Trump's Greatest Weakness

Discuss principles, issues, news and candidates related to upcoming elections and voting.
User avatar
ajax
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 7988
Location: Pf, Texas

Trump's Greatest Weakness

Post by ajax »

Trade. (and Iran, but let's stick with trade)

Some wise and sagacious advice from Richard Epstein for Mr. Trump on trade, his area of greatest economic weakness

http://www.aei.org/publication/some-wis ... -weakness/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
In an Open Letter to President Trump, Richard E. Epstein (Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, Professor of Law at the NYU Law School and senior lecturer at the University of Chicago) offers some very wise and economically critical advice to Mr. Trump on trade, which has to be the president-elect’s greatest economic liability and shortcoming by far. Trump’s views on trade are completely ill-informed, immature, flawed, and deficient, and it’s an area where he desperately needs the kind of maturity and insight that Professor Epstein offers below.

Simply put, Trump’s view on trade and trade deficits aren’t just a little wrong, or partly wrong, they are actually completely wrong, upside-down and backwards, as I argued in the Los Angeles Times earlier this year (“Trump is completely wrong about the U.S. trade deficit“). President-elect Trump, Listen Up! Hear what Professor Epstein has to say about trade, you really need to understand this important economic issue if you want to promote economic prosperity and really make America great again. Above all, you have to avoid the lose-lose approach to trade that you’ve have been peddling to the American people.
Right off the bat you face this key choice on how to mend the economy by making the United States more competitive than it has been. You have two choices, one of which is fatal and the other that promises a fair measure of success. The first path is to try to shut out the competition from overseas by putting up trade barriers, reneging on previous trade deals, and vetoing the Transpacific Partnership. It is strictly a lose/lose proposition. The consequences of this approach could lead to a trade war that would make the economic sins of progressive politicians look puny in comparison. Taking that approach will also alienate huge portions of American businesses that depend on foreign trade. The upshot will be a further loss in jobs for the very people who need them most, who will abandon you in droves when this happens. I interpret the surprising rise in the market as evidence that Wall Street does not think that you will follow through on that plan. You should listen to its advice.

The correct approach is to leave international affairs as they are by taking steps to fix the economy at home. The largest growth industry in the United States is compliance. Remove those barriers domestically and American businesses, large and small, will be able to compete more effectively in world markets in ways that will benefit workers at home and consumers overseas who can get the benefit of our products. This approach is win/win. Jobs will return to the United States when we remove the domestic barriers to their creation. Foreign nations will benefit from the increased trade, and become stronger and better allies.
….

The key point remains this. If we clean out our own domestic institutions, we shall raise the ability of American firms to compete world-wide. Jobs will then be created and standards of living will move up. So you must hold off on your ill-conceived trade plans so that domestic reforms will allow for economic prosperity both at home and abroad. You have a busy period ahead. Don’t fritter the opportunity away.
Bottom Line: If Trump pursues the outdated, ill-advised, lose-lose, prosperity-killing mercantilist trade policies of tariffs, protectionism, and trade restrictions that he’s been promoting, we can unfortunately look forward to a stagnant US economy with continued weak growth in jobs and output. But if Trump listens to Richard Epstein and hopefully his pro-growth economic advisers, and pursues domestic reforms and takes a win-win approach to reducing trade barriers, signing the TPP, and leaving NAFTA and other trade agreements alone, that is the more certain path to greater economic prosperity and a bright economic future.

User avatar
rewcox
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 5873

Re: Trump's Greatest Weakness

Post by rewcox »

What are the domestic reforms?

User avatar
ajax
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 7988
Location: Pf, Texas

Re: Trump's Greatest Weakness

Post by ajax »

Reduced compliance - the regulation burden and business taxes.

Silver
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 5247

Re: Trump's Greatest Weakness

Post by Silver »

There is currently a 73% anti-dumping tariff on steel from any foreign source coming into the US. It's purpose is to protect the US steel industry. Because the economy is not good on a worldwide basis (yes, Obama lied...he's been lying for 8 years), foreign competitors are trying to sell as much as possible in the US and elsewhere. They have lowered their prices to do so.

It used to be a source of pride to Americans that they did not get taxed on their income. The federal tax man never came knocking on their door. That all changed in 1913 when we were promised that only the rich would be taxed and only 1%. Lying government. I think it might be good to return to a protectionist stance because it would improve our domestic economy. US companies with operations overseas couldn't make as much shipping their product into the US. They would return production to the US. Voila...jobs. Less people on welfare.

User avatar
skmo
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4495

Re: Trump's Greatest Weakness

Post by skmo »

I think his greatest weakness is his own narcissism. However, that's also likely to be one of the only thing that saves us from getting two barrels full of TrumpShot. He's going to want his name remembered as being great, kind of like Reagan. As such, I think he'll be bound to not go too far abroad in harmful tings.

User avatar
David13
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 7072
Location: Utah

Re: Trump's Greatest Weakness

Post by David13 »

skmo wrote:I think his greatest weakness is his own narcissism. However, that's also likely to be one of the only thing that saves us from getting two barrels full of TrumpShot. He's going to want his name remembered as being great, kind of like Reagan. As such, I think he'll be bound to not go too far abroad in harmful tings.

I say thanks but I don't really think he is as narcissistic as you may think. I think that is just part of the public personna he has put on much of his life, based on the idea that a lot of people expect that from someone in his position.
I think he has a very healthy level of humility, and that he listens to what a lot of people have to say. For instance, the NRA, which is important, I think.
dc

braingrunt
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2042

Re: Trump's Greatest Weakness

Post by braingrunt »

Would it be reasonable to have a tariff system which is tied to our regulatory system? Where every regulation is given a monetary penalty which disappears to the degree complied with? And companies, domestic or foreign, can choose their level of compliance.

My main goal is to level the playing field as far as morality goes; if a company can benefit by offshoring due to taxes, talent, or anything else, they are welcome to do so without penalty. But they cannot go offshore to profit from loosened morality. If we find it in our hearts to regulate anything here, I feel the hypocrisy and insanity of requiring us to comply while avoiding immediate consequences by buying foreign/less regulated.

I do not propose such a thing because I like regulation generally. But I would wish to make it so that anyone who employs virtual slave labor cannot possibly profit here, as compared to those who treat workers better. If they wish to compete better they can do so as fast as they are willing/able.

And, if we can't afford what we need to, we deregulate, and every company the world over is unfettered.

Ps, I can see how this might get problematic and I don't know the answers to the problems. This is just a thought experiment.

User avatar
ajax
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 7988
Location: Pf, Texas

Re: Trump's Greatest Weakness

Post by ajax »

Silver wrote:I think it might be good to return to a protectionist stance because it would improve our domestic economy.
Is this akin to George W's "abandoning free market principles to save the free market"? Is our freedom dictated to by others non-freedom? By what right does my neighbor have to dictate my personal decisions as to what to buy and from whom to buy from? Is this not coercion? Would you personally go to your neighbor to coerce his decisions in such a manner? Then why have a 3rd party do the dirty work for you? I thought this was standard liberty 101:
See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime. (Bastiat)
This is nothing more than using the law for special privilege.
Protective tariffs are as much applications of force as are blockading squadrons, and their object is the same—to prevent trade.The difference between the two is that blockading squadrons are a means whereby nations seek to prevent their enemies from trading; protective tariffs are a means whereby nations attempt to prevent their own people from trading. What protection teaches us, is to do to ourselves in time of peace what enemies seek to do to us in time of war. (Henry George)
More Questions for Trump and Other Protectionists and Mercantilists
http://cafehayek.com/2016/10/more-quest ... lists.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Donald Trump is a protectionist like many other politicians, save that he unfurls his vast economic ignorance more fully and more proudly than do more seasoned politicians. I’ve more questions for Trump and his fans, and, indeed, for protectionists of all stripes, colors, and temperaments. Such as….

– If you buy your tomatoes and okra from a stranger across town and, in response, your neighbor hires a gang of neighborhood thugs to rough you up if you don’t start buying your tomatoes and okra from him, do you regard your neighbor’s actions as just? After all, his actions increase demand for his output and make him richer.

– If the neighborhood thugs succeed in getting you to buy fewer tomatoes and okra from the stranger across town and more from your neighbor, and if (as is indeed likely) your neighbor is enriched by this thuggery public policy for the neighborhood, do you believe that your neighbor’s increased wealth necessarily means that your neighborhood is thereby made wealthier? Are you thereby made wealthier?

– Do you believe that the success of the neighborhood thugs in getting you to buy more of your neighbor’s tomatoes and okra will encourage your neighbor to be more attentive to your wishes as a consumer – your wishes as someone who buys tomatoes and okra? Do you believe that the quality of the tomatoes and okra that you buy from your neighbor under these circumstances will be as high as would the quality of the tomatoes and okra that you buy were there no neighborhood thugs to rough you up whenever you purchase tomatoes and okra from outside of your neighborhood?

– Suppose that your neighbor shows you indisputably correct facts and figures that prove that you and your neighbors have for several years running bought larger dollar amounts goods and services from people who live outside of your neighborhood than people who live outside of your neighborhood bought from you and your neighbors. Your neighbor explains that this fact – this “neighborhood trade deficit” – is reason enough for him to employ local thugs to rough you up each and every time you buy tomatoes and okra from outside of the neighborhood. Would you excuse your neighbor? Would you, in light of these fine facts and figures, volunteer to pay part of the salaries of the thugs who rough you up whenever you spend your money outside of the neighborhood?

– Suppose that your neighbor shows you indisputably correct facts and figures that prove that he hasn’t been working in his garden as much as he normally does, and that the reason is that there is now less-than-typical demand for the tomatoes and okra that he grows and offers for sale. “Normally,” says your neighbor, “I’d have neither an ethical right nor a good economic justification for employing local thugs to rough you up each and every time you buy tomatoes and okra from outside of the neighborhood. But because I’m now not working as much as I normally do in my garden, I’m now both ethically and economically justified in employing local thugs to rough you up each and every time you buy tomatoes and okra from outside of the neighborhood.” Do you accept your neighbor’s reasoning?

– Suppose that your neighbor shows you indisputably correct facts and figures that prove that a homeowners’ association outside of your neighborhood spends part of its budget encouraging its residents to grow more tomatoes and okra. Your neighbor explains that this fact – this “subsidization of produce by an outside-of-our-neighborhood collective-decision-making entity” – is reason enough for him to employ local thugs to rough you up each and every time you buy tomatoes and okra from outside of the neighborhood. Would you excuse your neighbor? Would you, in light of this revelation, volunteer to pay part of the salaries of the thugs who rough you up whenever you spend your money outside of the neighborhood?

– Suppose that you question your neighbor’s claim that subsidization of outside-of-our-neighborhood production of tomatoes and okra by an outside-of-our-neighborhood homeowners’ association justifies his use of thugs to rough you up each and every time you buy tomatoes and okra from outside of your neighborhood. Your neighbor replies that “such use by that outside-of-our-neighborhood homeowners’ associations of its homeowners’ funds is a clever and crafty way to make that other neighborhood richer at our neighborhood’s expense!” Do you find this explanation compelling? Does its asserted truth justify your neighbor employing local thugs to rough you up each and every time you by tomatoes and okra from that other neighborhood?

– Suppose instead that your neighbor shows you compelling evidence that the other neighborhood has been overtaken by a gang of brutish thugs who violently extract resources from the citizens of that other neighborhood. These brutish thugs spend these extracted resources subsidizing the production of tomatoes and okra grown in that other neighborhood and the sale outside of that neighborhood of those tomatoes and okra. Your neighbor informs you that these thugs are thereby “strategically” enriching that other neighborhood at our neighborhood’s expense – which is why (your neighbor continues with his scholarly explanation) your neighbor is justified in “strategically” employing local thugs to rough you up each and every time you purchase tomatoes and okra from that other neighborhood. Do you believe that the gang of brutish thugs in the other neighborhood are really making the people of that neighborhood, as a whole, more prosperous? Regardless of your answer to the previous question, do you believe that your neighbor is justified in using local thugs to rough you up each and every time you buy tomatoes and okra from that other neighborhood?

…..

Now slightly reword each of the above questions so that “neighborhood” is replace by “country,” “thugs” replaced by “government authorities,” and “tomatoes and okra” is replace by “goods and services.” I’m distressed, dear protectionist friends, to guess that your answers change when the questions are so reworded. Can you explain why?

The Candlemaker's Petition

https://fee.org/articles/the-candlemakers-petition/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
We candlemakers are suffering from the unfair competition of a foreign rival. This for­eign manufacturer of light has such an advantage over us that he floods our domestic markets with his product. And he offers it at a fantastically low price. The moment this foreigner appears in our country, all our customers de­sert us and turn to him. As a re­sult, an entire domestic industry is rendered completely stagnant. And even more, since the lighting industry has countless ramifica­tions with other native industries, they, too, are injured. This foreign manufacturer who competes against us without mercy is none other than the sun itself!

Here is our petition: Please pass a law ordering the closing of all windows, skylights, shutters, cur­tains, and blinds — that is, all openings, holes, and cracks through which the light of the sun is able to enter houses. This free sunlight is hurting the business of us deserving manufacturers of candles. Since we have always served our country well, gratitude demands that our country ought not to abandon us now to this un­equal competition.

We hope that you gentlemen will not regard our petition as mere satire, or refuse it without at least hearing our reasons in support of it.

First, if you make it as difficult as possible for the people to have access to natural light, and thus create an increased demand for artificial light, will not all domestic manufacturers be stimulated thereby?

For example, if more tallow is consumed, naturally there must be more cattle and sheep. As a result, there will also be more meat, wool, and hides. There will even be more manure, which is the basis of agri­culture.

Next, if more oil is consumed for lighting, we shall have extensive olive groves and rape fields.

Also, our wastelands will be covered with pines and other res­inous trees and plants. As a re­sult of this, there will be numerous swarms of bees to increase the production of honey. In fact, all branches of agriculture will show an increased development.

The same applies to the shipping industry. The increased demand for whale oil will then require thousands of ships for whale fish­ing. In a short time, this will re­sult in a navy capable of upholding the honor of our country and grat­ifying the patriotic sentiments of the candlemakers and other per­sons in related industries.

The manufacturers of lighting fixtures — candlesticks, lamps, candelabra, chandeliers, crystals, bronzes, and so on — will be espe­cially stimulated. The resulting warehouses and display rooms will make our present-day shops look poor indeed.

The resin collectors on the heights along the seacoast, as well as the coal miners in the depths of the earth, will rejoice at their higher wages and increased pros­perity. In fact, gentlemen, the con­dition of every citizen of our country — from the wealthiest owner of coal mines to the poorest seller of matches — will be improved by the success of our pe­tition.
A Negative Railroad
https://www.libertarianism.org/publicat ... e-railroad" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I have said that as long as one has regard, as unfortunately happens, only to the interest of the producer, it is impossible to avoid running counter to the general interest, since the producer, as such, demands nothing but the multiplication of obstacles, wants, and efforts.

I find a remarkable illustration of this in a Bordeaux newspaper.

M. Simiot raises the following question:

Should there be a break in the tracks at Bordeaux on the railroad from Paris to Spain?

He answers the question in the affirmative and offers a number of reasons, of which I propose to examine only this:

There should be a break in the railroad from Paris to Bayonne at Bordeaux; for, if goods and passengers are forced to stop at that city, this will be profitable for boatmen, porters, owners of hotels, etc.

Here again we see clearly how the interests of those who perform services are given priority over the interests of the consumers.

But if Bordeaux has a right to profit from a break in the tracks, and if this profit is consistent with the public interest, then Angoulême, Poitiers, Tours, Orléans, and, in fact, all the intermediate points, including Ruffec, Châtellerault, etc., etc., ought also to demand breaks in the tracks, on the ground of the general interest—in the interest, that is, of domestic industry—for the more there are of these breaks in the line, the greater will be the amount paid for storage, porters, and cartage at every point along the way. By this means, we shall end by having a railroad composed of a whole series of breaks in the tracks, i.e., a negative railroad.

Whatever the protectionists may say, it is no less certain that the basic principle of restriction is the same as the basic principle of breaks in the tracks: the sacrifice of the consumer to the producer, of the end to the means.

Juliet
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3701

Re: Trump's Greatest Weakness

Post by Juliet »

This is why we do not listen to professors. They believe in Kenysian economics, which is economic philosophy and looks good on paper, but not in the real world. In Kenysian economics, everyone freely trades so that those countries with the best skills at cheese making make all the cheese, which allows other countries to specialize in making what they make best. The problem is, this creates competition that will lower income for developed countries to be competitive with third world incomes. It destroys self reliance which is catastrophic for safety. Self reliance is a much better policy than Kenysian economics. Kenysian economics also is responsible for the Fed's quantitive easing. It is terrible and I do not understand why college professrs actually believe it works.

User avatar
ajax
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 7988
Location: Pf, Texas

Re: Trump's Greatest Weakness

Post by ajax »

braingrunt wrote: But they cannot go offshore to profit from loosened morality.
But I would wish to make it so that anyone who employs virtual slave labor cannot possibly profit here, as compared to those who treat workers better.
Huh?? We ought to hesitate from self-righteous moralizing and think of the reality:

User avatar
ajax
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 7988
Location: Pf, Texas

Re: Trump's Greatest Weakness

Post by ajax »

Juliet wrote: This is why we do not listen to professors. They believe in Kenysian economics, which is economic philosophy and looks good on paper, but not in the real world. In Kenysian economics, everyone freely trades so that those countries with the best skills at cheese making make all the cheese, which allows other countries to specialize in making what they make best. The problem is, this creates competition that will lower income for developed countries to be competitive with third world incomes. It destroys self reliance which is catastrophic for safety. Self reliance is a much better policy than Kenysian economics. Kenysian economics also is responsible for the Fed's quantitive easing. It is terrible and I do not understand why college professrs actually believe it works.
Free trade pre-dates Keynes. It's the division of labor, specialization and trade that spurs economic progress out of poverty. Civilization if you will. The opposite would be each family/individual producing their own goods - clothes, shoes, pencils, butter, milk, meat, house, car....A return to subsistence level poverty. Try it.

User avatar
ajax
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 7988
Location: Pf, Texas

Re: Trump's Greatest Weakness

Post by ajax »

3 Problems with Protectionism
https://mises.org/blog/3-problems-protectionism" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
2016 is shaping up to be “the Year of Protectionism” in American politics. Indeed, during the second presidential debate this year, in a race to show which candidate was more protectionist, one candidate (Trump) threatens to impose tariffs on foreign competitors, while the other candidate (Clinton) accused the first candidate of buying metal that has been “dumped” in America by foreign firms.

It’s easy to see why the issue is popular. “Protecting” American firms — and presumably, their workers — from foreign competition sounds like a great idea. After all, what patriotic American wants to see Americans lose their jobs to foreigners overseas? While arguments like these are used to rally the citizens and get them to support protectionist policies, these arguments ignore the fact that protectionist policies always distort the economy at the expense of consumers. As Murray Rothbard explained, protectionism harms the consumer by limiting competition, which benefits the “inefficient” domestic firms that “cannot make it in a free and unhampered market”:
As we unravel the tangled web of protectionist argument, we should keep our eye on two essential points: (1) protectionism means force in restraint of trade; and (2) the key is what happens to the consumer. Invariably, we will find that the protectionists are out to cripple, exploit, and impose severe losses not only on foreign consumers but especially on Americans. And since each and every one of us is a consumer, this means that protectionism is out to mulct all of us for the benefit of a specially privileged, subsidized few—and an in efficient few at that: people who cannot make it in a free and unhampered market
Protectionism is fundamentally about limiting choices and affordability for consumers.

Tarriffs Make Consumers Poorer

Tariffs have the effect of discouraging consumers from buying foreign products by raising the price. While domestic producers make up only a small proportion of the population compared to the consumers, we are supposed to assume that raising the price of goods will somehow help “the greater good.” As Rothbard points out, it is the average citizen (the consumer) that loses when tariffs are imposed because they have to pay more for goods that they could otherwise buy for a lower price. What is never talked about among those who argue in favor of tariffs is how paying higher prices has an adverse impact on the general population — especially on those with low or average incomes. When tariffs are imposed and these people have to pay higher prices for goods, the main avenue through which potential producers can create wealth is taken away. The portion of their income that would otherwise be saved or invested must now be spent to purchase the same quantity of goods. Even if the consumer or potential entrepreneur chooses to save money and buy less of the product, he is losing wealth because they have settled only for a second-most-desired option when what they really wanted was the imported good.

“Dumping” Is a Term that Translates to “Inexpensive Goods for Consumers”

Although tariffs are destroyers of the people’s wealth, anti-dumping policies are equally damaging to the nation’s economy. Investopedia defines dumping as “the export by a country or company of a product at a price that is lower in the foreign market than the price charged in the domestic market.” Dumping can also refer to a company selling a product in a foreign market at a price below its production costs. Just like trade without tariffs, trade without dumping restrictions can be incredibly beneficial for consumers. For example, a Chinese firm might decide to “dump” steel in America. If the firm were to do so, this would be of great benefit to the consumer. Even if the consumer could not directly buy steel at the lower price, the consumer would benefit because American producers (i.e., an auto manufacturer) that make steel products would likely see the price of one of their factors of production decrease. Moreover, the purchaser of steel would then be able to pass on this cost savings to their consumers. Although it sounds great when politicians say they are going to protect American businesses and create anti-dumping regulations, they are increasing the price of the product that is being “dumped.”

Protectionism Means the Government Picks Winners and Losers

If protectionism largely hurts the American consumer, why do politicians overwhelmingly support protectionist policies? The answer: protectionist policies enhance state power.

One way states can enhance their own power is by making promises to do favors for specific groups of people. Frédéric Bastiat’s The Law does an exceptional job of highlighting how the state serves itself by taking from one group of people and giving to another. Bastiat calls this concept “legal plunder.” He also points out the immorality of this concept when he writes
[W]hen a portion of wealth passes out of the hands of him who has acquired it, without his consent, and without compensation, to him who has not created it, whether by force or by artifice, I say that property is violated, that plunder is perpetrated.
In other words, people are taught to view government’s theft of property as moral and charitable while they are taught that one individual taking from another is theft and should be condemned. The point that Bastiat is making is that theft is theft, and theft is immoral regardless of whether a private citizen or a government institution is the thief.

Juliet
captain of 1,000
Posts: 3701

Re: Trump's Greatest Weakness

Post by Juliet »

ajax wrote:
Juliet wrote: This is why we do not listen to professors. They believe in Kenysian economics, which is economic philosophy and looks good on paper, but not in the real world. In Kenysian economics, everyone freely trades so that those countries with the best skills at cheese making make all the cheese, which allows other countries to specialize in making what they make best. The problem is, this creates competition that will lower income for developed countries to be competitive with third world incomes. It destroys self reliance which is catastrophic for safety. Self reliance is a much better policy than Kenysian economics. Kenysian economics also is responsible for the Fed's quantitive easing. It is terrible and I do not understand why college professrs actually believe it works.
Free trade pre-dates Keynes. It's the division of labor, specialization and trade that spurs economic progress out of poverty. Civilization if you will. The opposite would be each family/individual producing their own goods - clothes, shoes, pencils, butter, milk, meat, house, car....A return to subsistence level poverty. Try it.
I don't think it works overseas. Sure for small communities expertise is a must. But people are selfish and greedy. That is why it will not work. China may have the cheapest farmed fish, but that is because they are willing to feed the fish on chicken manuer. They don't care what they send us. It is not wise and it is not safe and the world economy cannot compete until people are more enlightened. From following this policy under Obama we have lost jobs and standard of living. Other countries do not have labor laws to protect the worker and therefore Americans will be priced out of jobs by employees in India who can take IT jobs for 2 dollars an hour. Americans cannot compete and as has been happening we will lose our jobs. Remember when you could buy something and it would last? I just broke my third wire wisk. Luckily I have an old one from my grandma she lent me. Same thing with my spatulas i spent 20 dollars on, they lasted less than 6 months. Things just don't work anymore and it is akin to a tax to have people who don't care about quality.

braingrunt
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2042

Re: Trump's Greatest Weakness

Post by braingrunt »

ajax wrote:
braingrunt wrote: But they cannot go offshore to profit from loosened morality.
But I would wish to make it so that anyone who employs virtual slave labor cannot possibly profit here, as compared to those who treat workers better.
Huh?? We ought to hesitate from self-righteous moralizing and think of the reality:
Thanks for that information, digesting. But I still feel like we should have the same standards the world over.

larsenb
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 10812
Location: Between here and Standing Rock

Re: Trump's Greatest Weakness

Post by larsenb »

People seem to forget the role of a country in all this. We band together as a country to assign roles of protection for our well-being at various levels. Trade with foreign countries is best regulated at the Federal level.

Allowing our manufacturers to relocate in foreign countries to take advantage of their cheap labor, lack of environmental regulation, and perhaps lower or non-existent taxes, doesn't help out the well being of those in our country who lose jobs as a result. It doesn't help out our national sovereignty to lose the capability of manufacturing a broad range of goods and products. It makes us more dependent on these foreign countries. In times of crises, including war, this could be critical.

At best, allowing manufacturing to go abroad and importing what they produce has simply helped us export our inflation, and overcome some of the effects of job loss caused by this process in the first place.

User avatar
ajax
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 7988
Location: Pf, Texas

Re: Trump's Greatest Weakness

Post by ajax »

Sorry larsenb, but this is just coercion plain and simple. What right do you have to come to me and dictate what decisions I will make? And further, what right to you have to hire third party thugs (government) to do your dirty work for you? The choice is liberty or coercion. It is both morally wrong and economically wrong (the economic literature debunking the protectionist/mercantilist racket is vast since the days of Adam Smith)

The real solution is to reduce the burdens we place on ourselves though regulations and taxation.

braingrunt
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2042

Re: Trump's Greatest Weakness

Post by braingrunt »

ajax wrote:Sorry larsenb, but this is just coercion plain and simple. What right do you have to come to me and dictate what decisions I will make? And further, what right to you have to hire third party thugs (government) to do your dirty work for you? The choice is liberty or coercion. It is both morally wrong and economically wrong (the economic literature debunking the protectionist/mercantilist racket is vast since the days of Adam Smith)

The real solution is to reduce the burdens we place on ourselves though regulations and taxation.
I guess you've convinced me Ajax. I should not with threat of violence tell you what you can buy for what price. And it sounds like these sweatshops are generally providing solutions and improvements where they exist. I do feel like I would have a right to interfere with you benefitting from slave labor, but it sounds like that's not what's going on.

User avatar
ajax
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 7988
Location: Pf, Texas

Re: Trump's Greatest Weakness

Post by ajax »

braingrunt wrote:Thanks for that information, digesting. But I still feel like we should have the same standards the world over.
I do to. But we are all at different levels of development, and forcing 1st world standards on 3rd world developing countries hurts rather than helps. Wouldn't it be nice if we could force child labor legislation on third world nations? On the surface, yes. But their actual choices aren't between work and school. It's between work and starvation. The British charity Oxfam found that in Bangladesh, where the government caved in to Western demands to suppress child labor, the children didn’t wind up in school! Where did they wind up? In prostitution, or dead.
https://www.cato.org/publications/econo ... ohibitions" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

They need to be left alone to develop and progress to the point where the luxury of leisure (school) becomes a real option do to increased productivity and wealth creation. But we as humans have a knack to now what's best for others.

User avatar
ajax
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 7988
Location: Pf, Texas

Re: Trump's Greatest Weakness

Post by ajax »

btw - it was only 100+ yrs ago that America was a sweatshop nation. And children have been working for millenia in backbreaking agricultural work. It is really a new phenomenon that kids now in first world nations don't work in until they are 16. And this is due to prior production and wealth creation and capital accumulation to allow such.

It is uncharitable of us to look at the options of others, and remove the option they actually chose.

larsenb
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 10812
Location: Between here and Standing Rock

Re: Trump's Greatest Weakness

Post by larsenb »

ajax wrote:Sorry larsenb, but this is just coercion plain and simple. What right to you have to come to me and dictate what decisions I will make? And further, what right to you have to hire third party thugs (government) to do your dirty work for you? The choice is liberty or coercion. It is both morally wrong and economically wrong (the economic literature debunking the protectionist/mercantilist racket is vast since the days of Adam Smith)

The real solution is to reduce the burdens we place on ourselves though regulations and taxation.
With respect to your "vast [] economic literature debunking the protectionist [] racket", I'm at a loss in being able to mount an argument that would satisfy you regarding my contentions. I'm simply not familiar with this literature to any extent.

Regarding regulations. What right does a company have to dump toxic waste into the common environment in a way that endangers innocent people? Tort law simply isn't enough to prevent this type of thing from happening. And Individual resources are more than likely insufficient to mount proper redress.

Ideally, we delegate power to the government to regulate things that are wrong that we don't have the individual power to stop.

At the same time, a company operating in a foreign land may be doing similar things to produce their product because of lax environmental laws in that country. They may be using cheap labor, even slave labor held at the point of a gun, to help produce their product.

Protecting our countrymen against such things seems perfectly allowable in my view of what a country is all about . . . . despite the vast literature you mention.

JohnnyL
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 9830

Re: Trump's Greatest Weakness

Post by JohnnyL »

I hope some guys at the Mises Institute can school him.

I agree with free trade--IN OUR COUNTRY. Of course, it will never happen... Anyway, I like protectionism, because it... protects. :)

Silver
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 5247

Re: Trump's Greatest Weakness

Post by Silver »

ajax wrote:
Silver wrote:I think it might be good to return to a protectionist stance because it would improve our domestic economy.
Is this akin to George W's "abandoning free market principles to save the free market"? Is our freedom dictated to by others non-freedom? By what right does my neighbor have to dictate my personal decisions as to what to buy and from whom to buy from? Is this not coercion? Would you personally go to your neighbor to coerce his decisions in such a manner? Then why have a 3rd party do the dirty work for you? I thought this was standard liberty 101:
See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime. (Bastiat)
This is nothing more than using the law for special privilege.
Thanks for your comments. Mine about protectionism was not fleshed out enough. I don't really like the idea of protectionism, but I dislike the current tax code even more. I believe the feds have limited powers under the Constitution. If we don't tax income, how do we pay for the things the federal government should do? My understanding is that the best days of the republic were during a time when only tariffs were used to fund the government's activities. What do you or the Mises organization see as the best method?

I also note that one of the best times for the Nephites was when they could trade freely with even the Lamanites. You're right. That seems like no protectionism. That's fine by me.

User avatar
SmallFarm
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4643
Location: Holbrook, Az
Contact:

Re: Trump's Greatest Weakness

Post by SmallFarm »

skmo wrote:I think his greatest weakness is his own narcissism. However, that's also likely to be one of the only thing that saves us from getting two barrels full of TrumpShot. He's going to want his name remembered as being great, kind of like Reagan. As such, I think he'll be bound to not go too far abroad in harmful tings.
Agreed. He'll be very centrist/ progressive the first three years. He may crank up the right wing rhetoric in 2020 (if he thinks he needs it) but before that he'll do his best not to only do stuff to prove how great a president he can be. Watch out for that second term though... :-ss

User avatar
Kingdom of ZION
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1939

Re: Trump's Greatest Weakness

Post by Kingdom of ZION »

"The real solution is to reduce the burdens we place on ourselves though regulations and taxation."

That sound all fine and dandy... There needs to be a balance in all these things - regulations and taxation, for governments have no way of finding and doing such until the people push back (and that is only truly found here in America). But, to set a standard that protect our people or even favors our people, clearly those who are against such never take into account the benefits of those earnings generated by these domestic employees being spent here at home, and the additional benefits that is produced over and over thereafter!

If we have a standard here, it must be meet by those wishing to enter our markets with the burden of proof of compliance being born by them. The real problem is if the people are unrighteous, the government will always reflect our own personal standards, and we will have an unrighteous government. So what is your real solution?

It is not the Transpacific Partnership... for if one supports such a horrible treaty, which give over all control and sovereignty to a foreign committee or board who will make economic decisions for us based on a global agenda, that is slavary! If that is your real solution, then I need to ask you a few questions:

Are you a Socialist (closet Communist)?
Are you an International Globalist that believes we need an international governing authority, that by doing so were going to usher in a utopian time of peace?

If that is your beliefs, then I have no more questions for you. I know what master you serve, and I will not bandy words with a witless servant, that has no understand of prophecy or world history.

What is the Real Solution? Start crying repentance unto this generation day and night! Start praying three times a day for deliverance from the wickedness that has beset this nation! And get prepared for the judgments that are coming to those upon this Promise Land who have turned away from worshiping the True and Living G_d! Destruction is at our very door!

Shalom

JohnnyL
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 9830

Re: Trump's Greatest Weakness

Post by JohnnyL »

Here's the problem some countries have gotten themselves into...

Without protection, those countries--and their peoples--are now in control of foreign powers.

If you stop production and switch to service, you can only hope that your foreign suppliers don't form a cartel.

If you stop growing food because you can get it cheaper from a foreign country, what happens when they start supplying to your enemy, and not to you?

Post Reply