Trump is "protectionist?" SERIOUSLY


Protectionism is putting up tariff’s and barriers for the SOLE purpose of preventing ANY foreign competition for the products made in your country. Or it can also be PROHIBITING certain or all imports of goods that might compete with domestic goods and production of goods.

THAT’S protectionism. THAT would have been possible in the early 20th Century.

Here are Trump’s grievances with China:

**1. Economists estimate the Chinese yuan is undervalued by anywhere from 15% to 40%. This grossly undervalued yuan gives Chinese exporters a huge advantage while imposing the equivalent of a heavy tariff on U.S. exports to China. Such currency manipulation, in concert with China’s other unfair practices, has resulted in chronic U.S. trade deficits, a severe weakening of the U.S. manufacturing base and the loss of tens of millions of American jobs.

** Do you think it’s kind of strange that Trump is the ONLY one in the race to point that out?

**2. China’s ongoing theft of intellectual property may be the greatest transfer of wealth in history. This theft costs the U.S. over $300 billion and millions of jobs each year…The Chinese government also forces American companies like Boeing, GE, and Intel to transfer proprietary technologies to Chinese competitors as a condition of entry into the Chinese market. Such de facto intellectual property theft represents a brazen violation of WTO and international rules.

  1. ** **Chinese manufacturers and other exporters receive numerous illegal export subsidies from the Chinese government. These include - in direct contradiction to WTO rules - free or nearly free rent, utilities, raw materials, and many other services. China’s state-run banks routinely extend loans these enterprises at below market rates or without the expectation they will be repaid. China even offers them illegal tax breaks or rebates as well as cash bonuses to stimulate exports.
    **** China’s illegal export subsidies intentionally distorts international trade and damages other countries’ exports by giving Chinese companies an unfair advantage.

There is NOTHING in Trump’s website that comes within thousands of miles of a TARIFF AGAINST CHINA for these infractions, which by the way are against international law. The closest thing he has proposed on THIS WEBSITE has been LOWERING the corporate tax to keep our businesses competitive and LOWERING the national debt to reduce the financial blackmail China can use against us right now.

Why are there NO OTHER candidates talking about this? Why is John Kasich screaming about wanting to give AMNESTY to a bunch of criminals? Why is Hillary screaming bloody murder about climate change?



The closes thing is a tariff:

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump said that if companies manufacture cars in China or Mexico “you’re going to have to pay a tax to get the cars back in” in an interview broadcast on CNN on Thursday.
Trump: Put a Tariff On Companies Who Make Cars In China, Mexico - Breitbart

But I suppose Breitbart tells lies about Trump.

Being a fan of tariffs puts Trump in the same camp as Nobel laureate Paul Krugman though.

Krugman’s premise is incorrect. For the individual Chinese entrepreneur, the undervalued yuan has brought disaster. China’s central bank is not subsidizing the Chinese exporter but the American importer. Furthermore, ongoing inflation will only hurt both the Chinese consumer and the Chinese saver, as prices go up and savings are confiscated by depreciating their value. This is an economic fact whether the economy is growing or crashing. The liquidity-trap caveat is Krugman’s form of attacking savings. Not only are savings necessary for recovery and growth, but, ironically, it is only due to the so-called “trade deficit” that the Chinese have been able to finance much of the American government’s spending — the Keynesian panacea for recessions.

While it’s worrisome that some of the most respected economists of the mainstream have failed to assess the yuan’s situation correctly, it is outright frightening that this mistake has led to the application of more bad economics. Currently, world governments are looking to enact tariffs and quotas on each other in an effort to win an “upper hand” in the global marketplace. But, as the saying goes, “the road to hell is paved with good intentions.” These Keynesian — nay, mercantilist — economic policies will lead only to global disaster, and most of the damage will not be done on foreign markets, but on the markets the politicians claim to protect.

China is hurting its own people, its own economy and its own businesses.

Oftentimes, when looking at international trade from a macroeconomic bird’s eye view, one loses perspective on how trade actually works. The truth is that trade between China and the United States works no differently than trade between a tailor and a neighboring baker. It is far easier to objectively assess the current trade situation between China and the United States by looking from the perspective of the individuals who make up the exchanges. In other words, trade between two countries is nothing more than exchanges between individuals from Country A and individuals from Country B. Taking money into consideration makes the concept only slightly more complex.
**“The Chinese government is not only sponsoring theft from China’s producers but also from her consumers and savers.”

**By making Chinese goods cheaper through inflation, the People’s Bank of China is effectively subsidizing the American importer. Think of it this way. The Chinese producer fabricates Widget X, which before inflation is on the market for eight yuan. Let us assume that at this point the natural, market dollar–yuan exchange rate is one to four, which means that Widget X effectively costs two dollars (one dollar buys four yuan, and the widget costs eight yuan).


The real losers when imposts and tariffs are imposed on foreign-made goods are the CONSUMERS of those goods right here in the U.S.A. who will have to PAY those tariffs out of THEIR pockets. Yes, that will reduce consumption somewhat, but how is that a “good” thing?