It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Trump's tariffs should be an affront to anybody claiming to support the freemarket

page: 5
16
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 1 2018 @ 10:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Edumakated

Like I already pointed out, the pro-free trade & pro-free market approach would be to lower overall tariffs, not to increase them. In other words, introducing more tariffs shouldn't even be a tool in the proverbial toolbox for people who are pro-free market.

That's like a vegan threatening to eat your dog if you don't stop eating chicken lol. Sure, the overall hypothetical goal would be to decrease the consumption of meat. But using the threat of eating more meat (your hypothetical dog) to reach that goal would be against the concept of veganism. And if that vegan went on and carried out that threat and then you responded by eating their cat, then clearly the situation would have drifted completely away from the supposed goal of decreasing meat consumption. That's the point we're making here.

It would be better if people just said that they weren't 100% pro-free trade or 100% free market. Or even better, that they were only pro-free trade and pro-free market when it benefits their own countries. That would clear up the perception of contradictions. But people cling to those phrases as if they're religious dogma, even when they haven't done any research to see what those phrases actually include.




posted on Jun, 1 2018 @ 10:29 PM
link   
a reply to: enlightenedservant

Free trade isn’t free from regulation. Take widgets as the product sample. If you can make a fortune with widgets, everyone would get in on making and selling widgets. Over production means more supply than demand. By regulating supply, you can have a better profit due to demand.

This can either be done by undercutting all other widget markers, buying them out or other means to be the only game in town. Then comes those pesky anti-trust laws. So the compromise is price control regulations of tariffs to allow enough widget producers to be competitive yet not risk bankruptcy in the process with undercutting by competition.

See also OPEC. DeBears diamonds. Microsoft. Walmart. Ma Bell.....



posted on Jun, 1 2018 @ 10:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ahabstar
a reply to: enlightenedservant

Free trade isn’t free from regulation. Take widgets as the product sample. If you can make a fortune with widgets, everyone would get in on making and selling widgets. Over production means more supply than demand. By regulating supply, you can have a better profit due to demand.

This can either be done by undercutting all other widget markers, buying them out or other means to be the only game in town. Then comes those pesky anti-trust laws. So the compromise is price control regulations of tariffs to allow enough widget producers to be competitive yet not risk bankruptcy in the process with undercutting by competition.

See also OPEC. DeBears diamonds. Microsoft. Walmart. Ma Bell.....

I literally posted the definition of free trade and free market in this post (here). Free trade by definition includes the following "Buyers and sellers from different economies may voluntarily trade without a government applying tariffs, quotas, subsidies or prohibitions on goods and services."

And since when are "OPEC. DeBears diamonds. Microsoft. Walmart. Ma Bell" etc 100% pro-free trade or free market? If they were 100% free trade or free market, then they wouldn't have trademarks, copyrights, patents, etc because those are govt enforced protections that prohibit other businesses from operating their companies completely freely (such as counterfeiters and competitors copying their patents). Instead, they use global organizations and trade groups to lobby various govts to enforce their business restrictions onto other companies in other markets.

For the record, I'm neither 100% free trade & pro-free market nor 100% anti-free trade and free market. Though I lean more to freer trade because I like being able to buy stuff from wherever I want, and I lean more towards a strongly regulated market because I don't trust businesses to treat consumers fairly otherwise (too many con-men and snake oil salesmen out there).
edit on 1-6-2018 by enlightenedservant because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 1 2018 @ 10:41 PM
link   
a reply to: enlightenedservant

All that and you dodged my question entirely.



posted on Jun, 1 2018 @ 11:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Southern Guardian

America First Buddy !


The New Normal.........





posted on Jun, 1 2018 @ 11:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
a reply to: Edumakated

Like I already pointed out, the pro-free trade & pro-free market approach would be to lower overall tariffs, not to increase them. In other words, introducing more tariffs shouldn't even be a tool in the proverbial toolbox for people who are pro-free market.

That's like a vegan threatening to eat your dog if you don't stop eating chicken lol. Sure, the overall hypothetical goal would be to decrease the consumption of meat. But using the threat of eating more meat (your hypothetical dog) to reach that goal would be against the concept of veganism. And if that vegan went on and carried out that threat and then you responded by eating their cat, then clearly the situation would have drifted completely away from the supposed goal of decreasing meat consumption. That's the point we're making here.

It would be better if people just said that they weren't 100% pro-free trade or 100% free market. Or even better, that they were only pro-free trade and pro-free market when it benefits their own countries. That would clear up the perception of contradictions. But people cling to those phrases as if they're religious dogma, even when they haven't done any research to see what those phrases actually include.


You can't have a completely free market if all the players aren't playing by the same rules.

Again, why would the US allow foreign companies unfettered access to our markets but when American companies try to access foreign markets, we find ourselves blocked with tariffs and other protectionist policies?

It is not a fair deal. Trump is simply trying to make these deals more equitable.



posted on Jun, 1 2018 @ 11:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Willtell

Willtell telling another member they have "extreme views" is the equivalent of sour cream telling someone Buttermilk tastes a bit off.

No, I don't buy the 911 conspiracies. It's beyond fantastical to imagine such a massive conspiracy, with so many involved, has managed to survive 17 years without anything beyond crackpot theories like "no planes" and "Bush did it."

I'm here because I like the pet forum. Nothing more, nothing less. It certainly doesn't take being half brain dead and gullible as a goldfish to appreciate a conspiracy themed forum, Willtell... there are many, many members whom I'm sure you've communicated with here who are proof of that.


If Trump is stupid, what does that say about those he plays like a fiddle daily? Do you charge him rent for the studio apartment he lives in within your head, Willtell? Here's a conspiracy for you, the conspiracy of unhealthy, irrational obsession. What's in the water that makes someone obsess this much? Or is it something in the media waves? Perhaps it's swamp gas? What is it?



posted on Jun, 1 2018 @ 11:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: Willtell

originally posted by: Ahabstar
a reply to: Willtell

My opposition to Obamacare was constitutional. It is not an enumerated power of the federal government to require the citizens to purchase anything. Amendment procedures exist for a reason and are clearly stated in order to award new powers.


You could be against Obamacare for any reason you want. That’s not the point.
Birdman says we should be gung-ho for Trump’s risky policies, but on Obama’s, we don’t get risky because that’s socialism. That was the point in that interchange.
I was pointing out his inconsistency.


Ahabstar makes a more valid point, though. Socialism and Willtell's fear of the unknown and the cornsilken haired boogeyman aside, Trump's plan for tariffs is a Constitutional authority bestowed to his office whereas Obamacare was only Constitutional through tomfoolery and outright lies transforming it into a tax (the largest tax increase in US history by a wide margin.) Willtell may not think Constitutionality matters, but everything America has done since 1776 says he's wrong there.



posted on Jun, 2 2018 @ 12:04 AM
link   
Fair Trade...... not this liberal fantasy of FREE TRADE...

The so called FREE TRADE almost decimated the USA's capability to provide for itself...

Thanks to the Uniparty Dems and GOPe....

It's about time we had leadership in DC that is looking out for Americans....



posted on Jun, 2 2018 @ 07:25 AM
link   
a reply to: enlightenedservant

And I say we are closer to agreement than what outwardly appears, just the fine tuning is the differences. Tariffs like trademarks are protectionism as are consumer laws. Earlier I brought up pensions as one hurdle to free markets. That added expense or lack there of affects profit margins. As does labor costs and material costs. The reason we have electric lights was Edison wanting a cheap and efficient way to work in the dark to lower his gas bill.

Overhead. That is one thing that can make or break your product. As can economy of scale. Local cost of living is another. Say you are making beads for Mardi Gras. The beads are made by recycling plastic bottles that people save for you. You string them on fishing line and can sell them in bulk for 10 cents, make a comfortable living and dedicate yourself to doing this full time for the year even though sales are only two weeks before that single day. China company sells theirs for 1 cent for a hundred. Because while you make a thousand necklaces a week, they crank out 1000 an hour and make fidget spinners so beads are just a side job. Your pricing was based on what you can sell, meeting all your living expenses for the year and maybe a small profit to afford getting a break or afford to be sick during those 50 weeks of making the necklaces. Doesn’t matter that your beads are individually colored making them whereas the Chinese company spray paints them at the end. That direct competition means eventually your losses will overcome your overhead expenses.

Tariffs help small businesses as well as large because the bead maker above can’t afford the time nor money to lobby the government the way Beadco USA can. Who also sells theirs for 10 cents each because they have to pay employees, utilities and Obamacare compliant insurance policies (to touch on another subject mentioned earlier).

Consumer freedom of choice is great. Best product for the lowest price is what the marketplace is all about. But if a good enough product at an insanely lower price is edging out both small and large businesses until it is the only option on the market, that isn’t good for the consumer. Because if the bead stringer or the guy no longer working at Beadco are out of work are shut out of the market, they are no longer consumers of other goods.

That is why I brought up Walmart. The impact on Mom and Pop stores when they come to town is well observed. Mom and Pop might be able to get a job at Walmart to keep from starving if they accept a lower standard of living.

Reverse is also true. The owner of the company that I worked for would have candid conversations with me because I gave candid answers to her questions. She was lamenting to work ethic of newer drivers until I pointed out the pay rate wasn’t competing with Walmart for employees, it wasn’t even competing with McDonalds. Sure you could work more hours with us and make way more in the end. But not everyone sees that upfront. It was why I turned down my old factory job that was $3 and how more. Overhead was lower at her job because I didn’t drive my own car to work at the cost of 2-3 tanks of gas per week. And despite the overtime, I had more free time because I didn’t have a 90 minute drive to and from the factory. It worked when I did four 10 hour days there but didn’t work when we went to five 8 hour days with the extra 125 mile round trip.



posted on Jun, 2 2018 @ 08:00 AM
link   
And another point, since I am on the subject of bringing up earlier points.

Food. Everyone can agree that fresh fruits and vegetables are better tasting than canned. Fresh picked from your own garden is the best, but not everyone can enjoy that because the overhead cost of time, land, etc. But due to hothouse products to extend growing seasons/product availability and early picking for longer transportation before rotting, fresh fruits and vegetables do not taste as good from the store as they used to taste. Most notable here in Ohio is California strawberries. They taste like crap because they are picked too early. People in the Midwest can now identify them as Driscoll varieties (strawberries, raspberries, blueberries, etc) which is the farm and not a particular breed of berries like Silver Queen corn versus Peaches and Cream corn.

Canned goods have similar problems as quality standards are lowered in favor of quantity. You find shucks in your cans of corn, bits peach pits in your peaches, bits of rind in you pineapples and so on. This used to be limited to lower tier canned goods but you are seeing it in top shelf products as well. Especially items not domestically produced like Argentina peaches from my earlier example, but also problems exist in the processing of their beef as well, hamburger being the most notable.

Free trade is not the panacea for the consumer that advocates make it out to be.



posted on Jun, 2 2018 @ 08:06 AM
link   
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

Your question had nothing to do with the point. the point is that people who are truly "pro-free trade" would be against these tariffs. Also, I said the following in that very post which addressed your question:


Now, if you think that our trade partners are exploiting us, that's one thing. But a pro-free trade, pro-free market approach would be to negotiate for them to reduce their taxes, tariffs, etc on our goods, not to increase the taxes, tariffs, etc on their goods (since the goal is allegedly to have a tariff-free and burden-free global economy). And the political concept of "reciprocity" just means that they'll impose additional taxes and tariffs on our goods that match the value of our new taxes and tariffs, which is again against the concepts of free trade and free markets.



posted on Jun, 2 2018 @ 08:08 AM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Nor was Obamacare socialism. If anything it was fascism since it was government and industry colluding to the detriment of the people.

On a roll this morning.



posted on Jun, 2 2018 @ 08:11 AM
link   
a reply to: Edumakated

Hence why I said this in the last paragraph of the post you replied to.


It would be better if people just said that they weren't 100% pro-free trade or 100% free market. Or even better, that they were only pro-free trade and pro-free market when it benefits their own countries. That would clear up the perception of contradictions. But people cling to those phrases as if they're religious dogma, even when they haven't done any research to see what those phrases actually include.

In short, someone who is 100% pro-free trade and 100% pro-free market will only work on solutions that increase free trade and free markets.

Someone who is mostly pro-free trade and mostly pro-free market will typically push for solutions that increase free trade and free markets, but will sometimes push policies that are not (such as tariffs and other forms of economic restrictions).

Y'all are overcomplicating this.



posted on Jun, 2 2018 @ 08:29 AM
link   
a reply to: enlightenedservant

Another area where we agree, just to point it out. Retaliation tariffs to keep US imports out of their market for profiteering purposes is also anti-trade practices. Other countries face a problem with that attitude though. The US is large enough and resource rich enough to sustain itself in a completely closed market of total isolationistic policy.

The reason for Trump’s tariffs on finished materials (steel, aluminum, etc) over finished goods is to preserve that isolation option with refining capacity. While very cold hearted, the US can let the world suffer by denying disaster aid and military support to troubled nations for better economic trade conditions. I’d rather go the tariff route, myself. Fortress America wasn’t a very fun game. Thinking of other scenarios as causes for its premise made for good discussion when we played it in college. Maybe that is why I like the lore in Fallout.
edit on 2-6-2018 by Ahabstar because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 2 2018 @ 08:49 AM
link   
a reply to: Ahabstar

So basically, markets need some restrictions both in order to keep local businesses profitable and to keep local citizens employed. Otherwise, they can get easily priced out of the market. If that's what you mean, I can agree with that point completely. (Though I won't lie, I stopped caring a long time ago if my preferred products are made here or not. My tastes are getting a bit more demanding now and I hate settling for less than what I actually want, regardless of their places of origin.)

I can also understand why some industries have expensive "barriers of entry" which are anti-free market by definition. Take automobiles, for instance. If anyone could build automobiles from scratch in their garages and sell them on the market, it would be a catastrophe. Not only would there be the problem with safety standards & nationwide warranties/service, but there's no telling what fuels they would require or what kind of proprietary parts they would require (assuming anyone could even order replacement parts for them). So it makes sense to have a lot of expensive regulations and paperwork before people can open car manufacturers.

Medical devices and healthcare should have similar high barriers of entry and I'd expect most people to agree with that concept. Otherwise, any charlatan or fly-by-night hustler could "create" medical devices or open up a health care facility for cheap, start operating on desperate patients, and then just close down their business and disappear if something bad happens. Current regulations, license requirements, and the such can't cut down on 100% of the fraud, but they've indisputably made it safer for consumers than a non-regulated health care industry would be.

When actually thought out, I think most people would agree that some industries need laws, need regulations, and need restrictions. Every single time there's a financial crisis, people instantly start complaining about Wall St bankers and demanding to know how they were allowed to do this or that (while demanding punishment and justice for their allegedly fraudulent roles in the crisis). Well, eliminating banking regulations would only give us a lawless banking system and their financial crimes would no longer crimes, which means they'd legally be able to do all of that stuff and worse. I doubt anyone actually wants a lawless banking system for their savings/checking accounts, retirement accounts, investments, etc.

In other words, I sincerely doubt that anyone is actually 100% pro-free trade or 100% pro-free market. If they were, then they would be against all business regulations, which as I've already highlighted, would be a disaster. And they'd be in favor of every company in the world being able to freely operate in whatever country/state/city they chose to. But clearly they don't, otherwise they'd be against things like economic sanctions (like the ones against Iran) and they'd be in favor of foreign companies like Saudi-owned and Chinese-owned companies buying up the businesses in their neighborhoods. And of course, there would be no "America first" mindset because truly free trade doesn't give a crap about the place of origin of products; it's all about allowing any business the ability to push its products & services into any market it wants with no govt interference, which is why restrictions on cheap imports are a direct attack on free trade.

But for whatever reason, a lot of people seem to treat "free market" and "free trade" as if they're religious dogma or God's commandments, and seem unwilling to just admit that they're not actually for them. If someone's only for them when they benefit from them, then they're not really for them. That would be like claiming to be pro-charity, but only when you're the recipient of that charity. But once you have to actually pay towards that charity, the complaints about fairness and an unequal cashflow come into play lol. That's the point the OP & I seemingly are trying to make here.



posted on Jun, 2 2018 @ 09:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: Ahabstar
a reply to: enlightenedservant

While very cold hearted, the US can let the world suffer by denying disaster aid and military support to troubled nations for better economic trade conditions. I’d rather go the tariff route, myself.

One problem here is that our country doesn't just give money away. We "give" money away as foreign aid in exchange for access to markets, in exchange for alliances, in exchange for security for our corporations, in exchange for being able to keep some of our bases in their countries, etc. So if we're going to use that aid as a weapon, we'd better be ready to lose our alliances, lose our bases in many other countries, lose access to cheap minerals with other countries, etc.

For example, we've been "giving" Egypt something like $1.6 billion dollars a year to keep their alliance with Israel ever since 1979. Are we going to eliminate that, too, and risk Egypt going back to its constant belligerence against Israel? And remember the catastrophic earthquake in Haiti some years back? Most of that aid money went to Western contractors, non-profits, and aid groups with virtually none of it going to the Haitian government itself. In other words, that "aid" went more to our own companies more than to the people who actually needed it in Haiti, anyway.

And according to this govt breakdown (HERE), roughly 2/3 of our "aid" to Mexico goes to "peace and security". That 63% of our aid is further split up into 72% for counter-narcotics (part of our War on Drugs), 8% against transnational crime (aka cartels), 17% security operations and security sector reform, etc. The last one I listed says the following:

Support U.S. Government and civilian partners’ participation in ongoing, existing, or potential operations, to include peacekeeping, humanitarian, coalition/multinational, and peace support operations. Support security sector reform through training and operational support.

In other words, around 2/3 of the "aid" we give to Mexico is meant to support our War on Drugs, is meant to fight the cartels, and is meant to support our military and security operations. Is that really going to hurt them or us more if we cut it?

It's actually pretty ironic because of the economic angle of this conversation, but a lot of wealthy countries already participate in programs like the WTO's "Aid for Trade" program. To put it bluntly, our governments pay "aid" to poor/developing nations in exchange for favorable business environments for our firms and cheap access to their resources. Or to put it even more bluntly, our taxes are sent to developing countries so that "our" corporations can get cheap raw materials and cheap labor, then "our" corporations sell the final products back to us taxpayers at large markups. That "aid" isn't going to the citizens of poor countries; it's subsidizing our companies and their supply chains. And if we stopped all of that aid or participation in these kinds of programs, then China, Russia, Gulf countries, EU countries and others would just step in to buy "our" current share of those cheaper raw materials and labor pools for their own companies.



posted on Jun, 2 2018 @ 09:46 AM
link   
a reply to: enlightenedservant

Right on.

As I said it is far better that the US give food for famine relief to Ethiopia than deny it as means to negotiate the price of a bottle of wine from France. I like my tax dollars going towards funding that aid by buying from domestic producers.

But as a consumer I would rather have an iPod Touch with the added functionality versus a GE transistor radio from the 1960’s that was domestically produced. That is a real danger of isolationism when “good enough” equates to no choice or growth. The old Soviet car that had zero changes in 30 years is a great example of isolationist policies. Or all the 50’s era Chevy’s in Cuba due to hard policy sanctions.

But I guess there is an odd sad story here or there to be found when companies try to use government protectism and fail. Zenith is one of those stories. They invented FM radio. Made superior hand wired versus solid state TV’s and radios until finally transitioning. Even innovated subscriber based TV and created HDTV decades before use. But it was the fight against imports that did them in. Some Zeniths are still produced by LG for people that think they are still buying American, but LG is a South Korean company.



posted on Jun, 2 2018 @ 09:59 AM
link   
a reply to: Southern Guardian

We have not had free markets in my lifetime ... and I am of generation X. Just saying.



posted on Jun, 2 2018 @ 10:26 AM
link   
a reply to: enlightenedservant

Oh I am aware of those policies as well. It is how Japan became a powerhouse in the 1980’s and China in record time since they were opened in the 1970’s with the Nixon talks furthered by Clinton in the 1990’s. Not sure why India hasn’t outpaced China yet. Perhaps the overinvest in China slowed US corporate interests in India. Or financial worries kept over investment down. Or China’s tight control of the Yuan versus the India’s Rupee value increasing.

One of my bad jokes during the election was that Trump could arm and outfit the Haitians and they would take care of Hillary for an assured win due to how Haiti relief aid was funneled by Hillary into the Clinton Foundation.

While many call the US policies American Impeiralism. It differs from the English Empire in that we do not own those countries outright. I do wish that we didn’t do it in such a way as picking winners and losers within those countries with the policies. It has only proven to further poverty and slave labor/sweatshops that are illegal here at home.

But America has done the same here in America in the past. The Coal Wars are a example. Coal companies entered Appalachia and bought the mineral rights to unsuspecting land owners and proceeded to strip mine the coal. The US sided with the mining companies’s contracts to the point of deploying troops to settle the rebellions taking place. The TVA is another example of eminent domain gone amok and affected my grandfather as a child when the whole original town of Caryville, TN would become the bottom of a lake. His mother wasn’t even compensated enough to cover the price of the stock on the shelves in her general store. The response was take it or learn to swim.




top topics



 
16
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join