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

a reply to: Southern Guardian

They're still opening up shop here to avoid the steeper tariff.

No one goes into business for the purpose of hiring people.

They do it to make money.

I have to wonder how the politics of the proletariat will work when there is no proletariat to stir up.

Automation is going to chew you guys up.

a reply to: Vector99

There's nothing self-righteous about expressing my opinion on things. If you think so then I'm sorry you feel that way. I don't understand why you can feel that way about me and not the dozens of other posters who parrot the same things over and over every day. Just because I disagree with your views does not mean I'm self righteous, it just means I have a different opinion.

It seems obvious to me, but maybe I am misreading the situation.

He says tariffs for all... then after people marinate on some of that he talks about waiving it for our close economic friends, then our close military allies.

This lets the rest of the world know America is shifting back to you are our friend or you are not a friend.

He has also stated he is open to negotiation over this, so its not like it is a done deal.

Its like he is hitting the reset button on those trade deals that have crushed our middle class, so countries are going to have to decide do we risk the loss of income with a top 5 purchasing economy, or make some concessions that shift things a bit in the favor of the US with an eye for re-negotiation with whoever comes next.

By slapping tariffs on certain things he is forcing other people to the table for a talk, that is the way the world works if the world thinks we will never push back then they can (and have) screwed us in Trade agreements, some pushback in certain areas is good for the economy.

a reply to: projectvxn

They're still opening up shop here to avoid the steeper tariff.

They haven't opened or signed a contractual commitment to opening anything up. So far it's talk and they've scaled back largely what they claim.

No one goes into business for the purpose of hiring people.

They do it to make money.

That doesn't change my point.

Automation is going to chew you guys up.

I agree with the automation aspect. I mentioned this in my response to Vector earlier in this thread.

a reply to: Irishhaf

I'm glad you brought up the fact this administration is considering scaling back these tariffs for allies and friends. Who are these friends? What's the criteria? Will this include NAFTA that both Canada and Mexico, close friends and allies, are part of? The US has a deficit with many EU member nations so how's this going to work?

The entire basis of these tariffs falls apart once reality hits.

a reply to: rickymouse

Yes. Ron Paul knows his economics like no other, but this is a strategy not meant to be permanent. It's meant to force a stop to imbalanced trade. As a businessman, Trump knows how to get the best deal. Let's see if it produces results.

a reply to: Southern Guardian

And don't forget that China, Mexico, and Canada are our 3 biggest trade partners both for imports and exports. If they don't get special treatment on this, then we'll get screwed just as bad when it comes to exports. I don't think a lot of people realize just how many of our companies have subsidiaries in those 3 countries (especially in Mexico) or how much our companies profit from selling our goods to them.

a reply to: Wookiep

Ron Paul knows his economics like no other

Ron Paul doesn't actually understand the dynamics of where economics is heading. His notions of economics work really well for the Industrial Revolution and early Modern era markets, but they don't work well for the information/digital/post-human-labor economy and are entirely without imagination.

At least the socialists who came up with the UBI put some thought into what the future economy might look like. Libertarians like Ron Paul are stuck in the era of pulling rocks out of the ground for the exchange of value, ignoring the history of money and how it has changed throughout the ages.

It took me a while to realize it, but there is a reason libertarian ideas are scoffed at when it comes to economics these days.

a reply to: Southern Guardian

Good post.

What would you say about moving forward 100 years and leaving turn-of-the-century economics behind?

a reply to: projectvxn

O_o

Are you slowly converting to socialism, bruh?

And to be fair, there's an entire branch of libertarians who also agree with the UBI. They support it as a replacement for virtually all social programs since it would be cheaper and would dramatically decrease the size of governments.

a reply to: projectvxn

It wasn't that long ago that Dr. Paul predicted the bubble bursting in 2008. I'm not an expert, but I think Ronnie has a pretty good idea on how things work.

I'll agree to disagree with you on this.

Leveling tariffs on countries that have 1st world living standards is wrong, for example Canada or Britain or Germany. The reason the workers are generally paid a fair wage and benefits. Even Asian countries like Japan and South Korea. Now countries like India,China and Mexico, this is where I actually disagree with Ron Paul. If other first world countries can do better and more efficiently why punish successful capitalism. If however they are paying there employee $1.00/hr those goods should have tariffs. Keep the playing field even. And let's protect American standards of pay from cheap imports.
For example I see Chinese garlic in the food stores, we need to grow and consume our own food at the very least, there should be a massive tariff on that. Sometimes higher prices is the cost of self-sufficiency, and we should be ok with that.

a reply to: enlightenedservant

Are you slowly converting to socialism, bruh?

Not at all. I'm becoming a technologist who wishes to see the true goal of money realized. Money should evolve into nothing more than an ever-updating ledger of goods and services.

I view socialism in exactly the same way as I view libertarianism. On the human freedom end of things, you will always see me agreeing with libertarians. But that's where it ends. Libertarian economics is based on the same basic thing socialism is based on, the human labor factor. If we're going to continue to exploit technology and innovate to the fullest potential of our abilities(augmented by that very technology) and not update how we communicate value in an automated economy, then we're in for a really bad next 100 years.

And to be fair, there's an entire branch of libertarians who also agree with the UBI.

The UBI is an attempt to drag the economics of the industrial revolution and turn-of-the-century monetary systems kicking and screaming into a system where they do NOT fit. Libertarians who are for the UBI are simply compounding lack of imagination with even more of it.

They support it as a replacement for virtually all social programs since it would be cheaper and would dramatically decrease the size of governments.

Possibly, but this would necessarily change the relationship between citizen and government in fundamental ways that libertarians would abhor. It is this kind of cognitive dissonance when it comes to these ideologies, which are routinely ignored, that force us into situations that may be far more dangerous than we have the foresight to conceptualize.

The Industrial Revolution(1760-1820) gave us the American Civil War. A war fought because of the same kind of "square peg in round hole" school of thought that is bringing us the UBI. I believe it will be inflationary, and possibly lead to a global war. Even the most ardent proponents of the UBI admit this could happen. To me, it looks like an attempt to lazily leave the unemployed plebs behind while the elites get to enjoy the wealth created by our binary slave force. That is unacceptable.

a reply to: projectvxn

I think that only through automation will we be able to achieve my ideal socialist state. Automation has the potential to eliminate the entire concept of "work or die" and it would revolutionize how we see "labor". But for it to work, that automation has to be owned by the citizens and used for their benefit.

The basic concept would be for taxpayer owned automated factories & 3D printing machinery to create and maintain the basic needs for society. That would include things like taxpayer owned automated mega-farms & food processing plants that produce the bare minimum food requirements for the population. And things like taxpayer owned self driving buses & subways that provide public transportation for the public. And a revamped taxpayer owned Dept of Housing that uses 3D printing to create public housing structures and uses automated repair bots to do most maintenance and repairs.

Obviously the technology isn't ready yet for most of this, but I think that's where we're heading with all of this. Or at least, that's where we would be heading if we got rid of the "work or die" mindset. Automation to replace all of society's menial labor would free up ridiculous amounts of our free time and it would create a self sustaining safety net that would greatly reduce our dependence of labor, reduce stress, work related injuries, etc. Of course, we could still work for our wants, but our needs would be covered.

I've admittedly stopped caring about our current economic systems because I also think they lack imagination. I also think they're needlessly punitive. I've studied various communist systems and I've realized that they typically suck in practice because of the work requirements. For example, in Mao's China, you were assigned to specific communes and specific jobs within that commune, and that was pretty much the extent of your life. If you were a commoner, you even had to have what amounts to a passport just to be able to visit other communes.

But modern capitalist systems also suck without socialist social safety nets since otherwise there's literally no incentive for their institutions to take care of their citizens who can't cut it. "Buyer beware", the relentless pursuit of profits, and other common practices only make things worse for the common citizens.

a reply to: enlightenedservant

I refer you to this:

The Machine Economy: An Essay on The Communication of Value in an Automated Economy

a reply to: enlightenedservant

The reason I don't agree with socialism is twofold: Fundamental lack of consideration for the individual BY DESIGN. It ignores a basic human concept of the communication of value, and fails to see money as an abstraction thereof. A method of communication. That's what my essay is about.

originally posted by: Southern Guardian
a reply to: Irishhaf

I'm glad you brought up the fact this administration is considering scaling back these tariffs for allies and friends. Who are these friends? What's the criteria? Will this include NAFTA that both Canada and Mexico, close friends and allies, are part of? The US has a deficit with many EU member nations so how's this going to work?

The entire basis of these tariffs falls apart once reality hits.

Who cares who they are?

Are you one of them?

Let the grown ups handle it or at least the people in power now.

It's not like you knot heads did anything good in the last 50yrs.

a reply to: projectvxn

Read it and just responded to it.


I don't disagree with it as much as I expected to. We both seem to believe in the immense power of automation, but have different applications for it, w/you using it for the individual while I'd use it for the community/district as a whole.

a reply to: projectvxn

As Elon Musk tweeted out, other countries such as China tariff US imports as much as 25%. How's their economy? Numerous countries with powerhouse economies tariff imports. It's a normal thing. USA is stupid not to do it. It's one factor in the trend of American jobs going overseas.

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
a reply to: Southern Guardian

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.

Yes, obvioulsy we should all just follow China's model of economic strength through child slave labour and the world will be just rainbows and pots of gold for all the eye can see.