Can anyone here convince me that free trade is a bad idea? Here, I think Clinton is clearly better than Trump.
>>77444768
you're right that free trade is a good idea
but you should be voting for Johnson instead of Trump of Clinton
Pretty much all industrial countries started with protectionist policies.
>>77444815
I'm not voting for anyone at the moment, since I think they're all awful candidates.
>>77444768
Who's this lovely jewess?
Trump is for smart trade.
You can have both free and smart trade, but you have to be smart about it.
It's great how Trump supporters will latch on to any view of his and make it the "right" view.
>>77444896
It does not follow from that that we should still be using protectionist policies.
>>77444913
Are you retarded or something?
>>77444918
That is basically meaningless unless you clarify further.
>>77444768
It's bad because when we trade with china, they're getting our money.
Thus china becomes more rich while america becomes less rich.
>>77444998
Are people supposed to know who it is?
>>77444768
The Clintons have made millions of dollars by deregulating the banking industry. What do you think they would do with another 4-8 years?
>>77445023
The trade would not happen unless both the American and the Chinese thought the deal was leaving them better off.
>>77444998
Nigga I saw the file name but I can't be fucked googling
>>77444768
fuck off
sage goes in options
>>77445023
Simply having a trade deficit does not necessitate anything bad. If an American retail shop buys $50,000 worth of products from their supplier in Japan, and then that supplier buys $50,000 worth of American stocks, then America is running a $50,000 trade deficit. So what bad thing has happened, or how are we in a bad position?
If you go to Wal-Mart and buy a milk carton, you now have a trade deficit with Wal-Mart. They have your money and all you got was some milk.
In fact, high rates of economic growth are associated with high trade deficits.
>>77445069
You could read the file names or use reverse image search.
>>77444768
Free trade is a good idea....for everyone EXCEPT US.
We are the rich nation, our people aren't going to be competitive in anything without protectionism.
>chinese worker will take 5 bucks a day to work in a steel mill
>average nog wants 15 an hour to flip burgers at mcdonalds
Combine that with the welfare state and open borders....we're absolutely fucked.
>>77444768
The greatest economic period of France, the glorious 30, was began by protectionist policies implemented by de gaulle. You have to protect domestic industry from foreign competition in many situations, otherwise it will destroy your middle class.
>>77445104
>The trade would not happen unless both the American and the Chinese thought the deal was leaving them better off.
Yes, but the individual americans who make the purchases are not people with foresight.
The things we're trading for have short shelf lives, and after 3 years, the value of what we bought has disappeared, but the value of the dollars is still pretty strong.
Hence china becomes richer and america becomes poorer.
>implying free trade is being threatened by anyone
>>77445176
>Simply having a trade deficit does not necessitate anything bad. If an American retail shop buys $50,000 worth of products from their supplier in Japan, and then that supplier buys $50,000 worth of American stocks, then America is running a $50,000 trade deficit. So what bad thing has happened, or how are we in a bad position?
>If you go to Wal-Mart and buy a milk carton, you now have a trade deficit with Wal-Mart. They have your money and all you got was some milk.
Because the value of products is time dependent, and one of them is a better long term investment than the other.
Economically it's more prudent for the country to only send its money outside the country for products that have long term value for the country.
REMINDER TO HIDE AND SAGE ALL SHILL THREADS
REMINDER THAT REDDIT IS PERFORMING AN IMMENSE ATTACK RIGHT NOW
>>77445176
dawg just answer a simple question instead of acting like a complete social autist. I'm on mobile, as well
In theory free trade is better, but the world doesn't run on theory and a bit of protectionism is the practical solution.
>>77444998
We're being annihilated by horrible 'free trade' deals.
Half of Trump's entire campaign is to stop horrible deals like TPP from going through, and to start using tarrifs to stop companies from leaving the US.
>>77444998
See
>>77445190
Protectionism creates monetary incentives to keep jobs at home. As an manufacturing engineer, the only reason I have a job is because oil and gas is so cheap in the US, otherwise my industry would have been sent somewhere else. So fuck you.
>>77445104
I don't think it's a fair deal. Neither do about 13million other Americans so far.
Because countries don't trade with each other, corporations trade with each other and corporations don't give a fuck about nations and their people (Governments don't necessarily either, but that's an argument for another day)
That came off way harsher than I expected and sounds extremely marxist at face value but It's true
>>77445213
>>Yes, but the individual americans who make the purchases are not people with foresight.
So you're saying the government knows better than you what you should buy? I'd say that not only do they not know better, they should allow people to make their own choices even if they did.
>>77445445
then those 13 million Americans can look for a "made in the USA" label and pay more for their products. Nobody's stopping them. The rest of us can enjoy a higher standard of living through trade.
>>77444768
Trump is against TPP
Hillary is For TPP
TPP is ANTI-free trade.
SAGE goes in option field. Sage causes thread not to be bumped by your post.
>>77445196
Can you be more specific about the downsides to free trade?
It makes products cheaper, make companies more free, and raises living standards across the world.
In terms of being out-competed, absolute advantage doesn't matter as the gains from free trade are through comparative advantage.
>>77445243
Donald Trump has a strong anti-FT policy, as far as I understand it.
>>77445318
I'm not sure I follow you. You want some product from Japan. You pay for the product. America is now running a trade deficit. Why is this bad?
>>77445319
Am I violating your safe space?
>>77445328
She's a New Zealand singer named Kimbra.
>>77445343
Why do you say that?
>>77445357
How are we being annihilated? What don't you like about TPP?
>>77445413
The end goal of economics is not creating jobs. If you want jobs, I can hire 100 people to dig holes and 100 people to fill them. What you're arguing for is for the taxpayer to pay welfare checks to industries which cannot compete in the marketplace.
>>77445536
How is TPP anti-free trade?
>>77445413
Wut?
I agreed with you, i'm for protectionism... read the post.
>>77444768
Would it be a bad idea to play chess vs. an equally skilled player that decides to start with 10 queens?
That's fair trade.
>>77444768
>thinks giving massive corporations tax loopholes and preferential treatment is 'free trade' just because of the words slapped on the front of the 1264 page bill that no one had time to read before they voted on it
Fuck off shill, you either know better and are getting paid, or willingly swallowed the blue pill
Have some sage
>>77445511
>So you're saying the government knows better than you what you should buy? I'd say that not only do they not know better, they should allow people to make their own choices even if they did.
No, I'm saying what we're buying now is bad for the country.
Your deflection is irrelevant. The question at hand is whether free trade is better than regulated trade.
I, myself, can think of a tariff structure that would benefit the country over free trade.
Whether the government knows anything is irrelevant.
>>77445562
Deals like TPP don't serve to benefit the united states in any way shape or form.
Also
>>77444768
Kimbra has a big mouth
a mouth i wanna see on my dick
>>77445741
>>77445562
*Also please stop playing 20 questions every time somebody responds to you.
"Yeah but can you explain X" is not a valid argument 100% of the time.
I will admit while Kimbra isnt redpilled
here music is definitely wholesome and tries to emulate the 1950's style of singing mixed with old school jazz.
Id let my daughter listen to her
>>77445511
>The rest of us can enjoy a higher standard of living through trade.
And in reality, you're trading a higher standard of living for the ability to buy cheap shit. Providing the illusion of your standard of living going up.
>>77444768
Americans have no idea what "free trade" is. What is called by that phrase is actually highly structured, one-sided arrangements between government elites. Meanwhile Republic of Korea went from a heap of ashes with a largely backward population to a global industrial, technological, economic and pop music power, through unapologetically nationalist protectionism.
>>77445562
>I'm not sure I follow you. You want some product from Japan. You pay for the product. America is now running a trade deficit. Why is this bad?
Ok. I buy an Iphone that was built in japan. I pay $100 dollars.
3 years later, my Iphone no longer works. Its value is zero. In japan, they still have my $100 in their piggy bank. Its value has decreased 5% due to deflation. So the japanese guy has 95 of todays dollars, and I have $0.
So 3 years later, america is $95 less rich than it was.
We don't have free trade now.
>>77444768
Free trade assumes the person you're trading with is playing by the same rules you are (minimum wage, worker benefits, employee rights, maternity/paternity leave, environmental responsibility and so on).
The minute you trade with countries like China and Mexico who treat their workers as slaves with no rights and the environment as something to be strip mined to bump up their GDP, all of your production will leave for their cheap labor.
You will then lose your labor force and enter trade deficits because you're importing more and more every day.
And with things like the TPP, China can enforce patent control on USA. And patents basically don't even exist in China.
>>77445723
>>I, myself, can think of a tariff structure that would benefit the country over free trade.
You cannot tax your way to prosperity. You're just engaging in very clumsy redistribution from the customer who would have bought from abroad to the domestic firm that makes the same product, and possibly its workers. Also, by lessening the competition that firm faces, you reduce its incentive to give its customers a good product at a low price.
Free Trade is the term used to describe globalist policies made by corporate lobbies behind closed doors that destroys the working class because they then have to compete with the impoverished people in developing countries that work for practically nothing. It only benefits the large corporations, who then sequester their money away in tax havens so the nation receives little benefit from it if any.
>>77445562
If the end goal of an ECONOMY (not the field of study) is what ever its members want it to be. Otherwise you and I are superfluous and should die. Not everything in a economy is about optimization, we could all die and GDP can still go up.
>>77444768
Isolationism now
>>77445562
"Competitive advantage" does not always lead to the best conditions for everyone, this isn't Econ 101.
China can make/do ANYTHING cheaper than we can because their workers are ok with earning slave wages. Globalization and unrestricted free trade will bring down standards of living for us immensely.
>Not to mention the risks involved
>we can't just open new factories in a week if something ever goes wrong in China
>if there is any real disruption in the flow of goods, the US will go MadMax within 2 weeks
>>77446003
>You cannot tax your way to prosperity.
Of course you can.
>You're just engaging in very clumsy redistribution from the customer who would have bought from abroad to the domestic firm that makes the same product, and possibly its workers. Also, by lessening the competition that firm faces, you reduce its incentive to give its customers a good product at a low price.
Even so, the country stays richer than it otherwise would have.
If the question is "What maximizes the total purchasing power of the U.S. in the global economy", imposing tarriffs will undoubtedly win in the long term.
>>77445907
Products getting cheaper is a good thing, anon. There's always going to be some poorly-made crap, but theres less of it now than there ever was before. In the 1960s and 70s Detroit-made US automobiles were famous for almost never lasting to 100,000 miles. Nowadays its common for a well-maintained car to last for twice that or more. And its largely thanks to Japanese imports coming into the US and subjecting the Big Three to competitive pressure when they'd previously been a cozy oligopoly.
Trade is why you can afford to have your own personal shitposting device.
Heres the new zealand semen demon right here
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I134VaHGnDs
>>77446192
You're erroneously assuming that there's a fixed supply of wealth in the world (there is not) and that trade is a zero-sum game where one country's gain must be another country's loss (it is not)
>>77444768
We are a wealthy country with decreasing comparative advantages beside our wealth. It will lead to a greater trade deficit and increase disparity in our country as all profits go to the top, and the entire country loses.
Benefits of free trade are presumably lower costs for goods which become foreign as the jobs leave the country. That's great, but if wages stagnate and therefore decrease due to inflation, that lower price of goods will be offset by lack of income for the individual consumer. The gains of trade become polarized to the cheap foreign labor countries and generally large multinational corporations. The middle and lower American classes don't see the benefits.
>>77446375
No, I'm saying that in our case, it is such a scenario. And that we would impose tarriffs so that it doesn't work out that their gain is our loss.
>>77445562
>dat camel toe
>>77445777
I'm with you there pal. Personally I'm into femdom so I would like her to ride me and verbally abuse me.
>>77445693
Free trade does not equal tax loopholes.
Also, the only people who want preferential treatment for rich and well-connected industry are protectionists who want to prop up failing industries who can't compete in a global marketplace at the expense of the taxpayer.
>>77445831
Read the replies I asked questions to. All of them require further elaboration.
>>77445741
There are lots of benefits for Americans to free trade. The most obvious ones are that the taxpayer doesn't have to pay unnecessary protectionist taxes, that many goods are significantly cheaper (this helps poor people especially), and that people have the freedom to trade with who they want to without the government getting involved.
More detailed info from a variety of sources:
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2007/04/why-free-trade-works-for-america#_ftnref9
http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/FreeTrade.html
http://www.economist.com/node/605144
http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/free-trade-benefits-all
>>77446382
>We are a wealthy country with decreasing comparative advantages beside our wealth
Yeah, we just suck these days. Must be why people from around the world flock to study in our universities, why so many people want to immigrate here, and why so many of the world's largest and most successful companies get started here.
>>77446460
>No, I'm saying that in our case, it is such a scenario
And I'm saying that in our case, that's wrong. It's exactly such a scenario.
>>77444768
Gr8 b8 m8
>>77444768
>on /pol/
>clinton is better that trump
into the garbage
>>77446612
>And I'm saying that in our case, that's wrong. It's exactly such a scenario.
No, I just showed a case above where we lose on a trade in the long term. >>77445925
If you want to try and suggest there's a mystical gain that the U.S. is getting, you need to point to it. How is my above example wrong?
>>77446610
When Hillary Clinton talks about free trade, she's talking about TPP and other massive laws which put huge corporations first and make them immune to litigation
When Ron Paul talks about free trade, he's talking about trading with minimal restrictions
you are fucking naive and don't understand what you're talking about
saged again
>>77446220
No, the national debt of fucking $19,000,000,000,000 is why we can afford shitposting devices.
Free trade is only okay if everyone is playing by the same rules. The Chinese overbred to hell and back and are now willing to work for dirt with no safety regulation because hey that's better than dying. America's unemployment is already too high and there aren't other industries for people to move to when this unbalanced competition drives them out of the market. Comparative advantage is only relevant when your own people could be producing something better.
Any increase in global GDP is annihilated by the fact that it'll be distributed among a far larger population. You cannot add billions of people to the economy and expect everything to just work out. It's stealing wealth from us small western countries because we had the nerve not to breed uncontrollably in our own feces.
Fuck you libertarians who worship the dollar.
>>77446220
Products getting cheaper is a good thing. It is not the only thing.
>>77444768
Kimbra is best artist
>>77446780
You got three years use of an iphone out of that deal. You still have today whatever the salvage value of a worn-out iphone is.
Read about depreciation and time value of money.
Free trade is great
Too bad is barely exists anymore and we have corporatism now
>hilary
>free trade
Only someone as faggot as OP takes buzzwords for granted
>>77446851
gee, so sorry that I'm not keen on lowering my standard of living so that we can keep Chinese farmers poor. You pay your money for that if you like, I don't care to.
Also if the US didn't have a comparative advantage, we wouldn't be a rich nation, would we? Plus you're making the same mistake of assuming wealth is constant and can never be made larger.
>>77446610
You are just calling for trade deficits and that does not end well. Outsourcing jobs has been a disaster since the 80's. What you are asking for is cheaper goods without jobs to pay for those goods.
>>77445925
The piggy banks countries use aren't literal piggy banks, though.Let's say Americans really like Japanese cars so they start buying them all up and as a result are running a trade deficit. Guess what? The Japanese now have a bunch of American dollars. They are going to have to do something with them. This gives the Japanese a choice, they can either invest the dollars back into the United States or try to exchange them for some of currency, say Yen. The investment is obviously a positive but what about if they try to exchange the dollars? Well since people don't want American cars they will all try to get rid of dollars and buy Yen, this will push up the price of Yen and push down the price of Dollars. This has the effect of making America a more attractive place to do business as its dollar is cheaper and Japan less attractive as it is more expensive.
Anyways a basic summary is that a trade deficit doesn't matter as it really means that foreigners are investing in your country as capital is flowing in, allowing a trade deficit to exist.
>>77445970
TPP and other FT deals often have provisions that require member states to increase labor standards. Either way though, both countries are better off. We get cheap products, and the other people get jobs when they otherwise wouldn't have one.
See my above replies for why trade deficits aren't bad.
>>77446055
It's certainly not jobs, though. Usually you're aiming to make the country as rich as possible while still providing for the poor and middle class.
>>77446182
As I said above, FT deals like TPP often require members states to improve all those things you brought up about the environment, workers' rights, etc.
And yes, some industries can't compete globally like textile industry in recent decades. You know what happened? Other industries moved in and the U.S. economy continued to be more efficient by specializing in the fields we are best in, that is information industries and high tech.
>>77444768
"Free trade" is not what you think it is
It's better characterized as "managed trade", with all sorts of tariffs, taxes, restrictions, timetables....etc.
If we have "free trade" with China, that doesn't mean the free flow of goods between states, that means China and the US sat down at a table and hashed out an extensive managed trade agreement, where we will exchange tit for tat.
Trump's point is that if you sign such a trade agreement, you'd better have someone who knows what the fuck they're doing on your side. Because this sort of agreement sees the US as a corporation, signing a deal with another corporation, China. And as Trump knows from the corporate world, one bad deal is enough to sink a company
>>77447063
>You got three years use of an iphone out of that deal. You still have today whatever the salvage value of a worn-out iphone is.
>Read about depreciation and time value of money.
So that changes the number to $90 instead of $95.
Doesn't make your point, though. The U.S. still lost value.
Three years of experiencing an Iphone doesn't usually translate to longterm value.
"Read about X" doesn't make your point either.
>>77447419
>This has the effect of making America a more attractive place to do business as its dollar is cheaper and Japan less attractive as it is more expensive.
Except that we don't produce anything, so all of our foreign "business" is going to negatively affect us.
Trade deficit isn't necessarily bad, but in our case it is, because we're not, in general, getting products that improve our longterm value.
>>77447419
You keep using TPP as an example of free trade. Which it isn't. It's a massive wealth transfer from the US to the third world. Our Constitution has an example of an actual free trade contract. It takes up an entire fucking paragraph. Any deal that goes on for 1000 pages, isn't a fee trade deal.
>>77447419
>It's certainly not jobs, though.
You have provided no demonstration.
>Usually you're aiming...
Exactly, its not a law of nature you can derive from experiment. If we want the purpose of the economy to be the generation of more people then that can be done, if we want it to be shit posting that can be done.
>>77447822
>we don't produce anything
ok
http://useconomy.about.com/od/tradepolicy/p/Imports-Exports-Components.htm
http://atlas.media.mit.edu/en/profile/country/usa/
>>77447925
I mean you can use economic data to figure out how to create a ton of jobs, but again I would propose the best way is just to hire half the country to dig holes and the other half to fill them.
>>77444768
>Can anyone here convince me that free trade is a bad idea?
Simple. Unless/until we adjust the current paradigm of global jurisdiction and law, free trade (and globalism in general) utterly destroys your country's ability to enforce domestic economic (etc.) policy. You end up at the total mercy of Chinese labor and environmental anarchy, and Cayman Islands banking. So in the long term, you are forced to either massively lower your standard of living just to compete with the rest of the world, or to abandon free trade and adopt protectionist measures.
>>77447419
So then WHY THE FUCK are we importing a million spics every year who don't speak english?!
Do you think they getting info/tech jobs???
To save 5% on your goddamn t-shirts you're:
>losing 3%+ every year to inflation for all the immigrant gibbs money
>losing tax revenue from legal workers who used to do the jobs of illegals
>blocking small businesses from competing, since multinationals can hire Ching Ping for $5 each day
>your kids are getting shittier education
>your wife is getting fucked by Juan
>driving up housing prices due to white flight nationwide
THANKS BOOMER SCUM
>>77447618
So suppose you buy a US-made iphone for $100 and, instead of going to some Asian company, that money goes to a US company. What changes? That company can still spend that money here or send it abroad, just like the Asian company can. And there's no need to keep things in the US when you can buy from, and sell to, other countries. Stuff you don't make will be supplied by someone else, and you'll supply things they don't make for them. For a broad definition of "make", by the way, since this works for services just as well as for physical goods.
As for depreciation, literally everything you buy, from any nation, will, eventually, wear out. That's a simple fact of life. You're always paying for the ability to use it for some amount of time that is (far) shorter than perpetuity. If your argument is that we shouldn't pay for transient things, should we then not have movie theaters, where your $10 ticket buys you two hours of entertainment and then nothing? What if I have a website, and I buy a year's hosting from a cloud company. At the end of that year, my benefit ends. Nothing is left. The service is over. I still received a benefit from the years use of it, my website was visible to the internet.
I think you're just mad that people don't buy what you think they ought to buy, and that I don't think you have the right to tell them that they can't buy what they want.
>>77444768
SHILL SPOTTED
REEEEEEEEE
GET OUT SHILL OR JAN CHRISTIAAN SMUTS WILL GET YOU.
>>77444815
>>77444907
you're both retarded and d&c shills
Neoliberalism sucks donkey dick. Enjoy your crippling debt and imaginary wealth that will inevitably collapse. Oh and don't forget the part where you shift the burden of labor onto the underclass of 3rd world nations willing to sacrifice their poor in exchange for a higher GDP. Out of sight out of mind, am I right? bourgeois fucking shits
>>77447980
>Only 13% of goods exports are consumer goods ($198 billion)
>Just 9% of goods exported are foods, feeds, and beverages ($128 billion).
And that's what hangs us. There's only so many planes your average third worldwide needs. You're tacking an absolute dollar value on our trade, as if that's meaningful. Especially as automation increases, and our population becomes increasingly out of work.
>>77448162
>d&c
it's the DNC. It stands for Democratic National Committee. Try not to look like so much of a dumbass when you call people shills.
>>77448212
yeah must suck to be one of those several hundred million third-worlders in China that moved from being destitute dirt farmers to having a middle-class income because of all those factories making things to export. They must think that's awful.
>>77448147
Thats why free trade sucks, there's no motivation for any individual company to invest in their countries economy when shits cheaper from overseas.
As for depreciation: Gold.
I could name a tonne of other commodities, but you clearly haven't thought that argument through.
>>77448147
>So suppose you buy a US-made iphone for $100 and, instead of going to some Asian company, that money goes to a US company. What changes? That company can still spend that money here or send it abroad, just like the Asian company can. And there's no need to keep things in the US when you can buy from, and sell to, other countries. Stuff you don't make will be supplied by someone else, and you'll supply things they don't make for them. For a broad definition of "make", by the way, since this works for services just as well as for physical goods.
The point of the tarriff is to disincentivize corporations and people from buying items that quckly depreciate from foreign dealers.
Many things depreciate but they do so at differing rates. You want to import the things that depreciate slowly, or even increase in value over time.
Of course, many things can be used to create economic gain for the country.
The thing is, they're not used that way in general. For certain items, the average purchase is going to lose the country money in the long term. We should discourage people from buying those items.
I'm not mad, I'm just looking at the reality of the situation. Some foreign trades have a deleterious effect in the longterm for the U.S. economy.
It's just true. Tarriffs can mitigate or even remove that loss.
>>77448400
>China
>middle class
>GDP per capita $7500
It's a bad idea if you don't have some sort of protections. For example, your own companies and corporations from being able to build their factories on other countries (and employing people from that country) or employing illegal immigrants in your own country
>>77447980
It is true like you say that jobs can be useless, but manufacturing jobs (which would be the ones affected by free trade) are always going through improvements and cost savings which increase wealth naturally. My job is to figure out how to cut costs and time all day erryday, that produces wealth by freeing resources.
>>77444768
I love having a $360 billion trade deficit with China and the only new jobs are at McDonalds.
>>77448400
>making up blatant lies to justify the exploitation of millions
hahahah this is what neoliberals really believe
take the corporate cock out of your mouth for 2 seconds to look at reality
"dirt farmers" still exist, their existence runs in parallel with the factory class, and the rise of the tiny middle class in china is minuscule compared to the amount of wealth pouring into the pockets of the ultrawealthy. meanwhile the quality of life goes down for poor workers in the first world, since the value of their labor is undercut even more and they struggle even to find employment
but hey it's worth it if a few more bourgeois faggots can sip lattes and spend all day tweeting about their mediocre middle class lives, pretending they're so "anti-establishment" as they support the very trade policies that enrich the oligarchs and rape the poor
>>77448713
>thinks GDP per capita is low
>assumes they have an american cost of living
>>77444768
>I think Clinton is clearly better than Trump.
No, nobody can convince you of anything, due to the fact that you do not posess a rational thought process.
>>77448563
>>Thats why free trade sucks, there's no motivation for any individual company to invest in their countries economy when shits cheaper from overseas.
If your country is competitive, or even somewhere close, with other countries, you'll get investment. Some companies will choose you and some others will just want a backup plan in case some other country doesn't work out.
The only reason to oppose it is if you think you can't compete at all. In which case you might think about fixing that instead of trying to trap people, companies, and money inside your borders and stop them from leaving when they really want to get out. Look how well that worked out in East Germany.
>>77448713
lower cost of living means you need a much lower income there to have the same standard of living. Duh.
>>77448696
>The point of the tarriff is to disincentivize corporations and people from buying items that quckly depreciate from foreign dealers.
Why shouldn't the purchaser decide for himself how long he needs his purchase to last for? Maybe I expect a better phone to be coming out in a year, so I don't want a more expensive phone that's built to last three.
>For certain items, the average purchase is going to lose the country money in the long term. We should discourage people from buying those items.
you're still committing the mistake of assuming that wealth, and money in general, has a fixed value and can only be divided up.
>>77448885
Don't forget to import a few million illegal workers who undercut our own labor bids not because they work for any cheaper wages, but because they're not paying taxes, licenses, insurances, or certifications. Then they send all their earnings outside the US.
And oh yeah. Remember how we told you fucks to retrain into STEM jobs? Just as you finish up you're degree were going to increase the amount of H1B visas by several hundred thousand a year just as a fuck you.
Hey but free trade amiright?
it undercuts american products and labor. if you want a strong american economy, buy local produce from your farmer and domestic goods as much as possible.
>>77449051
Good idea america, now start slashing your wages and axe welfare to compete with china.
>>77448885
>"dirt farmers" still exist
Yeah, and there's less of them. Millions of them are now much better off than that.
>meanwhile the quality of life goes down for poor workers in the first world, since the value of their labor is undercut even more and they struggle even to find employment
more like the value of their labor was being held artificially high by lack of competition. Fortunately people can learn new skills and increase the value of their labor.
>>77448910
>thinks I give a fuck if they all go back to $300/year
>>77449255
>Fortunately people can learn new skills and increase the value of their labor
>said the guy with an above average IQ
They literally can't.
>>77444768
>Tremendous cash flow. Very little debt.
That's better than whatever you think is FREE-TRADE.
>>77449440
Fuck your and that triggering pic.
>>77444768
Protectionism only works if you have significant market power, either as a buyer or seller.
So for the UK, with only 30M workers, we have neither buying power nor selling power, except for a few specific "branded" goods (Aston Martin, Range Rover, those nice yachts we make, Burberry etc). People are price insensitive for those luxury goods (China has a 100% import tax on Range Rovers, we still cant make enough to satisfy them). So for the UK we are better doing free trade, for the US with its large market of buyers and still having a large number of mass produced non-brand items made (even for the domestic market alone) you CAN do some good with protectionism.
Long term, protectionism is harmful since it leads to inferior products (since US companies dont face the full competitive nature of the world and get lazy) but in the short to medium term it does keep more jobs at home... provided you are a large enough nation to have significant market power.
mfw even career politicians dont understand this.
>>77449051
>Why shouldn't the purchaser decide for himself how long he needs his purchase to last for? Maybe I expect a better phone to be coming out in a year, so I don't want a more expensive phone that's built to last three.
Because doing so is worse for the country's economy.
>you're still committing the mistake of assuming that wealth, and money in general, has a fixed value and can only be divided up.
No, we've both already agreed that the value of items changes over time. In fact, it's the premise of my position.
>>77449440
Lol, chink is showing that bitch how to pour a glass of stout.
>>77449609
>Long term, protectionism is harmful since it leads to inferior products
We've never used protectionist tariffs long term. We've only used them in two ways; protect fledgling industries, to keep other nations from dumping (which is what China is doing now). The one time we tried to use them to protect our economy as a whole and raise revenue it backfired and completely fucked us up.
>>77444768
69 years of soviet union were not enough to convince you?
If free trade agreements were merely about across the board tariff reduction, there wouldn't be much of a problem. This is not the case. Western-influenced governments continue to pervert Chicago-style neoliberalism into simply being as big of a corporate whore as possible, since corruption can be justified by the resulting """"growth"""" (read: giveaways to jews). This extends to trade agreements; the biggest donors hold the most sway in their content, not only in how tariffs are structured, but also in the other goodies that often come attached to these treaties, namely copyright abuse and corporate arbitration.
>>77446220
Right, think of all the technology which has been created by capitalism - like the satellites circling the earth.
>>77449255
>Millions of them are now much better off than that.
You mean millions of them are now sucking the corporate teat, living in conditions that are extremely cramped and dangerous.
>more like the value of their labor was being held artificially high by lack of competition
Much like how the "value" of neoliberal economies is kept artificially high by floating currency values and debt. The difference is that high labor value benefits the poor, while undercut labor value benefits the wealthy who can exploit them for personal gain.
> Fortunately people can learn new skills and increase the value of their labor.
As >>77449438 enumerates, you have no clue what you're talking about. I'll have to call into question his claim that you have an above average IQ, however, since you're naive enough to fall for the scam that is neoliberalism.
>>77444768
Interesting story about the girl OP posted, Kimbra. In late 2007 i was living with my older brother, a musician. He knew Kimbra, and probably fucked her. Anyway one night they show up late and he had taken her out for drinks. She vomited all over our flat. True story.
>>77445562
lookit them stuffed hams, all glistening in their yoga pant wrapper.
>>77450200
BTW I forgot to mention she is from Hamilton, New Zealand, is a christian and secretly hates homos.
I saw Kimbra live once. She's actually very good. Also hot as fuck.
>>77450291
No way, I would kill to spend time with Kimbra
>>77450076
>You mean millions of them are now sucking the corporate teat, living in conditions that are extremely cramped and dangerous.
They wouldn't have gone to the trouble of moving from the countryside if they weren't winding up better off for it. Living in a tenement and having a dangerous, low-paid factory job is still better than starving to death. Western countries went through the same process during the industrial revolution.
>The difference is that high labor value benefits the poor, while undercut labor value benefits the wealthy who can exploit them for personal gain.
The value of labor is going to continue dropping due to automation, you know.
>I'll have to call into question his claim that you have an above average IQ, however, since you're naive enough to fall for the scam that is neoliberalism.
I'm flattered that he thinks I'm smart. I'd assert that anyone can and should improve their mind. I think that you should do a bit of that yourself, if you don't see how trade makes the nation and the world better off.
Free trade is one thing. Using free trade as an excuse to arbitraraly dismantle or rewrite any laws you don't like is polticial subersion and bullshit.
>>77444768
It's not bad, but conflicts shouldn't be settled by the companies themselves and a civil third party but rather by official courts.
>>77450514
They move not for the promise of a better life, but because of the allure of material goods and the fact that neoliberal policies make farming even less profitable and sustainable for the individual. Neoliberal policies also encourage irresponsible birth and growth rates, which only accelerates the devaluation of labor and the subsequent decrease in the quality of life for the underclass.
>The value of labor is going to continue dropping due to automation, you know.
Great, so perhaps we shouldn't be investing so heavily in the growth policies of neoliberalism and setting ourselves up for a massive socioeconomic collapse once we have a few billion people who have no jobs and the level of "wealth" we attained actually wasn't real.
>I think that you should do a bit of that yourself, if you don't see how trade makes the nation and the world better off.
How smug of you. If your ideas were so self-evident then perhaps you'd be able to convince me, but frankly you've done a terrible job. I wish you could spend just a week in the shoes of an unemployed miner or a chinese sweat shop worker so you could see what a horrible person you are.
>>77451048
>How smug of you.
>what a horrible person you are.
I try, anon, I try.
g'night!
>>77450402
She did seem cool but I only talked to her a couple of times, briefly. She was 17 at the time and really attractive. The night she vomited all over the place was the first time she had gotten drunk. We all smoked pot back then but she didn't partake. My faggot brother actually broke up with her because he discovered she was "homophobic". He lives in London now, he will probably be beheaded since Sadiq is mayor. I remember when that "somebody I used to Know" song came out it was huge. I hated it, but was stunned that she actually made it in the music biz.
Kimbra > Lorde
>>77448910
We have gdp per capita of 7500
Will confirm it sucks
>>77450630
Hehe here comes the jew of Europe. Hey kraut, why don't you sign a proper free trade agreement with usa and Japan, your trade surplus will double and we all know you want to have a bigger surplus than china. Fuck ttip and tpp, free trade now
>>77444768
Free trade between developed countries is good. Free trade between a developed country and a third-world country is bad. The US is one giant free-trade zone.
>>77446182
Free trade will allocate resources in such a fashion that will maximize wealth. If we desire to improve the human condition, it is done so by the growth of wealth. What will happen is that the jobs that can be done overseas will be done for much cheaper, allowing me to buy those goods for cheaper. This helps my wallet. Sure, some Americans will lose their jobs. But that's okay. Their labor will eventually be reallocated elsewhere via the effots of an entrepreneur who will want to create his own wealth, and he will be able to do so in the first place because of the very conditions fostered by free trade. Wealth begets wealth.
Autarky is never good. An autarky economy will always be smaller. Furthermore, we can't even do protectionism if we wanted, at least not the degree you hope for. We have agreements with the WTO. It won't happen.
>>77446192
You're an idiot. Essentially a mercantilist. Lmfao.
