You want unicorns and fairies with that? ;D
Free Trade thought for the day:
Generally speaking, the protectionist system today is conservative, whereas the Free Trade system has a destructive effect. It destroys the former nationalities and renders the contrast between proletariat and bourgeois more acute. In a word, the Free Trade system is precipitating the social revolution. And only in this revolutionary sense do I vote for Free Trade.
Karl Marx, 1847
We don’t have a trade deal with China.
This is all rhetoric, actual scrutiny of trade shows the opposite.
Trade has lowered cost of living, which is the most important thing for the people at the bottom. It means their dollar goes further, and their standard of living increases.
Meanwhile, big corporations have fallen since adopting NAFTA, because they were forced to compete, and couldn’t keep pace with the world economy.
Rural areas didn’t get beaten up because of trade with China; they’ve lost capacity due to regulations here at home, blocking them from financial capital to redevelop themselves. Again, even Trump acknowledges this. Yet other regulations have blocked foreign corporations from coming in and hiring them the same way BMW did.
Mix in bad education that still teaches people relevant skills circa the 1970s, and you got rural areas being held in stasis, while other areas of the world develop.
Of course nations in the 3rd world were going to catch up. Of course geographic isolation wasn’t going to last.
The point of economics, is that you keep developing, not hold yourself steady and turn yourself into mausoleum economies like they have in Britian and France, with trains that run to no where, medical centers where no one lives, and overpriced, substandard products no one else in the world wants to buy.
That’s not a future, that’s a steady death.
Why are you claiming this? I already showed you this wasn’t true.
The trade imablanace is overblown, because it doesn’t look at how foriegn inputs act within our own production. Once we do that, the “gap” is a few 100 million at best, and even then, it doesn’t matter, because of what imports are.
Your entire point about imports was off the mark, because imports increases our capital, not decrease it as you claim.
Again, you can see that just by looking at what our largest imports are. Not consumer grade goods, but equipment and resources to aid production. Without these things, we’d be less productive, and would sell less goods on the world stage, all translating into less jobs.
Cwolf, as hard you try to deny this, you can’t. Free trade provides more opportunities for people than protectionism.
The evidence is everywhere. No country who acts in a protectionist manner, ends up better off. Not a single one. Not France, not Brazil, not Japan.
Why are you trying to make us imitate the policy of clear economic losers? It doesn’t make sense.
Bleh, Hillary Clinton was peddling this same theory in the 1970s.
If Marx was right, Hong Kong, the Benchmark of free trade for over 50 years, should be tired of its capitalist decadence, and be eager to join into its blissful Communist union with the mainland.
So why isn’t it?
That made me laugh. Don’t do it again. I hate laughing.
Well, whack somebody with the ban-hammer and you’ll feel better
Of the top 100 economies in the world, 69 of them are corporations. Wal-Mart and Shell have more revenue than Brazil. Toyota and Apple outrank Spain.
You didn’t. You showed how Chinese companies are increasingly buying up domestic land so that we increasingly own less and less of our country. I know you see this as a positive, but you also see cultural enrichment from dragging in 3rd world peasants to displace the existing population.
Need I repeat Singapore’s trade balance?
It is so nice when I learn new things from AS, so when exactly was Most Favored Nation trade status revoked from China? I certainly remember when Bush 41 granted it but apparently I missed its revocation…
Just make crap up I guess.
Good article laying out Trump’s energy export strategy and how it’s paying off in terms of economic growth
It’s keeping prices lower here, diminishing Russia and OPEC’s influence, all while boosting our GDP.
Well, jury is in, steel prices are going up. Now apparently, downstream industries are seeking tariffs to protect them.
@RET423 I haven’t forgotten your response. My apologies. I’ve had a very challenging week, and posting on a forum is at the bottom of priority list especially compared to the stuff I’ve had to deal with. I will return later although I will probably respond briefly here and there. .
Haha, I’ve seen it all, conservatives invoking Karl Marx in an argument against capitalism. Well, there you have it, old dog, socialism and communism are your solution to arrest the development of society and stop social changes you don’t like.
Of course, I like to argue that capitalism leads to liberty on all fronts. There is a deep social connection to economics , and economic authoritarianism is akin to assaults on free speech and the right to bear arms.
Was just reading about this. Just shocking and stupid.
The only thing I want to buy is outside my reach. McLarens don’t come cheap, and the Porsche 918, Ferrari, Lamborghini, and all the other smaller supercar folks are still out there.
Regarding the Marx quote, perhaps you didn’t read or understand his motivation for supporting free trade, he wasn’t looking for economic prosperity or pro-capitalism.
…It destroys the former nationalities…
And '54 Studebakers are out of production…
Still, I wouldn’t mind owning a Golden Hawk Studebaker or even an Avanti.
There are at least two Avanti’s in the New Orleans area. I’m not a GM fan, so you are welcome to them.
I saw it plainly, and the implication is that socialism and communism are the solution to prevent this, that capitalism is somehow inferior because of the unproven claim that free markets cause “social revolution” whatever that means, although I think capitalism is inherently linked and actually is social freedom.
By implication, you suggest that free market positions are Marxist, while the truth of the matter suggests you wish to use Marxism to combat social revolution – or apparently the destruction of former nationalities. It’s a stunning display of “black” is “white,” 'up" is “down” and “war” is “peace.” And I found it comical.
Well, at least you read it.
What does GM have to do with 1950’s Studebakers??? They were built by…STUDEBAKER. Some former GM employees started building the Avanti on order after Studebaker went belly-up, but they were NOT a GM product. The Golden Hawk Studebaker was the first modern production car that came off the assembly-line with a supercharger that could be switched on and off by the driver and they topped out at 155 mph when that was nearlyt the average qualifying speed for the Indy 500 by Offinhauser engines.
OK, the only Avanti I’ve looked at under the hood had a chevroturd engine in it. I assumed from that.
I prefer the earlier '53-'54 Champion and Commander 2-door pillared coupes (in spite of the fact that they were all the rage, I always preferred the pillars to the hardtops).
Marxists have become experts at blaming “free markets” and “free trade” for social failures that were actually caused by socialist ideas and government control/regulation. In Bernie’s bizarro world, rent-seeking and corporate-welfare are the fault of “free markets.”