Why exactly is a closed economy "bad"?
>>55390654
Specialization
>>55390654
because it makes importing better cheaper stuff more expensive and if you make a tariff so will everyone else
>>55390654
It isnt, but since we run off fiat money now, the government can make as much as they want. Tariffs no longer matter. They were gotten rid of to protect the global businesses.
>>55390747
>Implying most 1st world countries don't have high tariffs already
>>55390914
>>55390654
Ask North Korea
>>55390725
Specialization is meaningless once a country has a big enough population.
>>55390914
Well NATO gives near no tariffs to countries inside of it. And now companies are making a pacific one and are forcing governments to sign it so...
>>55390654
Local producters become lazy and only provide shitty expensive goods.
I was working in a north apefrican shithole where I had to buy a small toaster oven. I could only find local product ones. The shittest chinese oven was 100 times than the best local ones. Weak, very expensive and dangerous.
>>55390987
>NATO is about tariffs
>>55390747
Take it from the jew, they know good economy.
>>55390976
>what are resources
>what is cheap labor
>what is technological specialization
your statement is completely devoid of reality we are talking about earth
>>55390976
Indeed.
"Marginal utility" is unnecessary if you have the resources, population and skills base..
>>55390654
Well for one it drives up prices for local consumers. Using the example in your pic Americans could potentially buy British cloth for $5 or American cloth for $4 but American companies want to maximize profit so there is no reason for them not to charge more. Therefore American cloth costs $4.50 and British cloth costs $5 the American consumer loses 50 cents for each purchase over an open economy.
>>55390654
A completely closed economy is bad because no one nation has every possible resource or technological innovation, so any one that does keep their economy completely closed will find that their economy grows at a slower rate compared to those nations that have economies that are some degree more open. In the long run, the more open economies will so far outstrip the completely closed one that the temptation to roll over the nation with the completely closed economy will be to great, and they will invade. That is why it is bad, b/c it can get you invaded.
That said, the choice a nation makes is typically not between a closed economy and an open one. You will almost always wind up with a mix between the two, with a certain general level of import/export of goods across your border occurring. The important thing is to eliminate your negative balance of trade, b/c negative balance of trade over time means significant capital outflow and economic contraction, leading back to the problem of weakness and getting invaded, whether it's invasion by an expeditionary force or by migrating shitskins.
When your trading partners become unscrupulous, like China has with non-tariff barriers and currency manipulation, and your trade with them becomes lopsided, a tariff on their goods is a weapon to push back and balance your trade.
>>55391041
unfortunately poor countries are in a lose-lose situation here.
No Tariffs:
Near no agriculture, no one can outcompete subsidized products from america/europe.
Near no High-Knowledge jobs, as education is abyssmal, malnutrition is rampant, and property loss is much more common than in the west.
End up having to compete with billions of unskilled workers across the world making shit products and destroying your environment in the process.
High Tariffs:
All your products are shit, because you are literally a century or several behind your neighbors.
It will takes decades improve living conditions to the level of even poor european countries.
Before that will happen, Revolutionaries will overthrow the government, either for gibsdat, UN-mandated diversity, or the CIA decided fuck you.
Go ask North Korea how it's working out for them.
>>55390654
It's bad in 99% of cases because whoever it is you're protecting is like 1 person whereas the other 99 would rather have cheaper/better towels
in the remaining 1 case there are either other, bigger/strategic restrictions (like weapons/aeronautical manufacturing and nuclear power)
or we said fuck it we'd rather have the cheap chinese towels instead of figure out exactly the right tariff level to balance pissing off our trading partners vs having a towel industry exceptionally dodge the "tariffs are bad" rule
>>55390654
Comparative advantage and specialization.
Keeping an economy closed causes your domestic industries to be less and less efficient and competitive over time
>>55390965
>U.S. having 1% tariff
>China having 5.9%
This graph does not capture the real barriers to trade between the U.S. and China. U.S.'s market is that open to China exports, yes, but China is a different story.
China's import tariff is 6-9%, but there is a +20% VAT that consumers have to pay on imported goods, so the end consumer has to pay more than 30% markup to buy U.S. goods over Chinese ones.
Add to that the additional non-tariff barrier of currency manipulation, which is said to undervalue China's currency by as much as 40-50%, and you have a barrier to U.S. goods that could be as high as an 80% markup differential. That is extremely protectionist, basically cheating when we give them access to our market for practically nothing.
>>55390976
>>55391375
Doesn't change the fact that someone might still be able to do it cheaper and/or better than you.
Trade protectionism is welfare, pure and simple.
Just like welfare programs give the poor more leeway to be lazy fuckoffs instead of getting a job, tarriffs and trade barriers allow whole industries to wallow in their mediocrity instead of reallocating resources and retraining labor to be used in industries their nation does possess a comparative advantage in.
It limits the diversity of products.
But since Americans make superior everything I see your point to be honest, family.
>>55393260
>after strategic industries are considered, only price of consumer goods matter
The only problem is, from the U.S. perspective is, that against an unscrupulous trading partner like China, they can dump some of our weaker industries into oblivion, which leads to permanent classes of structurally unemployed poor people who require transfer payments, transfer payments which eat up any savings that comparative advantage gave us, and then some. This is why we have $19 trillion in debt.
>>55390654
Mute your music before watching this (shit allah music):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z8874Lrull0
This is why.
Using this machine is not 1000 times faster than a group of people doing it by hand. It is simply Many times faster.
Very few countries would be able to construct a machine like this by themselves. It's filled with specialist parts, specialist metals, specialist rubber. A group of autistic pol-ers could try for 10.000 years and not succeed.
This is why - because the most efficient things take the efforts of more than one nation to produce.
>>55393761
>trade protectionism is welfare
No, allowing Nation A to vend their exports in Nation B without duties or tariffs is welfare for Nation A, b/c Nation A did not build the infrastructure in Nation B which allows that market for their goods to exist. You have to put in if you want to smoke. Tariffs are coming. It's just a matter of time.
>>55390654
Because of comparative advantage and specialization.
Also, the word you are looking for is "autarky".
Open a book and educate yourself you stupid fucking bastard.
I bet you're gonna vote for Sanders.
Dumbass.
>>55390654
Harder to export things
Trade war
The problem we have is that our kike-liberal run govenment has sold off american manufacturing and wealth to other countries. NAFTA, China and now the TPP are killing us.
This is why we need Trump to straighten all of this bullshit out.
>Less competition
>Higher prices
>Less specialization
>Resources are inadequately used
Pretty much the reasons off the top of my head.
>>55393761
>Trade protectionism is welfare
THIS. This is a point I try to hammer in constantly, that if your job only exists by fiat preventing competition, you are working a make-work job, or workfare, in effect.
To make things worse, straight-up giving the displaced workers welfare, up to a point, is more efficient than protectionism (my favored system personally is EITC).
>>55390654
Only multicultural marxists and corporatists dont support tarrifs, they protect lower income workers jobs and income, and they protect domestic company profits from some second or third world country using their cheap slave labor and lack of laws that protect their own workers and environment
>>55393914
So what? Subsidised foreign products just hand you a competitive advantage in other areas, like say high end manufacturing if the Chinks are dumping steel. Also boosts your quality of life at the expense of the foreign tax payer.
Sucks to be in the targeted industry, but it's a win for everyone else.
>>55394061
>infrastructure in Nation B which allows that market for their goods to exist
baka senpai, no such fucking thing. Markets exist independent of everything but the existence of a product and demand for that product.
I've got no obligation to buy a pair of shoes from Joey-Ray when Chen can make a pair that's just as good for half the price.
>>55394218
This is now a Trump thread. Post all your Trump images.
>>55390654
80 years ago there wouldn't be anything wrong with it. In the current world, international bond markets and global investments are key. You can be subjectively "successful", but you'll be outperformed by less insular economies in the long run.
>>55394218
>>55394341
>Markets exist independent of everything but the existence of a product and demand for that product.
Do you realize how crazy that sounds? Have you even considered the prerequisites for a market in technologically advanced goods, like stereos? My god, man! You've got to have all sorts of things? Law and order. You need police academies, cop cars, roads to get them around town. You need a military. You need standards bureaus. I can't even... literally.
I get it... the free market is magic... dude weed lmao
>>55394373
>80 years ago there wouldn't be anything wrong with it.
80 years ago tariffs were choking world trade, and they greatly exacerbated the depression.
>>55394218
>TPP is bad because muh foreigners stealing jerbs
Sounding just like Evil Uncle Bernie there senpai.
TPP is shit but "not catering to domestic industries too lazy to be competitive on a global scale" isn't one of the reasons.
>>55394410
>>55390976
Absolutely not. Specialization leads to a division of labor that allocates resources to its most productive use, without which we'd be forced to pay multiples more for living essentials. P. S. Ask Iranians how they feel about being closed off to the global market?
>outlawing competition helps consumers
>>55390747
World War 1 everybody.
>>55394341
>I've got no obligation to buy a pair of shoes from Joey-Ray when Chen can make a pair that's just as good for half the price.
That's true, so long as Joey-Ray's candidate does not get elected president and impose a tariff on imported goods in order to balance our trade deficit. You see, Chen's goods have no natural right to enter into U.S. commerce without Chen paying a fee. Might makes right in this instance, and no Korea can force the U.S. to open their markets.
Forget what you heard in S. Korea: tariff is coming back in a big way. It is inevitable.
>>55394956
>World War 1
Howsabout World War 3?
>>55390654
It makes the country and everyone in it much poorer.
>>55394527
First off, all that has nothing to do with whether or not a market for a good exists, and second of all the cost of all that is included in the price of the good, retard. If someone anywhere in the world wants to buy an American product, they're paying the marginal cost of the infrastructure that produced it. If nobody wants to buy American shoes because China makes shoes cheaper, they just pay for the cost of China's infrastructure while the American shoemaker rightly goes out of business because he was an idiot to not reinvest in shirt production instead.
>>55394985
Of fucking course goods don't have natural rights you mouth-breathing inbred mongoloid. I on the other hand have every right to tell Joey-Ray exactly where he can shove his overpriced kicks and purchase my footwear from Chen instead.
>>55390725
Technology has advanced to the point where this is actually a bad thing in many ways.
America has the capability of specializing in nearly everything and being incredibly knowledgeable and competitive in all industries.
The problem is there's currently no way of competing against chinese slave labor so our industries suffer a lot because of that.
In some industries, robots can match and beat slave labor but it hasn't gotten to the point where it beats it in all areas.
>>55395770
I have the exact same right to organize boycotts against chens products
>>55395770
>If nobody wants to buy American shoes because China makes shoes cheaper, they just pay for the cost of China's infrastructure while the American shoemaker rightly goes out of business because he was an idiot to not reinvest in shirt production instead.
You realize china uses slave labor and that's why nobody can compete with them in some industries right?
So you want us to use slave labor in america as well to be competitive?
We would use robots but the technology is just out of reach so we have to deal with this the better way.
Stop buying cheap chinese shit and stop funding slave labor so we can push for automation and give way more incentives for companies to automate shoe making.
>>55395770
>Supply has a marginal cost of infrastructure, but demand does not
I beg to differ. Demand also has a marginal cost of infrastructure. Demand is not some abstract concept which only exists in ether. It's physical. It lives in a place, and it requires infrastructure to exist, and it costs money to generate demand, just like it costs money to generate supply. Again, Chen has no natural right to sell his goods in the U.S. If the people of the U.S., or their duly elected representative, want to charge Chen a cover charge to get in the door, they can. And they will, soon enough. No industrialized nation can long exist with a significant capital outflow, and we've had a serious capital outflow for over thirty years now.
>I have natural rights
Do you, though? I mean, really? B/c if Trump makes it to the white house and puts that tariff in place, and you are sitting in the U.S., your natural right to a discount shoe by Chen just evaporated. Theoretically you have natural rights, but in reality, your rights as a U.S. citizen are simply the ones your forefathers and/or predecessors in U.S. title contracted on your behalf with the U.S. federal government.
