There are 521 comments.

1. Inactive
   Hammer, The (Ryan M)

   @RyanM

   12:23 PM EDT ⋅ Jul 31, 2018

   Hank Rhody, Probably Mad (View Comment):

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

   Hank Rhody, Probably Mad (View Comment):

   Hammer, The (Ryan M) (View Comment):
   keeping in mind, by not “preparing” for that scenario, we encourage a great amount of innovation and growth, both of which make that war scenario less and less likely

   Yeah, still going to disagree on unlikelyness of war. As such I don’t think I’m likely to come to an agreement with you on the relative costs and benefits.

   I’m not suggesting that any war is unlikely, I am saying that that particular war scenario is extremely unlikely. First, it assumes that the only participants are the US and China. Second, it assumes that the war is primarily physical, involving ground forces – may the strongest man win. We don’t really see wars like that, anymore, as we did in WWII. Iraq and Afghanistan have not been about production but about strategy.

   A war with China would most likely hinge on international support rather than a balancing of physical force. In that sense, if China is the guy who makes all our junk, more power to China.

   […]

   Why am I assuming the only participants are the US and China? Third on that list of steel producers is Japan; if China takes Japan before we can do anything about it that only worsens our steel position.

   Ground forces, no. Navy? Seems likely. Takes an awful lot of steel to produce an aircraft carrier.

   Hinging on international support? Possibly. Given the quality of international support we generally get the notion doesn’t fill me with optimism.

   But again, we already have a significant military force.  Production becomes an issue in a prolonged war with mass expenditures of physical goods – this happened in WWII.  It did not happen in Vietnam, or in Iraq, or in Afghanistan.  Also, if China suddenly decides to stop producing steel (which, in a war, it likely would), what would happen?  Small players in the steel industry suddenly take advantage and invest in mass output.  Intermediaries buy from China and put those goods on the international market.  We end up paying higher prices during war time, but that is always the case.  You can bet that if we went to war with China, Great Britain or Mexico would come a knocking:  “hey, we’ve got some steel plants, guys.”

2. Inactive
   Midget Faded Rattlesnake

   @Midge

   12:25 PM EDT ⋅ Jul 31, 2018

   Hank Rhody, Probably Mad (View Comment):

   Hammer, The (Ryan M) (View Comment):
   keeping in mind, by not “preparing” for that scenario, we encourage a great amount of innovation and growth, both of which make that war scenario less and less likely

   Yeah, still going to disagree on unlikelyness of war. As such I don’t think I’m likely to come to an agreement with you on the relative costs and benefits.

   The likelihood of war in general does not equal the likelihood of the very specific war scenario you proposed, though, Hank, where China’s war with us deprives us of access to all steel until we start from scratch to make our own.

   You may think war in general is a thousand to a billion times more likely than Ryan finds the specific scenario you posited, and both you and Ryan may be in agreement on your estimates of the likelihood of war in general.

3. Contributor
   Hank Rhody, Probably Mad

   @HankRhody

   12:26 PM EDT ⋅ Jul 31, 2018

   Hammer, The (Ryan M) (View Comment):
   If Cubans purchase the coffee they want at a price that motivates them, they encourage businesses that give them the best product (raising quality for everyone), they free up their own money to be spent elsewhere, and they invest in things they actually want (and yes, every purchase you make is an investment). Economies always benefit from this consumer freedom.

   I take this to mean that the first order effect of “The government raised the price on American coffee. Some Cubans choose to pay the raised price.” implies a second order effect of “Cubans who pay too much for coffee no longer have the money to pay for other things”. Okay, yeah, I can buy that.

4. Inactive
   Hammer, The (Ryan M)

   @RyanM

   12:28 PM EDT ⋅ Jul 31, 2018

   Hank Rhody, Probably Mad (View Comment):

   Hammer, The (Ryan M) (View Comment):
   The economy shifts, but it does not suffer.

   Okay, I take your meaning. Not sure it applies.

   The US sells so much coffee to Cuba before the tariff. Cuba imposes a tariff. The US sells less to Cuba. Okay, the US has extra assets in coffee production that it now shifts to… what? How do you guarantee that a market appears as the previous one disappears?

   Because that’s the way markets work.  People don’t just sit on resources.  

   Right now, there are million craft breweries in the US.  Heck, there’s one in every small town in Montana.  At some point, demand won’t be able to keep up with that.  Of course, it arose because there was a demand (or cheap hops, or whatever else), but once the demand is met, prices will fall (good for the consumer), but many of the breweries will go out of business.  Those are entrepreneurs.  They won’t just quit their businesses, they will say “how else could I make money?” and they will seek areas of demand, or they will innovate.  Investors are always looking to make money; when one thing doesn’t work, they actively seek out things that will.

5. Member
   Matt Balzer

   @MattBalzer

   12:29 PM EDT ⋅ Jul 31, 2018

   Midget Faded Rattlesnake (View Comment):

   Hank Rhody, Probably Mad (View Comment):

   Hammer, The (Ryan M) (View Comment):
   keeping in mind, by not “preparing” for that scenario, we encourage a great amount of innovation and growth, both of which make that war scenario less and less likely

   Yeah, still going to disagree on unlikelyness of war. As such I don’t think I’m likely to come to an agreement with you on the relative costs and benefits.

   The likelihood of war in general does not equal the likelihood of the very specific war scenario you proposed, though, Hank, where China’s war with us deprives us of access to all steel until we start from scratch to make our own.

   You may think war in general is a thousand to a billion times more likely than Ryan finds the specific scenario you posited, and both you and Ryan may be in agreement on your estimates of the likelihood of war in general.

   That also assumes in a war scenario against someone else China wouldn’t hold out on selling us steel in order to gain more benefits out of it. I’ll grant that it’s also not likely we’d be needing to build more aircraft carriers against anyone else, but the need for additional steel over regular requirements would still exist.

6. Contributor
   Hank Rhody, Probably Mad

   @HankRhody

   12:33 PM EDT ⋅ Jul 31, 2018

   Midget Faded Rattlesnake (View Comment):

   Hank Rhody, Probably Mad (View Comment):

   Hammer, The (Ryan M) (View Comment):
   keeping in mind, by not “preparing” for that scenario, we encourage a great amount of innovation and growth, both of which make that war scenario less and less likely

   Yeah, still going to disagree on unlikelyness of war. As such I don’t think I’m likely to come to an agreement with you on the relative costs and benefits.

   The likelihood of war in general does not equal the likelihood of the very specific war scenario you proposed, though, Hank, where China’s war with us deprives us of access to all steel until we start from scratch to make our own.

   You may think war in general is a thousand to a billion times more likely than Ryan finds the specific scenario you posited, and both you and Ryan may be in agreement on your estimates of the likelihood of war in general.

   “Very specific”? I don’t think so. The nature of the question is about whether there may be national security reasons to protect a given industry. The postulates of A) the second most powerful country in the world being willing to pick a fight with the most powerful, and B) that steel might be a useful thing to have in war time really aren’t that big of an ask.

7. Contributor
   Hank Rhody, Probably Mad

   @HankRhody

   12:36 PM EDT ⋅ Jul 31, 2018

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

   Hank Rhody, Probably Mad (View Comment):

   Hammer, The (Ryan M) (View Comment):
   The economy shifts, but it does not suffer.

   Okay, I take your meaning. Not sure it applies.

   The US sells so much coffee to Cuba before the tariff. Cuba imposes a tariff. The US sells less to Cuba. Okay, the US has extra assets in coffee production that it now shifts to… what? How do you guarantee that a market appears as the previous one disappears?

   Because that’s the way markets work. People don’t just sit on resources.

   Right now, there are million craft breweries in the US. Heck, there’s one in every small town in Montana. At some point, demand won’t be able to keep up with that. Of course, it arose because there was a demand (or cheap hops, or whatever else), but once the demand is met, prices will fall (good for the consumer), but many of the breweries will go out of business. Those are entrepreneurs. They won’t just quit their businesses, they will say “how else could I make money?” and they will seek areas of demand, or they will innovate. Investors are always looking to make money; when one thing doesn’t work, they actively seek out things that will.

   I think I’m going to have to cite Wolverine here. Even though he heals very quickly it “hurts every time”.

   But no matter. I’ll concede the point.

8. Inactive
   Hammer, The (Ryan M)

   @RyanM

   12:42 PM EDT ⋅ Jul 31, 2018

   Hank Rhody, Probably Mad (View Comment):

   Hammer, The (Ryan M) (View Comment):
   If Cubans purchase the coffee they want at a price that motivates them, they encourage businesses that give them the best product (raising quality for everyone), they free up their own money to be spent elsewhere, and they invest in things they actually want (and yes, every purchase you make is an investment). Economies always benefit from this consumer freedom.

   I take this to mean that the first order effect of “The government raised the price on American coffee. Some Cubans choose to pay the raised price.” implies a second order effect of “Cubans who pay too much for coffee no longer have the money to pay for other things”. Okay, yeah, I can buy that.

   One more thing about this, though.  Think of virtually any good.  I happen to be drinking a big glass of coconut water right now (hey, it’s hot here!).  If there is an el nino effect or maybe a tsunami or hurricane or something else that impacts coconut production, the cost of my coconut water might go up.  A tariff is a force just like those (though it is an unnecessary one).  It may very well be that us producers simply raise their prices to whatever the market will bear, and US consumers are indeed hurt by foreign tariffs.  I imagine we can think of a lot of products where we pay fairly high prices, and if we really traced it back, we’d find it to be the result of EU regulations and tariffs.  In this sense, we should actively seek to encourage the elimination of foreign tariffs and regulations.  Again, I fully understand that many people believe this to be the goal of a “trade war,” but we’ve already seen that with tariffs, the local impact is enormous while foreign impact is generally much, much smaller.  In any other contest, that sort of engagement would be exceedingly foolish.  

   I am at least somewhat sympathetic to the arguments that, hey, these tariffs are merely a tool and the goal is reduction of all tariffs.  But that doesn’t make them good – it doesn’t change the fact that they become entitlements or that it is especially dangerous to benefit a small group while spreading the cost, or that this damages our economy as a whole.  But most of all, that argument absolutely depends on the strength and truth of free-market economics.

   In answer to the OP:  the only way to “cheat” in free trade is through force.  It’s something our government can do to us, and something that foreign governments can only do through acts of war.  The real challenge of free trade is understanding that it is not about winning and losing, it is not a zero sum game, it is not a war.

9. Coolidge
   Jager

   @Jager

   

   12:43 PM EDT ⋅ Jul 31, 2018

   Mike H (View Comment):
   “We need a better answer” presumes we don’t already have the best answer, whether or not it’s satisfactory to you or anyone else

   We can take me out of the equation, I don’t matter.

   Anyone else, kinda does matter. If your best answer isn’t satisfactory to a large enough section of the voting public, you will get more protectionism and less free trade, whether from Donald Trump style Republicans or from Democrats.  Trump and Clinton were both running on some form of protectionism and opposed things like TPP. 

    

    

10. Inactive
    Midget Faded Rattlesnake

    @Midge

    1:00 PM EDT ⋅ Jul 31, 2018

    Hank Rhody, Probably Mad (View Comment):

    Midget Faded Rattlesnake (View Comment):

    Hank Rhody, Probably Mad (View Comment):

    Hammer, The (Ryan M) (View Comment):
    keeping in mind, by not “preparing” for that scenario, we encourage a great amount of innovation and growth, both of which make that war scenario less and less likely

    Yeah, still going to disagree on unlikelyness of war. As such I don’t think I’m likely to come to an agreement with you on the relative costs and benefits.

    The likelihood of war in general does not equal the likelihood of the very specific war scenario you proposed, though, Hank, where China’s war with us deprives us of access to all steel until we start from scratch to make our own.

    You may think war in general is a thousand to a billion times more likely than Ryan finds the specific scenario you posited, and both you and Ryan may be in agreement on your estimates of the likelihood of war in general.

    “Very specific”? I don’t think so. The nature of the question is about whether there may be national security reasons to protect a given industry. The postulates of A) the second most powerful country in the world being willing to pick a fight with the most powerful, and B) that steel might be a useful thing to have in war time really aren’t that big of an ask.

    Hank, once again you’re generalizing beyond the specific scenario you first proposed.

    In the first scenario you gave us, the US was getting all its steel from China (something it already doesn’t do,  already making the scenario unlikely), went to war with China, had a war long and hard enough (unlike several skirmishes the US has recently been involved in) to deplete our existing materiel and require mass manufacture of new materiel, and found (despite the existence of Canada, Brazil, Mexico, and other countries with manufacturers who might be more than happy, as Ryan mentioned, to sell us steel during wartime) no other source for steel besides China except making our own from scratch.

    I agree with you steel is likely to be dearer to the US during wartime, but how much dearer, given all the ways war might occur, and what’s the best way to prepare? Subsidizing the US steel industry to keep it at the capacity we *might* someday need for war with China is only one option, and not necessarily the best one (I include tariffs targeted at a specific good among forms of subsidy).

11. Contributor
    Hank Rhody, Probably Mad

    @HankRhody

    2:14 PM EDT ⋅ Jul 31, 2018

    Midget Faded Rattlesnake (View Comment):

    Hank, once again you’re generalizing beyond the specific scenario you first proposed.

    In the first scenario you gave us, the US was getting all its steel from China (something it already doesn’t do, already making the scenario unlikely), went to war with China, had a war long and hard enough (unlike several skirmishes the US has recently been involved in) to deplete our existing materiel and require mass manufacture of new materiel, and found (despite the existence of Canada, Brazil, Mexico, and other countries with manufacturers who might be more than happy, as Ryan mentioned, to sell us steel during wartime) no other source for steel besides China except making our own from scratch.

    I agree with you steel is likely to be dearer to the US during wartime, but how much dearer, given all the ways war might occur, and what’s the best way to prepare? Subsidizing the US steel industry to keep it at the capacity we *might* someday need for war with China is only one option, and not necessarily the best one (I include tariffs targeted at a specific good among forms of subsidy).

    …Okay, the US doesn’t actually import much steel at all from China. I was unaware of that. Pretty much obviates that hypothetical.

    But that a war with China would be long and hard? C’mon, there’s nothing unreasonable about that assumption. Hey, maybe it’d be a skirmish like Afghanistan. Maybe they’d topple like Montezuma when the Spaniards came calling. But you don’t plan your wars based around rosy assumptions like that. When’s the last time two Great Powers went to war and it was quick and easy for one of them? (Okay, Germany/France, 1940. And the Franco-Prussian war before that. When was the last time not picking France as the loser?)

    A war where we don’t use up the material we have on hand? Again, good luck with that. Why on earth would I plan for a war that didn’t include the war?

    A war that wouldn’t require the production of more materiel? Maybe WWII is atypical. Look back at WWI. Featured such exciting new innovations as tanks and poison gas. The Civil War? The Gatling gun, the Minnie ball, and oh yeah the ironclad. If you’re fighting a major war you’re either producing the next generation of weapons or you’re dying to them. Maybe the Taliban didn’t have the resources to force us to innovate. China does. (To the Hammer Man’s point, if innovation is to win us a war we’ll also need production to get us there, and the raw materials to feed it.)

    And others to sell it to us? Sure they will. Enough? In a timely manner? Maybe.

    But again, this whole example is pointless to argue because one of my fundamental premises (that the US imports a significant amount of steel from China) was fundamentally wrong.

12. Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens

    @BryanGStephens

    

    Post author

    3:04 PM EDT ⋅ Jul 31, 2018

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

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

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    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.

    Or anything else, it seems. Epidemic on both sides of the aisle.

    Calling others ignorant is not the way to win the argument. It is rude.

    I appreciate the people who have not been rude. I have learned quite a bit so far.

    Are you actually interested in having your opinion changed on this issue? You said so, but your comments in this thread indicate otherwise. If you are interested then I suggest you read I, Pencil.

    I’ve read it, smart guy :)

13. Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens

    @BryanGStephens

    

    Post author

    3:06 PM EDT ⋅ Jul 31, 2018

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

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

     

    Everything I have been taught by Free Traders is that increased supply reduces prices, and trade restrictions increase them. Here, you are telling me removing trade restrictions will increase prices across the board.It sounds like you say Americans are stuck footing the bill for development, while the rest of the world is a free rider, and free trade does not address this problem at all, other than to force them to be less of a free rider.

    The problem that I see with your math is that if the Drug company won’t sell at $6, the other nation will just make it locally, and then the Drug Company gets nothing at all. That is how it works. If Re-importation was allowed, Americans could just buy the stuff being built on the stolen IP at $6 + shipping and still undercut the price of the Drug Company locally.

     

    Where on earth have you been taught that trade restrictions increase supply?!

    Did you even read what I wrote? A Squared said that is the US lowered its restrictions, that the prices would go up, and said it was simple math. 

    Please explain how is the US allows drugs to come from other nations freely it won’t decrease prices. 

14. 🚫 Banned
    Jamie Lockett

    @JamieLockett

    3:07 PM EDT ⋅ Jul 31, 2018

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

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

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    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.

    Or anything else, it seems. Epidemic on both sides of the aisle.

    Calling others ignorant is not the way to win the argument. It is rude.

    I appreciate the people who have not been rude. I have learned quite a bit so far.

    Are you actually interested in having your opinion changed on this issue? You said so, but your comments in this thread indicate otherwise. If you are interested then I suggest you read I, Pencil.

    I’ve read it, smart guy :)

    Okay so, what about it’s lessons do you believe are not applicable in 2018?

15. Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens

    @BryanGStephens

    

    Post author

    3:09 PM EDT ⋅ Jul 31, 2018

    I Walton (View Comment):

    I Walton (View Comment):

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):
    Are you actually interested in having your opinion changed on this issue? You said so, but your comments in this thread indicate otherwise. If you are interested then I suggest you read I, Pencil.

    Or any Hayek, especially his Nobel speech.

    I find this whole discussion frustrating in that we have to fight the anti market wars beginning at zero in every generation. It used to be just with progressives and unions, now it’s even with our own people. Part of the problem is the cavalier way so many economists dismiss the impact of an accumulation of bad policy, from regulations, the role of the dollar, government overspending, and the arrogance of post war corporate management and their unions who had monopolies for decades that allowed them to misinterpret their success and get fat and sloppy. Then along comes Japan then China who developed different trade strategies we’ve had difficulty understanding and dealing with.

    I am sorry, talking about your “own people” is tribalism. I know, because I have been lectured that any such talk is a bad thing. We don’t have “people” or even “sides”. Everyone is just talking about policy. 

     

16. Inactive
    Mike H

    @MikeH

    3:09 PM EDT ⋅ Jul 31, 2018

    Jager (View Comment):

    Mike H (View Comment):
    “We need a better answer” presumes we don’t already have the best answer, whether or not it’s satisfactory to you or anyone else

    We can take me out of the equation, I don’t matter.

    Anyone else, kinda does matter. If your best answer isn’t satisfactory to a large enough section of the voting public, you will get more protectionism and less free trade, whether from Donald Trump style Republicans or from Democrats. Trump and Clinton were both running on some form of protectionism and opposed things like TPP.

    Yeah, I get it, but the fact that people don’t understand how things work and they have the power to force others to give them things doesn’t make placating them a “better answer.” At that point, you’re basically just bribing them.

    The best thing you could probably do is eliminate the welfare state and let the private institutions regrow and take over taking care of people with a healthy dose of strings attached. Eliminate the minimum wage and corporate welfare and let people create and find the most efficient jobs.

17. Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens

    @BryanGStephens

    

    Post author

    3:12 PM EDT ⋅ Jul 31, 2018

    Hank Rhody, Probably Mad (View Comment):

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

    Hank Rhody, Probably Mad (View Comment):

    […]

    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.

    That whole “China steals our intellectual property” thing not sinking in? One of the unfair trade practices that we’re trying to get china to stop is the blatant thievery of our intellectual property.

    The accusation is:

    Apple wants to build a new iPhone.
    Apple manufactures it’s microchips in China
    China uses that manufactury to learn how Apple builds it’s chips
    China can now build the exact same chips

    The paradigm is extremely stupid when applied to military hardware. “Please! Please spy on us!” I’d call it far fetched except that apparently it’s happened already. Thanks Mr. Clinton.

    I think what you’re arguing is

    The U.S. Army wants a new shipment of trench shovels. They order them from China.
    China steals our shovel making technology.
    It’s a freaking shovel. Whoop-ti-do. China learns nothing.

    That scenario is much less troubling.

    Protectionist! 

18. Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens

    @BryanGStephens

    

    Post author

    3:13 PM EDT ⋅ Jul 31, 2018

    Hammer, The (Ryan M) (View Comment):
    When we pretend that economics is zero-sum, we are ignoring the organic nature of economics. We are ignoring the unseen. This is, perhaps, the allure of government control and a “directed” economy. We create a monster, but it is a visible one…

    It is so nice for you to build up the person you want to argue with, and say that is everyone who disagrees with you in the thread. 

     

19. Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens

    @BryanGStephens

    

    Post author

    3:18 PM EDT ⋅ Jul 31, 2018

    Hammer, The (Ryan M) (View Comment):
    I think this is a good point, though. I disagree with your assertion that the possibility of war approaches 100% over time. With a global economy (which we already have), the possibility of war approaches a lot closer to zero.

    That is the dumbest thing I have ever seen you say. 

    Given enough time, there will be another war. Humans fight wars. Hell, I’d love to bet you real money that the united states will be in a war in the next decade someplace. Oh, Congress won’t “Declare War” so if that is what you are standing on, maybe, but the US will be at war with someone in the next 10 years. 

    Oh wait, we are still at war right now!

20. Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens

    @BryanGStephens

    

    Post author

    3:20 PM EDT ⋅ Jul 31, 2018

    Hammer, The (Ryan M) (View Comment):
    I’m not suggesting that any war is unlikely, I am saying that that particular war scenario is extremely unlikely.

    I was obvious what he meant. I got it. See my last post. 

     

21. Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens

    @BryanGStephens

    

    Post author

    3:21 PM EDT ⋅ Jul 31, 2018

    Hammer, The (Ryan M) (View Comment):
    You can say that, in a global economy, damage to one country impacts us negatively, and that is true. We would all be better off if Cuba had a free market, for sure. But we will not make things better by taxing our own consumers in order to prop up one industry.

    But it does make things better if we can get Cuba to back off and move closer to a free market.

    Do you deny that? Do any of you free traders deny that?

22. Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens

    @BryanGStephens

    

    Post author

    3:22 PM EDT ⋅ Jul 31, 2018

    Jager (View Comment):

    Mike H (View Comment):
    “We need a better answer” presumes we don’t already have the best answer, whether or not it’s satisfactory to you or anyone else

    We can take me out of the equation, I don’t matter.

    Anyone else, kinda does matter. If your best answer isn’t satisfactory to a large enough section of the voting public, you will get more protectionism and less free trade, whether from Donald Trump style Republicans or from Democrats. Trump and Clinton were both running on some form of protectionism and opposed things like TPP.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_sqrmWFAKC0

23. Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens

    @BryanGStephens

    

    Post author

    3:24 PM EDT ⋅ Jul 31, 2018

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

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

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    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.

    Or anything else, it seems. Epidemic on both sides of the aisle.

    Calling others ignorant is not the way to win the argument. It is rude.

    I appreciate the people who have not been rude. I have learned quite a bit so far.

    Are you actually interested in having your opinion changed on this issue? You said so, but your comments in this thread indicate otherwise. If you are interested then I suggest you read I, Pencil.

    I’ve read it, smart guy :)

    Okay so, what about it’s lessons do you believe are not applicable in 2018?

    None. Have I now walked into your trap?

24. Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens

    @BryanGStephens

    

    Post author

    3:25 PM EDT ⋅ Jul 31, 2018

    Mike H (View Comment):

    Jager (View Comment):

    Mike H (View Comment):
    “We need a better answer” presumes we don’t already have the best answer, whether or not it’s satisfactory to you or anyone else

    We can take me out of the equation, I don’t matter.

    Anyone else, kinda does matter. If your best answer isn’t satisfactory to a large enough section of the voting public, you will get more protectionism and less free trade, whether from Donald Trump style Republicans or from Democrats. Trump and Clinton were both running on some form of protectionism and opposed things like TPP.

    Yeah, I get it, but the fact that people don’t understand how things work and they have the power to force others to give them things doesn’t make placating them a “better answer.” At that point, you’re basically just bribing them.

    The best thing you could probably do is eliminate the welfare state and let the private institutions regrow and take over taking care of people with a healthy dose of strings attached. Eliminate the minimum wage and corporate welfare and let people create and find the most efficient jobs.

    So, that’s not going to happen. What else you got?

25. 🚫 Banned
    Jamie Lockett

    @JamieLockett

    3:27 PM EDT ⋅ Jul 31, 2018

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

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

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):

    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.

    Or anything else, it seems. Epidemic on both sides of the aisle.

    Calling others ignorant is not the way to win the argument. It is rude.

    I appreciate the people who have not been rude. I have learned quite a bit so far.

    Are you actually interested in having your opinion changed on this issue? You said so, but your comments in this thread indicate otherwise. If you are interested then I suggest you read I, Pencil.

    I’ve read it, smart guy :)

    Okay so, what about it’s lessons do you believe are not applicable in 2018?

    None. Have I now walked into your trap?

    If the lessons of I, Pencil still apply, then why are you now against free trade?

26. Member
    JudithannCampbell

    @

    3:31 PM EDT ⋅ Jul 31, 2018

    Hank Rhody, Probably Mad (View Comment):
    But again, this whole example is pointless to argue because one of my fundamental premises (that the US imports a significant amount of steel from China) was fundamentally wrong.

    China often routes its steel through other countries, so official reports on how much steel we get from China are not reliable. Will provide links in my next comment.

27. Thatcher
    Bryan G. Stephens

    @BryanGStephens

    

    Post author

    3:32 PM EDT ⋅ Jul 31, 2018

    Jamie Lockett (View Comment):
    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.

    I am not against free trade. I am not 100% behind it in all circumstances in all times. 

    I am now very much moved to the idea if the other side is not engaging in free trade, over the long haul, if we can get them to relent, that is something to pursue, even if there is short term gain. 

    So that is a belief in Free Trade being good, but not that one should only be free while the other guy cheats. 

28. Member
    JudithannCampbell

    @

    3:34 PM EDT ⋅ Jul 31, 2018

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/for-chinese-steel-the-road-to-the-u-s-goes-through-vietnam-1523352601

29. Inactive
    Mike H

    @MikeH

    3:58 PM EDT ⋅ Jul 31, 2018

    Bryan G. Stephens (View Comment):

    Mike H (View Comment):

    Jager (View Comment):

    Mike H (View Comment):
    “We need a better answer” presumes we don’t already have the best answer, whether or not it’s satisfactory to you or anyone else

    We can take me out of the equation, I don’t matter.

    Anyone else, kinda does matter. If your best answer isn’t satisfactory to a large enough section of the voting public, you will get more protectionism and less free trade, whether from Donald Trump style Republicans or from Democrats. Trump and Clinton were both running on some form of protectionism and opposed things like TPP.

    Yeah, I get it, but the fact that people don’t understand how things work and they have the power to force others to give them things doesn’t make placating them a “better answer.” At that point, you’re basically just bribing them.

    The best thing you could probably do is eliminate the welfare state and let the private institutions regrow and take over taking care of people with a healthy dose of strings attached. Eliminate the minimum wage and corporate welfare and let people create and find the most efficient jobs.

    So, that’s not going to happen. What else you got?

    The status quo. People who refuse to work for the prevailing wage scraping and clawing for an ever increasing welfare state/protectionism, while killing themselves with drugs because they have no purpose in life. And the left and right being complicit because no one can come to terms with reality. That’s what I got. What do you have?

30. Inactive
    Hammer, The (Ryan M)

    @RyanM

    3:59 PM EDT ⋅ Jul 31, 2018

    Bryan, it appears that you did not fully catch up on the thread before diving back in, guns a’blazin.