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

He's got a point..... Schwarzenegger:

Actor and former California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) on Friday mocked reports that President Trump is considering a plan to prolong the use of struggling coal and nuclear plants, saying he eagerly awaits the administration's regulations to protect pagers, fax machines and Blockbuster.

“I eagerly await the administration’s regulations protecting pagers, fax machines, and Blockbuster,” Schwarzenegger tweeted, citing a report that the Trump administration may order grid operators to buy electricity from coal and nuclear plants that are at risk of closing.

thehill.com...

And here's where you've really got to question the direction Trump is going. Industries like Coal are out due to innovation and changes. The logic of the freemarket supporter would dictate we respect the changes of the market and allow the old to die and the new to come in? So why is Trump, a believer of the freemarket himself going out of his way to protect the likes of the Coal industry and US steel? These actions would be enough to make the likes of Milton Friedman roll in his grave:

According to Friedman, tariffs would probably make the other countries retaliate. As a result, the exports will also get harmed. So who will be harmed most? The quality products of both countries. Why? When a state imposes a tariff, the reason is to protect the less competitive products that cannot even stand in the internal market on their own.

medium.com...

Libertarian Ron Paul has been vocal about Trump's tariffs and labels it as just another tax being burdened upon the American people. Ron Paul pointed to the civil was as being caused in part by taxes that he felt unfairly targeted the south. These taxes were of course Tariffs introduced in the early 19th century designed to protect northern factories.

Given Trump's latest actions are obviously in opposition to long held beliefs and ideals of the freemarket, why are his supporters, who have long parroted these ideals under previous administrations, suddenly 100% on board with his actions? What's different this time around?

a reply to: Southern Guardian
The market is still free to decide which US manufacturer to buy steel from. Besides, this was a lead up to a hot conflict. The tariff is necessary because we have to switch over to domestic production so our rivals cannot use access to their metal as a way to slow down our military efforts at stabilizing the world. if you want a stable world, we need to have renewed access to a supply of resources that cannot be dangled over our heads for political means when our interests and those of others differ.

The coal thing is nothing more than speculation and hubris at this point.

Also, here is the full 41 page memo that was submitted by Bloomberg news. Clearly it was leaked, as it says right on each page attorney client privelage. So how did Bloomberg get this draft memo?? It either

1. was leaked from the attorney, or the client
   
2. Made it all up on the order of the propaganda agency know as the Global Engagement Center, which is controlled by the Secretary of the State, which at this time is the CIA
   

Im going to go with mostly B.

a reply to: Southern Guardian

IMO, a freemarket, by its very definition, is open to manipulation & control (just like free and fair elections) unless guidelines are adhered to by all those participating in the marketplace and those guidelines are based on fairness for all, with innovation reigning supreme.

Now, from my understanding (and I'm not privy to the nuances of previous trade deals struck by previous administrations over the past 50 years which has led to the current situation) these tariffs are resetting mutual trade obligations between countries so that the US reaps a greater benefit as opposed to little or no benefit which appears to be the case.

So, for instance, how Harley Davidson deal with the new imposition of tariffs for their export market will show the extent of the real impact Trumps latest tax slap will have.

As long as the playing field is equal, that's a fine sentiment. But when you have countries that penalize American countries on trade and then complain if the US dares to do the exact same thing, then that's a problem. Sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander. You cant tell the US to "play fair" and then cheat.

a reply to: worldstarcountry

The market is still free to decide which US manufacturer to buy steel from.

No the market is not free as you're dictating to the consumer which products they can buy, by freemarket logic. This was made fairly clear by freemarket darling Milton Friedman.

The tariff is necessary because we have to switch over to domestic production so our rivals cannot use access to their metal as a way to slow down our military efforts at stabilizing the world.

So it's for national security? Sorry this baffles me.

The coal thing is nothing more than speculation and hubris at this point.

How can it be 'speculation' when Trump himself promised to bring the industry back from the brink? That's in complete opposition to freemarket ideals. For goodness sakes he made promises about this time and time again on the campaign. Trump’s Got a Crazy New Plan to Save the Dying Coal Industry.

Once upon a time, people didn’t have a tax on their income. Tariffs were a major funding source for the operation of the federal government.

Same exact thing Obama did for all of the “green” companies that couldn’t make a profit ie: Tesla, Solyndra etc...

a reply to: Sublimecraft

IMO, a freemarket, by its very definition, is open to manipulation & control

Imagine you said this 2 years ago Sublime. What sort of reaction would you get from those likeminded? I'm fairly certain you'd get a mouthfull.

My point still stands, it's 'different' this time around.

There has never been a free market in america. In fact, tariffs were the main way the government was funded before income tax.
The market is manipulated by the companies with the most money who can bribe congress to pass laws more favorable to them or exempting them from other regulations, now. Thats not a free market.
I like ron paul and i like his son. I cast a protest vote for him every 4 years. But i care more that americans can get decent paying jobs than i do about the free market

a reply to: Southern Guardian

Why is nuclear energy such a bastard child.
They provide 24/7, 365 days a year output more often than not. And those are 30 year old reactors. Imagine if we could have modern reactors. Half of the nation's 104 nuclear reactors are over 30 years old, according to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The rest are over 20 years old.

France still generates a ton of their output via nuclear.

France derives about 75% of its electricity from nuclear energy, due to a long-standing policy based on energy security. This share may be reduced to 50% by 2025. France is the world's largest net exporter of electricity due to its very low cost of generation, and gains over €3 billion per year from this.

a reply to: Southern Guardian

Meh, if Trump pushed complete free markets, you'd demand tariffs. ZZZZ

a reply to: Southern Guardian

Oh goodie, another neo-con asshat who wrecked his own state pipes up. www.huffingtonpost.com... He tripled California's debt. Why, oh why, should we not be doing exactly the opposite of anything he says economically after considering that fact?

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: Southern Guardian

Meh, if Trump pushed complete free markets, you'd demand tariffs. ZZZZ

Of course he would, that's how this game of hatred and blind outrage is played, afterall...

originally posted by: Southern Guardian
a reply to: Sublimecraft

IMO, a freemarket, by its very definition, is open to manipulation & control

Imagine you said this 2 years ago Sublime. What sort of reaction would you get from those likeminded? I'm fairly certain you'd get a mouthfull.

My point still stands, it's 'different' this time around.

Imagine for a moment a cabal hell-bent on deconstructing the US from within, step by step, law by law, until it is nothing more than another landmass contributing to the globalist machine. Since well before I joined ATS, I've recognised such activity within the US as actually occurring - where politicians and lawmakers get payoffs and houses in exchange for the passing of laws designed to benefit corporations and their offshore activities. Both sides have played this game for 50years and now their little game is up since Trump, a man who already had the money and lavish lifestyle thanks to the freemarket, has decided to reset things based on fairness - this is the CEO coming out.

a reply to: avgguy

Nice to see trump and obama have some things in common right?

a reply to: burdman30ott6

People think Free and Fair trade mean the same. The world doesn't run on unicorn farts. Otherwise we would have no energy problems.


But Unicorn farts are very high in methane and other Greenhouse gasses, so it would accelerate Climate Change. Is it stiLL Climate Change or have we moved those goalposts again?

a reply to: Southern Guardian
Well sir, everyone still has the ability to purchase foreign steel. Nothing in writing says you cannot purchase foreign steel. If I so choose, I can go out and pay the extra 25% and still receive foreign steel. Just because it costs more, does not mean you lost the freedom to buy it.

For free trade to work you need a level playing field among equitable trading partners.

Tariffs seek to make that field level.

We can t let any country dump their products here but then those same countries engage in protectionism when we try to access their markets.

originally posted by: Southern Guardian

And here's where you've really got to question the direction Trump is going. Industries like Coal are out due to innovation and changes. The logic of the freemarket supporter would dictate we respect the changes of the market and allow the old to die and the new to come in?

Is coal dead yet, or are special interest groups trying to kill it before it is time? All things come and go, the car replaced the horse, but it wasn't right away. When Governments subsidize an industry with the purpose to undercut the private free market for years in an attempt to kill it, that is not a free market.

So lets say China sells steel 15% cheaper than any private sector company can make it is that OK?

The OP and Schwarzenegger are also among the folks who support policies which are the reason global free trade is a losing proposition for America to begin with. Minimum wages, strict worker protection laws, massive environmental regulations, etc guarantee that trade with the USA, in absence of tariffs, will always be to our economic and manufacturing's serious detriment. You can't have your cake and eat it to. Choose one: free trade or rigorous wage and evironmental standards, can't have both and make it work.