Trump’s tariffs aren’t good for the economy, Ron Paul warns

ron might have a point if things were on an even playing field and other nations weren't distorting things in their businesses favor with the virtual tariffs and subsidies that vat taxes are, modern free trade is bullcrap and drives prices up forcing companies to fire people and cut pay and benefits to remain competitive overseas and we have started being overrun by china because their larger population rather than a stronger industry.

when the world scraps vat taxes and other unfair free trade practices that are harmful to capitalism is when i think we should consider scrapping tariffs, if the world doesn't want a trade war then it shouldn't start one in the first place, the only reason we haven't done anything before now was because the cold war, we have had a strong growing economy so far and the last three presidents were clearly paid off, conspirators themselves or they were intimidated to cooperate in weakening our economy and military.

free trade doesn't exist anymore and is just an illusion created by words and catchy names, people have forgotten what capitalism and liberty really is. honestly the world needs to stop abusing our economic power for their own gains while acting innocent and claiming that we're trying to start a trade war.

a reply to: Raggedyman

The problem is that other nations use the dollar to set up bills of credit for trade, and they buy oil priced in dollars. To get dollars they have to sell us stuff, to sell us stuff it has to be cheaper than our products.

So if Trump imposes tariffs then foreign products become more expensive, then our trade deficit is reduced and our trading partners get less dollars to use as a basis for bills of credit with other nations.

Another word for the situation is Triffen's dilemma.

The Triffin dilemma or Triffin paradox is the conflict of economic interests that arises between short-term domestic and long-term international objectives for countries whose currencies serve as global reserve currencies. This dilemma was first identified in the 1960s by Belgian-American economist Robert Triffin, who pointed out that the country whose currency, being the global reserve currency, foreign nations wish to hold, must be willing to supply the world with an extra supply of its currency to fulfill world demand for these foreign exchange reserves, thus leading to a trade deficit.

en.wikipedia.org...

Personally I don't have a strong opinion either way, but I think we'd be better off returning to honest money, that is to a dollar backed by gold reserves. But that would severely limit the ability of our government to deficit spend.

Trump wants to deficit spend like mad, he's already setting up deficits of around a trillion a year, which adds to the national debt. I don't think he can have it both ways, this will end up pushing more countries like China, Iran, Russia and perhaps Saudi Arabia away from using the dollar for trade (reserve currency status).

But in reality that is what we need in order to rebuild our industrial base.

a reply to: BlueJacket

You guys have to trash someone I suppose. I don't have a problem being that someone.

a reply to: SkeptiSchism

Thanks that is a dilemma for the US currency

What makes Ron Paul an economy expert, is it because he read some books and has a website. We need to do something to address the trade deficits we have with so many countries. It's not fair to US workers to have to compete with slave labor in China or other countries. A living wage here is not the same as it is in China or any 3rd world country.

If it was up to me, the US would only trade with other countries that have the same morals and human rights we do. We shouldn't be doing business with any country that has a dictator or doesn't allow it's citizens to have free speech.

Confirmation Bias.

"Not a fan of Paul, but he disagrees with Trump so yay".

Don't forget that Paul was in favor of getting rid of NAFTA too.

originally posted by: Xtrozero
Here is something old Ron doesn't know.....

You ask Canada and Mexico to redo the NAFTA since it is extremely unfair for the US, and they basically flip us the finger, saying sorry sucker. You ask China to stop doing unfair trade practices and they do the same with the finger and sorry sucker...

You then come off the top rope with the 25/10 and say I'm willing to negotiate now as old Trump just created leverage. Canada/Mexico now say oh crap! and they will come to the table. China says oh crap! Americans are serious now, and they come to the table...

Even NK with Kim...Trump says You crazy little man, let me show you CRAZY! And little Kim says oh crap and comes to the table.

Anyone see a revolving theme here...lol

This is why Trump is Trump and Paul is not...

There's definitely a revolving theme here... Giving Trump far more credit for things that he hasn't actually done. Like the Carrier plant fiasco for example or from your post, getting the North Koreans to the bargaining table. The latter in particular as it's actually the opposite. The NK's got Trump to the table. They've been actively vying for a sit down with a POTUS for decades and every one of them refused to dignify the requests with a sit down. Though Madeline Albright did meet Kim Jong Un's father in 2000.

It's not like we haven't screwed them over every single time they had agreed to adhere to the Non Proliferation Treaty going back to '94 under Clinton's administration when Pyongyang signed on to cease their plutonium enrichment in exchange for aid and then again in late '02/early '03 when Bush backed out of committing to the negotiations begun by Albright under Clinton prior to labeling them a part of his Axis of Evil and suspended agreed upon oil and food shipments to them. We did the same thing again after a new agreement was reached in '05 for them to again become signatories of the NPT until Obama and his lackeys screwed the pooch again in '09 at which point they promptly told us to go F ourselves and started things back up again.

And what was the end result of that? In less than a decade they managed to somehow acquire all of the materials and tech needed to produce and likely miniaturize warheads (though I'm pretty certain someone else has to be helping them because there's no way they made that much progress in so little time).

Don't get me wrong... I think it's a necessity for the US to legitimize talks with NK. Even if the chances if a successful outcome are slim. And if Trump is successful, then I'll be super stoked and give credit where it's due. Just don't give him the credit for getting them to the table when they've been trying since 1994. The main difference between him and Obama is that Obama insisted in preconditions to sit down with Lil Kim but never went farther because he didn't think they would actually give up their nuclear weapons program.hopefully Trump will be properly prepared and accomplish something. I may not be a fan of his but the good oof the country should be a partisan issue. It's so,egging we should all be behind.

ETA keep in mind that NK isn't ready to sit down with Trump to give up their nuclear weapons program. They're doing so to show the world that now that they have nuclear weapons, the US is forced to treat them as equals.

a reply to: Southern Guardian

Sorry , but Ron Paul has Lost the Common Sense he had as a Presidential Candidate . He has become a Close Minded Individual without a Clue .

originally posted by: notsure1
a reply to: Southern Guardian

It's really funny you know, how this government is going out it's way to protect specific industries

Thats rich coming from the side that forced every single American to buy a product from a specific industry..

JUst lololololol

Hope you dropped the mike after that one....

Like another poster said.. If you are going to rebuild our industrial base, it is what needs to be done. Don't know how anybody can't see how important that is. Not to mention Chinese steel is extremely low standards, and is a supply we can not count on any way. This will put even more Americans back to work,and a more level playing field globally.

LOL and I'm not a huge Trump fan either, but lets see what happens this is just a starting negotiating point. Or do we just not want a balanced chance for U.S industries, if so just say that.

Search China steel substandard they are flooding the market in the pacific with crap.

This got me chuckling for a bit.

a reply to: Zanti Misfit

Sorry , but Ron Paul has Lost the Common Sense he had as a Presidential Candidate

You do understand that Ron Paul hasn't changed his political positions right? He's always opposed tariffs among other matters. He was rather clear about his opposition to tariffs during his 2012 run.

Ron Paul hasn't shifted his position for anybody. Rather it's many of his so called supporters and sympathizers like yourself who have all for the sake of protecting this administration.

a reply to: Southern Guardian

Yep. Can't be both pro-free market and pro-economic protectionism because they're opposites.

I've admittedly enjoyed watching some people say that there need to be fewer government regulations, yet also say the government should have more regulations when it comes to an industry they like. Adding tariffs and limits on amounts of imports is literally adding regulations! And when it comes to increasing tariffs on raw materials, it's literally increasing the business costs for any domestic businesses that use those imported raw materials. Yet they then claim they're pro-business lol.

And it's a similar contradiction when they keep trying to prop up the coal industry. In a free market, you allow an industry to die off if it can't sustain itself. But making the government prop up failing industries is the opposite of that. I vividly remember Republicans making the argument that we should've let the auto industry die off instead of having the govt prop it up in 2008 (HERE). Yet suddenly they agree with the government propping up an entire industry.

There are even posters in this very thread who are attacking Ron Paul for saying this, even though he's staying true to the "free market" perspective. It's like they don't realize that libertarians are pro-free market and pro-free trade. In fact, they usually refer to economic protectionism as a left wing policy since it restricts the economic freedom of global businesses. Here's an excerpt from an article on BeingLibertarian.com called "Three Simple Ways To Crush Protectionism" to get the point across (HERE):

Which protectionist countries have actually been successful?

The United States has always been relatively pro free trade as a nation. Its only instance of pure protectionism was Smoot-Hawley and the result of that was disastrous. Yet, looking at Mexico, China, Hong Kong, Denmark, Sweden and many others, trade clearly works. Before trade, China was a third world nation. Hong Kong, which has almost no natural resources, managed to become a powerhouse of economic growth rivaling the United States’ per capita rate, just by holding near universal open trade. Sweden which was in an economic downturn in the last two decades recently moved towards a more liberal policy on trade and is enjoying economic growth.

Which nations have protectionist policies? Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea, Western Africa. How are they better off? I rest my case.

Ron Paul in 2011:

Unlike protectionists, Ron Paul embraces the economic importance of free trade, but lives in a dream world if he thinks free trade will be realized absent agreements like NAFTA. Paul himself argues that "tariffs are simply taxes on consumers," but by opposing these trade agreements, he is actively opposing a decrease in those taxes. While Paul's rhetoric is soundly pro-free trade, his voting record mirrors those of Congress's worst protectionists.

www.ontheissues.org...

Evidently Ron Paul hasn't shifted positions for anybody so I find it rather amusing that we have members on here claiming that Ron Paul is wrong or that he's lost common sense. You all had no issues years ago now suddenly, because this position conflicts with the big Cheeto's agenda you're all willingly jump like good little minions.

Christ.

a reply to: Southern Guardian

It just shows that this has nothing to do with policies. It's all about who presents those policies.

This became apparent to me in the 2012 Presidential race when Romney was advocating raising taxes on the 47% of Americans who supposedly didn't pay income taxes. For decades, Republicans had been pro-tax cut, even constantly signing Grover Norquist's pledge not to raise taxes. Yet all it took was for them to frame the argument as "us vs moochers" and Republican voters instantly switched their stances.

a reply to: Southern Guardian

Did you actually read the article you quoted?

"his voting record mirrors those of Congress's worst protectionists."

Then lists a slew of free trade agreements he voted against toward the bottom of the article.


Then you post "Evidently Ron Paul hasn't shifted positions" afterwards when Paul appears to be against protectionism... Hmmm

a reply to: RadioRobert

I've read my sources fine thank you:

PAUL: Well, I think free trade is the answer. Free trade is an answer to a lot of conflicts around the world, so I'm always promoting free trade. And you might add Cuba, too. I think we would be a lot better off trading with Cuba.

www.ontheissues.org...

I'm well aware he opposes certain free trade unions but that's based on structure. He's always supported free trade by basic definition. It's fairly evident so why you address the OP directly? Is Ron Paul wrong? Is he lacking common sense?

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
a reply to: BlueJacket

You guys have to trash someone I suppose. I don't have a problem being that someone.

If you didn't have the inherent feeling of superiority over others you wouldn't be judged or hated.

You repeat the same thing over and over, and rarely provide constructive criticism, and the bias. OMG the bias. You are a valuable member, it's your input into the forum that is invaluable. We get it, you don't like trump or the establishment, but when you only bash one side of the establishment your true colors shine through with an amazing spectrum.

If I cared to I could probably quote the same post you made 10x over, because you are predictable and easy to read. We all know what your response will be on any given subject, at least you have consistency there.

Give Trump credit when it's due, and this is one of those moments. The tariffs are a good thing despite what cnn and msnbc try to spin.

originally posted by: Southern Guardian
a reply to: RadioRobert

I've read my sources fine thank you:

PAUL: Well, I think free trade is the answer. Free trade is an answer to a lot of conflicts around the world, so I'm always promoting free trade. And you might add Cuba, too. I think we would be a lot better off trading with Cuba.

www.ontheissues.org...

I'm well aware he opposes certain free trade unions but that's based on structure. He's always supported free trade by basic definition. It's fairly evident so why you address the OP directly? Is Ron Paul wrong? Is he lacking common sense?

Is Ron Paul aware that other countries impose tariffs? I think Ron thinks it's the USAOTW (united states america of the world), it's not.

And yes, Ron Paul is quite delusional.

a reply to: Vector99

Is Ron Paul aware that other countries impose tariffs? I think Ron thinks it's the USAOTW (united states america of the world), it's not.

And yes, Ron Paul is quite delusional.

Vector look, and I speak respectfully here, it is outside of reality to believe that protectionism is going to be the answer to America's employment woes. Manufacturers left the country in droves for a number of reasons that all connect with the changing times.

One major reason, the inevitable opening of other national economies like China.

Another major reason, technology.

A third reason is the easing of global trade as the result of these technologies.

These aren't matters you could make go away with protectionism.... especially when it comes to the fact that the United States itself heavily depends on global trade to function. $2.3 trillion dollars to be exact in exports.

These are a sign of the times. We can no longer apply 20th century logic to 21st century matters.

a reply to: Southern Guardian

Yes, Paul prefers (preferred?) Free trade. Hey, I'm also a free trade idealist. Paul was against those cases where we inevitably entered unfair "free trade" agreements. I still am. If he's changed his mind, he's changed his mind.

a reply to: Southern Guardian

Well looks like even Ron Paul has chimed in on Trump's tariffs and he's not a fan:

With all due Respect Dr. Paul. You couldn't even figure out how to win the election, so I think I am going to rely on Trumps progress for the immediate future. He hasn't let us down yet. I am not saying he will not let us down, but he hasn't yet. Give him a chance. He burned through the election when everyone in media didn't think he had a chance. He has proven he can overcome very big obstacles.