It is so strange that /pol/ hates free trade, even though free trade is at the heart of conservative politics and at the heart of a prosperous society.
>>74069837
One way free trade where only one side benefits is not fair free trade.
Human beings are predators, and so are their organizations. Unlimited freedom for corporations is bad for you, unless you're stinking rich.
>>74069971
>One way free trade where only one side benefits is not fair free trade.
Free trade always benefits both sides, even if just one side sells goods and the other side pays. Just check out economics and fiat currencies. It would be different if there were a gold backed currency anywhere in this world.
>>74069837
Free trade is fine so long as you have smart leaders making good deals
>>74070037
>Unlimited freedom for corporations is bad for you, unless you're stinking rich.
Has nothing to do with free trade. Free trade helps everyone, it is a universal truth.
>>74070072
>Free trade is fine so long as you have smart leaders making good deals
what good deal? What you need is a one page agreement that says there are no tariffs and no side can include large non-tariff trade barriers.
>>74070202
Free trade does not help people like me, who dream of a segregated world.
>>74069837
GLOBALISTS YES
Why should any country benefit from its borders? Or its culture? Or its influence?
Because it benefits aristocrats and not the common people.
>>74070367
Because a consolidated global absolute monarchy would be good, and if you disagree you are a dumb bigot and probably a Trump supporter :^)
>>74070202
> what good deal? What you need is a one page agreement that says there are no tariffs and no side can include large non-tariff trade barriers.
That's a shit deal if they need to trade with you more than you need to trade with them
>>74070337
>Free trade does not help people like me, who dream of a segregated world.
Are you saying free trade has anything to do with immigration??
>>74069837
We're for Free Trade - we love free trade.
But to have free trade you need smart leaders.
t. Trump
>>74069837
Free trade is a good thing, but it comes at the price of employment. Trade deficits are a real problem, and are borderline criminal if it's done to export industry harmful to the environment to less regulated countries.
Rights now, the US has a real unemployment rate of 30%. This is untenable, and will result in destructive revolutions.
I may trade with my neighbour, buy something of his, lend him my lawnmower.
It doesn't mean I'd give him my house keys and let him fuck my wife though.
>>74070585
What I'm saying is that the ideal country is self-contained and sovereign. A united world is not desirable.
>>74070491
>That's a shit deal if they need to trade with you more than you need to trade with them
Why is that?
Let us assume a country has high wages and another country low wages. They agree on free trade. The low wage country then sells 100 billion in products to the high wage country and vice versa there is only 10 billion in products.
You know what that means? It means that 100 billion in currency of the high wage country is now in the hands of the low wage country. Because that is fiat money, the low wage country literally handed all these products as a gift against money that is created out of thin air.
The low wage country can use his 100 billion in three ways - 1. do nothing with it, ergo the products were a gift, 2. convert that money into the local currency, which increases the exchange rate of that currency, thus losing out and 3. invest those 100 billion in the high wage country creating jobs.
So how does free trade NOT benefit the high wage country?
>>74070727
>Trade deficits are a real problem,
Why would trade deficits be a problem? Trade deficits mean that a country gets products that were produced by someone else... FOR FREE! FOR payment of a fiat currency which is created out of free air.
A trade deficit in a small village is like farmer A asks farmer B and farmer C to help him with repairs on the farm. B and C do that and farmer A gives the "I owe you" pieces of paper. Who is the screwed party, A, or B and C?
>>74070792
>money that is created out of thin air
no such thing
>>74070935
>>74070792
>Why don't you want to enrich other nationals and unemployee your own? Wouldn't it be great if we pretended that the past was imaginary and what got each first world country to where it is today is irrelevant and we just treat everyone like it's one unified world? Why don't we just have one currency and one government too?
>>74070982
>>money that is created out of thin air
>no such thing
Yes, money is just created out of thin air. That is the whole point of fiat money.
>>74071044
>>Why don't you want to enrich other nationals and unemployee your own?
How do you enrich other nationals by handing them fiat money they can not use at home except if it is converted into local currency?
How is stopping to produce goods in your country because it is inefficient, bad?
>>74071232
>How do you enrich other nationals by handing them fiat money they can not use at home except if it is converted into local currency?
You think Africans dont trade in USD? You need to read/go places.
>How is stopping to produce goods in your country because it is inefficient, bad?
Because we have higher wages because we aren't a shithole who accepts slavery conditions so we can't compete
Globalist your agenda won't work here, you won't convince the first world to accept African and Chinese wages to become more efficient and competitive
>>74070792
Not in those terms, think of it as a resource based thing. Any large nation state is going to have some resource/commodity/good/food/service/expertise/etc they have in surplus which other nations depend upon (they wouldn't have managed to become a large nation state if they didn't). Any large nation is also going to have other resources they need to import which they depend upon.
Now, pure freemarketists will of course argue no tariffs full stop, and as a GENERAL rule, tariffs should be discouraged. However, sometimes it's in the interest of a nation-state to be a bit cunty about the resources it has in surplus.
Take Saudi Arabia and the role it plays in OPEC. Is it anti-free market? Yes. Is it anti-free trade? Yes. Is it also in Saudi Arabia's own interest? Yes, it is.
The reality is other nations will bend the rules of free trade if it's in their interest. You can't really blame a country for doing this; if you were running a country and you could disrupt the free market to benefit your own citizens and government, you'd do it too.
If other countries are going to do it, then it's only logical for the USA to do it, too. If there's a chance for the USA to bend the rules of free trade to suit the interests of American citizens and the American Government, President Trump will do it. President Hillary won't. President Bernie will probably do it too, but less because he's after America's interest and more because he hates freedom.
>>74071232
>How is stopping to produce goods in your country because it is inefficient, bad?
in the long term you don't even know how to produce things anymore, you have no experience no infrastructure, completely dependend on other nations
>>74070982
YOU DENSE MOTHERFUCKER
>>74071340
>You think Africans dont trade in USD? You need to read/go places.
If they use USD in Africa, it has 0 impact on America. The US dollar is a fiat currency. If you hand 1000 dollar to an African against goods and he trades with it in Africa, you exactly got goods with handing paper or electronic bits to someone else.
>>74071340
>Because we have higher wages because we aren't a shithole who accepts slavery conditions so we can't compete
But that is what I said. We should not produce T-shirts or electronics or iPhones if this can be done cheaper in Africa or India or China.
Has Stefan Molyneux ever addressed Trump's protectionist tendencies?
>>74069961
fpbp
>>74071349
>Take Saudi Arabia and the role it plays in OPEC. Is it anti-free market? Yes. Is it anti-free trade? Yes. Is it also in Saudi Arabia's own interest? Yes, it is.
Disagree, 100% on this. Saudi Arabia has just been downgraded again. If the oil price keeps low, Saudia Arabia's credit rating will be junk in 1-2 years.
What if Saudi Arabia had a free market, free society, democracy yes attitude? It might just have a future. But the way it is working right now, I do not see Saudi Arabia to survive the next 10-15 years.
>>74071650
Saudis are always working towards the price of oil going up. Even if they're flooding the market, the long term planned trend is always up.
>>74071396
>in the long term you don't even know how to produce things anymore, you have no experience no infrastructure, completely dependend on other nations
So? If other nations are stupid enough to give you products and you consume, why would that be bad? And if at some point other nations say "hey, why are we giving you all these products and you do nothing?" then you will have to go back and produce products yourself again.
Regarding infrastructure, we need that regardless of free trade.
Stop calling me conservative. I don't want to conserve anything political that has happened in the last 60 years.
>>74071721
>Saudis are always working towards the price of oil going up. Even if they're flooding the market, the long term planned trend is always up.
And the point when they could do this has passed. America and Russia are larger oil producers. Iran is back. Not to mention that Europe is trying to get rid of the high independence of foreign oil by doing the "green energy" thing - not to mention electric cars etc.
Saudi Arabia is toast. Dubai isn't toast. Why? Because Dubai is all about free trade, Saudi Arabia is all about protectionism.
>>74069837
Free trade brings rapeugees and lowers the standard of living for those who's jobs went overseas
>>74071792
>Stop calling me conservative. I don't want to conserve anything political that has happened in the last 60 years.
So you are a progressive?
>>74070367
Daily reminder that globalism and globalization are completely different things.
Globalism = centralizing political power into supranational organizations, global tyranny
Globalization = decentralizing political power over the economy and allowing individuals and firms to freely buy and sell across borders to the benefit of all
>>74071944
Exactly. We need a globalized, free trade world. And we need to have different currencies and competition. We just need to avoid to hand over any sovereignty to the UN or WTO or other organizations which could kill our freedom.
>>74071840
you're only seeing the facts you want to see. Nowadays Saudi has much more excess wealth than dubai.
electric cars are what 1% of the market? also in developing nations people can't afford electric cars. There will always be demand for oil.
so it's only future telling at this point.
>>74070767
Like how your politicians are doing to your country
>>74071944
>Globalization = decentralizing political power over the economy and allowing individuals and firms to freely buy and sell across borders to the benefit of all
Remind me who is going to enforce decentralized power? Oh right
>Globalism = centralizing political power into supranational organizations, global tyranny
Remind me who will emerge from free markets as monopolies in any market that is unrestricted?
>Globalism = centralizing political power into supranational organizations, global tyranny
Remind me how that benefits all to bring the standard of living down from the top echelons towards the average of the billions of chinese, indians, africans, etc? Oh right
>Globalism = centralizing political power into supranational organizations, global tyranny
>>74072095
Politicians in this country prep the bull before sitting in the corner to sadly wank to the result.
>>74071728
>"hey, why are we giving you all these products and you do nothing?" then you will have to go back and produce products yourself again.
this might work out or it might not. For instance third worlders surely don't like getting the bad deals they currently get, but they can't really compete in most industries because they have no experience. What's to say we will not become the third world, unable to develop competitively in the future?
>>74072093
>Nowadays Saudi has much more excess wealth than dubai.
Link? The only thing I know is that they are in big trouble.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/saudi-arabia-gulf-neighbors-suffer-ratings-downgrades-on-oil-slump-1463303671
>electric cars are what 1% of the market? also in developing nations people can't afford electric cars.
Electric cars may just be 30-50% of the Western market in 10 years. We are a fast developing world. Remember when the first smartphones hit the market?
As to costs, battery tech is developing fast and prices are dropping. Bosch announced last year that in 5 years they want to bring to market a battery cell which is twice as cheap and has twice the energy density. In effect in 4 years, with Bosch cells, you might get a 85kWh battery (the largest one for the Tesla S) for 5000 bucks instead of 25000 bucks as it is the case now.
>There will always be demand for oil.
Yes, but the question is whether it is 85 million barrels a year or 50 million or 30 million barrels. Even a decline to say 75 million means oil stays cheap for a decade.
>so it's only future telling at this point.
Yes, but we can make educated guesses.
>>74072259
>What's to say we will not become the third world, unable to develop competitively in the future?
logic
>>74072174
>Remind me who is going to enforce decentralized power? Oh right
Are you fucking retarded? Nobody enforces it. Free trade is the absence of anybody charging you a tariff to buy something from a foreign country or enforcing quotas on trade with another country.
>Remind me who will emerge from free markets as monopolies in any market that is unrestricted?
you fell for the "unrestricted capitalism leads to monopoly" meme? holy fuck, you are an imbecile. you must live in melbourne.
>Remind me how that benefits all to bring the standard of living down from the top echelons towards the average of the billions of chinese, indians, africans, etc? Oh right
You just named three of the regions in the world where the standard of living for the common person is rising the fastest. Oh right.
>>74072360
>Link?
http://guardianlv.com/2014/03/dubai-drowning-in-debt/
>Yes, but we can make educated guesses.
we can make educated guesses, but those guesses can be extremely biased. for instance the 30-50% of electric cars in 10 years is pulled out of nowhere.
> Even a decline
might just be the opposite, cheap oil -> cars with more features and gaining in weight -> more consumption of oil
>>74072567
>Are you fucking retarded? Nobody enforces it. Free trade is the absence of anybody charging you a tariff to buy something from a foreign country or enforcing quotas on trade with another country.
You're fucking retarded. If states don't agree to free trade then it collapses. You're asking states to just altruistically permit free trade to the detriment of its own citizens.
You're asking democracies to have their voters vote to reduce their quality of life.
That isn't going to happen, ever. Or do you not think people want to increase or sustain quality of life?
So given it won't ever be supported by all democratic states, the only other mechanism is a tyrannical approach forcing states to have free trade all across the board.
Dumbcunt
>you fell for the "unrestricted capitalism leads to monopoly" meme? holy fuck, you are an imbecile. you must live in melbourne.
are you fucking retarded? whichever company becomes the most efficient will be the monopoly, the market determines that.
fuck off back to prayer group you moron you suck at economics and politics
>>74072879
>You're asking states to just altruistically permit free trade to the detriment of its own citizens.
Being able to buy products from countries that charge the least for them, and sell products to the countries that will pay the most for them benefits the citizens. They get better products for cheaper prices and a dearer export market. This is basic economics.
You're acting like Australia's economy isn't based on what is largely free trade. It is, and that is a big reason why Australia is so wealthy.
>whichever company becomes the most efficient will be the monopoly, the market determines that.
So why are there so few monopolies in competitive markets then? Why do Samsung, Apple, Motorola, etc. all exist as smartphone companies?
>>74069837
because its not really free trade at this point. Tariffs are already pretty low in most of the world and particularly the west, its just about helping corporations subvert the laws of various nations for the purposes of profit
>>74073243
>its just about helping corporations subvert the laws of various nations for the purposes of profit
That is called free trade. Free trade is about corporations trading with other corporations of different countries. Of course the point of free trade is profit. That is not bad, that is how capitalism works.
>>74072751
>for instance the 30-50% of electric cars in 10 years is pulled out of nowhere.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/feb/25/electric-cars-will-be-cheaper-than-conventional-vehicles-by-2022
Is it?
Electric cars will be cheaper to own than conventional cars by 2022, according to a new report.
The plummeting cost of batteries is key in leading to the tipping point, which would kickstart a mass market for electric vehicles, Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF) analysts predict.
The large-scale roll-out of electric vehicles (EVs) is seen as vital in both cutting the carbon emissions that drive climate change and in dealing with urban air pollution, which leads to many premature deaths every year. But, despite subsidies in many countries, EVs remain more expensive than conventional cars and the limited range of battery-only cars is still a concern. Currently, just 1% of new cars sold are electric.
However, the analysis published by BNEF on Thursday predicts that the total cost of ownership – combining purchase price and running costs – of battery-only cars will dip below those with internal combustion engines in 2022, even if the conventional cars improve their fuel efficiency by 3.5% a year.
>>74072879
>From more big government and less free trade
>Posting from Australia
Whoa man. Why don't you try living in Venezuela, Cuba or Africa for one month, or a week even, before spewing bullshit.
>>74073545
exactly. he didn't deny that he's from melbourne so we can consider that to be a fact at this point.
>>74073545
>Whoa man. Why don't you try living in Venezuela, Cuba or Africa for one month, or a week even, before spewing bullshit.
Exactly, sometimes I really believe people are dumb.
America blockaded Cuba to weaken its economy for 50 years... but now America wants to voluntarily do the same thing to itself through tariffs? Why??
>>74069837
since when is /pol/ conservative? /pol/ is nationalist, the libertarians all killed themselves out of embarrassment long ago. /pol/ has no stated economic policy.
>>74070767
Yeah but you could rent your house and your wife could whore for the skys
>>74074116
>since when is /pol/ conservative?
Generally anti-Clinton, anti-liberals, anti-Democrats. Most policies supported around here are also advocated by conservatives.
>/pol/ is nationalist
I do not think so. Nationalist to some extent, but foremost people have Christian white conservative values which they put up. All combined with a tad libertarianism (pro prostitituion, pro weed legalization, pro gun rights, against abortions etc.)... only lately the Trump socialist big state and against free trade rhetoric (which also Bernie Sanders talks about) has creeped in.
> the libertarians all killed themselves out of embarrassment long ago.
I doubt it. I am a litertarian and I am still here. Lots of Rand Paul and Ron Paul supporters are around. Most topics are about how freedom can be taken back from authorities.
> /pol/ has no stated economic policy.
That makes no sense. Most people oppose social democracy and big government. In turn this means most people around here are for free market democracy and little government intrusion.
>>74069837
A business should only use products produced in the country they conduct business.
There. I just saved the world economy.
>>74074947
>There. I just saved the world economy.
You just caused a worldwide economic depression. Thank you, Bob, those millions killed in wars, tens of millions starving to death and those millions of newly unemployed people really say THANK YOU, BOB!
>>74074743
>the Trump socialist big state and against free trade rhetoric
If you listen closely to what he says in interviews he always insists that he's a free trader but that our trade deals are bad and he wants to change that.
his basic position seems to be that if we are going to make a trade deal with another country that their markets need to be as open to our products as ours are to theirs, or otherwise we won't have a deal.
In my view it's wiser to just have unilateral free trade with only a few exceptions for near term military opponents, etc, but from a deal making perspective his position makes sense.
Also, he is proposing a bigger tax cut than anybody else, so that will mean that the government will have to cut spending, which means smaller government.
>>74075051
>If you listen closely to what he says in interviews he always insists that he's a free trader but that our trade deals are bad and he wants to change that.
That is like saying "I am for women's right to abortion, but we need to limit it to the first 2 hours after conception."
>>74075051
>his basic position seems to be that if we are going to make a trade deal with another country that their markets need to be as open to our products as ours are to theirs, or otherwise we won't have a deal.
He is just a populist on trade deals. Foreign markets ARE open to American products. There are some cases where this is not the case, but actually it is the US which disproportionally more often imposes non-tariff barriers to foreign goods than vice versa.
>>74075051
>for near term military opponents,
aka China and Russia? Be reasonably, there will not be any war with China or Russia. The whole "uhhhh, we cannot trade because you might be our enemy in the future" is a big BS crony capitalism way of limiting free trade to benefit certain lobby groups at home.
>>74071232
>How is stopping to produce goods in your country because it is inefficient, bad?
Imagine if you completely take apart your industrial capacity, what if ww3 happens? you're fucked, it's a national security issue.
>>74073403
No, free trade is about leveling the playing field by lowering tariffs so that countries from country A are not at an unfair disadvantage to countries from country B when companies from A are trying to do business in B.
Stuff like locking in drug prices and patents or allowing companies to sue for any new environment or minimum wage laws impacting their profits is not free trade. Thats the domain of normal legislative activity that occurs in government but when it happens in free trade deals its the companies trying to enact the laws they want.
Don't confuse that with equalizing trade barriers which is something else entirely.
>>74075849
>what if ww3 happens? you're fucked, it's a national security issue.
I don't think you are fucked at all. In 1945, Germany was a wasteland. A few years later, it was all fine.
Not to mention that ww3 isn't happening anyway. And America has enough nukes to kill everyone on the planet 10 times over.
>>74075245
>aka China and Russia
i mean countries that we are actually in military conflict with or on the precipice of military conflict with. for example, i'm ok with us preventing american technology, arms manufacturing, and aerospace firms from entering into contracts with north korea.
i'm against imposing economic sanctions arbitrarily, and in general i'm against broad sanctions. i don't think that we should have imposed broad sanctions against Russia. But I'd be ok with targeted sanctions against Russia like the ones I mentioned above.
>>74069837
>MUH GENMAIS
>MUH CHLORHUHN
>>74075051
>Also, he is proposing a bigger tax cut than anybody else, so that will mean that the government will have to cut spending, which means smaller government.
Not necessarily since tax is a disincentive. i.e. with a 100% tax rate there is no incentive to work so no tax will be collected from work. A fall in the tax rate could increase govt rev.
