Margaret Hoover interviews Alexandria Cortez, askes asinine question about capitalism


#43

It’s not Trump’s trade war. It’s Trump’s response to China’s trade war with the United States which has been in progress long before Trump began running for office.

In addition, I think Trump makes a valid point when he wants “reciprocal trade”.

Finally, it is not in American’s best interests for your company to do business in China and transfer our technology and intellectual property rights to China. But heck, why not do so when the “profit” is so great?

There is common sense trading, and trading which is destructive to America’s best interest. It seems to me you are just fine with American’s military defensive technology being sold to the highest bidder under the banner of “free trade” and to hell with any consequences so long as the profit is large enough.

JWK


#44

Another deflection. Your beloved “curve” has nothing to do with the wrong-headed notion of identifying our system as “capitalism”.

JWK


#45

I have a transcdent right to buy goods & services from foreigners, and to not be interfered with.
It’s my liberty at work. That’s free enterprise.

Quit making excuses John. You backed the wrong horse.


#46

So now you are going to deflect from you beloved “curve” which has nothing to do with the wrong-headed notion of identifying our system as “capitalism”. It’s about time.

In regard to your alleged “transcdent” [transcendent] right with respect to foreigners…" you forget our Constitution grants power to Congress to “regulate commerce with foreign nations” and Congress may lay and collect Duties and Imposts at our water’s edge to provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States.

You may disagree with our Constitution, but it is still the rule of law, regardless of your personal predilections.

If you don’t like the provisions in our constitution, there is a remedy. It’s found in Article V.

JWK
Those who reject abiding by the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was agree to, as those intentions and beliefs may be documented from historical records, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.


#47

You are doing the same thing as the author of that article, using anecdotal evidence as opposed to the facts to build an argument that conveniently supports your economic view which does not account for the whole picture.

  1. You keep ignoring the inflation that is affecting everything due to the oil price so you can blame tariffs that were laid after the inflation was already occurring.
  2. You reference someone specific who blames Trumps tariffs for their being being hurt when all of the facts show that our economy at every level is BOOMING, this is the same tactic that the author used when he cited the poor pig farmer who is turning to the democrat to save him.
  3. Both your example and the authors are of the people who are demographically the most ardent Trump supporters, this is done to combat the truth that has been frustrating the media for 2 years; that Trump is more popular than ever in spite of their constant attacks and more popular than Obama after their constant praise.

If the company you are referencing cannot make it in this economy then they have far more relevant things to blame than Trumps tariffs, business and personal income are up across the board and every Market is citing the problem of finding good labor as their most pressing concern; the worker participation rate has gone from record lows to near record highs in just 2 years. Tax revenue is up after tax cuts, regulations have been steadily reduced and nations that access our Markets while prohibiting our producers from accessing their Markets are being confronted in a clear way; they will balk and try anything to restore their leverage but our economy will continue to BOOM while theirs suffers so they will finally capitulate and open their Markets to our producers.

This is why nations need a government, to keep their citizens from being raped by domestic and international entities that want to eradicate the competition; you can lament the loss of Obama economics if you like but I will not shed a single tear over the removal of the government gun that made certain only their “chosen ones” would have opportunity and everyone else could just take the scraps that they offered.

Your precious China crap will return once China opens their Markets to our Producers, that side of the “Free Market” may be something that you don’t care about but for those who want our economy to have opportunities outside of the retail sector and service industry it is pretty damn important.


#48

And you cannot be oppressive with it. Madison spelled that out.

No, it is not carte blanch, to write whatever tariff you want at whatever rate you want. If it isn’t to raise revenue, it’s invalid, and a violation of liberty.

Quit making excuses for it.


#49

RET, why does New Zealand not reflect this?

They’re closer to China than us, they have lower tariffs, yet, they did not lose their industries by bringing their tariffs down, and getting rid of subsidies.

Why didn’t China route their domestic industries, if what you say is true?


#50

Madison was a firm believer in taxing at our water’s edge, just like Hamilton likewise favored taxing consumption.

You may disagree with our Constitution, but it is still the rule of law, regardless of your personal predilections.

If you don’t like the provisions in our constitution, there is a remedy. It’s found in Article V.

:roll_eyes:

JWK

Those who reject abiding by the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was agree to, as those intentions and beliefs may be documented from historical records, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.


#51

Ask yourself what New Zealand produces that they market in China. Then you’ll have the answer to your question, AS. The answer is…NOTHING.


#52

Uh, Dave… here’s a New Zealander Farmer, talking about what he sells to China, his #1 foreign customer.


#53

BS. You can’t be serious.


#54

Business sense, if he has any, does not equal economic literacy. Would you consider George Soros an economic literate? Or the rest of the rich elite who rule over us in Congress?

China was not victimizing me or you or any other American citizen. And the United States already had absurd anti-free enterprise tariffs and trade policies in place before Trump decided to ramp it up and add everything else to the list.

If I exchange a dollar for a thing, it’s reciprocal trade. Trade is reciprocal or it does not happen.

It’s not my technology or yours. It belongs to the company that transfers it in exchange for something. If they don’t like it, they shouldn’t trade it away. Obviously, they get something in exchange or they wouldn’t make the exchange. China’s unwillingness to allow free trade costs its people not ours.

Spoken like someone who does not support free enterprise or liberty. In actual free enterprise, I don’t have to check with you or the president before making a trade with someone. Of course, since I’m not trading with an American, you and the president want to penalize me.

My trading with China is not destructive to America’s “collective” best interest. If it is, I’d like to know how.

America’s defensive technology being sold? What are you on about?


#55

I’ll give you the same response I gave AS.

Our Constitution grants power to Congress to “regulate commerce with foreign nations” and Congress may lay and collect Duties and Imposts at our water’s edge to provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States.

You may disagree with our Constitution, but it is still the rule of law, regardless of your personal predilections.

If you don’t like the provisions in our constitution, there is a remedy. It’s found in Article V.

JWK


#56

That’s an interview with the farmer, watch it & hear for yourself. He explains why it is Chinese consumers are buying his products.

Again, it comes back to standards, as well as this fixation people have on cows that are grass-fed vs grain-fed.


#57

You’ve been going on about not responding to some question or another, and you literally have not addressed a single thing I said. You just say “it’s constitutional, so oh, well.” This discussion hasn’t been about whether the federal government has the power to collect a tariff. Since you’re changing the subject, I’m just going to take it that you concede Trump’s tariffs are stupid and wrong, that Trump is not a free trader but rather one of those other kinds of capitalists.

Maybe we can continue with your change of subject:

Congress has abdicated its constitutional responsibility and given it to the president to unilaterally impose tariffs.

Is it constitutional given the following statement from the Constitution?

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes


#58

Within limits, perhaps true, but I don’t believe you can make that kind of money without having a good idea of how economics work. As to those others (Soros, etc.) I would make a distinction between economic illiteracy and economic nefariousness…


#59

What is stupid is to believe there ought to be no regulation of commerce with foreign nations, and a self perceived right to trade with foreigners without any regulations trumps the general welfare of the United States.

JWK


#60

No, you have that confused, you mean the welfare of the state.

The United States prospers when you leave people alone, and let them trade with who they wish.

Economic productivity correlates positively with economic freedom. An absolute fact. We are no exception.


#61

Of COURSE there are exceptions, AS. Should you be “free” to buy heroin from the Thais? How about cocaine from the Mexican cartels? THOSE are examples of your concept of “free trade.”


#62

No, yours in an exception of what you’re trading with, not who.

You arrest an American buying Cocaine from another American just the same as a Thai or Mexican. So who is doing the buying/selling is immaterial.

This doesn’t address what I said:

Economic productivity correlates positively with economic freedom. An absolute fact. We are no exception.

If you’re free to trade cocaine, of course productivity of cocaine is going to rise. That’s self-evident, and it’s true for anything in the economy you look at.