American companies, our middle class pays the price. That has to stop. Democrats will use all our trade enforcement tools to hold China and other trading partners accountable—because no country should be able to manipulate their currencies to gain a competitive advantage. 

   While we believe that openness to the world economy is an important source of American leadership and dynamism, we will oppose trade agreements that do not support good American jobs, raise wages, and improve our national security. We believe any new trade agreements must include strong and enforceable labor and environmental standards in their core text with streamlined and effective enforcement mechanisms. Trade agreements should crack down on the unfair and illegal subsidies other countries grant their businesses at the expense of ours. It should promote innovation of and access to lifesaving medicines. And it should protect a free and open internet. We should never enter into a trade agreement that prevents our government, or other governments, from putting in place rules that protect the environment, food safety, or the health of American citizens or others around the world.

   These are the standards Democrats believe must be applied to all trade agreements, including the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP).

    

5. Inactive
   A-Squared

   @ASquared

   6:06 PM EDT ⋅ Jul 30, 2018

   You could argue that platform was influenced by Trump’s victory in the Republican and his stance against free trade, so let’s look at 2008 Democratic Party Platform

   Smart, Strong, and Fair Trade Policies

   We believe that trade should strengthen the American economy and create more American jobs, while also laying a foundation for democratic, equitable, and sustainable growth around the world. Trade has been a cornerstone of our growth and global development, but we will not be able to sustain this growth if it favors the few rather than the many. We must build on the wealth that open markets have created, and share its benefits more equitably.

   Trade policy must be an integral part of an overall national economic strategy that delivers on the promise of good jobs at home and shared prosperity abroad. We will enforce trade laws and safeguard our workers, businesses, and farmers from unfair trade practices–including currency manipulation, lax consumer standards, illegal subsidies, and violations of workers’ rights and environmental standards. We must also show leadership at the World Trade Organization to improve transparency and accountability, and to ensure it acts effectively to stop countries from continuing unfair government subsidies to foreign exporters and non-tariff barriers on U.S. exports.

   We need tougher negotiators on our side of the table–to strike bargains that are good not just for Wall Street, but also for Main Street. We will negotiate bilateral trade agreements that open markets to U.S. exports and include enforceable international labor and environmental standards; we pledge to enforce those standards consistently and fairly. We will not negotiate bilateral trade agreements that stop the government from protecting the environment, food safety, or the health of its citizens; give greater rights to foreign investors than to U.S. investors; require the privatization of our vital public services; or prevent developing country governments from adopting humanitarian licensing policies to improve access to life-saving medications. We will stand firm against bilateral agreements that fail to live up to these important benchmarks, and will strive to achieve them in the multilateral framework. We will work with Canada and Mexico to amend the North American Free Trade Agreement so that it works better for all three North American countries. We will work together with other countries to achieve a successful completion of the Doha Round Agreement that would increase U.S. exports, support good jobs in America, protect worker rights and the environment, benefit our businesses and our farms, strengthen the rules-based multilateral system, and advance development of the world’s poorest countries.

   [snipped for word count]

   If you want the 2000 Democratic Party Platform, it can be found here.

   Fair Trade is a long time Democratic party talking point.

6. Inactive
   Hammer, The (Ryan M)

   @RyanM

   6:10 PM EDT ⋅ Jul 30, 2018

   JudithannCampbell (View Comment):

   Hammer, The (Ryan M) (View Comment):
   Can you give me some scenario where our imports create a major problem with respect to national defense? Or… any problem at all?

   Steel. If we allow the U.S. steel industry to be destroyed by foreign imports, that could create a major problem with respect to nation defense.

   I understand the assertion, what I’m asking is under what circumstances would it become a problem?  If we get all of our steel from overseas, what is the scenario where we have problems with defense?  I suppose you’re assuming that we get all of our steel from a single source (and eliminate all steel production in the US), then we go to war with that country…  so, how long is it until it damages our defense?  Right away?  Within 5 years of a prolonged conflict?  Presumably, we still understand how to produce steel, right?

   What I’m suggesting, obviously, is that there is really no circumstance where it would harm us to the point that the harm exceeds whatever benefit we get from the reallocation of US resources, or that is worth the harm of protectionism, propping up an entire industry (assuming that the entire industry is at risk, which is a dubious assumption) for an unnecessary insurance policy.

7. Inactive
   Hammer, The (Ryan M)

   @RyanM

   6:12 PM EDT ⋅ Jul 30, 2018

   JudithannCampbell (View Comment):

   Hammer, The (Ryan M) (View Comment):
   Even in the extremely unlikely event, the end result is merely a pain in the butt… a pain in the butt that, even theoretically, doesn’t exceed the real impacts of protectionism. So, it’s pretty well worth our betting on that extremely unlikely situation not arising.

   So you are betting? Good to know. In a wartime situation, I am not convinced that any setback can be described as “merely a pain in the butt”. I am betting that such a setback would be much worse than just a pain in the butt.

   Of course… but that “bet” of yours is based on nothing.  A series of events, the chance of all of them happening being very close to zero, where even the greatest harm you can imagine can be overcome at a relatively small cost.  Yet, you’re betting involves an actual and immediate harm, which will last as long as you keep that policy open.

   So, tell me again why you don’t grow your own food?  What if all the grocery stores in your area suddenly close down?  You’d be up a creek, no?

8. Inactive
   Hammer, The (Ryan M)

   @RyanM

   6:14 PM EDT ⋅ Jul 30, 2018

   Steven Seward (View Comment):

   Hammer, The (Ryan M) (View Comment):Yet, individually, literally all of us have a trade imbalance. I run a 100% trade deficit on every single product except legal services. But nobody thinks to consider that a problem.

   I understand what you are saying here, but I think it can be made clearer by stating “there is no such thing as a trade imbalance.” When you pay money for something, it is an even trade. That money is an IOU, a promise of an equal amount of work or stuff that you will trade back with someone else.

    

   When it comes to trading between countries, it is the same story. The only reason economists say that we have a “trade imbalance” (or deficit or surplus) is that they only count certain tangible items in the exchange, like steel and widgets. They don’t count the intangible stuff like when foreigners buy our savings bonds or invest in our stock market, but the trades are on a completely even basis.

    

   The only true trade imbalances are when things are taken by force, as someone else mentioned Germany taking Romania’s oil fields in World War II.

    

   I totally agree.  It is better to state that there is no such thing as a trade imbalance.  Which is why it is so ridiculous when people refer to an “imbalance” in one particular area.  So, we have a localized “trade imbalance” with respect to cotton, or steel, or whatever else.  Of course, Uncle Milt pointed out that people are trading for American Dollars.  What do we think they’re doing with those dollars?  We cannot possibly have a trade imbalance, if our imports are matched by an export of that green paper he refers to…  There’s something to that!

9. Inactive
   Hammer, The (Ryan M)

   @RyanM

   6:15 PM EDT ⋅ Jul 30, 2018

   Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

   Hammer, The (Ryan M) (View Comment):

   Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

   Hammer, The (Ryan M) (View Comment):

   Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

   Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

   Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

   Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

   Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

   OK, what about things like microchips and what not? Does that mean we should subsidise their manufacture at home?

   Subsidize no, but make purchases from US-based vendors doesn’t seem unreasonable.

   So, in theory, that is government support for some industry, and therefore all free trade all the time is not always 100% a good idea?

   I don’t see how the US government purchasing planes from Lockheed is a major impediment to free trade. Can you flesh it out for me?

   I am talking about computer parts, but hey, if Free trade is 100%, why not buy all our defense stuff from the EU. Bet we could get better prices.

   ok – I’ll bite on that. Why not? If states in the EU can make high-quality computer parts or even “defense stuff” at a lower price than we can here in the US, why should we not purchase these things from them and utilize our resources elsewhere?

   Because the greatest power in the world should not oursource its weapons development to others. That is why. And if you cannot see that, you have no sense of long term strategy.

   Actually – I cannot see why. I would like you to explain to me why, as a matter of fact. Because I disagree that I lack a sense of long-term strategy. Quite the opposite, in fact.

   What is your worst-case scenario, exactly? We suddenly go to war with the entire world? Ok… so, then do we also suddenly lose our entire defense capabilities? Our weapons and technology become outdated so quickly that we just roll over in defeat? We entirely lack the capability to produce anything? I suppose that, under this scenario, we bear virtually no influence across the world in other ways, right? So how exactly did we allocate those now-freed resources that we lack the capacity to exercise any global influence, such that virtually no other technology-producing nations will trade with us?

   I’d really like to know how this worst-case scenario works out, such that it is so essential that we be permanently self-sufficient (and this is even stipulating that we wouldn’t actually be self-sufficient if necessary).

   I am not sure what sorts of war you think we will be fighting in the future. Considering how long today it takes to design and produce a new aircraft, I don’t think we would have time to produce it.

   … assuming it is the type of war where our existing aircraft all suddenly disappear.

10. Inactive
    Hammer, The (Ryan M)

    @RyanM

    6:17 PM EDT ⋅ Jul 30, 2018

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    Steven Seward (View Comment):
    The only reason economists say that we have a “trade imbalance” (or deficit or surplus) is that they only count certain tangible items in the exchange, like steel and widgets. They don’t count the intangible stuff like when foreigners buy our savings bonds or invest in our stock market, but the trades are on a completely even basis.

    If there is no trade imbalance, why then have the term at all?

    I can think of a lot of terms that don’t serve any purpose other than to silence opposition.  Ever heard the term “homophobia?”  I know that’s a controversial one.  I can think of quite a few others.

11. Member
    Jamie Lockett

    @JamieLockett

    6:20 PM EDT ⋅ Jul 30, 2018

    Ekosj (View Comment):

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    Ekosj (View Comment):

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):
    As long as the present value of the temporary cost is less than the present value of the future benefits, A should take this action. It is the exact same calculation one would make to analyze whether or not to forego some present consumption and invest that forgone consumption into some interest bearing investment. As long as the present value of the cash flow from the investment is bigger than the present value of the cost, one forgoes the consumption and makes the investment.

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    Ekosj (View Comment):

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    Ekosj (View Comment):
    Is A also worse off? Yes.

    If A was worse off than A would not have engaged in trade.

    A is better off than in a no trade situation, but worse off than in the situation where B imposes tariffs.

    I thought that was clear.

    B is worse off too. So the proposed solution is to make both participants even worse off?

    Temporarily. Yes. You are fixated on a static, one period analysis. The proper analysis is done over a longer time horizon. Multiple periods. I’m certain that was clear.

    As long as the present value of the temporary cost is less than the present value of the future benefits, ‘A’ should take this action. It is the exact same calculation one would make to analyze whether or not to forego some present consumption and invest that forgone consumption into some interest bearing investment. As long as the present value of the cash flow from the investment is bigger than the present value of the cost, one forgoes the consumption and makes the investment.

    Except what is being advocated here is that government mandarins know what the long term benefits will be and force the choice on people through taxation.

    Actually, you seem to be just as adamant about your knowledge of the future costs. So let’s throttle back on that. Your free trade mandarin crystal ball is no clearer than theirs.

    The one thing that is certain is that we are faced with a situation where other countries engage in unfair trade practices against the US. Ricardo is silent on what should be done to move them closer to free trade. That too is certain.

    What is virtually certain is that doing will leave the situation unchanged and perpetuate the US losses.

    Any action aimed at changing their behavior is risky, uncertain. So is any investment. Sometimes they don’t work out. What I have demonstrated is that in a multi period framework, it is possible for temporary tariffs to be a long term benefit by levering counter parties closer to free trade. It is not the slam dunk cinch that tariffs are always and everywhere a net loss. Again, in a multi period model they can be a net benefit.

    You misunderstand, I make no guanrantees for the future. I make an observation of the past: free people doing things with the maximum amount of liberty tend to produce better outcomes than government apparatchiks trying to predict the future. It’s messy and far from perfect but it’s the best system available.

12. Member
    Jamie Lockett

    @JamieLockett

    6:23 PM EDT ⋅ Jul 30, 2018

    Hammer, The (Ryan M) (View Comment):

    JudithannCampbell (View Comment):

    Hammer, The (Ryan M) (View Comment):
    Even in the extremely unlikely event, the end result is merely a pain in the butt… a pain in the butt that, even theoretically, doesn’t exceed the real impacts of protectionism. So, it’s pretty well worth our betting on that extremely unlikely situation not arising.

    So you are betting? Good to know. In a wartime situation, I am not convinced that any setback can be described as “merely a pain in the butt”. I am betting that such a setback would be much worse than just a pain in the butt.

    Of course… but that “bet” of yours is based on nothing. A series of events, the chance of all of them happening being very close to zero, where even the greatest harm you can imagine can be overcome at a relatively small cost. Yet, you’re betting involves an actual and immediate harm, which will last as long as you keep that policy open.

    So, tell me again why you don’t grow your own food? What if all the grocery stores in your area suddenly close down? You’d be up a creek, no?

    It’s like no one reads I, Pencil anymore. 

13. Inactive
    Mike H

    @MikeH

    6:24 PM EDT ⋅ Jul 30, 2018

    lowtech redneck (View Comment):

    Mike H (View Comment):

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    Why should we tax Americans to subsidize a small minority of them?

    There’s this nostalgia about rural farming America that I just find baffling. It doesn’t exist any more. You’re basically just subsidizing a bunch of big conglomerates.

    What’s not to get about the nostalgia? The country, and much of classical liberalism, was founded upon the ideal and cultural legacy of the yeoman farmer. As society has become more urban, its become less conservative and less classically liberal. To say nothing of the desire to preserve small-town life, with its cultural solidarity, community support, and sense of belonging, things that greater material prosperity has limited capacity to compensate for. A society centered around rural farming may be gone forever, but a desire (however misplaced) to preserve or promote it is a perfectly understandable impulse.

    One cannot hope to change people’s minds if they fail to understand, or are dismissive, of the concerns that motivate policy preferences, however misguided those may be.

    Ahh, good catch. It’s not nostalgia itself that I find baffling, but that people think that by taking taxpayer money and giving it to huge companies that they are somehow supporting the nostalgic farm. I think rural life is quite pleasant. But people aren’t accomplishing the thing they think they are.

14. Member
    Unsk

    @Unsk

    7:07 PM EDT ⋅ Jul 30, 2018

     

    Bryan: I clearly do not think China should understand how all our military devices work. That people on this forum think that it is A-OK for them to know how, and be able to duplicated it in the most up to date way possible is mind blowing.

     Jamie: No we don’t. Stop arguing in bad faith. 

    That is not a bad faith argument. Jamie, you are the one arguing in bad faith by accusing Bryan.

    What Bryan is talking about is reality. When a company now wishes to export a product to China, one must open a factory in China. Repeatedly, time and again the Chinese then steal their intellectual property and then open a direct competitor.   China has gained access to far too many essential military technologies that way. It’s also  used it’s massive
    $48 Trillion version  of QE to have it’s  state run enterprises ruin it’s American and European competitors to deliberately underselling them at ruinous prices. It’s  plainly suicidal to trade with China. 

    From Dave Archibald at American Thinker:

    “The Europeans are also realizing that they have been played by China.  European companies came in to build factories and establish themselves in that once booming economy.  Now that those efforts are successful, China is effectively expropriating ownership.  For example, the Danish shipping company Maersk has 25% of its assets in China and at its peak had 1,100 expatriates in China to run the operation.  The Chinese government hasn’t renewed visas for almost all of them.  There are now only two Maersk expatriates in China, and the company has lost control of 25% of its asset base.  Other European companies have been fined for being too successful against their Chinese competitors. “

    Why do you Jamie propose we trade and enrich our enemies? The only major trading nation that practices free trade is the United States. We have a trade deficit with every major trading partner, and every single one of these countries is taking advantage of our “free trade” generosity .

    The Europeans are also realizing that they have been played by China.  European companies came in to build factories and establish themselves in that once booming economy.  Now that those efforts are successful, China is effectively expropriating ownership.  For example, the Danish shipping company Maersk has 25% of its assets in China and at its peak had 1,100 expatriates in China to run the operation.  The Chinese government hasn’t renewed visas for almost all of them.  There are now only two Maersk expatriates in China, and the company has lost control of 25% of its asset base.  Other European companies have been fined for being too successful against their Chinese competitors.  

    Our “free trade” purists are just being played by a economic predator/ Communist nation determined to rule the world, and wreck havoc on those that expose freedom and free markets.

15. Member
    JudithannCampbell

    @

    7:12 PM EDT ⋅ Jul 30, 2018

    Hammer, The (Ryan M) (View Comment):
    So, tell me again why you don’t grow your own food? What if all the grocery stores in your area suddenly close down? You’d be up a creek, no?

    If America wasn’t producing so much food, and we relied on foreign imports for food, I probably would start growing a lot of my own food. Especially if the country we were mainly dependent on for food was China. As it is, I figure I have enough canned goods to tide us over if I ever need to start a garden :)

16. Member
    Simon Templar

    @

    7:14 PM EDT ⋅ Jul 30, 2018

    Unsk (View Comment):
    Repeatedly, time and again the Chinese then steal their intellectual property and then open a direct competitor.

    It is worse than that.  A friend of mine built bowling lanes for bowling alleys.  They sold a few ‘lanes’ to a Chinese company.  The guy that went to China to show them how to assemble it and how it worked got shot in China as soon as they thought they had learned all from him that they could.  Needless to say, my friend’s company was never paid for those lanes.

17. Member
    JudithannCampbell

    @

    7:20 PM EDT ⋅ Jul 30, 2018

    Hammer, The (Ryan M) (View Comment):
    Of course… but that “bet” of yours is based on nothing.

    It isn’t based on nothing; it’s based on the fact that I don’t trust other countries to care about America as much as Americans do. Most countries (China being a notable exception) are not even capable of defending themselves; why should they care whether we can defend ourselves? Especially when we are the Great Satan, ugly Americans, etc… No, I would rather not put the defense of America in the hands of other countries.

    You say that I am basically taking out an unnecessary insurance policy, but insurance policies are always taken out for things that are unlikely to happen. If I am betting wrong, we lose some money. If you are betting wrong, we lose everything. I am not willing to risk losing everything. 

     

18. Member
    Unsk

    @Unsk

    7:28 PM EDT ⋅ Jul 30, 2018

    More on trade with the Chinese from Sundance at the Conservative TreeHouse:

    “There is an article from Bloomberg which finally concedes the obvious economic and trade dynamic within a U.S. -vs- China confrontation.  The media paradigm shift is based on new statements from Chinese Ministers admitting they cannot win a trade confrontation with U.S. President Trump.”

    “The summary reason is simple, we have discussed it frequently:

    China is a production-based economic model, they do not have the ability, or wealth, to consume their own durable goods production; they rely on exports.

    The U.S. is a more balanced economy; we consume 80% of our own production.  We are self-sustaining, China is not”.

    “Without a market to sell their products, the Chinese economy cannot survive.”

    “Conversely, China has focused so intensely on durable-goods manufacturing, their consumable goods market (food) is dependent; they cannot feed themselves.  The U.S. can survive without exporting food, China cannot survive without importing food.  The U.S. economy can survive without importing durable goods; the Chinese economy cannot survive without exporting durable goods.  This is the unavoidable trade reality.  As a consequence President Trump has all the factual leverage.”

    Oh Boy! That stupid Trump guy again upsetting the Crony Corporatist applecart!

    More from Sundance:

    Plant your trees in another man’s orchard, and don’t be surprised if you end up paying for your own apples!

    “Again, the key dynamic: The U.S. economy can survive without importing durable goods; the Chinese economy cannot survive without exporting durable goods.  This is the unavoidable trade reality.

    Now, frame that in a similar way for NAFTA.

    The Canadian and Mexican economy (due to NAFTA) cannot survive without importing cheap durable goods from China to use in their assembly-based economies, and then trans-ship into the U.S market.   However, the U.S. economy can survive, it can actually expand BIGLY, without accepting trans-shipped assembled goods from Mexico and Canada

    Put simply, without NAFTA, the assembly processes just moves INTO the U.S because the market *is* the United States.  We are the $20 trillion customer. We hold the leverage.”

     

    “This is evidence of multinationals exploiting the NAFTA loophole to avoid U.S. tariffs. This fatal flaw is at the very heart of the issue within the U.S. trade policy inside NAFTA.  As long as Mexico and Canada remain gateways for foreign good assembly and shipment into the U.S. there will never be a way for the U.S. to demand fair and reciprocal trade.

    Canada knows their decades-long designed economic position as shipment/assembly trade-brokers is the central issue is the heart of the confrontation with USTR Lighthizer, Commerce Secretary Ross and President Trump.  As multinational corporations seek to avoid Trump tariffs they only exacerbate the issue.”

    “The bottom line is U.S. market access is what all production countries need for their goods and the sustainability of their economies.”

     

19. Member
    Simon Templar

    @

    7:37 PM EDT ⋅ Jul 30, 2018

    Unsk (View Comment):
    “The bottom line is U.S. market access is what all production countries need for their goods and the sustainability of their economies.”

    What took you so long?  I have pointed this out hundreds maybe thousands of times to idiots all over the world for at least a couple or three decades.  Did someone (The Donald) finally hear me?

20. Member
    JudithannCampbell

    @

    7:37 PM EDT ⋅ Jul 30, 2018

    Simon Templar (View Comment):

    Unsk (View Comment):
    “The bottom line is U.S. market access is what all production countries need for their goods and the sustainability of their economies.”

    What took you so long? I have pointed this out hundreds maybe thousands of times to idiots all over the world for at least a couple or three decades. Did someone (The Donald) finally hear me?

    Yes :)

21. Member
    Simon Templar

    @

    7:42 PM EDT ⋅ Jul 30, 2018

    JudithannCampbell (View Comment):

    Simon Templar (View Comment):

    Unsk (View Comment):
    “The bottom line is U.S. market access is what all production countries need for their goods and the sustainability of their economies.”

    What took you so long? I have pointed this out hundreds maybe thousands of times to idiots all over the world for at least a couple or three decades. Did someone (The Donald) finally hear me?

    Yes :)

    I even gave it an honorable mention in at least one of my Winning the Peace OPs.

22. Member
    Simon Templar

    @

    7:43 PM EDT ⋅ Jul 30, 2018

    Don’t believe me?  Ask Nanda?

23. Member
    JudithannCampbell

    @

    7:48 PM EDT ⋅ Jul 30, 2018

    Simon Templar (View Comment):

    Don’t believe me? Ask Nanda?

    Don’t worry, we believe you :)

24. Member
    Steven Seward

    @StevenSeward

    8:23 PM EDT ⋅ Jul 30, 2018

    Unsk (View Comment):

    Why do you Jamie propose we trade and enrich our enemies? The only major trading nation that practices free trade is the United States.

    The United States is not a totally free trader.  The International Trade Commission lists over 12,000 items that were tariffed by the U.S. before Trump got to scheming.  The worst ones are tobacco at 350%(!), unshelled peanuts at 163%, and shelled peanuts at 131%.  https://www.businessinsider.com/americas-biggest-tariffs-2010-9#synthetic-outerwear-282-tariff-8

    We have a trade deficit with every major trading partner, and every single one of these countries is taking advantage of our “free trade” generosity .

    As I said earlier, there is no such thing as a trade deficit.  For every item we import from a foreign country, they import from us something of the exact same value.

25. Member
    Simon Templar

    @

    8:51 PM EDT ⋅ Jul 30, 2018

    Steven Seward (View Comment):
    For every item we import from a foreign country, they import from us something of the exact same value.

    Could you please break that down for me Barney style or point to me where you have said so already?

    Please don’t say refer to:  Capitalism and Freedom

26. Inactive
    Mike H

    @MikeH

    9:09 PM EDT ⋅ Jul 30, 2018

    Simon Templar (View Comment):

    Steven Seward (View Comment):
    For every item we import from a foreign country, they import from us something of the exact same value.

    Could you please break that down for me Barney style or point to me where you have said so already?

    Please don’t say refer to: Capitalism and Freedom

    Yeah, this isn’t quite accurate. They give us something of value. We give them arguably worthless paper (money).

    You can’t eat American dollars, unless you exchange them for something that you can eat… almost exclusively produced in America.

27. Inactive
    Hammer, The (Ryan M)

    @RyanM

    10:05 PM EDT ⋅ Jul 30, 2018

    Hank Rhody, Probably Mad (View Comment):

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    Mike H (View Comment):
    I think worrying about “strategic interest” could similarly be used to justify almost anything. Just speculate on a very unlikely but hugely damaging event, and everything becomes permissible in mitigating it.

    This always seems to be the out: Because things might be, heck, will be abused, better to not risk it at all.

    I clearly do not think China should understand how all our military devices work. That people on this forum think that it is A-OK for them to know how, and be able to duplicated it in the most up to date way possible is mind blowing.

    No we don’t. Stop arguing in bad faith.

    Check with the Hammer Man. Seems like he was arguing that exact thing a page or so ago. To give him credit for the nuance, that whatever advantage they’d gain from being able to duplicate our most up-to-date hardware would be outweighed by the advantage we’d get from free-trading up until the point of war.

    Well, not quite what I was saying. We hardly have a monopoly on knowledge. I was saying that if they know certain things by virtue of knowing what we import, I’m not worried. Nobody is suggesting that we say to North Korea “here’s how to make a a-bomb, now please do it cheaper.” Presumably, if we are importing from people, they already know how to make whatever it is we are importing.

28. Inactive
    Hammer, The (Ryan M)

    @RyanM

    10:13 PM EDT ⋅ Jul 30, 2018

    JudithannCampbell (View Comment):

    Hammer, The (Ryan M) (View Comment):
    So, tell me again why you don’t grow your own food? What if all the grocery stores in your area suddenly close down? You’d be up a creek, no?

    If America wasn’t producing so much food, and we relied on foreign imports for food, I probably would start growing a lot of my own food. Especially if the country we were mainly dependent on for food was China. As it is, I figure I have enough canned goods to tide us over if I ever need to start a garden :)

    Likewise, we have enough steel, and the ability to “start a garden” if we really needed to, right? We are a country that really is rich in resources and knowledge and talent. Free trade allows us to allocate those things the most efficiently, and we all benefit. We are far more resilient than many suspect.

29. Inactive
    Hammer, The (Ryan M)

    @RyanM

    10:18 PM EDT ⋅ Jul 30, 2018

    JudithannCampbell (View Comment):

    Hammer, The (Ryan M) (View Comment):
    Of course… but that “bet” of yours is based on nothing.

    It isn’t based on nothing; it’s based on the fact that I don’t trust other countries to care about America as much as Americans do. Most countries (China being a notable exception) are not even capable of defending themselves; why should they care whether we can defend ourselves? Especially when we are the Great Satan, ugly Americans, etc… No, I would rather not put the defense of America in the hands of other countries.

    You say that I am basically taking out an unnecessary insurance policy, but insurance policies are always taken out for things that are unlikely to happen. If I am betting wrong, we lose some money. If you are betting wrong, we lose everything. I am not willing to risk losing everything.

    No… as I’ve pointed out, there is virtually no scenario where we are cut off entirely from resources that we absolutely cannot produce on our own within a short period of time.  It’s like buying flood insurance in the desert. At a very high cost.

30. Member
    JudithannCampbell

    @

    10:19 PM EDT ⋅ Jul 30, 2018

    Hammer, The (Ryan M) (View Comment):
    Likewise, we have enough steel, and the ability to “start a garden” if we really needed to, right? We are a country that really is rich in resources and knowledge and talent. Free trade allows us to allocate those things the most efficiently, and we all benefit. We are far more resilient than many suspect.

    If my bet turns out to be wrong, we have lost a little bit of money and efficiency. If your bet turns out to be wrong, we lose everything- our country, our freedom, possibly our lives, the lives of our children, everything. I am not willing to make the bet you are making. Insurance policies always involve what will probably-hopefully- turn out to be unnecessary expenses.