Believing in the ideal of "free trade" is as naive as believing in the Communist ideal of common ownership.
As long as the main goal of our trade policies is maximizing corp profit, they are doomed to fail society.
Back to the current issue...the trump tariffs are making an already bad situation worse...running the economy into the ground while deficits balloon.
Republicans appear to be providing tacit support,
and the democrats messaging of "tariffs are bad" is not enough...as they appear to be sitting back and letting the shit show unravel, which is not helping its constituents one bit.
What is the answer to our trade imbalances and other issues, eg, sourcing/manufacturing of key goods like pharmaceuticals...
You tell me whether Trump I's tariffs were good/bad. Or rather, provide evidence of their effects.
You seem to look for intellectual purity in presidents' positions and policies. What I'm saying is that presidents and Congress face pressures at home that often dictate or influence the breadth and depth of protectionism. Free trade is a nice notion until your domestic industry gets wiped out by competition and/or export dumping. You'll then face very angry voters.
Love your deep and penetrating analysis of international trade policy. Yes, it all sucks. Tell us how Gary Johnson would have been so, so better.
Seriously, provide some evidence and perspective in your posts. Please.
Trump I's tarrifs (and trade policies in general) were bad. They started the undoing of decades of work by people who actually knew what they were doing to reduce trade barriers around the world. And more generally, by breaking those agreements, damaged the trust anyone could have had in any agreement we ever make, on any subject. His second term, by doubling down on that strategy, has absolutely wrecked the world's confidence in our ability to keep a promise. But I digress.
Trump's first term trade policies provoked retaliation against US agricultural products. This was felt so deeply and immediately that the Trump administration created additonal farm subsidies to offset that impact. We raised prices on ourselves and provoked a boycott on our goods, then borrowed more money to pay off the constituency that was most immediately affected.
I'm not looking for intellectual consistency, that's not going to happen in American politics. The incumbent parties are not driven by political philosophy or principles, they are coalitions of interests and grievances that are driven by expediency and appeasement. I'm looking for adults to enter the room and rein in the toddlers. And despairing.
WWGJD*? He first and foremost would recognize that the executive branch has constitutional restraints that need to be respected. One of the many problems of our democracy is that the legislative branch has ceded too much power to the executive. That's a problem one man, in one election, cannot fix. With that power we now have ample evidence that the problem is not symmetrical: one man in one election can make it much, much worse.
Trump really really wants to be seen as the smartet guy in the room, and this term he has selected people to make that true.
A terrifying thought.
This is pretty much the MAGA approach to most things - Sink all the boats and hope we can keep our nose above water! As long as the people they dislike are hurting more than they are, it's all good.
There were some serious people in the room during trump v1. trump burned them out and didn't like their impact. There are no serious people in the room in trump v2.
Trump really really wants to be seen as the smartet guy in the room, and this term he has selected people to make that true.
Just like to point out that the current nonsense put forward by Trump is not actually about tariffs but about perceived trade deficits... all based on a fundamentally flawed understanding of the basics of economics. He didn't even include services in the trade balance, whacking tariffs on countries with which the US has a trade surplus.
Trump as an economist is obviously on a par with Trump as a meteorologist. Get out your sharpie! We gonna move this hurricane. And the fact that no one with half a brain in his inner circle is unable to correct him before he veers off the cliff speaks volumes.
There were some serious people in the room during trump v1. trump burned them out and didn't like their impact. There are no serious people in the room in trump v2.
You tell me whether Trump I's tariffs were good/bad. Or rather, provide evidence of their effects.
You seem to look for intellectual purity in presidents' positions and policies. What I'm saying is that presidents and Congress face pressures at home that often dictate or influence the breadth and depth of protectionism. Free trade is a nice notion until your domestic industry gets wiped out by competition and/or export dumping. You'll then face very angry voters.
Love your deep and penetrating analysis of international trade policy. Yes, it all sucks. Tell us how Gary Johnson would have been so, so better.
Seriously, provide some evidence and perspective in your posts. Please.
/smirk.
Just like to point out that the current nonsense put forward by Trump is not actually about tariffs but about perceived trade deficits... all based on a fundamentally flawed understanding of the basics of economics. He didn't even include services in the trade balance, whacking tariffs on countries with which the US has a trade surplus.
Trump as an economist is obviously on a par with Trump as a meteorologist. Get out your sharpie! We gonna move this hurricane. And the fact that no one with half a brain in his inner circle is unable to correct him before he veers off the cliff speaks volumes.
So Trump's first term tariffs were...bad? Because they weren't "targeted"? But they stayed in place alongside new tariffs that were targeted, in order to promote scattershot, incoherent, and contradictory agendas making them...retroactively good?
Biden could have relieved us of the first Trump administration's economic illiteracy with the stroke of a pen. He didn't, he effectively endorsed it*.
Trump's trade policy didn't justify Biden's. Biden's don't justify Trump's. Both suck. If we're supposed to seek redemption from Trump's tanking of the economy in a Democratic administration then Democrats need to articulate a meanigfully different** trade policy, and mean it.
*Well, the team that was bubble-wrapping him did, whatever. I'm not going to pick nits.
**And by "different" I mean "less stupid". Again, recent history is not encouraging here.
You tell me whether Trump I's tariffs were good/bad. Or rather, provide evidence of their effects.
You seem to look for intellectual purity in presidents' positions and policies. What I'm saying is that presidents and Congress face pressures at home that often dictate or influence the breadth and depth of protectionism. Free trade is a nice notion until your domestic industry gets wiped out by competition and/or export dumping. You'll then face very angry voters.
While your hilarity has a point, it may be missing some important details. For one, the Trump tariffs that Biden kept in place were about $300 billion. For another, Biden imposed new tariffs to protect infant industries in the US so they were quite targeted.
Trade agreements and tariffs are born out of and sustained by domestic politics first. There will always be pressure to protect native businesses and industries.
Finally, Trump's 2nd admin has seen massive, sweeping tariffs. I invite you to follow economists like Justin Wolfers and Larry Summers for their take on the effect the Trump 2 tariffs will have. Seriously unfunny stuff.
"Last month, the Biden administration rolled out a suite of tariffs on Chinese exports of electric vehicles, solar panels, semiconductors and more. Administration officials emphasized what they see as differences with the Trump approach.
Biden's "tough targeted approach combining investment and enforcement in key sectors is a sharp departure from the prior administration," White House economic adviser Lael Brainard said last month.
"The previous administration did not take action to invest in America and failed to follow through on securing the promised Chinese purchases or end to China's unfair practices in its failed Phase One trade agreement with China," she said.
Yes, but: Biden has also elected to mostly leave Trump's China tariffs in place in his first three years in office, even as inflation surged.
Of note: Sixteen Nobel laureates in economics have endorsed Biden's economic policies, seeing Trump's policy agenda as likely to be inflationary.
Between the lines: There is an internal incoherence in the new bipartisan enthusiasm for trade barriers.
"What we're seeing is that protectionist policies are being used to advance a number of totally separate goals," which are frequently in tension with each other, AEI's Strain said.
"One goal is to revive the domestic manufacturing sector, another is to weaken the U.S. economic relationship with China, another is to increase the U.S.'s economic self-sufficiency more broadly, another goal is to advance national security, another is to support the green energy transition, and now adding another is to fund government spending," he said.
The bottom line: "That's an awful lot to ask of trade policy," Strain added.
So Trump's first term tariffs were...bad? Because they weren't "targeted"? But they stayed in place alongside new tariffs that were targeted, in order to promote scattershot, incoherent, and contradictory agendas making them...retroactively good?
Biden could have relieved us of the first Trump administration's economic illiteracy with the stroke of a pen. He didn't, he effectively endorsed it*.
Trump's trade policy didn't justify Biden's. Biden's don't justify Trump's. Both suck. If we're supposed to seek redemption from Trump's tanking of the economy in a Democratic administration then Democrats need to articulate a meanigfully different** trade policy, and mean it.
*Well, the team that was bubble-wrapping him did, whatever. I'm not going to pick nits.
**And by "different" I mean "less stupid". Again, recent history is not encouraging here.
It's hilarious watching Democrats suddenly in favor of free trade and quoting Reagan.
When Biden took over from Trump in 2020 he left all Trump's ridiculous anti-prosperity no-good tariffs in place. All of them.
Assuming Trump ruins the Republican brand for a generation (which it seems he's on track to do) and a Democratic regime is swept into power will this recent endorsement of capitalism last? History is not encouraging.
While your hilarity has a point, it may be missing some important details. For one, the Trump tariffs that Biden kept in place were about $300 billion. For another, Biden imposed new tariffs to protect infant industries in the US so they were quite targeted.
Trade agreements and tariffs are born out of and sustained by domestic politics first. There will always be pressure to protect native businesses and industries.
Finally, Trump's 2nd admin has seen massive, sweeping tariffs. I invite you to follow economists like Justin Wolfers and Larry Summers for their take on the effect the Trump 2 tariffs will have. Seriously unfunny stuff.
"Last month, the Biden administration rolled out a suite of tariffs on Chinese exports of electric vehicles, solar panels, semiconductors and more. Administration officials emphasized what they see as differences with the Trump approach.
Biden's "tough targeted approach combining investment and enforcement in key sectors is a sharp departure from the prior administration," White House economic adviser Lael Brainard said last month.
"The previous administration did not take action to invest in America and failed to follow through on securing the promised Chinese purchases or end to China's unfair practices in its failed Phase One trade agreement with China," she said.
Yes, but: Biden has also elected to mostly leave Trump's China tariffs in place in his first three years in office, even as inflation surged.
Of note: Sixteen Nobel laureates in economics have endorsed Biden's economic policies, seeing Trump's policy agenda as likely to be inflationary.
Between the lines: There is an internal incoherence in the new bipartisan enthusiasm for trade barriers.
"What we're seeing is that protectionist policies are being used to advance a number of totally separate goals," which are frequently in tension with each other, AEI's Strain said.
"One goal is to revive the domestic manufacturing sector, another is to weaken the U.S. economic relationship with China, another is to increase the U.S.'s economic self-sufficiency more broadly, another goal is to advance national security, another is to support the green energy transition, and now adding another is to fund government spending," he said.
The bottom line: "That's an awful lot to ask of trade policy," Strain added.
It's hilarious watching Democrats suddenly in favor of free trade and quoting Reagan.
When Biden took over from Trump in 2020 he left all Trump's ridiculous anti-prosperity no-good tariffs in place. All of them.
Assuming Trump ruins the Republican brand for a generation (which it seems he's on track to do) and a Democratic regime is swept into power will this recent endorsement of capitalism last? History is not encouraging.
Just pointing out the words of the High Priest of the GOP on tariffs. I agree about the dark future of capitalism unless some big changes happen.
The shear stupidity on display right now in the White House would make any reasonable person, company, or political party appear to endorse capitalism and free trade.
It's hilarious watching Democrats suddenly in favor of free trade and quoting Reagan.
When Biden took over from Trump in 2020 he left all Trump's ridiculous anti-prosperity no-good tariffs in place. All of them.
Assuming Trump ruins the Republican brand for a generation (which it seems he's on track to do) and a Democratic regime is swept into power will this recent endorsement of capitalism last? History is not encouraging.
About as funny as watching the "free markets forever" crowd coming around to 'well sure, some protectionism'. Almost as good as checking back on all the "he's just joking, he would never do blanket tariffs, that would be market suicide' tweets from last fall (or last week).
It's hilarious watching Democrats suddenly in favor of free trade and quoting Reagan.
When Biden took over from Trump in 2020 he left all Trump's ridiculous anti-prosperity no-good tariffs in place. All of them.
Assuming Trump ruins the Republican brand for a generation (which it seems he's on track to do) and a Democratic regime is swept into power will this recent endorsement of capitalism last? History is not encouraging.
As a fiscal conservative, I'd spent the years up to Trump 1.0 on the Republican side...free trade, lower debt. As much as I favored the ideals of the right, the reality of the US is that financially we've done better under Democrats than Republicans. A few data points...
⢠GDP Growth: Real GDP has grown about 1.6 times faster under Democratic presidents than Republican ones. From 1949 to 2023, average annual GDP growth was 3.79% under Democrats compared to 2.60% under Republicans.
⢠Job Creation: Democrats have historically overseen faster job creation, with an annual growth rate of 2.5%, compared to just over 1% under Republicans.
⢠Unemployment: The unemployment rate has tended to decrease under Democratic administrations and increase under Republican ones.
⢠Stock Market Returns: Stock market performance has been stronger on average during Democratic presidencies.
I think the Dems are rational and intelligent enough to appreciate that the notion of domestic US manufacturing is foolish. It can't happen. It's not gonna happen now. I agree that there are national security businesses (medicines, chips, etc.) that need to be available in times of a global crisis, but focus on those and leave the markets to themselves.
An iPhone has between 200 and 300 companies involved in the supply chain. Those companies cannot, and will not, come to the US to manufacture...so either we have $5,000 iPhones or companies will find a way around the supply chain and tariffs.
The shear stupidity on display right now in the White House would make any reasonable person, company, or political party appear to endorse capitalism and free trade.
It's hilarious watching Democrats suddenly in favor of free trade and quoting Reagan.
When Biden took over from Trump in 2020 he left all Trump's ridiculous anti-prosperity no-good tariffs in place. All of them.
Assuming Trump ruins the Republican brand for a generation (which it seems he's on track to do) and a Democratic regime is swept into power will this recent endorsement of capitalism last? History is not encouraging.
